Slashdot Log In
Patent Reform Bill Approved by House Committee
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Fri Jul 20, 2007 06:29 AM
from the long-time-coming dept.
from the long-time-coming dept.
Alex Forster pointed us to this PC World story that opens, "The House Committee on the Judiciary approved far-reaching legislation to reform the nation's patent system Wednesday.
The Patent Reform Act of 2007 largely reflects the IT sector's lobbying effort to curtail lengthy, expensive patent infringement lawsuits, but Wednesday's committee deliberations centered on finding compromises acceptable to opponents — namely the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, manufacturers, and large research universities — so that the bill could win approval.
Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., described the current patent system as inefficient, bogged down by inappropriate litigation rules, unreliably funded, and resulting in patents of "questionable quality." The bill would make it harder to secure a patent and easier for rivals to challenge one, and it would change how courts determine an infringed patent's value."
Related Stories
[+]
Patent Reform Bill Unable To Clean Up Patent Mess 92 comments
First to submit writes "Ars Technica analyzes the Patent Reform Act that has passed the House and is being debated in the Senate. Unfortunately for those longing for real, meaningful patent reform, the bill comes up short in some significant ways. 'Despite the heated rhetoric on both sides, it is unclear if the legislation will do much to fix the most serious flaws in the patent system. A series of appeals court rulings in the 1990s greatly expanded patentable subject matter, making patents on software, business methods, and other abstract concepts unambiguously legal for the first time.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Patent Band-aid Bill slithers out of Committee (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I must thank the Communists... (Score:5, Interesting)
Though I am staunchly in favour of the free market, I still must thank the communists for one thing - they made algorithms (mathematical and non mathematical), programs, business methods/models, and software in general unpatentable, by including it in the 2005 Patent Amendments Act.
Before that, software was patentable in the limited sense of it being a component of hardware - like the microcode of a chip, for example - basically at the point where the differences between hardware and software became a bit blurred. Now, however, it falls under the list of things which are explicitly unpatentable.
I find it extremely ironic, and a bit sad at the same time, that it is the Communists Party of India which essentially stood up for freedom and a truly freer market.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Take your strawmen elsewhere (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It would appear that the only real competition left in the software world is OSS. Its kind of hard to sue an OSS project...
Re: (Score:2)
One of the ways that the current system is broken is not allowing publication on web-searchable pages to be considered prior art. Perhaps they NOW consider publication in SourceForge to be prior art, but they didn't last year, and since that's an administrative decision, it may be reversed at any time. FWIW, I suspect that even if they now consider publication in SourceForge to be prior are, they probably don't consider CodeHaus, and almost certainly don't consider the Linux Kerne
"Far-reaching"? (Score:5, Interesting)
There's no substantive changes, no change of the economic incentives that drive specialists to claim every plausible invention in the name of speculative future profits. As long as experts can claim exclusive ownership of the software commons, the patent system is broken, and it'll continue to punish real innovators by creating unpredictable risk.
Real innovators don't even seek patents. 80% of VC-funded software firms don't claim patents within four years of being funded. [digitalmajority.org] The whole patent system is a fraud, a tax on the consumer, and a blight on high-tech industries. This bill just perpetuates the fraud a little longer.
What is needed is a total review of what patents are for, why society should grant them, and how this should operate in a post-industrial world. Compare, for example, the trademark system (an industrial-age protection) with the domain name system (proper digital age protection of the same thing), and you see what could be possible.
Re:"Far-reaching"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Real innovators don't even seek patents. 80% of VC-funded software firms don't claim patents within four years of being funded. The whole patent system is a fraud, a tax on the consumer, and a blight on high-tech industries. This bill just perpetuates the fraud a little longer.
I totally agree with this. There is an Audi advert here in the UK where they claim that their new car is very innovative because during its production, they filed more patents than NASA did whilst developing the space shuttle. They fail to mention that NASA is government funded and focussed on progress and innovation, so they have much less interest in slapping a "this is mine" sticker on any half-idea they have and charging everybody to use it.
This is actually related to this [slashdot.org] discussion. Number of research papers is not necessarily proportional to the quality of the research because (duh) somebody might publish one really amazing paper which contributes more than 15 crappy papers.
It strikes me that the patent system is just another part of the corporate game playing exercise. People cynically patent anything as another revenue stream making a mockery of the purpose of protecting IP in the first place.
Peter
Parent
Re:"Far-reaching"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Next time, I'll just say "patents are bad, mm-kay?"
Peter
Re: (Score:2)
There is also a perverse incentive for the patent examiners to approve even half baked or marginally plausible patents because their agency and its funding is based primarily on, you guessed it...patent fees. If they start tightening up what gets approved and what doesn't then fewer companies will apply for patents and pay fees which means less revenue to their (the patent exami
Re: (Score:2)
That's a great statistic, but doesn't really -mean- anything. WHY didn't they claim a patent? Ideals? Lack of anything to patent? Lack of money? (Yes, they were funded, but that doesn't mean they had extra.) Did they get beaten to the patent?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Hmmm...what if you had an online database of implemented original inventions, peer-reviewed, of course. Those with truly inventions would then post them in the database. Peers i
read the new rules changes (Score:2)
The "2+1" Limit on Continuations/RCE's:
Each applicant gets 2 continuations and 1 RCE per application. The rules will be applied retroactively for cases that have not yet received a first action on the merits.
The "3+1 Transition Rule":
For cases that have not received a first action by the time of the new rules, a "bonus" continuation will be allowed, i.e., a total of one (1) RCE a
Quick... (Score:2, Funny)
2. Sue the government.
3. Profit!
Now thats good reform!! (Score:2)
He managed to cut out step 3. and go straight to profit!!
