Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Patents United States

Congress to Overhaul Patent Law 377

karvind writes "According to story at law.com, 'lawmakers in Washington are considering changes to the patent code that would bring U.S. law closer to intellectual property standards in the rest of the industrialized world.' The stated result of Patent Reform Act of 2005, HR 2795 is supposed to make the system work 'more efficiently' and be 'less prone to litigation.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Congress to Overhaul Patent Law

Comments Filter:
  • Just like the tax code.
    • Re:Sounds Familar... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Flamebait? It's true. The US Tax Code is a steaming pile of crap because every few years or so, someone runs for re-election and gets a hardon for fucking with it to fool idiots into voting for them and even stupider idiots into forking over campaign dollars. Hell, if the megacorps and the guys who are saving for their 50th rolls royce just convinced the bastards in office to quit playing with the tax laws like they play with themselves, they might even save money on not having to hire fleets of tax lawy
  • More efficiently? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by PFritz21 ( 766949 )
    So, this means Amazon.com can get their patents in about an hour, huh?
  • by nebaz ( 453974 ) * on Monday August 22, 2005 @07:33PM (#13375883)
    Here are some nice points at the end of the article, and my thoughts on each...

    Changes the current "first to invent" standard to "first to file," which means patent rights go to the first inventor to file for a patent who can provide sufficient evidence for a claimed invention.

    Biggest mistake, in my opinion. All of the patent infringement cases that I have heard of in the news as of late have not been by an inventor that has thought that another person had stolen his idea, but rather
    by companies, with questionably vague patents, suing infringers, or rightful blatant patent infringement, usually perpetrated by larger companies.

    Eliminates the subjective "best mode" requirement from 112 of the Patent Act, delineating objective criteria that an inventor must set forth in an application

    This seems fine to me.

    Imposes a duty of candor and good faith on parties to contested cases before the patent office, eliminating inequitable conduct as a defense of patent unenforceability.

    Don't know what this means exactly. Kind of scary that you'd have to legislate "duty of candor and good faith though"

    Reduces the scope of willful infringement by raising the standard of proof required, and limits the amount of damages a patentholder can collect from an infringer

    Like any damage caps, this is good and bad. Good for the little guy getting sued by MegaCorp., terrible for the little company MegaCorp. is doing patent infringement on.

    Limits patentees' ability to get injunctions, directing courts with jurisdiction over patent cases to stay an injunction pending an appeal if it finds that the stay neither will cause irreparable harm to the patent owner nor the balance of hardships from the stay favor the patent owner

    Like the previous step, good and bad, like any legislative tool.

    Authorizes the director of the patent office to regulate continuation applications -- subsequent patent applications filed by the same inventor, based on information included in an earlier application, but containing different claims

    I don't understand this, why should there be continuation applications at all? New claims? New patent. Old patent should not expire earlier.

    Establishes a new post-grant opposition system in the patent office

    How does this work? Can anyone file to get a patent looked at? How does this lessen patent litigation?

    Allows members of the public to introduce new information to the patent office up to six months after the date of publication of the patent application to challenge the patent and to provide a final quality check (10).

    Might be good to allow this any time a patent litigation suit is brought. Avoids submarine patents.

    All and all, it is good that Congress is looking into this, but I think some of their remedies here are dangerous, and also, that the article has it right.
    More money for patent examiners, and not allocating money based on patent acceptance/rejection (thus giving them an incentive to accept all patents) would
    be a better use of their time and money. Not to mention, more enforcement of things like "obviousness".
    • by Anonymous Coward
      if some of thoughs pass, do you think other countrys will honor the patent if it was proven someone else created it before hand? just they didn't happen to have the $30,000 to file the patent on it yet.
    • by MindStalker ( 22827 ) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [reklatsdnim]> on Monday August 22, 2005 @07:43PM (#13375948) Journal
      Authorizes the director of the patent office to regulate continuation applications -- subsequent patent applications filed by the same inventor, based on information included in an earlier application, but containing different claims
      This is common in the medical field. You invent a drug patent it, right before it goes out of patent, you repackage the same drug as doing something slightly different and your patent has just been extended by 20 years. (I'm not sure if people can now sell generics under your old claim or not.. anyone care to clarify?)
      • by ajakk ( 29927 ) on Monday August 22, 2005 @07:57PM (#13376022) Homepage
        This is not what a continuation application is. A continuation application is method that is used to continue the prosecution of a patent after a final rejection has been issued by the Patent Office. By paying some extra money, you get the opportunity to keep on going back and forth with the patent office to get your patent application into a patentable state. Continuation applications were the way that submarine patents were prosecuted. Because the filing date is the date of importance in determining priority of patents and prior art, inventors like Lemelson would keep their patents in the USPTO using continuation applications, and then finally amend them into an allowable state after the technology that the patent covered became prominant in industry. The change of patent terms to be 20 years after filing as opposed to 17 years after issueance helped fix that problem.
        • by angle_slam ( 623817 ) on Monday August 22, 2005 @08:34PM (#13376186)
          A continuation application is method that is used to continue the prosecution of a patent after a final rejection has been issued by the Patent Office.

