5 ms·

Senate Nears Final Vote on Patents

27 points by asnyder 16y ago

asnyder 16y ago
I'm sorry, the notion that this somehow levels the playing field is completely wrong. It's very difficult for a layperson to file a patent properly, in the proper legalese and keep track of all the necessary actions. This bill definitely opens up patents to large corporations and patent holding companies that can essentially throw teams of lawyers at particular fields. After spending 5 years and more money than I'd like to admit on our patent that has still yet to be awarded I can tell you from personal experience that every response is cryptic, and the necessary follow-up actions are extensive and intensive. Furthermore, if they're not written in the proper legalese you have even less of a chance. This is yet another boon to large corporations and their lawyers. Now that companies such as Apple, Google, and Microsoft don't have to worry about prior-art we'll see innovation slow to a crawl, and startups will have even less of a chance of disrupting the status quo as a lawsuit won't be too far behind. I can see it now, We demand you shutdown as you're infringing on the patent we were recently awarded, it won't matter that you were already operating. They can simply pay extra fees, get a faster approval and you're gone. This is supposed to be progress and improvement? Only to the lobbyists and their employers.
extension 16y ago
If prior art doesn't matter, what stops anyone from patenting someone else's publicly known invention and then suing them?
- michael_dorfman 16y ago
  Wait, what? Who is suggesting that prior art wouldn't/shouldn't matter? "First to file" patents would still be invalidated by any published (or publicly available) prior art. It just means that you couldn't invalidate by demonstrating that you were privately working on the same idea.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - extension 16y ago
    What counts as private/public? If I show someone a project I'm working on but I've never shown anyone else, can this person go patent it?
- bodski 16y ago
  This sub thread might make you rest a little easier, hopefully it is accurate with regards to the bill as it currently stands: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2288824 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2288824 edit: changed link to relevant comment
akavlie 16y ago
Does the Senate seriously think THIS is the sort of reform we need in the patent system? Are they that out of touch? The article itself isn't much better, it barely touches on the real problems in patent law.
noonespecial 16y ago
I'm so tired of the whole thing, I'm not even keeping track of it anymore. Reform these days(1) has just become doublespeak for "like it is now, only more so". Status_quo++. They're going to do what they're going to do. Its going to be the opposite of what would be best for us, and we'll find a way to work around it. (1)I think perhaps this is the way its always been, and I was just too young to notice.
c1sc0 16y ago
What would it take to DDOS the patent office?
salsakran 16y ago
This is basically an abdication of any attempts at making certain a patent is valid on the part of the PO. Their job will be reduced to simply checking that the format and wording is in order and making sure there's a timestamp.
- tzs 16y ago
  How so? First to file doesn't eliminate the requirements of novelty and non-obviousness. It just means that if two people both claim the invention the first to file wins instead of whoever can prove they invented first. First to file is used everywhere except the US.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
johndlafayette 16y ago
From my limited understanding, if you simply submit a application, you are protected until it is reviewed plus the time granted with a patent. So if you pay the new smaller amount, and it takes the PO 5 years to review your patent instead of the normal 1 for corporations, you'll have an extra 4 years of protection over the life of the patent. Clock starts once it's reviewed and accepted, but protection starts once it's filed. Depending on how much cheaper this is for small businesses, it could potentially help them out by offering longer protection for less money, if only because it takes longer for their patents to be reviewed. But I think I agree with asnyder for the most part. Most people don't even know where to start, and may lose protection simply because they didn't know what to do before the idea spread and someone else with the know-how made the product and patented it.
- anamax 16y ago
  > Clock starts once it's reviewed and accepted, but protection starts once it's filed. If so, that's a change (back). A "long time ago", the clock started at issue, so some folks filed and kept an application alive for (in some cases) decades until the patent was worth something. They then let it issue and ... profit. That's what was known as "submarine patents". A while back (20+ years IIRC), the rules were changed so the clock started on filing. (Despite that, some folks still rant about submarine patents.) Have those rules really changed back? When?
  - johndlafayette 16y ago
    I apologize for being unclear. You are correct on the clock starting, but the clock can also be adjusted by the PTO if your patent is delayed in approval if I am understanding what is below correctly. If all patents granted to 'small business/inventors' are delayed to a great extent due to larger companies paying more for earlier patent approval, I assume that smaller inventor's patents will be adjusted, allowing them a longer term of protection, as they can start their business as soon as they file. See #3 here (also great info on patents in general): http://www.bpmlegal.com/howtoterm.html http://www.bpmlegal.com/howtoterm.html "Patents based on applications filed on or after May 29, 2000 (actual filing date, not priority date), might have had their terms extended for Patent Office delays beyond certain limits. Such extensions, called "patent term adjustments", are automatically given when the patent is issued, and they are usually marked on the face of the patent, flagged with "()". For example, see patent 7,613,700 - "() Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this patent is extended or adjusted under 35 USC 154(b) by 291 days." These adjustments are calculated mathematically based on a formula which takes into account when each office action was sent by the USPTO as compared with a standard for such actions, and subtracts any delays caused by the applicant's delay, and so on." However, if the standard is now different because of the new law, or if it is segmented by pricing, I have no clue what may happen.

