Slashdot Mirror
White House Announces Reforms Targeting Patent Trolls
andy1307 writes "According to Politico (and, paywalled, at The Wall Street Journal), the White House on Tuesday [released] plans to announce a set of executive actions President Barack Obama will take that are aimed at reining in certain patent-holding firms, known as 'patent trolls' to their detractors, amid concerns that the firms are abusing the patent system and disrupting competition. The plan includes five executive actions and seven legislative recommendations. They include requiring patent holders and applicants to disclose who really owns and controls the patent, changing how fees are awarded to the prevailing parties in patent litigation, and protecting consumers with better protections against being sued for patent infringement."
Do these measures address arguably the most fundamental problem: too many things are patentable in the US and patents are awarded too easily in the first place?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
"Reining", not "reigning". Think horses, not kings.
"No, no, no. Don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to."
"the White House" ... "certain... firms"...
Translation: if you have the wrong politics, we don't want you making money.
... and protecting consumers with better protections against being sued for patent infringement.
How's that new? I thought consumers were exempt from these type of lawsuits.
Should I have been reading patents before wasting money on my iPhone?
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
I've been thinking patent trolls are more a symptom of the problems. I see as reasonable:
1) You don't need to produce a product to have a patent (think small inventors looking for partners).
2) Patents should be transferable (can sell them)
3) You can sue for infringement
Simple as that you can now have companies that buy patents and sue for infringement. I suspect the real issue is #2 - if they are non-transferable then the inventor will have to license them. I think there would still be some troll law firms that represent a pool of inventors, but they'd have to share the "profits" and I suspect it would be less of a problem.
Another issue is probably the duration - 20 years is a long time for a patent, but primarily they should not be transferable.
I would argue that they should not be transferable from inventor to employer either, but that's a bit off topic - short version: your employment papers might include automatic licensing of inventions to the company under some terms. The US does not recognize companies as inventors - and rightly so IMHO.
"Executive Actions" mean diddly squat. Executive Orders are nothing more than directions to executive agencies how to enforce the existing law. He can't create new law (well I guess he can try) by fiat. So, unless Congress gets off its lazy ass and fixes patents, this does nothing.
Yep. This is the problem. I have no love for patent trolls, but if you provide a breeding ground, it happens. Patent Office: You Need To Get Better At What You Do.
MOR MONEY!
From the same administration that rammed through first to file, now we're supposed to believe they're out to help innocent patent victims? Seems more likely that someone decided that patent trolls were getting dangerous to the big boys. Expect to see no steps to prevent monopolists from using obvious patents to destroy potential competition.
Better not mess with the WH and Capitol Hill staffers' iPhones and Androids.
Unfortunately, the likes of Nathan "See I'm a geek like you" Myrhvold are too smart for that.
In the U.S., could I patent a process for using one's hand to cause ejaculation while looking at online porn? Or would this be considered obvious to the patent examiners?
Can't Obama just drone-assassinate patent trolls?
Allowing customers to be sued for patent infringement has always struck me as stupid.
If I buy a product from a vendor, and *they* infringed on a patent, there's no way I should be in a position to get sued by some asshole who thinks he owns a patent on a "system of connecting two machines with a network".
Even more so if the product is something I bought at a retail store -- if I can walk into Wal Mart and buy it, and you think that infringes on your patent, take it up with someone else. NMFP.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Apple will get into deep waters if this happens to them at the same time as being sued for price fixing ebooks. This kind of abuses should be targetted by the law, after all.