          While true, continuations are not solely used for that purpose. In broadest terms, a continuation application allows an inventor to claim aspects of the invention that were disclosed, but not claimed, in the parent application. A continuation application must be filed while the parent application is still pending (i.e., before allowance).

    • by shmlco ( 594907 ) on Monday August 22, 2005 @07:56PM (#13376018) Homepage
      An analysis [pbs.org] of the same points by Cringely...

      Bottom line. Bad. Bad. Bad.

      • by cahiha ( 873942 ) on Monday August 22, 2005 @08:58PM (#13376286)
        The primary principles of patent reform are switching the U.S. system from "first to invent" to "first to file" by replacing legal challenges to patents with a more administrative challenge process, and by practically eliminating injunctions through which a patent holder forces an infringer to stop using his intellectual property.


        Much of the rest of the world already uses "first to file" patent systems. Of course, much of the rest of the world also ignores or gleefully violates patent law. "First to file" gives the advantage to any organization that has a good administrative system in place. Absent-minded inventors lose in this system, which also encourages patenting anything and everything just in case.


        First of all, "the rest of the world" has had strong patent protection a lot longer than the US; US companies were infamous for flaunting patents.

        Now, as for "first to invent", that's just bad policy. The patent system is supposed to encourage disclosure of inventions; if you don't disclose, you shouldn't get patent protection. But "first to invent" lets people sit on their ideas without disclosing them, and then sue people who actually went through the trouble of getting a patent. That just plain sucks.

        It's just my opinion, but "first to file" looks like a good way to screw small inventors, of which I know quite a few.

        Small inventors are already screwed under the current system; first to invent may help small inventors a little bit in a few cases, but it's a band aid on severed artery. In fact, you can bet that companies are already gaming the system with it, and that it's only going to get worse.

        If we want to help small inventors (and I'm all for that, being one myself), we need to rethink fundamentally what we want patents to do and what we want patents to be. But a good first step is to make patent law more rational, and this bill seems to do that.
        • by dtfinch ( 661405 ) * on Monday August 22, 2005 @09:25PM (#13376405) Journal
          Why don't they just say "first to publish"? It'd really suck if I invented something and published my idea, only to have to pay royalties to the first person to copy and submit my idea to the patent office.
          • If you invent something, and someone else then patents it, you can argue that it was simply prior art and not pay anything.

            Sure, you won't be able to patent your own thing, but that's how patents work. First to file doesn't make it a race -- it means that a company has to invent it and then can file.

            As I understand it, since our system is "first to invent" you can get a patent on most anything, and then try to invent the thing in question. If someone else invents it first, they can file a conflicting

          • good solution (Score:4, Informative)

            by cahiha ( 873942 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @01:13AM (#13377353)
            If I invented something and published my idea, only to have to pay royalties to the first person to copy and submit my idea to the patent office.

            That's a problem in the US with "first to invent", which gives you up to one year after publication.

            I believe patent reform will fix that even in the US: once it's been published, it becomes unpatentable immediately.

            First to publish would mean that the person publishing it gets an exception to that, so they have a chance for patenting the invention for a limited time after publication (say, 1 year). I think that would be OK, but I don't see any compelling reason for it either.
            • Re:good solution (Score:3, Informative)

              by TheRaven64 ( 641858 )
              In the UK (and, I believe, the EU) a patent may only be filed as first disclosure. If you tell anyone about your invention, bring a product to market based on it, or someone else independently invents it and publishes before you file your patent then your patent is void.
        • Now, as for "first to invent", that's just bad policy. The patent system is supposed to encourage disclosure of inventions; if you don't disclose, you shouldn't get patent protection. But "first to invent" lets people sit on their ideas without disclosing them, and then sue people who actually went through the trouble of getting a patent. That just plain sucks.

          If you have something you've invented do you have the $10,000 or whatever it takes to file for a patent? What if you don't have the money to file

          • by radtea ( 464814 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @08:38AM (#13378836)
            Look at Philo T. Farnsworth and RCA

            Yes, do. Farnsworth had clear priority on filing date. RCA engineers read his patents, visited his lab and discussed his patents with him--which he felt free to do because he had patent protection--and then mined old notebooks for things that they could claim were sufficiently similar to Farnsworth's work to give them priority. Having tied him up in legal challenges, they then proceeded to steal his ideas, keeping him stalled until after his patents had expired.

            Under first-to-file they would have had a much larger legal incentive to license Farnsworth's patents. The whole legal smoke-screen that RCA used was dependent on first-to-invent.

            The book, "The Last Lone Inventor" is a very good history of Farnsworth's tragedy.
        • Cringely: "Of course, much of the rest of the world also ignores or gleefully violates patent law."

          You: "First of all, "the rest of the world" has had strong patent protection a lot longer than the US; US companies were infamous for flaunting patents."

          It appears that the uninformed, arrogant flaming is yours. Cringely's comment is absolutely correct. "Much of the rest of the world" does EXACTLY what he said, as he said.

