4 ms·

This law would take the most effective tool against trolls and weaken it without providing any real relief for innovative small companies targeted by trolls. T

This law would take the most effective tool against trolls and weaken it without providing any real relief for innovative small companies targeted by trolls. The post-grant review process is the only way patents get a serious review of their validity. The PTO actually takes printed references found by accused infringers that pay a five-digit fee as reviews the patent. It's essential because the original pre-grant review only allows a few hours of research and examiners are rewarded only for issuing patents so it's hard for one to be bad enough to be rejected. This bill would make it much harder to revoke patent claims by prohibiting the reasonable interpretation standard. It would also entitle trolls to demand new claims by making trivial adjustments in wording without any serious review so that winners who get bad patents revoked have to immediately face new bad patents. Meanwhile the loser pays provision is so weak that it provides no hope to small businesses and little to large ones. East Texas judges have already shown it won't apply in their courts. The pleading requirements have already been enacted by the Supreme Court this month. This bill has been so watered down that it's worse than the status quo. EFF should oppose it.

throwawaykf05 11y ago
> ... examiners are rewarded only for issuing patents... This is incorrect. They are "rewarded" for any kind of action on a pending patent, whether it's an allowance or a rejection. Last I checked, a majority of them gets rejected at least once. In some art units (i.e. field of technology) the rejection rates are actually pretty high.
roarkjs 11y ago
EFF seems to be making a habit of backing these worryingly pernicious bills.
- bitwize 11y ago
  They are the most publicly visible electronic rights organization. It would make sense that they'd been compromised a long time ago.
  - WildUtah 11y ago
    There is little evidence of that. The EFF is still very valuable to electronic freedom. This bill simply used to be much better in earlier versions.
    - sneak 11y ago
      That's true, but the comment was speculation, not accusation.
- purpled_haze 11y ago
  Could you provide examples? I've not personally heard of the EFF backing anything worrying.
  - pc86 11y ago
    worrying != worryingly pernicious The bill does nothing of substance. That's the problem. It's a waste of resources for the EFF and frankly makes me wonder how they're spending my (and others') money.
monochromatic 11y ago
> Meanwhile the loser pays provision is so weak that it provides no hope to small businesses and little to large ones. East Texas judges have already shown it won't apply in their courts. They've already shown that something that isn't yet the law won't apply? How have they managed to do that?
rando289 11y ago
"It's essential because", huh, small companies are going to pay 10-99,000 fee? I don't think so. small means that is around the same cost as settling, but it has some unknown % chance of working, wheras settling will work 100%.

throwawaykf05 11y ago

> ... examiners are rewarded only for issuing patents... This is incorrect. They are "rewarded" for any kind of action on a pending patent, whether it's an allowance or a rejection. Last I checked, a majority of them gets rejected at least once. In some art units (i.e. field of technology) the rejection rates are actually pretty high.

roarkjs 11y ago

EFF seems to be making a habit of backing these worryingly pernicious bills.

bitwize 11y ago
They are the most publicly visible electronic rights organization. It would make sense that they'd been compromised a long time ago.
- WildUtah 11y ago
  There is little evidence of that. The EFF is still very valuable to electronic freedom. This bill simply used to be much better in earlier versions.
  - sneak 11y ago
    That's true, but the comment was speculation, not accusation.
purpled_haze 11y ago
Could you provide examples? I've not personally heard of the EFF backing anything worrying.
- pc86 11y ago
  worrying != worryingly pernicious The bill does nothing of substance. That's the problem. It's a waste of resources for the EFF and frankly makes me wonder how they're spending my (and others') money.

monochromatic 11y ago

> Meanwhile the loser pays provision is so weak that it provides no hope to small businesses and little to large ones. East Texas judges have already shown it won't apply in their courts. They've already shown that something that isn't yet the law won't apply? How have they managed to do that?

rando289 11y ago

"It's essential because", huh, small companies are going to pay 10-99,000 fee? I don't think so. small means that is around the same cost as settling, but it has some unknown % chance of working, wheras settling will work 100%.