3 ms·
This whole article is strange. First, the author can't decide if patents last for 17 years or 15 years. The correct answer (in the US) is neither: since 1995,
by decode 17y ago
This whole article is strange.
First, the author can't decide if patents last for 17 years or 15 years. The correct answer (in the US) is neither: since 1995, US patents have enjoyed protection for a maximum of 20 years from the filing date. How long this protection lasts from the issue date depends on how long the application process took, and how much extra time is tacked on due to PTO delays, and whether or not all of the maintenance fees are paid.
Second, the author gives no justification for the 7-year period. Why are 7-year terms better than 2-year terms or 10-year terms? And how will any of them get rid of software patent trolls or fix abuses of continuation-in-part applications?
The article consists of nothing but unsupported assertion and incorrect information.
- alain94040 17y agoI was vague about the lenght of the protection because it depends on when you filed your patent. It's beside the point, the point is that current protection is very very long, roughly 20 years. You are correct, I have no proof that 7 years is the right number. I'd be happy for people to debate if it should be 6 or 10 or whatever. But I believe it's a simple enough fix. Believe me, I have been through enough patent issues, I strongly wish the system would be fixed. But most proposals so far are jist plain impractical. I'd love for patent examiners to really understand the technology and only grant truly innovative patents. But it's almost impossible. I'd like for lawsuits to not take so long and not be so arbitrary, but it would require a full reform of the legal system. Not realistic. s/20/7/a sounds much easier to me, and achieves a lot. Not perfect, but a decent tradeoff. I'm an engineer, I do tradeoffs.