Court Blocks Controversial New Patent Rules 119
An anonymous reader writes "InformationWeek is reporting that a court in Virginia has issued an injunction against controversial new patent rules that were supposed to go into effect tomorrow. The court granted a motion filed by GlaxoSmithKline, which is suing the US patent office over the issue.
Among other things, the new rules would limit the extent to which existing patent applications can be modified. The patent office says the new rules would speed up the patent process, but critics say they hurt inventors."
Playing devil's advocate (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Playing devil's advocate (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I have had patents rejected in very similar circumstances.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You really should be trying to patent a sequence of your gene transcript (GATTACATACA...) as it applies to pancreatic cancer, and not the entire PCR technique.
It's not exactly the breakthrough of the century these days that PCR might be used in some way to screen for cancer, you know.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Either way, you can take decades old technolog
Re: (Score:2)
A number of people would dispute whether that's an appropriate use of the patent system. For drugs that may only be approved by the FDA for a particular use and that need to go through significant additional testing for new uses, it's debatable that those new uses should be patentable to support the costs of the additional testing required by government regulation.
But with most patentable items it's the creation of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Think '0ne c1ick'.
Re:Playing devil's advocate (Score:5, Funny)
Hence the patent attempts for "rotational conveyance devices", whatever those are...
Re: (Score:2)
Bad for inventors? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Bad for inventors? (Score:4, Insightful)
They're left with just Pathos, trying to get people emotionally rallied behind an argument by asking them to think about what effect (insert strawman that's highly unlikely to happen but sounds like what the other side is arguing for) will have on (insert group that looks small and poor, someone whose life depends on the current system).
It's the same system the RIAA uses, some argue the government does the same thing (I happen to agree), it's the last argument of those unable to argue from reason, as such it's used a lot by groups who are heavily disliked as they have nothing else to turn to.
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
No, I did not count them by hand: #wc -c
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, anything bad for the trolls is ultimately bad for the consumer. The trolls are what show how broken the patent system is at a fundamental level. Thus, patches that prevent the patent trolls may prevent some of the more egregious bad behavior, but do nothing to fix the underlying problem, making the real victims of the broken patent system essentially powerless to get anything done to fix it.
Who are the real victims of the patent system as it stands? Innovation, consumer rights, human hea
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, yeah, and not just AIDS drugs. There have been some rather significant patent disputes causing the potential for life-threatening delays in developing and deploying Smallpox vaccines, Anthrax vaccines, and so on. I almost forgot about the "terror-related" patent issues. :-)
Fixed. (Score:2)
Please... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Please... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Please... (Score:5, Interesting)
Please stop believing all the /. FUD regarding patents and IP in general.
On another note, from the perspective of a patent attorney, these Proposed Rules are a nightmare. This Preliminary Injunction was a great thing, and anybody who has any thought of ever filing a patent application should be glad they've been stopped.
Re:Please... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's my point about legal costs. Can I afford your services to patent a dozen inventions and then get Microsoft to license one they are infringing on?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
W
Re:Please... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not if you don't have enough money to pay for patent lawyers to outlast their patent lawyers. If it is Microsoft we are talking about, I bet they could drag the case out for years without paying a dime while you're burning away my life savings paying a lawyer. You might win, but then they'll keep appealing and try to get you to settle.
The point of this issue is that when you have that much money to kill you can get your way no matter what.
Re: (Score:2)
But that isn't limited to Patent law. It's true for all areas of the law, but I can tell you from experience that it isn't as pronounced a problem in Patent law
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't seem to have worked against Eolas yet.
Generally though I agree; in any non-trivial case, victory often goes to the side with the deepest pockets. That's true of more than just patent disputes though, and is a problem with your legal system, not your patent system.
Re: (Score:1)
Not if you don't have enough money to pay for patent lawyers to outlast their patent lawyers. If it is Microsoft we are talking about, I bet they could drag the case out for years without paying a dime while you're burning away my life savings paying a lawyer. You might win, but then they'll keep appealing and try to get you to settle.