          If you had simply added that there were countries that had had strong patent protection l
    • Changes the current "first to invent" standard to "first to file," which means patent rights go to the first inventor to file for a patent who can provide sufficient evidence for a claimed invention.

      Biggest mistake, in my opinion. All of the patent infringement cases that I have heard of in the news as of late have not been by an inventor that has thought that another person had stolen his idea, but rather by companies, with questionably vague patents, suing infringers, or rightful blatant patent infrin

    • by Red Flayer ( 890720 ) on Monday August 22, 2005 @08:44PM (#13376228) Journal
      Re: First-to-file:
      Biggest mistake, in my opinion. All of the patent infringement cases that I have heard of in the news as of late have not been by an inventor that has thought that another person had stolen his idea, but rather by companies, with questionably vague patents, suing infringers, or rightful blatant patent infringement, usually perpetrated by larger companies.
      Please read section 101 & 102 of HR2795, patent claims are still invalidated by prior art.

      Re: Duty of Candor and Good Faith:
      Don't know what this means exactly. Kind of scary that you'd have to legislate "duty of candor and good faith though"
      This section mostly relates to the duty of the applicant to disclose relevant information in the application (e.g., possible prior art, dates of research, etc.). Willful failure to disclose can lead to unenforceability of the patent, and/or sanctions against the filer (up to $1 million per infraction).

      Of note, a motion to oppose a patent claim (post-grant or not) is also subject to the duty of candor.

      The duty of Candor and Good Faith exists to keep patent fraud suits out of the courts and in the hands of the patent system.
    • well (Score:3, Informative)

      by ProfBooty ( 172603 )
      The best mode requirement is important; it prohibits the inventor from delibrately concealing information which would not let one skilled in the art be able to make and use the invention.

      continuation applications are important. typically an inventor gets one patent per invention, but if multiple inventions are disclosed within a specification, an applicant files multiple cases based on the first application, thus establishing an earlier priority date.

      ill give you a hint, as an examiner, I get paid the same
  • by leereyno ( 32197 ) on Monday August 22, 2005 @07:33PM (#13375887) Homepage Journal
    How about we just bring the patent system a little closer to SANITY instead?

    We don't need lawyers to solve this problem, we need psychiatrists.

    • by shanen ( 462549 ) on Monday August 22, 2005 @07:56PM (#13376016) Homepage Journal
      It's not a matter of psychiatry. It's a matter of remembering the principles that are supposed to justify patents in the first place. Patents are supposed to encourage innovation, but they are now used mostly in negative ways to block and control innovation. The "positive" goal is merely to maximize corporate profits with a special kind of monopoly, and the legal powers have been increased and focused on that objective. These days many good and innovative ideas are actually blocked either because people are afraid of infringing upon someone else's patent or because the idea is discarded as insufficiently profitable because it doesn't include any patentable aspects (with the resulting monopoly profits).

      Monopoly IP profits was never intended to be the primary goal of the patent system.

      There is a natural tendency for powers to become increasingly concentrated and self-destructive. Fortunately, such power systems finally break down. Unfortunately, the breakdowns are often disruptive, and sometimes even violent.

      • Patents are supposed to encourage innovation, but they are now used mostly in negative ways to block and control innovation. The "positive" goal is merely to maximize corporate profits with a special kind of monopoly,

        But doesn't your rant against "corporate profits" ignore the fact that the "supposed to encourage innovation" part works by guaranteeing the inventor exclusive rights to profit from their invention? The profiteering is the encouragement. You should be blocked if you are going to infringe on

        • I'm not ranting against corporate profits per se, but maximizing corporate profits has become an obstacle to encouraging innovation. It is not exactly a coincidence, however. The largest corporations are the ones with the most resources to dedicate to subverting patent laws in the pursuit of profits.

          On the other hand, there's no requirement they do so. Some companies really try to use patents to encourage innovation--and they are usually penalized and often crushed by less scrupulous companies.

          If you wa

      • Patents are supposed to encourage innovation, but they are now used mostly in negative ways to block and control innovation.

        Wrong. Patents were supposed to encourage disclosure of innovation so that others can build on it. A blanket "encourage innovation" idea has been used to argue that it should provide control for people to make a lot of money which was not the goal.
  • Oh boy... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by benjamindees ( 441808 ) on Monday August 22, 2005 @07:34PM (#13375895) Homepage
    They'll save us from 'litigation' by creating a new bureaucracy of patent dispute resolution within the executive branch.

    Same story, bankrolled by the taxpayers instead of the corporations, with no juries, no appeals, and thus no risk for said corps.
  • Money (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Seumas ( 6865 ) * on Monday August 22, 2005 @07:35PM (#13375899)
    So if you can't afford $30,000 in patent and lawyer fees, you bette not bother coming up with any ideas?

    And even if you do, your lawyer better handle it faster than the lawyer for a multi-billion dollar multi-national with 100,000 employees and more resources than most nations?

