House Passes Patent Overhaul Bill 150
narramissic writes "ITworld reports that the House of Representatives has passed a bill that promises to overhaul the US patent system. 'The Patent Reform Act, supported by several large tech vendors including Microsoft Corp. and IBM Corp., would allow courts to change they way they assess damages in patent infringement cases. Currently, courts generally consider the value of the entire product when a small piece of the product infringes a patent; the bill would allow, but not require, courts to base damages only on the value of the infringing piece."
you have offended my clock radio sir (Score:5, Funny)
Nice idea (Score:4, Insightful)
But is there anything that can even remotely approximate this? How much does a touch screen matter for the iPhone? What is such an estimate based on? I realize it's optional, but I'm having a hard time thinking of any situation that is really fair. Identically sized corporations, with similar market testing, and a market loaded with finely-grained differences in features? Even still, I think there's a great deal of random speculation.
While I respect intentions to reform the patent system, I suppose my more cynical side should've known that it'd be either evil or botched. I guess the latter is better than the former.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Nice idea (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a good start, but it's a band-aid for a gaping head wound.... Passing a law guaranteeing the right to challenge obvious patents out of court would be a much more useful thing. Then, we could have a patent watchdog group (e.g. the EFF) working to significantly reduce the number of junk patents. Passing a law reducing patent terms in technology-related fields to five years would be another great improvement. A patent lasting two decades in computing is like a patent lasting two centuries in most other fields. It really borders on the absurd....
But this... this bill should not pass. It's a very bad bill. With this bill, existing players can still bludgeon the little guy with their often bogus patents and usually nobody will even notice or care. The only way to truly show how broken the patent system is to actually have an impact on big businesses, and those patent trolls are the only thing that can annoy big business enough to have a chance at real reform that would actually increase innovation. Stopping the patent trolls will thus make it harder to get legitimate reform, and in my mind, that's a bad thing.
This is a good start (Score:2)
It's a bad start, especially for small inventors. And it says nothing about getting rid of software patents.
FalconRe:Nice idea (Score:5, Interesting)
How's that for an example?
Re: (Score:1)
just to remind you how the other side thinks.
poor (Score:4, Insightful)
> "isn't worth much to Microsoft".
Maybe it's not, but you're stating the value in wishy-washy terms. The good thing about assessing damages on the value of a full product is that you have a concrete value (price of product * products distributed). A laywer may argue that, since an OS is rather pointless without a filesystem, it's a VERY valuable piece of the OS, and, assuming that FAT is the third most common filesystem in linux installations (I have no idea, really) it would be big damages.
Valuing intellectual property is an insanely difficult prospect, with the only good approximation being what the market will buy. Take that away and you're left with pure speculation.
Re:poor (Score:5, Interesting)
The beauty is it would work with copyright as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't get me wrong I like the idea but there would be the issue of people saying that their IP isn't worth beans but charging an arm and a leg for it... Seems not quite right to me... but then they can't sue for much when some one reverse engineers their code... seems like it has it's own checks and balances... not bad I guess...
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather not think about the government selling the monopoly on ideas...
If even worded a different way, but once we go and state it that way it seems
there is a slippery slope there that I as a libertarian would rather avoid.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Imagine you are a startup and you come up with something that is going to revolutionize the entire market. It's worth billions but you obviously can't claim that it's worth billions because, until you get to market, you can't afford the taxes. What that means is that you have to devalue your patent and large companies can infringe on it w
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Reply, (Score:2)
IPR law should only allow 12 to 36 month licensing rights, no possible purchases/forfeiture of IPR from the original artist/inventor/... and/or R&D company.
The original owner/creator should have full legal protection and property rights to the intellectual property for life plus a couple years, for corporations (maybe larger then a small business) 50 year IPR ownership maximum. I mean Beethoven/Goya... descend
Re: (Score:2)
So let's do 14 years tax-free. After that you must register in the case of copyright, and declare a value in the case of copyright or patent, and start paying property taxes.
capital gains instead? (Score:2)
Or even wackier, how about trading futures on an idea? A company has an IPO for a patent, and then let the market decide what rights to use it are worth. Taxes would then be based off of that. Of course then you run into the p
Re: (Score:2)
That reminds me of something mentioned in Number of the Beast by Heinlein... in one of the worlds they stopped in, you declared the value of your property, and were taxed based on that... with the caveat that anyone could purchase that property from you for your declared price... if you didn't want to sell, you'd have to revise your appraisal, and pay back taxes on it (I think it was five years worth...)