This is inherent to the american judical system. If you have a valid patent then you have several options:
If you decide to fight them in court then don't forget there are law firms that will work on contingent basis anyways (sure at non-trivial percentage and that's why I suggest option #1 is usually better route). Patents help the smaller guy innovating and improving civilization. Otherw
Re:Please... (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact that an ordinary smart guy can't draft their own patent applications - as you imply - demonstrates the fallacy that this great society is so civilised. If an ordinary "smart" Joe can't file the appropriate paperwork to protect his efforts and concerns of being swamped then I put forward the system has failed.
The fact that an ordinary nuclear family "needs" a financial advisor just to get them through the hurdles of our financial system in order to get ahead, demonstrates a large failure of our financial system. Think of it as a computer system that needs a large number of sys admins and programmers just to keep the thing running and how poorly designed we all know them to be (how many of them have we bemoaned). Good systems run themselves providing efficiencies of scale with minimal overheads. Civic systems are the same else they are of little good to the little guy.
Who would own a car if you needed a mechanic to spend an hour a day performing maintainence on it for you and a driver to operate it? Not the ordinary person. Only rich folk and corporations would use them - as they once did in the early days.
Patent system is the same. If it's harder to file a patent claim then it is to invent new technologies and products then there is little money to be gained from releasing your invention into the wild. That's why I build systems for myself, my family and friends. Somebody else can come up with their own ideas for the rest of humanity.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand how your mention of "building systems" is even re
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd bloody well hope so, but then my car is a valuable tool I - and most other people in the free world - use daily to go about our lives. A patent is not.
It's the KISS principle, mate. Any moron can screw togeth
Re: (Score:2)
will continue to get invented for the simple fact that people have
work do do. The lack of a "carrot" in the form of some egregious
state sanctioned monopoly will not eliminate the need that genuinely
drives innovation.
Necessity is the mother of invention, not avarice.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, the probably would have been invented as they are useful and would have been needed by some smart guy. Or even just wanted or stumbled upon. But the "carrot" of patenting is the ability to make money of the invention,
Re: (Score:1)
Patent system is the same. If it's harder to file a patent claim then it is to invent new technologies and products then there is little money to be gained from releasing your invention into the wild.
Sure there needs to be a balance between protecting the small guy from the big companies that without a patent system would just lie and wait for the truly innovative competitors to emerge and then copy-paste them and release in their own next product version.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that every country has its own patent system, so you need several applications, with different rules for each. For example, in the US and only in the US the applicant can't be a company but instead you have to apply for the pate
Re: (Score:2)
Writing a patent is like coding in many ways. You need to figure out how to describe the important features of an invention with the proper scope, and how to describe the important connections between the elements of the invention. It is not easy for most ordinary people to do something li
Re: (Score:1)
A good point and I agree. Excessive is the key word.
For maintaining software I'd expect a suitably skilled software engineer with enough domain knowledge should be able to make at least small changes to the code base with enough confidence that things won't break. And how many systems nee
Re: (Score:1)
hahahaha... you've clearly never owned an MG
Re: (Score:1)
A -1 rated Anonymous Coward post so I shouldn't even consider this as a worthy comment, but then again...
You're right in a sense here. I don't value other people's work in general. Most of the jobs I see around society I probably can do better than those that are doing them, given proper training. Most people are lazy, prepared only to do the minimal amount
Re: (Score:2)
No. Some processes like patent applications, incorporation and taxes feel to the average citizen as they are artificially difficult to the extent the government is using regulation to create a service industry. It's nothing personal, but why should I need a lawyer to tell the government about my invention and ask for the government to issue a patent? Why should I need a lawyer to dispute if a patent is obvious or to invalidate a patent because the patent is not new or novel?
Abolish th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1) have avoided the question by not naming even one such person/patent as the parent requested
2) have a huge vested interest, as you depend upon the existing patent system, and your experience in navigating its legalities, to make a living
Why should we take your entirely unsubstantiated assertion as anything else?
Re: (Score:2)
1. The identity of my clients is protected by attorney/client privilege; and
2. I don't practice patent law in my current position, so I don't have a vested interest in it to make a living.
Any other completely asinine comments you wish to make that have no real relation whatsoever to my original post other than to serve as a pathetic attempt to discredit the messenger?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Considering how asinine your original post was, and its refusal (which you prolong) to answer the question to which it pretended to reply, you're in no position to feign the high ground.
