Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents Government Politics Technology

Inventors Protest Patent Reform Bill 168

Posted by Zonk from the sticky-wicket dept.
narramissic writes "A group of inventors and U.S. company execs, among them Dean Kamen, inventor of the Segway and the AutoSyringe, and Steve Perlman, inventor of WebTV and lead developer of Apple Inc.'s QuickTime, paid a visit to Washington to encourage Congress to defeat the Patent Reform Act. The inventors say the Act will weaken the patent system, devalue patents, and encourage infringement. A version of the act, which passed the House of Representatives earlier this month, is supported by several large tech vendors including Microsoft, IBM, and Cisco. The big companies hope it will make it harder for patent holders to sue and collect huge damage awards when only a small piece of a tech product is found to infringe."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Inventors Protest Patent Reform Bill More

Inventors Protest Patent Reform Bill

Comments Filter:

  • "Incumbent Patent Holders", not "Inventors" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @04:30PM (#20688391) Homepage Journal
    Those people protesting the patent reform aren't notably "inventors" so much as they're notably "incumbent patent holders". They are a group defined by holding patents themselves, under the existing broken system, and getting rich off it.

    I really don't understand what effects this proposed tweak to the patent system will have. I expect no one really does: the system is so unjust and complicated that it needs to be ripped out by the roots and replaced by something simple that merely "promotes science and the useful arts", without infringing our rights to free expression (including copying) more than is absolutely necessary to protect essential commerce. But if these rich guys are protesting the tweak, which would reduce their own protection (and evidently increase the rights of the rest of us to invent freely, using other inventions), then it starts to look like the reform is at least worth trying. Because they're making their money off their monopolies under the current law, and didn't seem to be so motivated by its existing injustice as to protest the old way, or to propose a workable new regime that protects the rest of us as well as it's protected them.

    • Re:"Incumbent Patent Holders", not "Inventors" (Score:5, Interesting)

      by marcello_dl ( 667940 ) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @04:46PM (#20688653) Homepage Journal
      > I really don't understand what effects this proposed tweak to the patent system will have.

      Favoring the big corps against small companies. Never mind if the small company is a patent troll or not.

      Let's say a guy finds a killer algorithm to speed up data mining. Big corp selling data mining software can gobble it up. Guy can't sell any data mining competing software because I'm infringing 800 silly patents (double linked lists and stuff).

      Only cure for the patent system: no silly patents. Difficult to find a metric for silliness but we are not remotely trying. What about "whatever patent a team of students can find a similar solution for in 3 months (summer-of-code style) can't be used to prevent deployment and improvement of the newfound alternative solution"?. If the solution is identical to the patent, patent is revoked, if not they can use copyright to defend the patent especially if it performs better, yet they don't prevent other people to do their silly things.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by iamacat ( 583406 )
        Let's say a guy finds a killer algorithm to speed up data mining. Big corp selling data mining software can gobble it up. Guy can't sell any data mining competing software because I'm infringing 800 silly patents (double linked lists and stuff).

        Let's say a guy finds a killer algorithm to speed up data mining. Big corp selling data mining software can gobble it up. Guy can't sell any data mining competing software because I'm infringing 800 silly patents (double linked lists and stuff). Those two issues are

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by serbanp ( 139486 )
        Let's say a guy finds a killer algorithm to speed up data mining.

        Let's say that algorithms are one category of discoveries that should be not patentable, along with laws of physics and the like.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by 2short ( 466733 )
          If algorithms should not be patentable, neither should anything else.

          If you just want to abolish patents entirely, I see some potential problems with that that would need to be addressed, but it's an arguable position. If you think inventions that manipulate stuff deserve protection, but not ones that manipulate data do not, I don't buy the distinction. All patents are essentially for algorithms. Eli Whitney's patent protected not a particular instance of the device, but the idea of how to construct a cot

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by jZnat ( 793348 ) *
            It was already decided long ago that mathematics was not patentable, so the fact that software (which is just maths) is patentable is absurd. Especially algorithms which are purely maths.

