Patent Reform Bill Introduced in U.S. House 263
kanad wrote to mention a ZDNet article covering the introduction of the Patent Reform Act of 2005 to the U.S. House of Representatives. From the article: "Probably the most sweeping change would be the creation of a process to challenge patents after they are granted by the Patent and Trademark Office. 'Opposition requests' can be filed up to nine months after a patent is awarded or six months after a legal notice alleging infringement is sent out. The bill is supported by the USPTO and Microsoft who have been recently asking for patent reforms ." More details of the bill are available at the Congressman's website."
Peer Review - Solution (Score:3, Interesting)
The same method could be used to avoid costly court battles. This seems like a no-brainer. What am I missing?
Does this mean... (Score:2, Interesting)
It sound like this is a perfect plan carried out in the worst possible manner..
How about 9 months after first challenge? (Score:5, Interesting)
Failing that, how about starting the patent challenge clock when the patent holder issues a claim instead of starting the clock when the patent is issued. It'd deal with submarine patents as well as eliminate the need to look over the patent office's shoulder on each and every patent they issue.
Microsoft will challenge everything (Score:5, Interesting)
When you come to challenge it, they'll say "well he didn't challenge it within the alloted time...."
2. "Another major change would be to award a patent to the first person to submit their paperwork to the Patent Office. Currently, patents are awarded to the first person who concocted the invention, a timeframe that can be difficult to prove."
No need to invent now, just have to have a patent office ready and waiting to patent other peoples invention! And best of all its completely legal!
FUBAR (Score:5, Interesting)
We're being swamped by genetically modified whatever, just because some company managed to get a patent on it and thus has no incentive to keep its bacteria in the tank. So what if the whatever just produces some disaster like polluting fields of non genetically modified crops? Its patented, you can sue the victim of the pollution.
And even better, some companies managed to patent parts of viruses (which they didn't invent, of course) -- now, whoever wants to identify them in something like a HIV-test has to pay royalties. The international red cross who wants donated blood checked for instance..
Now talk about "growing costs in health-care". The whole affair is just stacking up costs everywhere, in the judical system, taxes, health-care, ecology, you name it. Patents are a frigging financial catastrophe.
That's fucked up beyond any repair, the whole thing has to be ditched.
Re:well... (Score:1, Interesting)
Microsoft built their business by seeing the innovations of others and using their resources to act on those innovations more quickly and more decisively than the actual innovators. This proposed new rule just seems like a thinly-veiled attempt by them to be able to steal not only the markets for those innovations, but also the patents from the rightful innovators.
Also, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, of the Constitution gives Congress the power "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Any change to the patent law that allows anybody other than the actual inventor to get a patent would appear to be blatantly unconstitutional.
Re:Would Prior Art Be Patentable? (Score:2, Interesting)
Think about exploits too (Score:3, Interesting)
"Why not forever?" I can imagine one malicious scenario that could be exploited with a challenge-at-any-time system (check my logic and let me know if I messed up):
Under a time-limited system where a patent wasn't being actively litigated, this couldn't happen.
Note also that the provision that allows for a challenge after the patent holder litigates makes it possible to challenge a patent after the initial 9 month window for any patent that is being actively enforced.
(So, this concept doesn't seem bad to me, but that doesn't mean I like the bill as a whole -- it's soundling like it tips the balance too far in favor of big corporations.)
Re:Microsoft will challenge everything (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess that means that the in europe it's OK for big-mega-corp-IP-whore to file first on my Idea while I'm still talking to the bank to borrow enough money to hire a patent attorny and pay the filing fees.
I see time-of-conception as a good thing, I see public disclosure as a good thing; generaly I see secret races to file as a bad thing and needing to hire consultants to watch for competitors filings at the patent office a bad thing.
I also find the patent offices policy of patenting every-stupid-trivial-thing that everbody has been doing for years and let the courts sort out the resulting mess a bad thing.
Copyright reform please? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Copyright reform please? (Score:1, Interesting)
We went through the same collective "the sky is falling BS" under JP Morgan rolling up electric companies - think about all the electrical stuff that was under basic patent back then, three phase power, transformers, the light bulb cases, there were over 1000 active litigations between westinghouse, edison and the start-ups. All are now off patent and we all enjoy the free use of the inventions. Innovation survived, products survived. Open source would be much better if you abolished copyright for software and ONLY granted patents, all the unix stuff would be public 10 - 20 years ago.