Nephilium
Re: (Score:2)
If you run for Pres. on this platform, I will vote for you just on this!
You propose the best idea yet I have heard of to keep copyright/patents, yet bring some sanity to the current system.
My hat's off to you! (alas, I also have no mod points currently, but you are deservedly capped out anyways!)
Re:Nice idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Most likely, Linus goes bankrupt during the opening motion practice and/or is forced to settle. The court never gets around to calculating damages.
Messing with the damage formula only benefits large corporations who, up until now, were looking at damages in the hundreds of millions and weren't overly concerned by hundreds of thousands in court costs. Patent trolls won't get as much money, and everyone else is still screwed as soon as the lawsuit is filed.
c.
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, like you point out, Microsoft would lose much more in loss of sales the negative news would cause than they could even get by suing Torvalds.
That alone makes this bad business and a high unlikely scenario for Microsoft.
Matt
Re: (Score:2)
Suing an average individual for patent infringement is obviously economically stupid (if they don't settle immediately, you don't have a chance at getting your court costs back, much less damages), but making money isn't the only reason for a lawsuit.
c.
Re: (Score:2)
You thought wrong
I don't know about you but.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I don't know about you but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I don't know about you but.. (Score:4, Interesting)
It's a collective agreement to slowly disarm themselves
Exactly. The only way to win at Prisoner's Dilemma is to change the rules.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, amazing! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
So Say I'm Microsoft (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
So, the two for it, but both for an opposite reason - IBM to protect silly fleas, MS to protect and try to limit the damages caused to them by their usual business practices.
Re: (Score:1)
Thanks a lot (Score:3, Insightful)
"The bill also sets into motion a change in the way patents are awarded, from the first-to-invent system unique to the U.S. to the first-to-file system used by the rest of the world."
Polotition logic: Something must be done. This is something, lets do it.
First to File (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Am I correct in assuming that the first-to-file system would remove the value of prior art in invalidating a patent?
No, you are quite incorrect. Prior art invalidates patents the world over. First-to-file just changes how priority is determined in the absence of published prior art. With first to file, the first person to go to the patent office wins. With first to invent, a costly discovery excercise investigating lab notebooks and whatnot is undertaken.
If anything prior art is weaker in america, because "inventors" could relatively easily manufacture fraudulent records purporting to predate any published prior art,
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
poor man's patent (Score:2)
It takes more than just showing a judge a notebook and claiming that the date on it is correct. There's a well established practice of sending mail to yourself so you can show the postmark on the unopened envelope and show the court that the USPS attests to the date on it.
From Expertlaw [expertlaw.com]:
Don't attempt a "poor man's patent" [expertlaw.com] - putting documentation of your invention into an envelope and mailing it to yourself is of next to no value when it comes to defending your invention or establishing the date of its
Re: (Score:2)
You can't successfully sue somebody for copyright infringement without evidence that they could reasonably have been expected to have heard / seen / read your work. "Poor Man's Copyrights" are therefore usually a defensive measure which can be used if an artist eventually be
Re: (Score:2)
if the invention was published before you filed for a patent, you have lost by prior art.
SO all anyone would have to do is steal someone else's invention then publish it before the inventor actually patents it.
From the rest of the world's perspective, the american first-to-invent system is just considered mad, and europeans regularly accuse american defence companies of pulling that sort of shit.
I don't know about the rest of the world but in the US the reason patents are issued is to encourage inve
Re: (Score:2)
If you invent something and tell me I'll steal your idea -- so you keep it secret. But with patents you can tell me and the courts forbid me from stealing it.
Ah but inventors can't always patent something right away. I don't know if it's still true or not but originally an inventor had to submit a working prototype with the application for invention. And it can take a while before an inventor has one. In the meantime someone else could take the idea and create their own prototype. Someone else in thi
Reform == good. First to file == bad. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Reform == good. First to file == bad. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I think both first to invent and first to file are crap. If something is indpendently invented within such a short window that the difference between first to invent and first to file matters then IMO it doesn't deserve a patent.