As the first poster expressed, the patent system as it exists is primarily to the benefit of the already wealthy. He/she asked for a countere
Re: (Score:2)
You mean except the claim that is both directly relevant to and directly answers the question you accus
Re: (Score:1)
I am equally sure, that were we to go tit for tat, with one side naming good results of patents, and the other naming bad ones, that, at least for recent years, the bad ones would easily be the majority. The problem is not the lawyers or corporations per se, but the lack of (affordable) controls for dumb
Re:Please... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There are many more examples of how the patent system worked.
Only if, as per your own examples, you believe the purpose of the patent system is give to a single individual long term extraordinary rights because he had an idea once. But unfortunately the (US) Constitutional purpose of the patent system is suppose to be to promote innovation which the current system is not just failing miserable at but is actually doing the opposite. I would challenge you that I could either discredit examples you provide where you claimed it served this purpose or provide a counter
Re: (Score:1)
Whether or not you agree, given (assuming) the above:
Re: (Score:1)
Pointing out that, "Hey, this little guy made big bucks from the patent system," is something of a non-sequitur from the
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, you would be wrong about what I was interested in when I drafted and prosecuted patents, but I don't
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not sure whether most people complaining around here care whether it's the little guys or the big guys reaping the benefits of a broken patent system. I'd be willing to wager good money that if, say, some Joe Schmoe patented something absurd/pointless/obvious and proceeded to sue Microsoft over it, aside from the outliers the majority of /. would come down on the side of Microsoft.
Well for starters you said it yourself "around here". That wraps up the lopsided view held by most slashdotters, I'm sorry but it's the truth - anyone pro-patent is modded down and anti-patent is modded up. The validity or real insightfulness is directly related to the side taken.
Regarding whether it's the little guys or big guys, which is worse - giving the big companies virtual control (without patent protection for little guy), or giving the small guy a fighting chance (with patent protection)?
Re: (Score:1)
You are taking the usual Lawyer position, please don't make my job redundant. If people were actually not selfish and greedy, and of high character what actual use would we have for Lawyers. Could we pretty not reach amicable agreement about everything?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
James Dyson (Ballbarrow - wheelbarrow with a ball as the front wheel, cyclonic vacuum cleaner).
Both have developed ideas into products from their own companies after other companies rejected or tried to steal their ideas.
But they're not American, they are British.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Please... But that's not an inventor (Score:2)
Hard work is out."} Obligatory snipety quip {/snippety quip}
{joke= "Aside from that, I can personally atte... OW! OW! OW! Those laws HURT!"} Obligatory joke {/Joke}
{sig = "
A much better explanation of this case: (Score:5, Informative)
Interesting that there were no amicus briefs for the Patent Office.
Capitalism requires clear ownership (Score:4, Insightful)
Yet, the current patent system dies exactly this. The abuses that are possible under the current system allow for someone to develop a product and later, through the monopoly granted under the patent system, effectively have that intellectual property taken away.
The problems are many: submarine patents, the fact that the possible award of punitive damages discourages searches for pre-existing patents, the over-broad patents that may or may not apply. Uncertainty kills investment and the current patent system provides plenty of uncertainty.
Re: (Score:2)
The government grants me a monopoly right to my house. If someone else tries to live in it, I can call the police and have them thrown out. I can even shoot them with government permission if they refuse to leave. Does that mean it's not property?
You clearly don't know what rivalrous means. (Score:2, Informative)
I think you totally misunderstood what a "rivalrous" good is. Rivalrous is what your house is. Think of a shirt: two people can't wear it at the same time and three is right out. That's why it's rivalrous: multiple users interfere with each other.
The mono
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yet, the current patent system dies exactly this.
Yeah, good luck with that.
Re: (Score:2)
Shhhh! Don't give them any ideas! They're already trying to do that to copyright....
:-D
Re: (Score:1)
granted under the patent system, effectively have that intellectual property taken away."
Um, shouldn't that like count as "prior art" or something?
