Finally, a Bill To End Patent Trolling 162
First time accepted submitter jellie writes "According to Ars Technica, a new bill introduced by Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has received bipartisan support and has a real chance of passing. In a press call, lawyers from the CCIA, EFF, and Public Knowledge had universal praise for the bill, which is called the Innovation Act of 2013. The EFF has a short summary of the good and bad parts of an earlier draft of the bill. The bill will require patent holders who are filing a suit to identify the specific products and claims which are being infringed, require the loser in a suit to pay attorney's fees and costs, and force trolls to reveal anyone who has a 'financial interest' in the case, making them possibly liable for damages."
Still Bad Patents (Score:4, Insightful)
Trolling will end only when the patent system ends (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:Still Bad Patents (Score:5, Insightful)
At least this makes an attempt to do away with the non-practicing entities that patent things only to sue.
I'm sure it will still be ineffective, or just not pass both houses of Congress.
Like ARM (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Still Bad Patents (Score:5, Insightful)
Never then... Because smart people, who think stuff up, ought to be able to get paid for their ideas. And it should not matter, whether one decided to implement the idea himself, or to sell it to the highest bidder.
The patent trolls with their vague (yet costly) claims are abusing the system, but there is nothing wrong with the basic premise behind the patents.
Still will not stop shit like... (Score:3, Insightful)
Although patent trolls are bad, there are a lot bigger entities to fear with the current definitions of patentability.
Re:Why should not the loser always pay? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd argue, the loser should be on the hook for the winner's expenses by default. Currently the court may make them responsible, but the winner typically needs to specifically ask for it — and it should be the opposite. In all cases: civil and criminal (if the accused is acquitted, the prosecuting office needs to cough up).
At least, this should apply (whether the subject is patent or not), when the losing the side is the one, that initiated the proceedings in the first place.
Accept that sometimes, there really are legitimate things to be decided by the courts, where both sides have compelling positions as to why they are right. Take a dispute over breach of contract, where a court is needed to determine a vague interpretation. Are you saying that the loser should pay the winner's cost there? Or take a civil rights or harassment case? Are you saying that if you bring such a suit and you lose, you should have to pay the employer's costs, too? That would pretty much eliminate all of those suits out of fear of the plaintiff going bankrupt, would it not.
No, it seems best, to let the court determine what is an equitable allocation of the costs based on the facts and nature of the case instead of mandating it by law. Doing that usually guarantees whoever has the most money to throw into lawyers while the case is going on will win and they will recoup those costs after the verdict is rendered. That hardly sounds like a real justice system.
This part has always been absurd ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I've never understood how you can file suit without explicitly listing this.
We've heard about far too many lawsuits which vaguely reference a "set of infringing patents", and I seem to recall that (despite asserting Linux infringes) Microsoft has never actually enumerated the patents Linux is supposed to violate.
Forcing them to disclose who has financial interest in it is a good idea, because one gets the impression a lot of these have a behind-the-scenes actor which doesn't get revealed.
Re:Still Bad Patents (Score:5, Insightful)
The patent office is doing their job. They are charged with recording and maintaining records of patents. When you file, you swear, under oath, that the patent you are filing does not already exist and is not already in prior practice. The people who file patents honestly do patent searches (that is why the lawyers get the big bucks) before they file the patent.
If you file a patent of something that already exists or has already been patented, you are expected to be taken to court to have your patent invalidated. The rules are setup in a way that the courts can deal with patent issues, not a government bureaucrat sitting in an office.
Of course that basically fails when a large company like Apple files a patent for something I invented 10 years ago. They will lawyer you into the ground instead of giving you a chance to negotiate a fair licensing model.
But, that is how the system was setup and how the office is charged in running.
Re:Still Bad Patents (Score:5, Insightful)
In a lot of cases, the applicants/attorneys don't actually do a search, because doing a search means that if they fail to tell the Office about something they find, they could be on the hook for it later. So it's safer to be willfully blind.
As for the USPTO, we do what we can in the time given. There's only so much searching we can do, and if we can't find and present evidence that something was already known publicly, we can't just send out rejections based on how many Slashdotters think it's obvious. Issued patents aren't perfect, but when you compare the claims that get issued with what was originally filed, you'll see just how much worse the system could be if we actually did just rubber stamp everything.
Re:Still Bad Patents (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Still Bad Patents (Score:5, Insightful)
Not saying anything you have said is wrong, but the current system is SO bad that we would be much better off without ANY patents.
A part of the problem has to do with "obviousness". If two people are looking at a problem, it's unlikely that either will find a non-obvious solution. If 100 are looking at the problem, lots of "non-obvious" solutions will be found. If 1,000 people are looking, not only will lots of "non-obvious" solutions be found, but there will be lots of independent duplication. And patents pick an arbitrary winner, which is grossly unfair.
The only time that patents seem to me to be justified is where there are truly significant up-front costs. Drug tests are one example. Even there, it shouldn't be possible to retire a product from the market and also prevent anyone else from making it. And yes, I know that what I'm proposing isn't perfect either. But it would be much less bad, and might well even have a net social benefit.