      • Re:"Incumbent Patent Holders", not "Inventors" (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @05:20PM (#20689119) Homepage Journal
        On basics, I tend to think any patent "reform" from the current political system (populated by its heavily bribed players) can favor only the big companies.

        I think patents should require a working model of a physical device. Anything that doesn't cover should be copyrighted, or just admitted that it's "just a good idea".

        When registering a patent, the inventor should register their auditable invested costs. When either 14 years (the original term the first Congress set) pass, or 10x the registered investment is taken as income (corroborated with the IRS), then the patent expires. No renewals.

        Those two reforms should constitute practically all the entire system. And clean practically all of it up. Anything left to fix we can get to next. Because, as you say, we're so far from a working system that anything that works should be welcome, even just serious negotiations around it in Congress.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Fulcrum of Evil ( 560260 )
          Yeah, gotta love absolute limits on how profitable a device can be. Sounds like a great way to let someone get steamrollered on their billion dollar idea that cost $150k to research.
          • It's not a limit on how profitable the device can be. It's a limit on how profitable a monopoly on a device can be. The Constitution carves out an exception to free expression only "to promote science and the useful arts". 90% profit is an extremely generous limit on a government created monopoly.

            A $150K investment that returns $1.5 millions sounds like enough upside to promote any science or useful arts.

            You're somehow equating a patent to an invention. Which is at the core of what's broken in our system.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Fulcrum of Evil ( 560260 )
              You're tying the extractable value of a device to its development cost. That makes no sense. Also, you have to consider that $1.5M isn't enough to set up a business capable of dealing with the existing giants and, for existing companies, you'd have to account for how much of the development and profit was attributable to a specific patent. This is madness and will just tie companies down with onerous audit requirements.
              • You said the extractable value vs development cost makes no sense. It makes perfect sense to me, and "profit" is a perfectly sensible way to measure the value of the patent in returning on its investment to promote its "science" or its "art". If you're going to argue, do so. You haven't.

                $1.5M is plenty of money to do what you're talking about. I've done it for less, and without a patent. The accounting for return on asset investment value is also well established. The audit requirements aren't nearly as one

                • "profit" is a perfectly sensible way to measure the value of the patent in returning on its investment to promote its "science" or its "art". If you're going to argue, do so. You haven't.

                  Okay then, you're basically taking the most effective patents (the ones that make money hand over fist) and handing them to all comers. This means that whenever you patent a really good idea, the big boys can just take it and rest assured that your maximum payout is 10x the investment cost. This also means that drug rese

                  • Patenting a "really good idea" doesn't justify protection for making a vast fortune without competition. You're not getting the only justification of patent monopolies: "to promote science and the useful arts". It's not just a way to get rich off an idea. It's a way to protect for the people that progress, which economics would leave exposed to ripoffs by competitors who don't invent, but save their money for competition with the inventor once the inventor has spent some on inventing. The monopoly is a synt

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by r6144 ( 544027 )
          Your second requirement might encourage patent trolls. They would need to do more than coming up with some idea, but a half-baked proof-of-concept is almost trivial to make compared to a finished product, especially since profitability is not a concern. For example, for things like the one-click patent, one can simply make some web pages and server scripts and put them into a computer, which may count as the "working model". This should not cost much compared to the other costs in obtaining a patent, and

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Svartalf ( 2997 )
        That'd be my take on things. They're not trying to fix the real problem with the system.

        Amazon's One-Click patent should never have happened. There's a vast SEA of patents that're the same way (Just
        putting the Internet in the mix seems to be a magic formula for making something patentable these days...)

        Fix that stupidity and you'd go a long way to fixing the patent problem.
      • Most of these patents could be done in three minutes by any competent coder.

        eg. this [uspto.gov] or this [uspto.gov] ...and that's only scratching the surface. There's hundreds of thousands of them which just took an existing idea and added the words "on the internet".

        Look at pictures "on the Internet"
        Watch a movie "on the Internet"
        Listen to music "on the Internet"
        Read a book "on the Internet"
        Talk to people "on the Internet"

        etc., etc., ad nauseam.

