Patent Office Head Lays Out Reform Strategy 253
jeevesbond writes to tell us that Jon Dudas, the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the US Patent and Trademark Office has laid out a plan for patent reform. "Speaking at the Tech Policy Summit in San Jose, Dudas said that characterizing the patent system as hurting innovation is a 'fundamentally wrong' way to frame the debate. 'I have traveled around the world, and every nation is thinking how it can model [intellectual property governance] after the U.S,' Dudas said. 'It's a proven system, over 200 years old. The Supreme Court, Congress and policy makers are involved [in cases and legal reforms] not because the system is broken. It's not perfect, and we should be having the debate on how to improve.'"
Favorite Quote FTA (Score:5, Informative)
Because when you're trying to get a patent approved, the last thing you need is people pointing out the prior art, or people double checking your 'facts'- those things are harrassment and hold up the timing of application processing!
Re:Just a few things (Score:1, Informative)
The fact that protecting property makes it more profitable and therefore encourages the creation of it (read: innovation) should really be considered a secondary benefit.
Re:Just a few things (Score:5, Informative)
It's guidelines-based - but those guidelines go back to the first patent act, passed in 1790. (This was a short three years after the adoption of the Constitution, so IP obviously held a very high priority for our first federal government.)
The guidelines are, essentially, three:
That's the theory. The practice is even more rigorous, because the patent process is onerous: expensive, protracted, somewhat uncertain. The pragmatic answer is that "useful" is partially determined by the inventor's subjective assessment of its value. The inventor makes a value judgment: is the invention sufficiently "useful" to warrant the hassle and cost?
- David Stein
Re:Just a few things (Score:3, Informative)
Patents are a government granted monopoly right. There are a lot of ways to describe that, but I wouldn't use "capitalism". In a purely capitalist system, everyone would be free to compete - not constrained from competing by the government.
patent terms (Score:4, Informative)
Once convinced Jefferson sat down with an actuary table and calculated a patent term of 14 year with one 14 year extension possible was the optimum length they should last.
I'm pretty sure you're confusing patents and copyright. They're different.
Yes copyrights and patents are different however they both had the same length of duration, 14 years: "a Patent Law (1791) gave inventors exclusive rights to their inventions for 14 years." [grolier.com]
Falcon