This is indeed one aspect of the many problems with our patent system,. Another is the corporate strategy, initiated over a decade ago, which has virtually eliminated the interaction between innovative small firms and larger firms with the need for innovation and the deep pockets required to drive innovative products to market. After my small firm was purchased in 2000, I was ordered to inform all engineers that it would be a major (i.e. firing) violation of corporate policy if they let themselves become aware of the intellectual property of any other firm. I was told that this had recently been adopted as corporate policy by most major firms as a brilliant defense against the feared "triple damages" awards for patent infringement. Corporate policy explicitly banning any effort to learn about other firms' patents currently eliminates any possibility of a court awarding triple damages - even if patent infringement were proven. Since most innovative small firms lack the financial resources needed to take on a multi-year legal battle, even if they were able to show infringement on their patent, this new corporate policy amounted to a free pass for large wealthy firms to simply steal innovations from innovative small firms. The worst thing that could happen would be that the small firm won in court, at which point the worst-case punishment would be to pay 'damages' - which are defined as simply the amount that the stealing firm would have had to pay had they properly licensed the patents from the small firm in the first place. While this is considered a brilliant legal strategy, it is a disastrous national policy for technological innovation. It virtually eliminates the financial incentive for small firms to invest in innovation, by providing carte blanche for larger firms to simply steal that innovation; the logical large firm strategy in this case is to never discuss intellectual property with any small firm - simply steal it and defy them to take you to court. We do indeed need to make war on patent trolls, but even more importantly, we need to make war on patent thieves - by punishing deliberate ignorance of patent theft with large penalties. If it is proven that infringement occurred, and that the infringing firm had a policy of deliberate ignorance, the damage award should be at least tripled. Or - we should start letting speeders go free if they claim ignorance of the speed limit because they chose to deliberately avert their eyes every time a speed limit sign came near.
It would seem rational to require that patent applications be computer validated against all the rules. Also, id like to see a purchase price affixed to the patent for licensing, as well as contact information. Make the sticker price reflect how easy it is to get the patent, and how much the patent fees are.
Small inventors are so screwed in America.
"First to file rather than first to invent" passed as patent law reform last time?
IBM == I've Been Misled.
If two people independently invent something, then I think it should be non-patentable by definition.
The whole point of patents is to make public information on how to do something *that would otherwise be lost*. If multiple people independently invent something, then it seems to me that it is not in danger of being lost.
If the only reason something is patentable is because nobody ever had that specific problem before, but the solution is obvious to an expert, then it shouldn't be patentable.
The plan includes five executive actions...
Me: Whoah...that's a bit harsh, don't you think? I'd think we can get by with a simple public caning, maybe some time spent in the stocks...
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
A few simple rules:
1) Software is math, its not patentable.
2) Business methods are algorithms, which is math, not patentable.
3) Patents and Copyrights last exactly 1 generation, which is 20 years. No extensions. There is no reason for following generations to be subjected to penalties of prior generations. We are trying to advance art, not suppress it.
4) Patents and Copyrights have their remaining time cut in half each time they are sold.
5) Patents are property. Therefore subject to taxation, just like any other property. The government graciously granted and enforces a monopoly, and deserves to be compensated accordingly; patents are not a right, they are a privilege.
1.Make it illegal to send any infringement notices or "you have violated a patent we own" notices unless the notices contain details of exactly which patents are being violated.
2.Make it harder to get an ITC injunction order by requiring the patent holder to provide more proof that not granting the order will cause irreparable harm.
3.Introduce an "enforce it or loose it" system for patents which prevents patent holders from waiting to sue until they think they can get more money from a violation (e.g. waiting until the patent-violating technology becomes more wide spread before filing lawsuits)
4.Prohibit suing of retailers and end users (i.e. someone who acquires a product and re-sells it or uses it without making changes to it in a way that causes it to violate a patent that it wasn't violating before they obtained it would be protected)
5.Tie the amount of money that a patent holder can obtain in damages in a patent lawsuit to the revenue earned by the patent violator for the infringing item.
just repeating what everyone articulated, while it is a good start. The way that this has been presented (so far) is a joke. This will not discourage patent trolls, they will find another way around it, or do what most do, buy off politicians to put loopholes in it.
I see yet again the hand puppet politicians have no concern or motivation to lay down stricter applications for what can be patented, which has been blabbered on about for years for destroying innovation!! While (again it has been blabbered) you years that patent trolls, really are only interested in intimidation and settling for money, oh wait that is pretty much every company out there.
Dude, paragraph breaks are not patented.
At least as far as I know.
Wait. ... Shit.
Nevermind!
accurate captcha: endowed
Here's the actual announcement, no paywall: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/04/fact-sheet-white-house-task-force-high-tech-patent-issues