IEEE Proposes New Class of Patents 183
cheesedog writes "The IEEE Spectrum proposes a new type of patent that wouldn't require formal examination, would cost significantly less than traditional patents, would last only 4 years from date of first commercial product, and which wouldn't carry a presumption of validity. These 'limited patents' would be attractive to innovators in the fast-moving high-tech industry that can't wait 18-24 months for patent approval, and would help improve patent quality by populating the USPTO's prior-art database more efficiently. Additional commentary on this proposal is available."
So (Score:5, Insightful)
4 year patents are different... why? (Score:5, Insightful)
without the presumption of validity? (Score:5, Insightful)
-Jesse
Pay a fee to file prior art? (Score:3, Insightful)
A fee? That sounds counter-productive to encouraging prior art submissions.
Clearly someon doesn't understand patent (Score:5, Insightful)
Second, Patents are not expensive, paten lawyers are. You can file a patent as an individual for a few hundred dollars.
Third, a patent is a way of saying you had it first, but there are other ways.
Forth, This would be even more abused then the current system
Re:The only type (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as software is concerned, and perhaps some other idiotic types of IP (like copyright on the "appearance" of a building in a public location), is to ELIMINATE it. Their absence is what got us where we are, but for some reason, people feel like they have to squeeze every last bit of "value" from something that is often completely intangible. The only thing it's doing is slowing things down and increasing costs. I imagine that not too long from now, the "leaders" in the US government will be scratching something, wondering why the US continues to either lag behind, or give up ground to, other countries in important areas like science and technology. The current patent system has shackled and menacled our ability to remain agile, and I fear that we will pay dearly for that over the long term.
Reducing the time constant (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed; helping increase the volume of bad patents doesn't seem like a useful goal. The main problem with software (and other more abstract) patents is not the slow process for granting them, it's the fact that they keep granting idiotic patents that are very obvious to anyone even remotely skilled in the art. Searching and validating beforehand may be expensive, but is a lot cheaper than a court fight....at least in an overall sense.
On the other hand, if their intention is to fuel outrage in blogs and community websites (like
Sounds more like... (Score:2, Insightful)
Change the existing system, don't add to it (Score:5, Insightful)
This part I can buy, and I would go further and change the entire patent system to limit to 4 years on ALL patents from date of first commercial product. After all, the original objective of the patent system was to advance science, industry, etc. in the United States, it was not intended as a means of leeching cash from a productive industry or building monopolies. Shorter terms would force the hand of patent holders to put up or shut up.
I would also implement stricter rules on acceptance of patents. Today we hear over and over the excuse that lame patents are accepted because the office is overworked. I've read the rules on the uspto.gov website and several of the questionable patents that have been in the news and from what I've seen every one of them should have been rejected in the first 5 minutes of reading the abstract and claims.
The rules are simple and most patents don't pass muster. The patent office should be pushing back on those who file patents to submit applications which easily pass the initial tests:
"The patent law specifies that the subject matter must be "useful." The term "useful" in this connection refers to the condition that the subject matter has a useful purpose and also includes operativeness, that is, a machine which will not operate to perform the intended purpose would not be called useful, and therefore would not be granted a patent.
Interpretations of the statute by the courts have defined the limits of the field of subject matter that can be patented, thus it has been held that the laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable subject matter.
A patent cannot be obtained upon a mere idea or suggestion. The patent is granted upon the new machine, manufacture, etc., as has been said, and not upon the idea or suggestion of the new machine. A complete description of the actual machine or other subject matter for which a patent is sought is required."
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/
And from these basic rules it becomes obvious that SOFTWARE IS NOT PATENTABLE, you use copyrights for software. And just to add to the rant, a reimplementation of a concept or idea by someone else is not infringement of a copyright. I suspect that is why we have this big mess with software patents. I also suspect that part of the problem is interference from lawyers and lawmakers who have beaten the USPTO into submission, but at some point we need to stop all this stupidity.
burnin
Re:Clearly someone doesn't know the author (Score:4, Insightful)
However, that still does not change the fact that increasing the number of patents and decreasing the effective duration is a dumb idea.
Just because it is shorter does not make thing better when the number of rediculous patents will explode.
The problem is not necessarily that the patents are too long or even it is too expensive to obtain. The problem is that too many non-novel ideas are granted patents.
What Professor Hollaar suggests does not address those problems at all. And that does not change no matter how well respected he is.
Re:So (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Pay a fee to file prior art? (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, making someone pay a fee for prior art is an idea with some merit. But it shouldn't be the person who points out the prior art who has to pay. Instead, the person who filed for the patent should have to pay a fee to the patent office when someone points out valid prior art. After the patent office determines it really is prior art, they would take part of the fee for themselves and pay part of it as a bounty to the person who first pointed out the prior art. This would be beneficial in three ways: (1) it would create disincentive for people to try to file patents when they think there's any real chance that there is prior art out there (because of the threat of having to pay a large fee), and (2) it would create an incentive for the patent office to examine reasonable claims of prior art, and (3) it would create an incentive for others to look for prior art to submit to the patent office.