        Small developers are already 100% screwed by the system. Saying that this reform is b
      • Algorithms should not be patentable.
      • Simple solution: Patents can not be transferred. You can license a patent, but you can't sell them. Companies can hold patents, but only if their own employees did the R&D.

        Am I missing something? Maybe some of you jailhouse lawyers can clear up for me why this wouldn't work.

        I'm serious. We know the IP laws are broken, but what would work with copyright, might not work with patents.
        • If you invent something, your only way of capitalizing on it would be to make and sell the devices yourself if you are not allowed to sell to anyone else. And what's to stop a patent troll from filing their own dubious patents? This would only screw legitimate inventors and do very little to stop patent trolling. A company with a lot of patents could not change ownership without losing them all.

        • Patents can not be transferred.

          That would fly in the face of free alienability of property, a bedrock of American jurisprudence. We can all argue until we're blue in the face about whether a patent constitutes "property" or not, but enactment of legislation that would render patents inalienable would in effect make them no longer property. If you can't sell something, it is questionable whether you actually own it.

      • Let's say the small guy has a killer algorithm but big corps have all the patents for implementing it in a device... even though the algorithm is the only important aspect.. the rest is just cruft to access files or queue up data or something (obvious to those skilled in the art).

        Current system says small guy is out of luck and must sell to big corp to make anything out of his discovery or must give it away and hope for some new idea that is less encumbered.

        New system *might* allow small guy to start a big

    • Steve Perlman, inventor of WebTV and lead developer of Apple Inc.'s QuickTime, paid a visit to Washington to encourage Congress to defeat the Patent Reform Act.
      Clearly, this guy is a patent troll trying to profit off of those who make good technologies.
    • To amplify this point, patents don't reward inventors so much as their employers. Most engineers sign over all their rights to any patents/copyright/etc as a condition of employment. (Some are so broadly worded that taking pictures of your kids and sending them to grandma [slashdot.org] would constitute a violation of your employer's copyright.).

      It didn't use to be this way. I have a very old "Stillson" pipe wrench sitting on top of my monitor. The inventor, Daniel Stillson, invented the wrench in 1870 when piping wa

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by rtb61 ( 674572 )
        Of course the major change in the new patent system is intended to fix that, patent first, bugger the actual inventor and favour the lawyer. Companies will be trolling every forum, and hunting through every open source program etc. searching for patentable ideas that they will simply steal and then sue the original inventor to stop them using their own idea. Hey, the patentor legally stole the idea, so what right should the inventor have to their own idea in a world of corporate greed, lawyers and corrupt p
    • I was listening to a recent This Week in Law podcast [www.twit.tv] on the subject of patents. One lawyer on the panel said that in general, companies that make electronics see the patent problem very differently from biotech companies.

      Companies that make electronics are begging for reform because any given product usually touches on hundreds of patents, and any one of those could be used as a threat against that product's launch (via injuction, which extorts them into buying a license rather than let their product becom
      • Biotech patents are largely a scam. While patenting the devices used to produce their molecules, substances and devices are patentable, their output cannot be when it's identical to (or trivially different from) a natural substance. For the patent to govern anything but their invented procedure and devices, it would also have to prohibit the natural stuff, but clearly it can't.

        There's a lot of reasons biotech patenters like the current system. Electronics patents are different partly because their investmen

      • This is where the real political confrontation is taking place. The lobbyists from these two groups are the ones duking it out in Congress. Small inventors are at best a sideshow.

        Big Pharma's argument: We spends tens of millions of dollars researching new products, without any guarantee that their research will net any results. Therefore, when something does pan out from their research, they want to be able to capitalize on it for a long time in order to recoup their costs.

        Silicon Valley's argument: Pat

  • Microsoft on the side that isn't pure evil..... Head going to explode.....
    Just kidding but I can understand both sides of the issue. RnD is expensive. And then you have the companies that make nothing but law suits...
    That has got to be a good middle ground. I have to admit that I don't support software patents but a company deserves to make good money from their RnD. And no just being first to market isn't enough.