27 points by asnyder 16y ago

I'm sorry, the notion that this somehow levels the playing field is completely wrong. It's very difficult for a layperson to file a patent properly, in the proper legalese and keep track of all the necessary actions. This bill definitely opens up patents to large corporations and patent holding companies that can essentially throw teams of lawyers at particular fields. After spending 5 years and more money than I'd like to admit on our patent that has still yet to be awarded I can tell you from personal experience that every response is cryptic, and the necessary follow-up actions are extensive and intensive. Furthermore, if they're not written in the proper legalese you have even less of a chance. This is yet another boon to large corporations and their lawyers. Now that companies such as Apple, Google, and Microsoft don't have to worry about prior-art we'll see innovation slow to a crawl, and startups will have even less of a chance of disrupting the status quo as a lawsuit won't be too far behind. I can see it now, We demand you shutdown as you're infringing on the patent we were recently awarded, it won't matter that you were already operating. They can simply pay extra fees, get a faster approval and you're gone. This is supposed to be progress and improvement? Only to the lobbyists and their employers.

extension 16y ago

If prior art doesn't matter, what stops anyone from patenting someone else's publicly known invention and then suing them?

michael_dorfman 16y ago
Wait, what? Who is suggesting that prior art wouldn't/shouldn't matter? "First to file" patents would still be invalidated by any published (or publicly available) prior art. It just means that you couldn't invalidate by demonstrating that you were privately working on the same idea.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- extension 16y ago
  What counts as private/public? If I show someone a project I'm working on but I've never shown anyone else, can this person go patent it?
bodski 16y ago
This sub thread might make you rest a little easier, hopefully it is accurate with regards to the bill as it currently stands: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2288824 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2288824 edit: changed link to relevant comment

akavlie 16y ago

Does the Senate seriously think THIS is the sort of reform we need in the patent system? Are they that out of touch? The article itself isn't much better, it barely touches on the real problems in patent law.

noonespecial 16y ago

I'm so tired of the whole thing, I'm not even keeping track of it anymore. Reform these days(1) has just become doublespeak for "like it is now, only more so". Status_quo++. They're going to do what they're going to do. Its going to be the opposite of what would be best for us, and we'll find a way to work around it. (1)I think perhaps this is the way its always been, and I was just too young to notice.

c1sc0 16y ago

What would it take to DDOS the patent office?

salsakran 16y ago

This is basically an abdication of any attempts at making certain a patent is valid on the part of the PO. Their job will be reduced to simply checking that the format and wording is in order and making sure there's a timestamp.

tzs 16y ago
How so? First to file doesn't eliminate the requirements of novelty and non-obviousness. It just means that if two people both claim the invention the first to file wins instead of whoever can prove they invented first. First to file is used everywhere except the US.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

johndlafayette 16y ago

From my limited understanding, if you simply submit a application, you are protected until it is reviewed plus the time granted with a patent. So if you pay the new smaller amount, and it takes the PO 5 years to review your patent instead of the normal 1 for corporations, you'll have an extra 4 years of protection over the life of the patent. Clock starts once it's reviewed and accepted, but protection starts once it's filed. Depending on how much cheaper this is for small businesses, it could potentially help them out by offering longer protection for less money, if only because it takes longer for their patents to be reviewed. But I think I agree with asnyder for the most part. Most people don't even know where to start, and may lose protection simply because they didn't know what to do before the idea spread and someone else with the know-how made the product and patented it.

anamax 16y ago
> Clock starts once it's reviewed and accepted, but protection starts once it's filed. If so, that's a change (back). A "long time ago", the clock started at issue, so some folks filed and kept an application alive for (in some cases) decades until the patent was worth something. They then let it issue and ... profit. That's what was known as "submarine patents". A while back (20+ years IIRC), the rules were changed so the clock started on filing. (Despite that, some folks still rant about submarine patents.) Have those rules really changed back? When?
- johndlafayette 16y ago
  I apologize for being unclear. You are correct on the clock starting, but the clock can also be adjusted by the PTO if your patent is delayed in approval if I am understanding what is below correctly. If all patents granted to 'small business/inventors' are delayed to a great extent due to larger companies paying more for earlier patent approval, I assume that smaller inventor's patents will be adjusted, allowing them a longer term of protection, as they can start their business as soon as they file. See #3 here (also great info on patents in general): http://www.bpmlegal.com/howtoterm.html http://www.bpmlegal.com/howtoterm.html "Patents based on applications filed on or after May 29, 2000 (actual filing date, not priority date), might have had their terms extended for Patent Office delays beyond certain limits. Such extensions, called "patent term adjustments", are automatically given when the patent is issued, and they are usually marked on the face of the patent, flagged with "()". For example, see patent 7,613,700 - "() Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this patent is extended or adjusted under 35 USC 154(b) by 291 days." These adjustments are calculated mathematically based on a formula which takes into account when each office action was sent by the USPTO as compared with a standard for such actions, and subtracts any delays caused by the applicant's delay, and so on." However, if the standard is now different because of the new law, or if it is segmented by pricing, I have no clue what may happen.