Except that sometimes it isn't independently invented. Let's say that an inventor is working on a design. He hires a machinist to manufacture some prototypes because he isn't quite sure how to get it to work and needs to try a couple of different designs to get it right. While the inventor is evaluating the prototypes before filing the patent, the machinist goes off and files a patent. Under first to file, the machinist gets the patent unless the inventor can prove that he stole it (and maybe not even then
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One of the side effects of being part of the WTO is that there should be a level playing field. Unfortunately, we've asked other countries to bend over backwards to do things our way, now they want us to do things their way, and corporations are more than happy to give in. After all, who cares about the lone innovator that you are talkin
you are mistaken: First to file is better (Score:1, Interesting)
If you are not a corporation (e.g an open source developer) and instead of filing a patent application, you just disclose your invention, then, "first to file" rule automatically disqualifies everyone else who might otherwise claim that they invented it before you did...
Basically, if I understand correctly, "first to file" removes a lot of unc
Re: (Score:2)
Great idea but.... (Score:2, Funny)
Big Companies Must Pay Big Bucks for IP Violations (Score:5, Insightful)
This is just sad to see big companies trying to take advantage of the system this way. What needs to happen is that they need to focus on protecting the small guy and you don't do so by limiting what they can get in defense of their IP. This simply allows the big dog to tear up the little dogs in a fight.
This is bad news, not good news.
Re:Big Companies Must Pay Big Bucks for IP Violati (Score:3, Insightful)
Little guys would go bankrupt anyway... (Score:3)
This bill could mean less patent trolls (if the big $$$ disappears from the market), and hey, people are admitting there's a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Patent trolls aren't really the problem. A patent troll is one of two things: Lawyers abusing the broken patent system (a symptom of the larger problem) or a legitimate little guy who invented something (in which case this is the system working as it is supposedly intended to work).
Here's the thing: The only time a small inventor can ever make money on a patent is by acting as a patent troll. If the small inventor actually tries to sell a product, they'll get bullied out of existence by counter-suits from
patent trolls (Score:2)
Patent trolls aren't really the problem. A patent troll is one of two things: Lawyers abusing the broken patent system (a symptom of the larger problem) or a legitimate little guy who invented something (in which case this is the system working as it is supposedly intended to work).
You use "patent troll" different than I do. To me a patent troll is something that gets a patent on something but then sits on patent and waits until someone releases a product with the patent in it. No one who gets a paten
Re: (Score:2)
No. We both seem to agree on the definition of "patent troll". The only thing that I'm pointing out is that sometimes a patent troll really is a reasonably small-time inventor who legitimately invented something an
Re: (Score:2)
No. We both seem to agree on the definition of "patent troll". The only thing that I'm pointing out is that sometimes a patent troll really is a reasonably small-time inventor who legitimately invented something and patented it, then rationally decided that the only way to make money on his invention was to wait for a big company to use it (and carefully not release any products of his own to be counter-sued over).
Ok.
From the perspective of actually wanting to see technological progress (which works be
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to misunderstand the effects that patents have in the real wo
patents (Score:2)
You seem to misunderstand the effects that patents have in the real world and why large corporations lobby for them. Patent laws were initially introduced based on precisely the reasoning you describe - but patents haven't actually done that or been supported with that intention by any major political players in living memory.
No I don't. Actually for a long tyme patents has helped hold back progress. With maybe the exception of drugs I oppose patents. Even with drugs though I'd limit patents to not mo
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not sure whether you were trying to be sarcastic or not.
But yes, many universities are patent trolls, and pretty egregious ones at that. They take public money (and student's tuition) to perform research, and then extort those who try to use it (and whose tax dollars paid for it). They profess to be in the business of disseminating knowledge, and then lock it behind paywalls. They should be in the best position to understand "standing on the shoulder of gi
Re: (Score:2)
Seen from the big company angle, "minor" patents are simply change and arsenal to negotiate cross-licenses in case of patent litigation. For a small company, a patent of similar scope could represent a major and highly valuable core asset. In case of infringement, this change could mean that the court should set damages as a compromise between what the patents are worth to their owners and what they are worth in the infringing product.
In the case of FAT on Linux, FAT is only a tiny and
Total personal confusion (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I tend to keep from commenting on patents other than software ones which IMHO should never exist however I
Re: (Score:2)
Now they can sue you for little pieces, and have a greater chance of winning since you don't talk about the whole product and thus what is being fought is all that matters and cant be thrown aside as irrelevant.