    • The biggest problem with lowering the damages in patent lawsuits is that it then becomes more cost effective for the large companies to just infringe the small guy's patent instead of licensing or buying the company. Believe it or not, most innovation comes from the little guys. Kill the high damages, then you kill all the little guys and the incentive for new little guys to start new innovative companies. Innovation in the US then comes to a standstill.

      • That's why we need... (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        ...corporate death penalties, modeled on the "three strikes and you are out" deal they apply to single named humans with felonies. Corporation A gets caught and convicted three times for fraud, misrepresentation, cooking the books, paying bribes, manipulating the stock price, etc, your normal malfeasance stuff, that's it, their stock gets declared worthless and can't be traded, the corporation loses it's charter (if in the US), or is banned from doing business here, and the entire board of directors is bann
        • I agree, patents and copyrights held by "dead" corporations should expire with the company. There should be no transfer of ownership of government "grants". There is a huge problem with zombie corporations. Look at the SCO case, they were built by people that buy up rights to sue other people from dead companies and do nothing. Making corporations DIE and the non-cash, non-physical assets go back to the public domain would go a long way to purging information from corporate control.
    • Reforming patent law won't be ANY problem at all After all, look at coyright; they reformed it and everything there worked out ok.
  • And the little guys suffer. Go figure why they support it, its perfect for them.

  • What part is most dangerous? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by meburke ( 736645 ) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @04:40PM (#20688567)
    I strongly object to the part that awards the patent at "first to file" rather than "first to invent". I believe that the policy of "prior art" protects the small inventor. Somehow this change is being ignored in light of the "small detail" portion of the bill. Some of the awards are clearly out-of-hand. An inventor should be compensated for someone stealing his/her invention, and punitive damages are appropriate, but surely the remuneration award should be based on fair royalties, right? So if an an inventor discovers his $.30 invention is being used in someone's $30,000 machine, shouldn't the remunerative part of the award be based on fees due him from licensing the $.30 part? If he didn't invent the whole machine he shouldn't be entitled to all the accumulated royalties due the other contirbuting inventors.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Raul654 ( 453029 )
      I strongly object to the part that awards the patent at "first to file" rather than "first to invent".

      The whole theory of the patent system is that it is a quid-pro-quo - the inventor releases what would otherwise-be trade secrets into the public domain; in return, society grants him 20-or-so years monopoly on that information. Rewarding the "first to invent" rather than the first to patent defeats this purpose.

      • Rewarding the "first to invent" rather than the first to patent defeats this purpose.

        Please explain this.
      • The whole theory of the patent system is that it is a quid-pro-quo - the inventor releases what would otherwise-be trade secrets into the public domain; in return, society grants him 20-or-so years monopoly on that information.

        The patent system is also meant to incentivize inventors into inventing and marketing inventions that they otherwise would not have, but only where the inventions is novel, nonobvious, and useful. The second guy to invent something has failed to meet the requirement of novelty.

        There's

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by debrain ( 29228 )
      I believe that the USA is the only 'first to invent' nation left in the world except for Somalia (which, incidentally, has no government, and is coincidentally the only other country to not have signed the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child). All the others discovered decades, if not centuries, ago the serious problems with a first-to-invent system, the reasons for which are widely known [oblon.com] and the benefits broadly realized.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by meburke ( 736645 )
        Thanks for the link. the only argument that I agree with in the list is, "Early disclosure encourages early use". The arguments for "Because everyone else does it this way do not impress me at all. My criteria is, "What is best for both the inventor and the public?"
      • The US, on the other hand, discovered decades, if not centuries, ago the serious problems with a first-to-file system, and switched to first-to-invent.

        Harmonization with other countries isn't sufficient reason for doing it. After all, it's largely harmonization with the rest of the world -- joining the Berne convention -- that made copyright the out-of-control monster it is today.

    • Re:What part is most dangerous? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Vellmont ( 569020 ) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @04:53PM (#20688739) Homepage

      So if an an inventor discovers his $.30 invention is being used in someone's $30,000 machine, shouldn't the remunerative part of the award be based on fees due him from licensing the $.30 part?

