4 ms·
Supreme Court Upholds Patent Office Power to Invalidate Bad Patents
- craftyguy 8y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16913013 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16913013
- jchw 8y agoI am amused at the contrast between different headlines for this story. Bloomberg: "Patent ‘Death Squad’ System Upheld by U.S. Supreme Court" EFF: "Supreme Court Upholds Patent Office Power to Invalidate Bad Patents"
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- RandomInteger4 8y agoWait, what? Why would anyone challenge them on having that power? That's like someone challenging Congress's ability to change or undo a law. Was their primary argument in this case "NO TAKESIES BACKSIES!"?
- bitwize 8y agoThe plaintiffs believed that this power interfered with their right to profit off their products free of "copycats". The Supremes agreed with you; they held that the rights of exclusivity to an invention protected by a patent were rights granted by the government, not inherent rights, so the government was free to revoke them even absent a court challenge.
- rayiner 8y agoThere is a lot of Supreme Court precedent, going back to the 1800s, calling patents a "property right." Generally, administrative agencies (which is what the USPTO is) cannot take away property rights; only Article III courts can do so. If the Social Security Administration (an executive agency) gives you $1,000 per month, it can probably decide to stop that monthly payment. But to get the money back, it probably has to sue you in an Article III court.
- pnw_hazor 8y agoNo. It is like the government grants you fully vested rights in a property -- and then takes them back. Conventionally, you need a court with an Article III judge for that to ensure due process.