    Yeah. This totally seems fair and entirely within the spirit intended by the originators of the system. *cough*
    • what about prior art? So you can't afford to patent, and therefore you don't get exclusive rights to the invention... that doesn't necessarily someone else can pantent it, right? Sure they could make a knock-off, but they shouldn't be able to patent it and then sue
      • Re:Money (Score:5, Informative)

        by Overzeetop ( 214511 ) on Monday August 22, 2005 @08:06PM (#13376057) Journal
        This seems to be covered. In light of the possibility of an enterprising soul who invents a way to feed the world, and that souls decision not to patent it, either through lack of funds for a patent attourney or through goodwill, they have introduced the "first to file" rule. Now, SuperMegaCorp can merely file their application first and get the patent.

        Since any administrative review process will natrually be unnavigable by any person with a normal, full time job, the only real way to protest under the new 6 month administrative review period is to hire a patent lawyer. But since our altruistic (or just plain poor) inventer didn't have the cash or time to file in the first place, he/she won't have the cash/time to contest after the fact.

        It's like IP, served on a silver platter to the paying (Washington, D.C.) guests. How can we lose?
        • First to file only refers to who gets the invention when two inventors file applications for the same invention. It has nothing to do with prior art. If you invent something and you want to prevent it from being patented, the solution is simple--publish it. You then have proof that you invented it before the Big Corporation.
        • Re:Money (Score:3, Insightful)

          by ivan256 ( 17499 ) *
          Since any administrative review process will natrually be unnavigable by any person with a normal, full time job, the only real way to protest under the new 6 month administrative review period is to hire a patent lawyer.

          Considering all the wisecracks around here about how the USPTO will grant a patent on just about anything, I'm surprised I find myself having to say this, but: You can easily get a patent without an intellectual property lawyer. There are books about how to do it ranging from lawschool text
    • That's always been true.

      Patents are the province of those with the money. They have *never* had anything to do with the 'little guy'.
  • I like the idea in general, but there are some things that need addressing:

    1) How will the system handle cases where an idea is stolen from an employee by a corporation or by another party?
    2) Because of the implementation of method patents, how will the USPTO handle prior art for business or coding methods?
    3) Will the bill also put the USPTO fees in a lockbox to stop patent examiner losses?
    4) What little abuses and other nastiness is hidden within the bill?
  • Call me cynical (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mille Mots ( 865955 ) on Monday August 22, 2005 @07:37PM (#13375914)
    The stated result of Patent Reform Act of 2005, HR 2795 is supposed to make the system work 'more efficiently' and be 'less prone to litigation.'"

    Five bucks says the unstated continuation of that reads '...to make the system work more efficiently and be less prone to litigation, on behalf of our benefactors and major contributors to our campaign coffers. With any luck at all, the proletariat won't make the connection.'

    --

    When we fear the .sigs, the .sigs have already won.

  • Prior art? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pig Hogger ( 10379 ) <pig.hogger@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Monday August 22, 2005 @07:37PM (#13375916) Journal
    Will this make the USPTO search more effectively for prior art????

    More importantly, will the changes be retroactive, thus throwing out the plethora of obvious patents we've seen recently???

    • That's an interesting constitutional question. Technically congress is barred by the Constitution from passing ex post facto laws. Generally, making something a crime, and then slipping in a clause that allows for the arrest and prosecution of folks who commited the offense before the law was written.

      In this case, Congress isn't so much criminalizing or decriminalizing something so much as cutting the legs out from underneath litigation in progress. My head hurts just thinking about what sort of case law

    • Re:Prior art? (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Better yet, prior art won't matter!

      RTFA. It turns the US from a First-to-Invent country to a First-to-File country.
      • Re:Prior art? (Score:5, Informative)

        by angle_slam ( 623817 ) on Monday August 22, 2005 @08:50PM (#13376255)
        Better yet, prior art won't matter!

        Totally and completely wrong.

        There seems to be a misconception on this site over what the terms "first to file" and "first to invent" actually mean. I'll clear it up.

        Let's say there are two inventors. Inventor A invents his product on January 1, 2005. Inventor B invents the exact same product on January 10, 2005. Inventor B gets a patent application filed on February 1, 2005. Inventor A incurs a slight delay and files a patent application on March 1, 2005.

        In a "first to file" country, the question of who invented the product is simple--whoever files the application first is the inventor. Therefore, Inventor B obtains the Patent and Inventor A is SOL.

        In a "first to invent" country, circumstances are different. The patent office will tell Inventor A that Inventor B invented it first because he filed the application first. But if Inventor A can prove that he actually invented it first, Inventor A gets the patent, not Inventor B.

        These two terms have absolutely nothing to do with prior art. If inventor Z invented the same device on December 1, 2004, but chose not to file a patent application, he can still show that neither Inventor A nor Inventor B deserve the patent because Inventor Z is the actual inventor of the product.

        • Re:Prior art? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by st0rmshad0w ( 412661 ) on Monday August 22, 2005 @09:09PM (#13376331)
          In a "first to file" country, the question of who invented the product is simple--whoever files the application first is the inventor. Therefore, Inventor B obtains the Patent and Inventor A is SOL.

          So the work done by Inventor A would be by definition prior art, so how is prior art unchanged if Inventor B is granted a patent merely by filing first?