      Only if the $.30 part isn't the linch-pin that makes the whole $30,000 machine possible. The monetary value of the part is really irrelevant, it's the role the part plays in what the invention does. If I invented a magical $3 device that allows a car to run on gasoline, I'd expect an automaker to pay me a HELL of a lot if they infringed on that patent. Such a device is pretty useless in isolation. On the other hand, if I invented an adjustable cup holder, and an automaker infringed on it, I'd say damages awarded against anyone infringing on that should be based on the little amount of value generated by the better cup-holder, not the whole value of the car.

      What the law actually says I don't know.. summaries of law are notoriously terrible.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by meburke ( 736645 )
        I agree; the award should be based on the value of the item being used, which would certainly be part of any royalty arrangement. I did not mean to imply that the manufacturing cost of the item should be the deciding factor.

        • It's these sorts of problems that make the patent system so unwieldy and impractical. How is that value to be determined?

          How is a small inventor to profit? I would guess most so-called inventions are not really novel or valuable, but many would-be inventors are totally blind to any objective thinking on their pride and joy. Novel is especially tough-- how can anyone know whether another person could've come up with the same idea? But for those few who are real, starting and running a company is a lot

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Elektroschock ( 659467 )
      First to file and first to invent has *nothing* to do with prior art. But in a "first to invent" thinking market players tend to believe prior art was more important. In a first to file system novelty is still a requirement that kills the claim. Protests based on these grounds follow illusions about the reality of the patent system.
    • I wonder if the "first to file" part replacing "first to invent" is coming from the EU. In Europe this is the policy and I find it rather stupid.

      We already "had" to make several changes in the tax code on the bequest of these intra/international organization and this smacks of the WTO influencing us.

      It seems to be a policy purely to save the bureaucrats work and from having to think while suffocating business who already patent every little burp they release. I hope the western world wakes up from this pa

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by meburke ( 736645 )
        You may have a point. There are many people that think the patent system should be abolished completely. In the meantime, my criteria is, "what is best for both the inventor and the public?" The new law doesn't seem to protect the small inventor as well as what we have.
    • Let me try to address your concerns one by one.

      The rest of the world is on a first-to-file system. This encourages inventors to file their patents as soon as possible. Furthermore, it simplifies ownership of patent rights. Instead of litigating over who first "conceived" of the invention, you look at a piece of paper at the patent office.

      The prior art aspect is not changed by moving to a first-to-file system. Pretend A first conceived of an invention but B filed first. B obtains a patent. Person A cannot re
      • The prior art aspect is not changed by moving to a first-to-file system. Pretend A first conceived of an invention but B filed first. B obtains a patent. Person A cannot receive patent rights but he can defeat B's patent if he can proof his case (if he publicized his invention). If A kept it secret, then the world would be no different in regards to whether A or B got the patents because that invention was not going to go on the public domain.

        That's wrong. Remember that the first-to-invent rule, where there

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mr3038 ( 121693 )

          Lets pretend that person A has made the invention first and has decided not to apply a patent for it (keeping the invention secret) and B later files the paperwork and gets granted a patent. In first-to-file system A can later come and make the patent void due to prior art but he cannot claim the patent as his own. And I believe it should be this way! Person A should not be awarded for the fact that he tried to keep the invention secret (the patent system is supposed to help getting inventions into public d

          • Lets pretend that person A has made the invention first and has decided not to apply a patent for it (keeping the invention secret) and B later files the paperwork and gets granted a patent. In first-to-file system A can later come and make the patent void due to prior art but he cannot claim the patent as his own.

            Actually, I don't believe that to be the case, though I could be wrong, as patents are not my field, and I'm having to rely on what I learned about them in school.

            Rather, what happens is that A in
  • Article:

    Currently, courts generally consider the value of the entire product when a small piece of the product infringes a patent, and the legislation would allow courts to base damages only on the value of the infringing piece... The legislation would also allow a new way to challenge patents after they've been granted.