No, of course not. The court wants your evidence and it wants it now, or else you lose even if you are right. Worse yet, you don't even get to appeal, even if someone else ruined your case
I'm curious... (Score:3, Interesting)
so if someone other than them discovers a new application of their drug, who gets the rights to that finding? the company that developed the drug in the first place or the one that made use of it in a compeltely new way?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'm curious... (Score:4, Informative)
Here's the 10 cent version: continuations are used when:
a) your inventor comes up with a new way of extending his invention (continuation in part);
b) you disclosed multiple distinct inventions in the original application, but only filed claims at one of them (continuation);
c) the patent office is being dense, and you have to argue your claims repeatedly (request for continuing examination); or
d) the patent office grants some of your claims, and you want to get an issued patent AND continue to argue about the others (continuation).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds to me like it should be a completely new patent application.
That too sounds like you should have to file a new application for the new inventions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am not a lawyer, but my take on this is:
I am, but (of course) none of this is legal advice; get your own damned lawyer in your own jurisdiction if you want legal advice.
a) your inventor comes up with a new way of extending his invention (continuation in part);
That sounds to me like it should be a completely new patent application.
Can't be, and here's why. If you file an application, your own disclosures in that application can still be used as prior art against you in other applications. Say, for example, I invent the chair. A little later, I realize I can put wheels on my chair. If I didn't file as a continuation in part, my original disclosure of a chair could be used as a portion of a 35 U.S.C. 10
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Example that I am dredging up from my (sometimes inaccurate) memory of the MPEP: A shoe polish compound that is well known in the prior art is discovered to have a new use in repelling insects that was not previously known. Since this is an inherent property of the shoe polish the discoverer cannot get
Really? (Score:2)
Inventors? Or just multi-billion-dollar transnational conglomerates?
Re: (Score:2)
Multi-billion-dollar transnational conglomerates tend to hire a lot of inventors. Some of them do use patents as a key part of their business model [industryweek.com]. It is likely that efforts that undercut such business models would mean that such companies would be less effective at capitalizing on the innovations produced by their inventor
Root cause... (Score:1)
It's easier said than done, but couldn't they just hire more folks since patent issues are among the hottest in the country?
Which Inventors? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, did you mean "What percentage of patents rights were *assigned* to individual inventors?" Probably a lot less. How many individual inventors received compensation for this patent right assignment beyond their salaries? Somewhat more.
What, exactly, is your point?
What really needs to happen is to remove..... (Score:2)
Once that is done, the patent office will have more time to spend on patent applications that do have patentable material.
Software is of abstract ideas, natural law and physical phenomenon, and of this a sub set is mathematical algorithms of which all four of these areas are universally considered NON-PATENTABLE!
see Abstraction Physics [abstractionphysics.net] for the fundamentals.
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest problem with the patent system is they are allowing ideas to be patented instead of only solutions.
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest problem (at least in the U.S.) that existed when it seemed that only copyright protection was available for software, but patent protection was not, was that people would make outright clones of innovative works (using the same ideas, but not the same code), the innovators would then sue the cloners, and then courts would push the doctrines of what
I don't know why the court would get involved .... (Score:2)
As the Constitution clearly enumerates Patents and Copyrights are the exclusive domain of Congress. Ostensibly they can grant patents, take them away, and establish an agency with congressional oversight to regulate the patent process.
If this isn't a judge specificaly appointed by Congress to Adjudicate the Patent process, I have a hard time believing this injunction is going to last.
Re:I don't know why the court would get involved . (Score:3, Insightful)
Checks and balances again. The courts are involved because Congress, once again, dropped the goddamn ball.
You know, when dogs get rabies, becoming irrational and dangerous to humans, they are taken out and shot. Congress may or may not have rabies (although some its members often act like they do) but they have certainly become irrational and dangerous. What are we going to do about them? Shoot votes at them?
Re:I don't know why the court would get involved . (Score:2)
The Patent Office (executive branch) created rules that were contrary to the laws passed by Congress (legislative branch). The laws passed by Congress (the Administrative Procedure Act) state that the remedy in such a situation is to file suit against the agency (Patent Office) in federal court (judicial branch). The problem here is that the Patent Office overstepped the authority granted to it by Congress. Congress could change the law if it wanted to (and it might, see the Patent Reform Act of 2007), b
No wonder (Score:2, Insightful)