If only the parent was on some advisory committee!!!
Quick! (Score:3, Funny)
It has come to our attention that Congress will soon make it more difficult to patent out innovations. Under the new rules, some of our innovations such as our "two click on-line shopping" invention and our "three click shopping for healthcare" invention would be unpatentable.
Although shocking, our legal staff tells us that it is very unlikely that our existing patents will be nullified. We'll still have patent rights on three-click healthcare.
Please note that this is the time to ramp up the filing while we still have the chance! This week, Robert is planning to file "combination TV remote and firearm", "Fuel pump/ATM combination device", "guitar with integrated video display", and "Retail sales of iPod accessories made after 2008". People, PLEASE talk to Robert to get your filings in ASAP - because otherwise, we'll have to really innovate, and that will damage our bottom line.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You drive up to a gas pump, insert your credit card, and pump out gas instead of money (though an automatic translator ensures that your bank is dispensing money).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
congress isn't the only one having their say (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That might not be a bad thing (I can't believe I just said that...)
There's two basic bad effects from the current system: big companies squashing competition, and patent trolls submarining obvious patents then popping up demanding license fees.
Big corps are the ones hurt most by the patent trolls, so they and we (the public) are on the same side in that fight.
As far as squashing upstart competition goes, I'm sure they'll lobby to keep that ability.
now first-to-invent? (Score:3, Interesting)
The bill moves the patent system from a "first-to-invent" to a "first-to-file" system, but in another nod to large universities, the committee clarified a grace period on filing patent applications for inventors who disclose or publish inventions in advance of seeking a patent.
Does this mean that prior art can no longer invalidate a patent if the creator of the prior art never filed for one?
Re:now first-to-invent? (Score:4, Informative)
No, because to get a patent you have to prove the technique hasn't been previously published by someone else. This will just mean that if two people who can each prove that element file for the same patent, they won't have to argue about who kept it secret for longer.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Where'd you get a crazy idea like that?
C//
Re: (Score:2)
This was my "Patent" wake-up call.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, how do you get 20+ patents out of a razor?
I think the math pseudo-code works like this:
IF [1 razor] >= [20 patents] THEN {ACTUAL-PATENT-VALUE} = {TRIVIAL}
Yet, the value of an "infringed" patent can be hundereds of thousands of dollars in court (if not millions).
Therefore, while I do believe the original idea of the patent was to protect honest innovation, it appears that all we are really doing these days is creating a litigation industry. The more patents you can attach to something, the greater the likelihood of generating additional revenue in court.
I'm not opposed to the idea of a patent, but it seems to me that businesses are simply "gaming the system" here....or am I missing something?
Re:This was my "Patent" wake-up call.. (Score:5, Informative)
And if you need a further wake-up, read how patent litigation really works here [law.com].
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, right (Score:4, Insightful)
There will be no real reform of the patent systems as long as congress is bought and paid for by campaign contributions.
And real reform means eliminating all software patents. And that will never happen as long as:
Microsoft Campaign Contributions: $8,907,025 (1999 - Present)
And I'm sure there are many other companies in the industry that throw dollars at congress. Source [campaignmoney.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Senate Committee Follows Suit (Score:3, Informative)
You can not reform with band-aids. (Score:2, Insightful)
If you want to reform something, you don't do it with steps like this. You don't write new laws to amend old laws -- it leaves loopholes and gaps that you and I can not find, but that patent lawyers are aware of and can help manage through IF you can afford them. It makes it more
You can't completely overturn the existing system (Score:2)
I'm anti-patent, of course, but I also would be happy to see a return to a Constitutional patent system. I have a recommendation for Congress to make the patent system more level
Your suggestions seem nice in the abstract, but saying you want to strip down the patent system and start from scratch is completely unworkable. The US is party to several international treaties that make a complete overhaul impossible, for starters.
The current bill is certainly not as far-reaching as most reformers would like
Re:You can't completely overturn the existing syst (Score:2)
In your personal life, slow changes make sense. You slowly learn a new trade, or you slowly fix your home, or you slowly save for retirement. It's just you, so you know what your goals are.
In politics, slow always means "more tyranny," because the people voting for a bill today will not be the ones to enforce it tomorrow. When the Executive takes on new po
Re: (Score:2)
Approval from who? (Score:3, Insightful)
I wasn't aware that the biotech industries, manufacturers, and large research universities were the ones voting on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really think Congresspeople don't vote for the interests of those that fund their campaigns and push lobbyists in their faces?
Besides that cynical view, it's also true that a lot of politicians feel that one of their repsonsibilities is to ensure the health of industry for economic reasons. Many politicians would worry that overly zealous patent reform would cause unemployment in th
Once again, the people get pwned (Score:2, Insightful)
Reflects the IT industry lobbying effort to... (Score:2)
The IT industry sector here = IBM
Things that cannot be patented: Natural Law, Physical Phenomenon, Abstract Ideas are the three primaries. Mathematical algorithms are also considered non-patentable but in fact are a subset of abstract ideas.
Man is unlike other animal life, he is capable of consciousness or in other words, abstraction above basic level. It is the nature or natural law of human character. It is further a physical phenomenon that man converts abstract thinking into physical movement an
Re: largely reflects the IT sector's lobbying effo (Score:2)
In the long run I don't care who lobbied for a bill if it benefits the greater good (I don't know if this does or not, I am not a lawyer), which
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Look, guys, we haven't really had any new ideas in a while, and we're tired of paying so much for ideas. Let's have Congress pass a law that makes it really hard for future people to get patents, but allows us to keep our patents! That way we can still threaten to sue Linux users, but they can't do anything to us! Woot!"
Re: (Score:2)