6 ms·

House Bill for Patent Office Reform Nearly Finished

32 points by joshuacc 15y ago

wccrawford 15y ago
Doesn't look like they are working on the real problems at all, and are instead creating others. First person to invent won't matter, only who pays the fee first? UGH. Way to discourage innovation and encourage patent trolls. With that they'll be able to watch new products on the market and try to file patents on everything, then sue the person who actually invented it.
- monochromatic 15y ago
  > they'll be able to watch new products on the market and try to file patents on everything, then sue the person who actually invented it No, they won't. If something was on the market before you filed, you are not entitled to a patent. That's how prior art and statutory bars work.
  - ggchappell 15y ago
    FTA: > The bill generally updates the process for challenging patents and would change the patent system to one that awards a patent to the first inventor to file a specific claim. > Currently, the first person to invent something has patent priority, whether or not he is the first to file an application. That sounds to me as if they are eliminating, or at least weakening, the idea of prior art preventing the award of a patent. Scary. Of course, this was written by a journalist, not a patent expert, so who knows what the real situation is. But it's still scary.
    - monochromatic 15y ago
      Prior art is still prior art. What this particular element changes is basically the situation where two people independently come up with the same idea, and they both file for patents. (I'm leaving out some irrelevant complications, but) under current law, whoever came up with the idea first wins, even if the later inventor files first. Under this new law, whoever filed first would win, even if he had the idea later. It's to save the trouble of having to litigate about when you had an idea, what proof you have of that fact, etc. But it doesn't change the fact that you can't patent an idea that you stole from someone else.
      - ggchappell 15y ago
        Well, that's good. Thanks for the clarification.
andrewguenther 15y ago
I don't see any reference in here to reform of software patents and such. Is this reform purely financial?
lysol 15y ago
This is the opposite of reform.
jinushaun 15y ago
"The bill generally updates the process for challenging patents and would change the patent system to one thatawards a patent to the first inventor to file a specific claim. Currently, the first person to invent something has patent priority, whether or not he is the first to file an application." First to file trumps first to invent? That sounds awful and a step backwards.
- alok-g 15y ago
  Indeed! Now people would have motivation to file even the most obvious of the ideas they have so that someone else cannot file it later and sue them!
- russell 15y ago
  "First to file" was put in to bring US law into alignment with the rest of the world, not that I think it is a particularly good idea.
- dminor 15y ago
  I think it's more like a step sideways. The main issue with patents right now is the low bar for new patents, and this bill doesn't seem to alleviate the problem.
- amalcon 15y ago
  That all depends on exactly what the bill says. It could make prior art irrelevant (huge step backwards, but I think unlikely). Alternatively, it could leave prior art intact. In which case, if party B patents something party A invented a short time before, and someone can prove this, then nobody gets the patent. Party A's invention is prior art to party B's patent. Under the current system, party A would get the patent. edit: Tracked down the bill text. I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice; read it yourself and make your own opinions: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h1249/text http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h1249/text (a) Novelty; Prior Art- A person shall be entitled to a patent unless-- ‘(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or ‘(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. I'm still trying to track down the original patent act to compare with, but it looks like prior art continues to be valid in the form of a publication or product. The dubiously-valid trick of mailing a description of the idea to yourself would not seem to work, and it's questionable whether the Internet would count as "printed", but it shouldn't be too difficult to set up a "protopatent publishing journal" that exists purely to protect inventors from having their ideas patented later.
noonespecial 15y ago
Even "reform" has become doublespeak now. It actually means "like it is now, only moreso."
nhebb 15y ago
I haven't read the proposed law, but from previous commentaries the big issue raised was that the invention didn't actually have to be on the market. You could patent an idea. If this is in fact the case, a new form of patent troll could emerge - think tanks that brain storm ideas and file preemptive patents.
- gfunk911 15y ago
  You just described Intellectual Ventures exactly.
- sitkack 15y ago
  This is not new. Reform would be to have actually created the thing you are patenting and not a loose description of how one might/could build the thing. It shouldn't be patentable unless you have done it.
- anamax 15y ago
  > You could patent an idea. That's always been true. In fact, "an idea" is the only thing that you can patent. Why do you think that it shouldn't be true? Suppose that my company makes airplanes and I invent a new kind of bearing. What kind of patent protection do you think that I should have? (Should I only be able to claim uses of that bearing in the planes that we make?)
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
kenjackson 15y ago
I'm honestly not sure that first-to-file vs invent is really that huge of a deal. The bigger issues in this bill appear to be the changes in grace period (bad) and the changes in the ability to challenge patents (good).
wheaties 15y ago
So it appears as if they're about to create a fund that they can appropriate to whatever cause they want instead of the underfunded patent office. Great... That's what they've done to infrastructure funds in many states.
swombat 15y ago
The bill generally updates the process for challenging patents and would change the patent system to one that awards a patent to the first inventor to file a specific claim. Currently, the first person to invent something has patent priority, whether or not he is the first to file an application. Wow, after 6 years of careful discussions and deliberations, they've finally figured out a way to make the patent trolling situation even worse. Good job, pat on the back!
- tzs 15y ago
  This will have no effect on patent trolling whatsoever.
daimyoyo 15y ago
Can we please stop calling the vivisection of the patent system "reform"? That is just what congress is calling it to make the ideas more palatable. I have contacted my congressman asking him to fight this, and I believe you should too. First to invent is what makes our system unique, and is what gives small inventors a chance to compete against patent farms like IBM.
Enlightenment 15y ago
Did they add anything to help kill patent trolls?