          In a "first to invent" country, circumstances are different. The patent office will tell Inventor A that Inventor B invented it first because he filed the application first. But if Inventor A can prove that he actually invented it first, Inventor A gets the patent, not Inventor B.

          Prior art, in effect, as things are (theoreticaly) currently.

          These two terms have absolutely nothing to do with prior art. If inventor Z invented the same device on December 1, 2004, but chose not to file a patent application, he can still show that neither Inventor A nor Inventor B deserve the patent because Inventor Z is the actual inventor of the product.

          Sounds like they have everything to do with prior art, one of them negates it. In the "first to file" scenario you pose, Inventor B _STILL_ holds the patent simply by being first to file, despite prior art by both Inventor A, and now, Inventor Z.
          • Re:Prior art? (Score:5, Informative)

            by lahvak ( 69490 ) on Monday August 22, 2005 @10:54PM (#13376857) Homepage Journal
            So the work done by Inventor A would be by definition prior art, so how is prior art unchanged if Inventor B is granted a patent merely by filing first?

            Only if A published the invention. The whole system is supposed to encourage publishing of inventions. If you invent something and you don't care about making money, simply publish the invention without patenting it. Nobody else can patent it after that since you have prior art. If you want to make money, patent it (by which act you also automatically publish it). If somebody invented the same thing years ago without publishing it or patenting it, just sitting on it and waiting, tough luck for them.

            I thing this new system does what it is supposed to do much better than the old one. The problems I can see are:

            1) what does it mean "publish"? If I describe my invention in some totally obscure journal that nobody who works in the field is ever likely to read, does it count?

            2) Filing patent application is supposed to publish the invention, however nowdays there are so many application being filed that it is easy for an individual invention to get lost in the noise, especially if the invention is intentionally described in some obscure way.

            Are these two things somehow addressed?
          • Re:Prior art? (Score:3, Informative)

            by scoobrs ( 779206 )
            Wow. Only on Slashdot could someone quote a post, miss its point entirely, post one's misinterpretation, and score +5 insightful.


            Prior art is not affected by first-to-file. You can still invalidate any patent with prior art under a first-to-file system. The bill (at least in the version I read) also allows unrelated third party prior art challenges, which weren't allowed before.

        • Most people don't seem to understand that what this apparently does is get rid of the requirements dealing with interferences.

          In particular the requirements of 35 USC 102 F and G.

          The parent poster is describing exactly the following situtation:

          Occasionally two or more applications are filed by different inventors claiming substantially the same patentable invention. The patent can only be granted to one of them, and a proceeding known as an "interference" is instituted by the Office to determine who is the
  • by thogard ( 43403 ) on Monday August 22, 2005 @07:38PM (#13375922) Homepage
    It appears that with the new rules, it may be essential to at least attempt to patent every new idea because if the competition files first, then your "invent first" defense may not work anymore. I wonder how that conflicts with other free trade rules. At least this is good for companies that are throwing thousands of patents at the patent office. I guess they are going to get their moines worth.
    • ... it may be essential to at least attempt to patent every new idea because if the competition files first, then your "invent first" defense may not work anymore. I wonder how that conflicts with other free trade rules.

      As I recall they now can publish denied applications. If that's correct, this would create a double-bind that destroys trade secret.
  • by juan2074 ( 312848 ) on Monday August 22, 2005 @07:40PM (#13375934)
    See Cringely's take [pbs.org] from last week.
  • Make it better? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Trip Ericson ( 864747 ) on Monday August 22, 2005 @07:40PM (#13375935) Homepage
    I, for one, don't like the first-to-file system, because it is easy for something like the recent Apple/MS iTunes interface thing. Apple CLEARLY introduced it first, and yet MS has filed for a patent. I wonder, if a case like this went before the Supreme Court, would they say that Apple had the right to the patent after all?

    That would suck, some person working for years on a new device, only for someone to learn about it and file a patent first and get away with it.

    We should be tackling the real issue, which is allowing patents for "a method to put numbers in a box" and the like. Obvious patents should not only not be granted, but if it's blatantly obvious, they should be fined or at the least admonished for wasting time and resources on it.
    • I, for one, don't like the first-to-file system, because it is easy for something like the recent Apple/MS iTunes interface thing. Apple CLEARLY introduced it first, and yet MS has filed for a patent. I wonder, if a case like this went before the Supreme Court, would they say that Apple had the right to the patent after all?

      Under the new bill, existence of prior art will still void a patent, though the definition of prior art has changed slightly.

      If anyone tries to read the linked version of HR2975, go
    • not a big concern

      apple just has to show conception and reduction to practice prior to microsoft and show due dilligence

      see 102 F and G
  • Discussed on Groklaw (Score:5, Informative)

    by Michael Woodhams ( 112247 ) on Monday August 22, 2005 @07:43PM (#13375949) Journal
    (and heavily criticized) here. [groklaw.net]

    • (also negative) here. [pbs.org]

      In short, the bill is bad. It reflects the worst kind of special interest law-making that hurts us all. And I mean REALLY hurts us because it will only act to discourage inventors. Record and movie companies beating-up on music and film pirates don't save or cost lives, but discouraging new medical inventions literally does cost lives.
      • Re:And by Cringely (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Mr2001 ( 90979 )
        I can't really agree with Cringley's position there. Take this bit:

        I don't want to be too petty about this, but what if I, as the inventor, simply don't like you, the infringer? What if I fear you'll be using my very peaceful invention to make weapons of mass destruction? Can't I stop you from using my property? Under the proposed law, I can only do so if your infringement will effectively put me out of business.

