Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Patents Government United States Your Rights Online

Obama To Sign 'America Invents Act of 2011' Today 244

Posted by Soulskill
from the system-and-method-for-inhaling-oxygen dept.
ideonexus writes "President Obama will be signing the 'America Invents Act of 2011' into law today at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Alexandria, Va. The bill will transition America from a 'first-to-invent" to a 'first-to-file" country, but critics argue that the bill fails to address the more important problem that 'nobody can tell what a patent covers until they've spent months or years working it out, often in the courts.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Obama To Sign 'America Invents Act of 2011' Today

Comments Filter:
  • by tepples (727027) <tepples@nOSpAM.gmail.com> on Friday September 16, 2011 @11:06AM (#37420526) Homepage Journal

    The old way: You have to have invented the product or process and reduced it to practice, you have to file a patent application, and you have to have invented before other inventors.
    The new way: You have to have invented the product or process and reduced it to practice, you have to file a patent application, and you have to have filed before other inventors.

    The purported advantage of the new way is that it's a lot easier to prove having filed first than to prove having reduced it to practice first.

  • How about first to do both. You would have to have an invention before you can file. Otherwise, I'm patenting time travel.

    The change is as opposed to the earlier "first to invent" system, in which you could be the second person to file, but still get the patent. Basically, under the old system, say person A conceives of an idea on January 1. They diligently and continuously work to reduce the idea to practice, and file a patent application on December 1. Meanwhile, person B conceived of the idea on June 1, and being quicker, filed a patent application July 1. Even though B filed first, A would get the patent, because A had first possession of the idea.

    Now, that's changed. B filed first, B wins...

    ... unless A published prior to June 1. Under the new rules, if A conceived of the idea on January 1, and posted it on his or her blog on January 2, that counts as prior art against B, but not A (for one year).

    So, now, rather than just a race to the patent office, we actually have a race to make a public disclosure, which is a good thing.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16, 2011 @11:30AM (#37420878)

    Obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art [wikipedia.org].

  • by tepples (727027) <tepples@nOSpAM.gmail.com> on Friday September 16, 2011 @12:19PM (#37421474) Homepage Journal
    First-to-file doesn't affect novelty at all. Published prior art that disqualifies an invention under first-to-invent also disqualifies an invention under first-to-file. Furthermore, I've read that the Act makes it easier to challenge a questionable patent, so you'll have an easier time of getting your open source project into the USPTO examiner's hands.
  • Re:America Invents? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Jeremiah Cornelius (137) on Friday September 16, 2011 @12:19PM (#37421484) Homepage Journal

    He ALSO signed a continuation of Emergency Powers [ucsb.edu].

    How Nice.

    Funny this little occurrence receives so little attention, when, of these invoked powers, The Washington Times wrote on September 18, 2001:

    Simply by proclaiming a national emergency on Friday, President Bush activated some 500 dormant legal provisions, including those allowing him to impose censorship and martial law.

    I guess there wasn't enough NewSpeak in that article for the WT to preserve it from their Memory Hole. Here it is on the Wayback:
    http://web.archive.org/web/20010918184425/www.washtimes.com/national/20010918-1136.htm [archive.org]

    Now, back to Barry's continuation of the legacy:

    Notice of September 9, 2011

    Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Certain Terrorist Attacks

    Consistent with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. 1622(d), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency previously declared on September 14, 2001, in Proclamation 7463, with respect to the
    terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States.

    Because the terrorist threat continues, the national emergency declared on September 14, 2001, and the powers and authorities adopted to deal with that emergency must continue in effect beyond September 14, 2011. Therefore, I am continuing in effect for an additional year the national emergency that was declared on September 14, 2001, with respect to the terrorist threat.

    This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.

    (Signed, BO)

  • Re:America Invents? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16, 2011 @12:48PM (#37421840)
    What! You must be from the Obama whitewash department. Even NYTimes called him out on it dumbass.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/08/business/patent-bill-could-save-a-law-firm-millions.html?_r=2&emc=tnt&tntemail1=y [nytimes.com]
  • by S-100 (1295224) on Friday September 16, 2011 @01:26PM (#37422268)
    Yes, but that happened in the past as well. Read about JMRI vs. Katzer: http://jmri.org/k/Recent.shtml#2010-02-17 [jmri.org] The troll was eventually defeated, but only after years in court and $100,000's spent.
  • Re:America Invents? (Score:4, Informative)

    by euroq (1818100) on Friday September 16, 2011 @03:46PM (#37423692)

    You are a liar. They are not applying the patent retro. They are clarifying the deadline rules, so that the rules in law (on paper) are explicit to what two judges have already ruled is the case.

    "[The company] had received F.D.A. approval for Angiomax after the customary close of business on a Friday, the 60-day clock should not have started ticking until the next Monday."

    It has already been determined by two judges and the government has not appealed the decision that the above statement is correct - the company did not miss their patent deadline. NOTHING THIS BILL DOES IS GOING TO CHANGE ANYTHING FOR THAT LAWFIRM AND COMPANY. It is only going to clarify the rules. (Actually, on second thought, it will remove the threat of APP Pharmaceuticals's appeal)

    Even if this did retroactively give the patent to this company (which is won't), that wouldn't be a bailout - no government money would be given to them (you might have an argument for corruption, but it's not a bailout).

    Finally, the funny thing in the NYT article is that two Republicans want the patent protection for the company to go away because "...the extra patent protection on Angiomax could cost hospitals and consumers $1 billion.". Well, Republicans, that's EXACTLY what you wanted when you opposed "socialized" healthcare! That very argument was the left's argument for the healthcare overhaul. Patents are what help drug companies make lots of money "at the expense of hospitals and consumers", because they will in turn fund new R&D for new medicines.

  • Re:America Invents? (Score:4, Informative)

    by euroq (1818100) on Friday September 16, 2011 @03:50PM (#37423744)

    No it didn't. The NY Times reported that a Republican called it a bailout. RTFA... it's not.

    It has already been determined by two judges and the government has not appealed the decision that the above statement is correct - the company did not miss their patent deadline. This bill is only going to clarify the rules that agrees with the two judges that already said.

    WTF passes for the definition of a "bailout" nowadays? Even if this story was changing the patent filing decisions retroactively, no government money was going to be given to any companies involved either way.

The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth. -- Niels Bohr

Working...