    Patent troll:

    Currently, courts don't murder you while you sleep, but this legislation would change that. The legislation would also kill your dog, shit on your face and destroy all innovation.

    Apple:

    Wait, if someone stole our patented floe growler spinaclaptic interface, they would only have to compensate us fairly. This does not sound good. Quick, let's react!

  • Yeah, that's the idea. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kebes ( 861706 ) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @04:43PM (#20688617) Journal
    From TFA:

    The legislation "will weaken the patent system," said Dean Kamen, inventor of the Segway and the AutoSyringe. "It will devalue patents..."
    Umm... yeah. That's the idea: to weaken a system that is currently very strict and uncompromising. The end of the quote is:

    "It will be a disincentive for people to invest in the future."
    Well I guess that's what is being debated. On the one hand there you can argue that without strong patent protection there is a disincentive to invest in future ideas, because you can't protect your expected profits. On the other hand you can argue that with strong patent protection, there is a disincentive to invest in future ideas, because you can't be sure you won't infringe on other's patents, and have your profits sucked away.

    It's not at all obvious that the current patent balance (or one involving even greater patent protection) is the optimal one. It is obvious that no matter how you set the patent system, some people will not like it, and will experience a "disincentive to create." But that's hardly relevant: the proper balance is one which encourages the greatest innovation and progress overall. And, when analyzing the overall benefit to society, it should be noted that there are distinct advantages to allowing an idea to be used widely (perhaps even gratis), and to offer companies some assurance that their product will not be destroyed simply because of an obscure patent of questionable validity.
    • There is a commonly stated belief that without the patent system there would not be an incentive to invest in new ideas and novel improvements.

      In reality, the incentive to innovate would is still there with or without a patent system. Howver, without the protection of patents, there would be little incentive to make your inventions public, so there would be a lot more trade secrets. Avoiding trade secrets, where, often, the inventions die with their inventors and are lost to society, is the main benefit o

  • WebTV needed inventing? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tehwebguy ( 860335 ) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @04:50PM (#20688703) Homepage
    I must be missing something.. isn't WebTV just Web + TV?

    Aren't these exactly the types of patents we DON'T want being granted?

    Reminds me of the hamburger earmuffs, and the electric blanket mobile.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I must be missing something.. isn't WebTV just Web + TV?

      Just????

      A TV + Set top box is totally different than a monitor + PC. Worlds apart. This guy is right up there with Tim Berners-Lee and Bill Gates in terms of Internet pioneers. Heck, he brought the Internet to ma and pa back in the "dark ages", when the 'Net was still brand new, and Windows 95 had just been released. Three cheers, indeed!

  • Ironic (Score:4, Insightful)

    by iamacat ( 583406 ) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @04:56PM (#20688781)
    Given that it's impossible to ship a product without infringing on dozens of patents from big companies, at least one of which will refuse to negotiate reasonable licensing due to competitive considerations. What's not too like about the new rules? You get compensated for the fair value of your patent if someone uses your invention without license. If a BMW shop uses 1-click on their online website, do you really expect to get all the proceeds from their car sales as a reward?

  • From the man who brought us the segway.... (Score:4, Funny)

    by MLCT ( 1148749 ) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @04:58PM (#20688807)

    inventor of the Segway
    Oh well - with all the sense to invent (and mercilessly promote) - a machine that ensures people don't even have to walk any more - all in a country with one of the worst obesity problems in the world. If a change in the patent system will stop crap like the segway being invented then it will be a change for the good.

  • The bar for getting a patent should be very high (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kcbrown ( 7426 ) <slashdot@sysexperts.com> on Thursday September 20, 2007 @05:05PM (#20688891)

    These days, the USPTO hands out patents like candy. That obviously must stop.

    The only meaningful patent reform bill is one which makes it much harder to get a patent. A patent is a monopoly on an invention. Today, the term "invention" is used so loosely that it's almost devoid of meaning -- you can get a patent on pretty much anything these days.

    But the nature of a patent is such that it should be hard to get. So what should be required to accomplish that?