        No, Cringely, you shouldn't be able to stop people from using your invention just because you do

        • Quite true (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Monday August 22, 2005 @08:55PM (#13376271)
          Patents aren't supposed to be blanket rights to your invention. The constution is quite clear about it. The section that authorizes congress to create things like patents reads: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

          The real key there is "To promote the progress of". The whole reason they are allowed to make IP law is to promote science and the arts to progress. The reasoning being, we are a capatalism, and so there needs to be a profit motive. For that, you can't have people simply copying your work at no charge.

          However the other end of that is an obligation for you to make your work available. To simply use it as a tool to keep your work for yourself isn't helping progress.

          That's one of the things that annoys me about many people (including many politicians) is they seem to think the constution is some quaint little document to be ignored when they don't like what it says. No dammit, it's the supreme law of the land, the one to which all others must subordinate. Well, often powers that are deligated are done with limits. It doesn't say congress has the right to establish laws to give people unlimited rights to their IP, it says they can give them rights for limited times, and only those such as to promote the progress of the arts and sciences.

          Personally I'd like to see a use-it-or-lose-it clause for patents. That if you file a patent you are obligate within a reasonable amount of time, say a year, to either bring a product to market that uses the patent, or license it out to those that want to. You can't just patent something and sit on it, hoping someone else will make something and then try to sandbag them when they do.

          I'd also like to see it changed to you have to enforce your patent, or you lose it, like a trademark. So if someone brings a product to makrket that you should reasonably be aware of (meaning it's not like only sold in one small store or something) you are obligated to enforce your patent. You cannot wait until they have a huge established market, and then attempt to extort them. You have to be up front about it, or you lose the patent.
    • Read the Groklaw review, the author missed some important stuff. I'm not saying the proposed law is good or bad (haven't researched it enough yet), but it's important to realize that Groklaw is not an authoritative source.

      From the review:"I'm reading this sad tale, and all of a sudden, it hits me. What would happen to Apple in identical circumstances if Congress had already passed the Patent Reform Act of 2005? That proposed legislation, now working its way through Congress, proposes to change the US sys
  • Does anyone have any idea who sponsored this bill?
    • Rep. Lamar Smith [house.gov] (R-TX)

      Co-sponsors [loc.gov]
    • Re:Who wrote it? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Red Flayer ( 890720 ) on Monday August 22, 2005 @08:11PM (#13376086) Journal
      Lamar Smith [TX-21] sponsored the bill, introduced 6/8/05.

      Co-sponsors:

      Rep Berman, Howard L. [CA-28] - 6/8/2005 Rep Boucher, Rick [VA-9] - 6/8/2005 Rep Cannon, Chris [UT-3] - 6/8/2005 Rep Carter, John R. [TX-31] - 7/28/2005 Rep Coble, Howard [NC-6] - 6/8/2005 Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] - 6/8/2005 Rep Goodlatte, Bob [VA-6] - 6/8/2005 Rep Issa, Darrell E. [CA-49] - 6/8/2005 Rep Lofgren, Zoe [CA-16] - 6/8/2005 Rep McCaul, Michael T. [TX-10] - 7/28/2005 Rep Schiff, Adam B. [CA-29] - 6/8/2005

      Word in DC is that major changes are expected before this even makes it out of committee -- look for changes that benefit both the patent law industry and the corporate interests.
  • Oxymoron (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ungrounded Lightning ( 62228 ) on Monday August 22, 2005 @07:50PM (#13375989) Journal
    ... Patent Reform Act of 2005, HR 2795 is supposed to make the system work 'more efficiently' and be 'less prone to litigation.'

    Since a patent is nothing more than a license to sue, making the system "work 'more efficiently'" implies making it MORE "prone to litigation".

    IMHO if they want to "harmonize" it with the rest of the world's systems, they should start by making both business methods and software unpatentable.

    We also need a rule: A program which simply automates or simulates a well-known process (absent something truly novel and innovative about the WAY it automates that well-known process) should fail the test of being novel and innovative. Straightforward automation and simulation are techniques "Well known to people versed in the art" (of computer programming).
  • by pennystinker ( 548132 ) on Monday August 22, 2005 @08:02PM (#13376035)
    Really, I mean this as an honest-to-goodness suggestion, not as flaimbait. Of course it will never happen, but spend a few minutes thinking about it, for a real SANITY check.

    For starters: The patent system was supposed to originally protect the individual inventor. Those days are LONG past!

    Anyone who thinks that the lack of a patent system would mean no more viable businesses is simply not applying their imagination. It would truly create an even playing field. YES businesses would need to change, but that does not mean that there would be no more drugs, or software, or whatever your version of "the sky would fall" is. All of these things would continue but the WAY they would continue would be completely different. For me I would like access to practically free prescription drugs.

