4 ms·

The loss of first to file means the end of American independent innovation. May God save us.

by daimyoyo 15y ago

resnamen 15y ago
Read the fine article?
- daimyoyo 15y ago
  Yes I did. And all I needed from it was the fact that we are switching from first to invent from first to file(IMHO the rest was partisan fluff trying to positively frame the legislation)and the fact is that this will allow the Nathan Myhrvold's and Lodsys trolls of the world to file a tsunami of vague conceptual patents with no intent of using them to create products. They will wait for a real innovator to "infringe" on them and then seek damages. I absolutely guarantee that if and or when this bill is signed into law that there will be entire departments of tech corporations that will do nothing but think up ideas, patent them and wait. As I have said, first to invent was the single biggest stop gap keeping the small, independent inventor in the game. As an example, do you really think that Robert Kearns[1] could have possibly fought Ford Motor CO without first to invent? First to invent is what has set America aside and now that it's effectively destroyed I genuinely believe that the small, independent inventor(the backbone of american innovation from Eli Whitney, to Larry and Sergei) will be put out of business. And that will negatively impact American innovation. Downvote me if you must, but I speak the truth. This "reform" means the death of the independent American inventor. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kearns http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kearns EDIT: I mixed up the terms on my first post. My bad. I still feel the switch to first to file will decimate the small, independent inventor.
  - danmaz74 15y ago
    You can't patent ideas, you have to patent working solutions. It's up to the USPTO - and later to the courts - to sort the ones from the others. The real problem here is "obvious" patents, not the first to file or to invent.
    - misterbee 15y ago
      This is not really true. A description of a "solution" is common practice for modern software patents, which is legal gobbledydook that has nothing to do with implementation. It's no diagram of a cotton gin these days.
      - danmaz74 15y ago
        I agree with you on this - this is THE problem. What I meant is that it shouldn't be so already with this legislation.
vacri 15y ago
er... hasn't the US just gained first to file?

The loss of first to file means the end of American independent innovation. May God save us.

resnamen 15y ago

Read the fine article?

daimyoyo 15y ago
Yes I did. And all I needed from it was the fact that we are switching from first to invent from first to file(IMHO the rest was partisan fluff trying to positively frame the legislation)and the fact is that this will allow the Nathan Myhrvold's and Lodsys trolls of the world to file a tsunami of vague conceptual patents with no intent of using them to create products. They will wait for a real innovator to "infringe" on them and then seek damages. I absolutely guarantee that if and or when this bill is signed into law that there will be entire departments of tech corporations that will do nothing but think up ideas, patent them and wait. As I have said, first to invent was the single biggest stop gap keeping the small, independent inventor in the game. As an example, do you really think that Robert Kearns[1] could have possibly fought Ford Motor CO without first to invent? First to invent is what has set America aside and now that it's effectively destroyed I genuinely believe that the small, independent inventor(the backbone of american innovation from Eli Whitney, to Larry and Sergei) will be put out of business. And that will negatively impact American innovation. Downvote me if you must, but I speak the truth. This "reform" means the death of the independent American inventor. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kearns http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kearns EDIT: I mixed up the terms on my first post. My bad. I still feel the switch to first to file will decimate the small, independent inventor.
- danmaz74 15y ago
  You can't patent ideas, you have to patent working solutions. It's up to the USPTO - and later to the courts - to sort the ones from the others. The real problem here is "obvious" patents, not the first to file or to invent.
  - misterbee 15y ago
    This is not really true. A description of a "solution" is common practice for modern software patents, which is legal gobbledydook that has nothing to do with implementation. It's no diagram of a cotton gin these days.
    - danmaz74 15y ago
      I agree with you on this - this is THE problem. What I meant is that it shouldn't be so already with this legislation.

vacri 15y ago

er... hasn't the US just gained first to file?