    I think the most important requirement should be that the patent itself be publicly peer-reviewed. Some will argue that the downside is that if the patent isn't granted, then suddenly the invention will be made known to the world -- the inventor won't have the opportunity to keep it secret. To that, I say good! If you want the monopoly that getting a patent gives you, you should be forced to risk the possibility of losing control over your invention. This alone would eliminate most of the patent applications, and rightly so.

    Additionally, the patent itself must be a technical document, not a legal document as it is now. It must provide the average practitioner in the field in question with all the information he needs to implement the invention. The patent can be rejected by the peer reviewers on this basis alone.

    Right now, neither of those is required, and the results are predictable: nonsensical and/or trivial "inventions" are routinely granted patent status, and we're all worse off for it.

    • I think the most important requirement should be that the patent itself be publicly peer-reviewed. Some will argue that the downside is that if the patent isn't granted, then suddenly the invention will be made known to the world -- the inventor won't have the opportunity to keep it secret.

      Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe all patent applications publish after 18 months whether they are granted or not so that argument is pointless. Once you file an application, it becomes public record.

    • The bar used to be very high:

      The first Patent Act of the United States was signed into law by President George Washington on April 10, 1790. Under this legislation, patent applicants petitioned the Secretary of State for the grant of a patent. The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of War and the Attorney General, determined whether the invention or discovery was "sufficiently useful and important." At that time, both the President and the Secretary of State signed patents.

    • Additionally, the patent itself must be a technical document, not a legal document as it is now. It must provide the average practitioner in the field in question with all the information he needs to implement the invention.

      This is already required actually.

      35 U.S.C. 112 Specification.

      The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it

  • The end of technology is at hand (Score:3, Interesting)

    by grolaw ( 670747 ) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @05:35PM (#20689289) Journal
    The "first to file" as opposed to the "first to invent" rewards the thief not the inventor. Shortly follows the end of individual innovation - because all it takes is one slip and the invention is stolen. It also prevents collaboration / full disclosure and scientific discourse because the first to file wins. Secrecy becomes the norm and we all lose.

    Anybody know the story of the wiper-delay circuit? That was stolen AFTER a patent issued. It took nearly 20 years to win the suits and the inventor finally was paid. The system is flawed - but at least the inventor reaped the benefit.

    This change only concentrates patents and wealth in the largest entities.

    Imagine a product that requires experimental use to perfect - say, a new roadbed (city of Elizabeth) and somebody who observes the experimental use files for the patent - guess who wins? First to file.

    The pharmaceutical industry is happy - the rest of us can tough it out.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by canadian_right ( 410687 )

      The rest of the world uses first to file as it is simpler to administer and less likely to be "gamed". Much less lawsuits with first to file as the rules are much clearer.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by grolaw ( 670747 )
        Actually, the rest of the world doesn't use "first to file" - and Brazil is one major example.

        I have no idea what you mean by: "it is simpler to administer and less likely to be "gamed". Much less lawsuits with first to file as the rules are much clearer."

        The rule: "first to invent owns the rights" is simple. First to file = "a race to the patent office" and that means that the first thief to file owns the rights - screw the inventor.

        If that is a desirable outcome - I don't see how. There will be no fewer

        • The rule: "first to invent owns the rights" is simple. First to file = "a race to the patent office" and that means that the first thief to file owns the rights - screw the inventor.

          The first to invent rule is simple, but in implementation is an invitation to litigation. It becomes an argument about who "actually" invented first. Who had the idea and wrote it in their notes. Who talked about the idea to a colleague. The discovery in cases like this can take a very long time and an awful lot of money.

          T

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by grolaw ( 670747 )
            Got a simple answer to the experimental use problem?

            You really think that the US isn't full of thieves? My, oh, my - why do you think corporations are worried about corporate espionage? If a large corporate entity with tons of money wants to steal a small inventor's invention - what's to keep them from simply placing a secretary or tech in the small inventor's lab?

            I mentioned the blatant theft of the patented wiper delay circuit - and how the inventor spent 20 years in litigation (3 years longer that the
    • Anything you publish becomes prior art, after which you are the only one who can patent it anymore (inside the grace period).