    Unfortunately, most who read this "crazy idea" will not "get it", but I'm putting it out there anyway.
    • by Nasarius ( 593729 ) on Monday August 22, 2005 @08:19PM (#13376130)
      For me I would like access to practically free prescription drugs.

      That's nice. How do you expect drug companies to survive when it costs about $1 billion to develop a new drug?

      Maybe the current patents last too long. But no patents at all will destroy private research. That's a bad thing.

    • by the eric conspiracy ( 20178 ) on Monday August 22, 2005 @08:57PM (#13376279)
      For starters: The patent system was supposed to originally protect the individual inventor. Those days are LONG past!

      Bullpuckey. Plenty of individual inventors get patents today. My brother-in-law patented a new type of bow fishing system and collects royalties on it. Without patents forget it.

      that does not mean that there would be no more drugs...

      The answer to your question is simple if you go back into history, or look at how non-patentable ideas are protected today. Trade secrets and licensing would rule the day. This would generate far more litigation than the current patent system, plus restrict the flow of information because no industrial researcher would ever be able to publish again. With patents you have protection if you publish, without the only answer is a black hole of secrecy.

      Patents were instituted just before the start of the industrial revolution, and a case can be made that it was cause and effect; patents made it profitable for inventors get funding to market technological innovations.
    • The patent system was supposed to originally protect the individual inventor. Those days are LONG past!

      Nope, that was never the idea behind patents. Inventors were doing fine before patents came along. All inventions were trade secrets. Your competitors would try to figure out your secrets (as they do today). If they succeeded, you had no legal recourse for the "theft" of your idea, and they went into business.

      Patents are a bargain between the inventor and the government. The inventor agrees to disclose

  • by xxxJonBoyxxx ( 565205 ) on Monday August 22, 2005 @08:03PM (#13376039)
    "Some patent attorneys and trade associations welcome the proposed reforms..."

    OH SHIT OH SHIT OH SHIT...EJECT! EJECT!

  • by canuck57 ( 662392 ) on Monday August 22, 2005 @08:07PM (#13376065)

    To me this change to who files first is Microsoft using it's Washington connection to change the law so Microsoft can go after Apple for the iPod, which Apple did before Microsoft files a patent.

    Seems to me the inventor, not neccessarly the first filer aught to have some rights. Or this whole system goes to the lawyers who file trivial and fradulent patents while others try to make our life better.

    Slashdot, be sure to patent your "blogging" or Microsoft will come for you...

    Has a ring to it, "Whatcha going to do when Microsoft comes for you..."

    • To me this change to who files first is Microsoft using it's Washington connection to change the law so Microsoft can go after Apple for the iPod, which Apple did before Microsoft files a patent.

      Given iPods were shipping and easily accessable before the application, Apple basically "published" the invention. So prior art still stands.

      Seems to me the inventor, not neccessarly the first filer aught to have some rights. Or this whole system goes to the lawyers who file trivial and fradulent patents while
  • ....DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE [emory.edu] in the spirit of the human right to contribute to the advancement of mankind?

    What we have here, in the US, is fraud in the claims of software being patentable. If this isn't bad enough, now they want to remove the incentive from inventors and pass it to the theives of inventors.

    Except for software which is by far more based upon the unique human conscious ability to create and use higher level abstractions. That which falls into the category of what is not patentable in all r
  • Noooooo!!!!!!!! (Score:5, Informative)

    by Russ Nelson ( 33911 ) <slashdot@russnelson.com> on Monday August 22, 2005 @08:18PM (#13376121) Homepage
    We don't need a more efficient patent system for software! We need NO patents for software! Purely intellectual processes (possibly using pencil and paper for scratchpad results) should not be patentable! Die Gedanken sint frei!
    -russ
  • "The stated result of Patent Reform Act of 2005, HR 2795 is supposed to make the system work 'more efficiently' and be 'less prone to litigation.'"

    Well lets see, the current system takes years for a patent to get a rubber stamp from the USPTO. Then it is up to the courts to determine whether or not it is a legit patent if, sorry, when someone challenges it.

    At least Congress is now setting reachable goals...

  • This "first to file" thing worries me. How is an invention defined? Say I come up with an idea that I think to perfectlu obvious. Since it is obvious, I won't bother patenting it. Then can some slimy corporation file a patent for my obvious idea, leaving me up the creek?
  • by rjriley ( 876688 ) on Monday August 22, 2005 @08:28PM (#13376156)
    See http://www.piausa.org./ [www.piausa.org] This is not about real reform, it is about large predatory companies wanting to change the law to facilitate theft of others intellectual property. I am the president of PIAUSA and we are the same inventors who pulled the fangs from the last so called patent reform. Join our efforts to protect the patent syatem from the Microsofts of the world.
  • ... flipping lies.... claims of the opposite of what is.

    Such as statement of getting inline with the rest of the world and claims of supporting the "common view"

    Neither of which has anything to do with what the by far majority of the population of the world wants but rather is a back and forth game between the few at the microphone trying to dictate what the world wants via telling you lies about what the world wants.