Has to go to the Senate (Score:3, Insightful)
And it is here in the US Senate that concerns with this first-to-file, regardless of intent to ever invent, versus first-to-invent will have conditions set on it to make such a valid patent.
We all know the patent system is broken with the dawning of the Information Age. However, this first-to-file, on the surface, doesn't appear to keep companies from filing frivolous patents with no intention of ever producing an invention.
The patent system should be set to promote diverse competition and may the winner best their competition through competition and not anti-competitive legal maneuvers.
Well, the House definitely passed (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, look at all the unintended consequences caused by the laws they've passed!
Or by follow, did you mean learn what it means so that they can avoid unintended consequences?
First to File (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I did that once when I was not sure about the viability of the patent. It turns out that it was subsequently cited as prior art.
Re: (Score:2)
If your only reason for worrying about a patent were to block other people from patenting your idea that's fine. If you're trying to reap the other benefits of a patent, that's not going to help.
real reform would be... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait a minute (Score:5, Interesting)
If Big Co. wins they get their worth. (lots of money)
If mr. Hobbyist wins he gets his worth. (nothing, since his software is free)
Re: (Score:2)
Eh this may sound silly, but... (Score:1)
Re:Eh this may sound silly, but... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Value? (Score:2)
Sure, its not worth 100% of the 'product' value, but i think its worth more then then just the 'single component' level, espcially since it was used illegally. Need to have some sort of penalty for doing wrong things.
patent-overhaul Bill? House (MD)? (Score:3, Funny)
Oh Christ (Score:2)
It also deals in hypertheticals as well; the apparent value which is being debated over and whether it truly reflects the market value; what happens if the patent infringment is found very early in the product release, how does one make assump
Huh? What kind of solution is this? (Score:2)
How about rethinking what's patentable instead? The number of patent infringement cases would plummet if the junk patents were thrown out - and no new junk patents were granted.
Their "solution" is ridiculous; altering the penalty for violating the "one click" patent isn't what's needed. What's really needed is to reform the patent system so that things like that "one click" patent could never occur.
Re: (Score:2)
The summary doesn't mention this, and I honestly haven't read the linked article, but they did introduce a process to help reduce junk patents. Starting immediately after a patent is granted, there is a one year period in which companies, organizations, or individuals who have reason to oppose a patent can submit petitions and evid
sounds a bit fishy at first sight? (Score:2)
Disgusting (Score:2)
Realizing the U.S. is a republic and not a democracy it is still pretty sad how the system works...For the ones that game it.
How about getting rid of... (Score:2)
BandAid, Not an Overhaul (Score:2)
in other news... (Score:2)
it has bald wheels, the electrics are shot, one 1 brake works - but its still drivable!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But we're still in Iraq, didn't they promised to get us out?
Also Democrats still score highest overall on pork-barrel spending, but we could debate if that is corruption or not.
Also most Republicans are not conservatives. Nonconservative is not the same as conservative, if it was there wouldn't be a different word for it.
(I think it's the safe to assume that posting a
Re: (Score:2)
And the Democrats control congress I thought. Their platform was to get out of Iraq. We voted these jokers in office, why haven't they followed through on their promise?
Every conservative supported Bush, who has always widely been known to be a neocon. Also why focus on Bush, he's just one Republican. There are almost 600 representives sitting in DC blowing smoke up our ass.
What do you think OrangeTide means, it has no political or rel
Re: (Score:2)
American involvement initiated(it was a conflict between the 2 parts of vietnam) by a republican, escalated by Johnson, promised exit by nixon leading to a further escalation, finally leaving due to a myriad of reasons you'd basically get the crux of it.
Nixon didn't lose the war any more than the president who oversees our withdrawal from Iraq will ha
Re: (Score:2)
Brought the start of the US's role in Vietnam. Truman creates a "Containment Policy" to oppose Communist expansion. Unofficially puts 250 US Soldiers on the ground to support French forces.
Dwight D. Eisenhower - Republican (1953-1961)
Considers taking a more active role in the containment of Vietnam, and a strong supporter of the "Domino theory". Realizes quickly that an active role would require a massive deployment. His plan B is to send in military advisers to train t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Translated; 'A cat in panic makes weird jumps'.
Microsoft is being increasingly unpredictable (SCO -> linux deals -> OOXML -> little-patents) so I think it will be more and more scarier for small businesses to go non-Microsoft because of this.