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by grolaw ( 670747 )
        "Publishing" is not prior art. Prior art is that which has been in use or on sale more than one year prior to the filing of a patent application. See, 35 U.S.C. 102(b).

        OR, prior art is subject matter that has already been patented or it cannot be patented (a utility patent must be: new, unique and non-obvious). Some things cannot be patented - in the US we don't patent "immoral" items - such as drug paraphernalia.
        • A person shall be entitled to a patent unless--
          (a)
          the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or
          (b)
          the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States, or

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by grolaw ( 670747 )
            You are citing the C.F.R. (regulation) to my U.S.C. (statute) - we agree.
            • No, I believe he was citing the USC. Here is 35 USC 102 in full:

              A person shall be entitled to a patent unless--
              (a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or
              (b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by grolaw ( 670747 )
                Well, the last time I argued the 102(b) bar, J. Rich was still alive, and seated and ruled for my client - in 1990.

                You are correct - I'm just working from recall - I didn't bother reading the statute again. Sloppy of me.

                I've been litigating in federal courts for 30 years..... damn sloppy to shoot from the hip.
                • Happens to all of us. Don't sweat it. Hell, I don't do patents at all, so I'm lucky to have even remembered it from school.

  • You guys don't get first to file vs first to inven (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Dan Berlin ( 682091 ) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @05:53PM (#20689527)
    First to file does not change what is prior art at all.

    In both systems, prior art is more or less anything that is one year older than your patent filing date.

    First to file vs first to invent only affects who would get an *otherwise valid* patent. It makes no more patents valid than were valid under a first to invent system.

    In a first to invent system, if i file a patent, and you file a patent on the same thing, and both are otherwise valid (IE there is no prior art that invalidates it), the winner of the patent is the person who can prove they invented it first. Well, actually, it's much more complex than that, and the winner ends up being the person who can prove they have more money to spend on complex and intricate "interference" proceedings and appeals.

    In a first to file system, if i file a patent, and you file a patent on the same thing, and both are otherwise valid, the winner of the patent is the person who filed first.

    In *neither* system do you get a patent if there is prior art. The difference between the two systems is only in determining who will own a patent when two people claim the same thing.

    Given that most small inventors don't have money to spend on interference proceedings (these often cost >100k), first to file helps them a lot.
  • How about limiting the number of patents that any corporation can hold at any given time. If they come up with something new and they hit the threshold of the maximum number of patents allowable by law, they have to release one of their patents into the public domain to make room for the new patent.

    This way small inventors who may only have a few patents or even just one, are not put in a position where if they challenge a big corporation like IBM which has thousands upon thousands of patents, the small inv
    • Limiting number of patents is clever thinking but the corporations would play the system. All you need is a few dummy companies to "invent" something then "exclusive licensing arrangements" with some totally unconnected (honest!) large corporation.

  • "Let's first make the system we've got today work the way it's supposed to work," Perlman said.

    Start out by getting rid of algorithm patents. The first algorithm patent in the US, the UNIX setuid bit, was donated back to the public domain by Dennis Ritchie. Unfortunately that didn't seem to set a precedent... so let's set the clock back and eliminate all patents on mathematical algorithms, whether described as "formats", "software", or "protocols", just as if it had and all these patents on mathematics had been turned back to the public domain.

    That would massively reduce the load on the patent system, and free Microsoft and the rest of us from this unwanted burden.
  • If these people are against it, the reform must be good.
  • "Inventors" Protest Patent Reform Bill

  • correct patent law (Score:2, Insightful)

    by celle ( 906675 )
    What is it with you guys, just strip all patent law back to its inception when it was fair instead of adding on more legal manure on top of the old legal manure in the hopes something beautiful will grow. If you get it back to the basics before much of the legal and corporate corruption trashed it all you might get a legal system the average american can understand, be able to use themselves, and have pride in.
  • >>the Act will weaken the patent system, devalue patents, and encourage infringement

    But are there any negative effects?

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close