    The jump on the band wagon that doesn't actually exist, in an effort to make it exist.

    thes
  • by yeremein ( 678037 ) on Monday August 22, 2005 @08:38PM (#13376199)
    Abolish the patent system altogether. The only ones that lose are lawyers and patent trolls.
  • by CrazyJim1 ( 809850 ) on Monday August 22, 2005 @09:11PM (#13376337) Journal
    Ok, lets allow people to file patents on stuff that already exist then extort money from the true innovator.
  • by rolfwind ( 528248 ) on Monday August 22, 2005 @09:18PM (#13376365)
    This is BS - first to file means the innovators of the future will be patent secretaries who'll file vague claims to for a litigation friendly future.

    I'm for going further away from standard "world practice" and going back to the 19th century Patent Office where you have to provide a working model along with the application. How it used to be. No more BS-ridden unreadable application that want to change your paradigm of life by synergized the future. Just cold hard proof of either a new idea or not.
  • by topmike ( 909489 ) on Monday August 22, 2005 @10:29PM (#13376764)
    http://www.forbes.com/asap/2002/0624/065.html [forbes.com]Forbe s Article Ronald Katz has sued and won big companies over processes like "routing calls through a call center", or using a telephone to check a bank balance or transfer funds. (IVR) - Interactive Voice Response While Katz never invented any of these technologies, he decided to patent the process, which was never patented before. He was awarded the patent, but unfortunately for the users of this technology, they were sued. Even though AT&T bell labs invented most of the telephony technology, they never patened the "Process". Unfortunately for them, Mr. Katz did.
  • One condition (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Todd Knarr ( 15451 ) on Monday August 22, 2005 @10:51PM (#13376847) Homepage

    I'll take first-to-file with one condition: if anything the patentholder claims infringes on their patent can be shown to have been described either to patentholder or in public prior to the patent's filing date, the patent's automatically invalidated. If the patent application disclosed the prior description, only the claims alleged to have been infringed are invalidated. If the patent application failed to disclose the prior description, it's considered evidence of bad faith and the patent's invalidated in it's entirety (but remains on the record and counts as description for purposes of other patents).

    I'd also add a patent filter process. The end result (not the methods) described in the patent is presented to a randomly-selected half-dozen or so people competent in the field. They get 5 working days to come up with ways to achieve that end result. If any of them come up with the method described in the patent, without having seen the patent's description of the method, the patent is denied on the grounds of obviousness.

  • by ZenShadow ( 101870 ) * on Monday August 22, 2005 @11:15PM (#13376920) Homepage
    A lot has been said here and elsewhere about the idea of taking away the rights of "imaginary people" (aka Corporations) to own patents. I like this idea, but it also doesn't really work out (Those imaginary people are, after all, just slaves to the real people who own them!).

    This got me to thinking about the number of real, honest to gosh inventors that get screwed by big Corporations. If you work for a Corporation, you typically sign away all of your rights to invented technologies to that corporation (at least, when they're invented on company time).

    So here's an interesting proposal, and y'all can debate it at will:

    * As stated, remove the ability for Corporations to hold patents.

    * Allow individuals to file patents on things they've invented while working for a Corporation (don't flip out just yet, I'm not trying to screw the Corporations, either!).

    * In exchange for the above right to file for the individual, they MUST assign perpetual, free-and-clear USE RIGHTS to the Corporation. These rights, however, are non-exclusive: the actual inventor of said technology may license the technology to anyone else he or she chooses, absent a specific signed contract stating otherwise. By law, the contract must specifically mention the patent number involved.

    * Make it illegal for the above mentioned specific contract to be a condition of employment in any way, shape, or form.

    The end result that I'm trying for here is simple: individuals invent things. The company can use them. But if the Company wants exclusive rights to the intellectual property that said individual developed, they must PAY FAIRLY FOR IT.

    I think this would have the following effects:
          * Eliminate corporate patent abuse, as they can no longer hold patents.
          * Transform corporate IP litigation into much simpler Contract/License litigation.
          * Compensate brilliant employees fairly for their work, thus better distributing wealth where it belongs.

    There are (obviously) some potential issues with such a system that would have to be dealt with, but this is just my dinnertime brainstorm presented as text.

    Have at it, flame me if you must. :-)

    --S

    [reading this through, I wonder if maybe we just need to prevent corporations from FILING patents, and still allow them to OWN the patents. Then they can just purchase them from the actual inentor...]
  • Pessimism (Score:4, Insightful)

    by npsimons ( 32752 ) on Tuesday August 23, 2005 @09:28AM (#13379279) Homepage Journal

    The stated result of Patent Reform Act of 2005, HR 2795 is supposed to make the system work 'more efficiently'

    'more efficiently' => 'patents go through even faster and cheaper, now with less review!'

    and be 'less prone to litigation.'

    'less prone to litigation' => 'no one can sue over ridiculous patents anymore'.


    Maybe I'm just a pessimist; I can only hope I'm not a realist; does that make me an optimist?

He who has but four and spends five has no need for a wallet.

Working...