Reform Could Kill EFF "Patent Busting Project" 110
netbuzz alerts us to a letter the EFF sent today to Senators Leahy and Specter pointing out a deleterious clause in the current draft of the Patent Reform Act of 2007 — which EFF generally supports. As written, the proposal would kill the EFF's Patent Busting Project. Fine print in the bill would limit the time in which a patent could be challenged, by anyone other than those suffering direct financial harm, to one year after the patent's grant. Since the EFF is non-profit it would have a hard time showing financial harm.
Who writes this stuff? (Score:5, Insightful)
Financial harm? (Score:2, Insightful)
How is financial harm defined ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Simple: The EFF buy one copy of software from someone who has had to pay patent extortion. The price that the EFF paid was presumably higher than it would have been if the software house did not have to pay patent dues ... thus the EFF has suffered financially.
Play these parasites at their own game!
patent incontestability is so bad (Score:5, Insightful)
I can just hear the bill's defenders saying 'but this limitation would not be incontestability'. But patents are rights that can be asserted against the public generally. So this limitation on who can contest them, would be incontestability by a large section of the persons affected by the rights.
-wb-
Need a way to Monitor Congressional Bills (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Dangerous!!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Left to themselves Congresspeople generally aren't too bad
Re:Second Patent Office (Score:5, Insightful)
But the real problem with both of these ideas is that the existing organizations (legislatures, the USPTO, etc.) really just need to operate for the good of individual citizens, without undue influence by the desires of powerful individuals, organizations, or corporations.
Taking my de-legislature case as an example, it'd be just as bad/good as the original depending on the level/lack of influence by external power influences. A corrupt de-legislature removing laws inconvenient to the powerful would be a pretty awful thing. The same problem applies to a corrupt "office of patent revocation"; it'd just make matters even worse than they already are.
Re:Who writes this stuff? (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason no one reads the PATRIOT act is because it's almost all partial-sentence amendments to existing laws that are you can't see in context without access to a law library. Compile the source code of the nation so we can read it!
Re:Non-Profit can be harmed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Gaming the system? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it's easier than that.... the EFF just needs to compile prior-art information and post it on a public web site, and if and when the patent troll tries to sue anybody, the people/companies being sued (and who are thus "being harmed") already have their case researched for them.
Re:What about consumers? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Dangerous!!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
All Americans suck because they think:
The real problem is that law makers think it is their job to... well, make laws. They become consumed by the process and can only think in terms of "more laws, more laws, more laws", never "let's sit back and do nothing for a while". I think we all need more Ron Pauls.
p.s. that was a joke about all Americans sucking of course