Patent Reform Act Proposes Sweeping Changes

Geccie writes "CNet is reporting that Senators Patrick Leahy and Orin Hatch have proposed sweeping changes in the patent system in the form of the Patent Reform Act of 2006. Key features are the ability to challenge (postgrant opposition) with the Senate version being somewhat broader and better than the house version." From the article: "Specifically, it would shift to a 'first to file' method of awarding patents, which is already used in most foreign countries, instead of the existing 'first to invent' standard, which has been criticized as complicated to prove. Such a change has already earned backing from Jon Dudas, chief of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office."

"first to file" issues

[keithmo]

In the current system, a person/company has some fixed amount of time (1 year? 6 months? I don't recall) to file a patent after the invention has been mentioned publicly. Some companies rely on this by shipping the product first, then worrying about filing the patent applications. "First to file" will likely delay many product releases, as the inventor will be required to get the patent application process started before release.

Re:Prior Art?

[Znork]

It mainly affects companies or individuals keeping innovations secret; in first to file, it's the first to file a previously _undisclosed_ invention who gets the patent.

For opensource it's probably slightly better, as it becomes slightly more difficult to submarine patents or futz the invention dates.

However, it doesnt affect the more real issues of overly broad claims, etc. Or the economic validity and usefullness of IP at all.

Re:How about eliminating patents

[Kaktrot]

The patent system doesn't exist to make people rich for sitting around and thinking. That is a means to an end: That John Q. Public will have more useful technology available to him when the patent runs out. It exists only to encourage innovation. As it sits right now, the patent system is buried in bureaucracy, but it still stimulates more innovation than if there were nothing, which leads to better, cheaper products and medicines to the public.

Patents do work, especially in the medical area. Pharmaceuticals would be prohibitive to develop (without direct state involvement) without patent protection.

Re:I consider this bad

[TheRaven64]

In the UK, you file a preliminary patent. This protects you for about a year, in which time you submit a full patent application. Some inventions never get beyond the preliminary patent phase, but if something is really good then it is not hard to persuade someone to pay for the exclusive rights to it.

Re:So you do not want to patent, we got you !

[Znork]

"First to file rather than first to invent means that all pesky open source programmers will have to worry"

It's not a problem for open source; if you've released code as open source that means it's been published, and no patent application filed on a later date could be granted covering any supposed invention in that code.

It's not first to file for a particular invention, it's first to file for a particular _previously undisclosed_ invention.

Replay from 2005

[955301]

An interesting tidbit, this was introduced in 2005 as well by Lamar Smith of Texas:

http://patentlaw.typepad.com/patent/2005/06/patent _reform_p.html [typepad.com]

Not sure what the difference is between the two, because I'm still looking for the bill's number. It's almost as if people like to use the fluffy name and never really look at the bill - only reference it from other articles.

Re:How about eliminating patents

[B'Trey]

If you're really interested in the drug companies and patents, here's a reasonably accurate look at how things work:

Of Pills and Profits [commentarymagazine.com]

Re:How about eliminating patents

[B'Trey]

Your underlying assumption here is that patents protect amazing new "Eureka!" ideas that are novel and imaginative but easy to rip off. There are a few examples of this. I believe the guy who invented the weedeater/string trimmer didn't patent his idea and made almost nothing off it. That's the sort of thing that patents were intended to protect. If they were limited to that, they might be workable and effective. Unfortunately, they aren't. Almost anything and everything can be patented. And if I'm reading this right, this "reform" is REALLY bad news. Why? Because it completely invalidates one of the few defenses we have - prior art. It doesn't matter who invented an idea, or how many people were using it. If no one patented it and you take the time to sit down and fill out a patent form, it belongs to you. Is there a patent on Quick Sort? No? Write one up, wait for it to get approved and if no one beat you to the filing, you own Quick Sort. Sue the hell out of anybody and everybody who's using it.

Re:Orin Hatch - his son is a SCO lawyer

[canuck57]

Brent O. Hatch is one of SCOs many lawyers. One wonders if any part of the new law would be of any help to SCO grabbing the work on many Linux programmers?

If Wikipedia is right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orrin_Hatch [wikipedia.org]

Mod parent UP as the post is on to something.

I guess the SCO group realizes it has no case so it is now influencing a change in law to change its case. Where is the SEC when you need them? Maybe this explains why SCO gets away with so much.

IBM/Linux should patent 0/1 (binary) since prior art no longer maters. Then countersue. I look at the bright side, the more of a circus they make of the patent system, the sooner it will fall.

Re:"First to file" is a horrible idea...

[anothy]

i agree with your concern in general, but it's worth pointing out that one can, in fact, file a provisional patent which lasts up to one year. i'm not sure what the expense involved is, and you have to provide more than just a description (which is a good thing, in my opinion), but the bar is much lower than a full patent app.

I havent read TFA OR anything about this bill...

[jonwil]

But, its supported by Orrin Hatch, same guy who is behind a lot of other nasty IP related bills that have appeared on Slashdot. Which automatically makes it bad. (since Hatch has shown time and time again that he is a shill to big corps with lots of investment in IP)

Re:First to file?

[Abcd1234]

Oh bullshit. Any company working on potentially patentable ideas will simply be smart enough to keep that work secure and under wraps until the patents are filed. Companies are already used to protecting trade secrets (eg, the recipe for Coke) so this is hardly without precedent. Meanwhile, this change is easier both on the patent office, and the companies who are doing the work (since you no longer need to keep a detailed log book, just in case an idea turns out to be patentable).

Re:So you do not want to patent, we got you !

[Algorithm wrangler]

Being in Europe where first to file is the norm, I can say that first to file does not mean that prior art doesn't count - anything that has been published anywhere (including your own publications of the invention in question) counts as prior art - which is why that system requires that you are very secret about your work until the application has been filed. Here we get to see patent applications 18 months after filing, and we get to submit prior art to the examiner (if we so wish) before the patent is granted. I guess that these two things are needed also to make the system work.