32 points by joshuacc 15y ago

Doesn't look like they are working on the real problems at all, and are instead creating others. First person to invent won't matter, only who pays the fee first? UGH. Way to discourage innovation and encourage patent trolls. With that they'll be able to watch new products on the market and try to file patents on everything, then sue the person who actually invented it.

monochromatic 15y ago
> they'll be able to watch new products on the market and try to file patents on everything, then sue the person who actually invented it No, they won't. If something was on the market before you filed, you are not entitled to a patent. That's how prior art and statutory bars work.
- ggchappell 15y ago
  FTA: > The bill generally updates the process for challenging patents and would change the patent system to one that awards a patent to the first inventor to file a specific claim. > Currently, the first person to invent something has patent priority, whether or not he is the first to file an application. That sounds to me as if they are eliminating, or at least weakening, the idea of prior art preventing the award of a patent. Scary. Of course, this was written by a journalist, not a patent expert, so who knows what the real situation is. But it's still scary.
  - monochromatic 15y ago
    Prior art is still prior art. What this particular element changes is basically the situation where two people independently come up with the same idea, and they both file for patents. (I'm leaving out some irrelevant complications, but) under current law, whoever came up with the idea first wins, even if the later inventor files first. Under this new law, whoever filed first would win, even if he had the idea later. It's to save the trouble of having to litigate about when you had an idea, what proof you have of that fact, etc. But it doesn't change the fact that you can't patent an idea that you stole from someone else.
    - ggchappell 15y ago
      Well, that's good. Thanks for the clarification.

andrewguenther 15y ago

I don't see any reference in here to reform of software patents and such. Is this reform purely financial?

lysol 15y ago

This is the opposite of reform.

jinushaun 15y ago

"The bill generally updates the process for challenging patents and would change the patent system to one thatawards a patent to the first inventor to file a specific claim. Currently, the first person to invent something has patent priority, whether or not he is the first to file an application." First to file trumps first to invent? That sounds awful and a step backwards.

alok-g 15y ago
Indeed! Now people would have motivation to file even the most obvious of the ideas they have so that someone else cannot file it later and sue them!
russell 15y ago
"First to file" was put in to bring US law into alignment with the rest of the world, not that I think it is a particularly good idea.
dminor 15y ago
I think it's more like a step sideways. The main issue with patents right now is the low bar for new patents, and this bill doesn't seem to alleviate the problem.
amalcon 15y ago
That all depends on exactly what the bill says. It could make prior art irrelevant (huge step backwards, but I think unlikely). Alternatively, it could leave prior art intact. In which case, if party B patents something party A invented a short time before, and someone can prove this, then nobody gets the patent. Party A's invention is prior art to party B's patent. Under the current system, party A would get the patent. edit: Tracked down the bill text. I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice; read it yourself and make your own opinions: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h1249/text http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h1249/text (a) Novelty; Prior Art- A person shall be entitled to a patent unless-- ‘(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or ‘(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. I'm still trying to track down the original patent act to compare with, but it looks like prior art continues to be valid in the form of a publication or product. The dubiously-valid trick of mailing a description of the idea to yourself would not seem to work, and it's questionable whether the Internet would count as "printed", but it shouldn't be too difficult to set up a "protopatent publishing journal" that exists purely to protect inventors from having their ideas patented later.

noonespecial 15y ago

Even "reform" has become doublespeak now. It actually means "like it is now, only moreso."

nhebb 15y ago

I haven't read the proposed law, but from previous commentaries the big issue raised was that the invention didn't actually have to be on the market. You could patent an idea. If this is in fact the case, a new form of patent troll could emerge - think tanks that brain storm ideas and file preemptive patents.

gfunk911 15y ago
You just described Intellectual Ventures exactly.
sitkack 15y ago
This is not new. Reform would be to have actually created the thing you are patenting and not a loose description of how one might/could build the thing. It shouldn't be patentable unless you have done it.
anamax 15y ago
> You could patent an idea. That's always been true. In fact, "an idea" is the only thing that you can patent. Why do you think that it shouldn't be true? Suppose that my company makes airplanes and I invent a new kind of bearing. What kind of patent protection do you think that I should have? (Should I only be able to claim uses of that bearing in the planes that we make?)

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

kenjackson 15y ago

I'm honestly not sure that first-to-file vs invent is really that huge of a deal. The bigger issues in this bill appear to be the changes in grace period (bad) and the changes in the ability to challenge patents (good).

wheaties 15y ago

So it appears as if they're about to create a fund that they can appropriate to whatever cause they want instead of the underfunded patent office. Great... That's what they've done to infrastructure funds in many states.

swombat 15y ago

The bill generally updates the process for challenging patents and would change the patent system to one that awards a patent to the first inventor to file a specific claim. Currently, the first person to invent something has patent priority, whether or not he is the first to file an application. Wow, after 6 years of careful discussions and deliberations, they've finally figured out a way to make the patent trolling situation even worse. Good job, pat on the back!

tzs 15y ago
This will have no effect on patent trolling whatsoever.

daimyoyo 15y ago

Can we please stop calling the vivisection of the patent system "reform"? That is just what congress is calling it to make the ideas more palatable. I have contacted my congressman asking him to fight this, and I believe you should too. First to invent is what makes our system unique, and is what gives small inventors a chance to compete against patent farms like IBM.

Enlightenment 15y ago

Did they add anything to help kill patent trolls?