4 ms·

Patents, by function, are government granted monopolies over a idea or concept. So, basically, the person that holds the patents is guaranteed to have the abil

Patents, by function, are government granted monopolies over a idea or concept. So, basically, the person that holds the patents is guaranteed to have the ability to sue anybody that infringes on the patents. This is backed up the ability of the government to inflict violence on anybody that infringes. And what is happening is that the system is getting worse. USA was unique in that it had a first-to-invent rule governing patents. That is if you are the first inventor of something you have the right to the patent even if somebody else pays off the government first. However, soon it's going to be first-to-file. Meaning that even if you invented something first you can still infringe on a patent if somebody else is able to get to the patent office and pay them off first. This will go into effect on March 16, 2013. Now people will argue that this streamlines the system and makes it much easier to identify people that have the legal ownership of a particular patent and thus reduce fees and the expense of taking people to court.... But seeing how patents are generally terrible things then making something that is terrible better at being terrible is not really the sort of 'reform' that we should be looking forward to.

astrodust 14y ago
I'm sure people will be patenting the hell out of anything and everything at that point in time. They'll be paying interns to scour through dusty old computer science papers, publications, even textbooks for anything that hasn't been nailed down and patented. I'm sure there's people in a certain part of Texas that couldn't be happier. For the rest of us it sounds like an unending hell. It's like malaria in lawsuit form.
- natermer 14y ago
  Yes. Theoretically 'first to file' still yields to 'first to publish'. But as I explained in my reply to my own post above this still means that it puts massive advantages into the hands of large corporate players at the expense of everybody else.
  - darkestkhan 14y ago
    Technically yes, in practice it strengthens prior art - you have to file it BEFORE any someone makes demos or product samples as that would invalidate patent. At least that will slightly improve patent situation in US.
    - astrodust 14y ago
      If by slightly, you mean that like throwing water on a blazing grease fire there's this surprisingly brief interval where it looks like it's working. Then everything in the kitchen catches on fire, including you.
natermer 14y ago
To help put into a bit more perspective in case anybody is doubting the wrong direction of the first-to-file reform... Basically: "First to file" means that unless you are able to get your product to market and publish it before another person files on your invention then you lose your 'rights' to use your invention. In business it is very very easy to invent something. People come up with new and useful ideas all the time, and create demos and sample products, etc etc. Inventing something isn't the problem. Actually developing it and turning into a profitable product is the really difficult problem. In other words: The act of taking the idea to fruition is the issue here. Inventing new things just happens as a matter of course. Now in business the reason you will have a long time lag from invention, prototype, and then into production is lack of capital. It's extremely expensive process and you must have significant ability, credit, and resources to take something to public in a meaningful way. This means you either must sell your idea to 'big corp' or spend a huge amount of time, probably years, painfully making your case to various creditors and working a business up from scratch. Now the people that don't have this problem are obviously 'Big Corp'. They have lots of money and lots of resources so raising capital isn't a problem for them. Hiring lots of engineers and lots of lawyers to scrutinize the engineer's activity and then file patents on behalf of 'Big corp' isn't a problem either. Therefore 'first to file' as a matter of course will eliminate the competitiveness of 'individual inventors' and place pretty much all the market advantages granted by the patent system into the hands of massive corporations.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- learc83 14y ago
  First to file only comes into play if someone is filing a competing patent. You can no longer say that you had it in development 10 years ago and just hadn't released it. Additionally, proving first to invent is difficult and favors large companies already. >Now in business the reason you will have a long time lag from invention, prototype, and then into production is lack of capital. It's extremely expensive process and you must have significant ability, credit, and resources to take something to public in a meaningful way. There is no need to actually produce a full commercial product. All you need to do is publish your work to establish prior art. You can publish and file a patent at the invention and prototype stage. Plus, after you publish it you have up to a year to file for a patent. Invent something, publish, file for patent, and then develop it commercially. In practice first to file will have very little effect on the vast majority of patents.
pbhjpbhj 14y ago
>However, soon it's going to be first-to-file. Meaning that even if you invented something first you can still infringe on a patent if somebody else is able to get to the patent office and pay them off first. // This is how it is in the rest of the world. If patents are about giving information about inventions to the public domain in exchange for a limited time monopoly; which is the best form IMO. Then it is right to put pressure on inventors to either publish their inventions or patent them, their choice. If you find the invention valuable then you can patent it - submit a minimum sufficient disclosure to get a filing date and go on from there. If the invention is not so valuable or you want to merely protect from others filing then you can simply publish the invention. The whole idea is to get new inventions published as soon as possible with enough detail to enable skilled practitioners to recreate the invention. In the UK it is free to file an application; but you need to pay to get it processed, searched and examined. WRT your last argument are you saying that you'd rather that patents take up more court time and attract more legal expenses (which ultimately get paid by consumers)?

astrodust 14y ago

I'm sure people will be patenting the hell out of anything and everything at that point in time. They'll be paying interns to scour through dusty old computer science papers, publications, even textbooks for anything that hasn't been nailed down and patented. I'm sure there's people in a certain part of Texas that couldn't be happier. For the rest of us it sounds like an unending hell. It's like malaria in lawsuit form.

natermer 14y ago
Yes. Theoretically 'first to file' still yields to 'first to publish'. But as I explained in my reply to my own post above this still means that it puts massive advantages into the hands of large corporate players at the expense of everybody else.
- darkestkhan 14y ago
  Technically yes, in practice it strengthens prior art - you have to file it BEFORE any someone makes demos or product samples as that would invalidate patent. At least that will slightly improve patent situation in US.
  - astrodust 14y ago
    If by slightly, you mean that like throwing water on a blazing grease fire there's this surprisingly brief interval where it looks like it's working. Then everything in the kitchen catches on fire, including you.

natermer 14y ago

To help put into a bit more perspective in case anybody is doubting the wrong direction of the first-to-file reform... Basically: "First to file" means that unless you are able to get your product to market and publish it before another person files on your invention then you lose your 'rights' to use your invention. In business it is very very easy to invent something. People come up with new and useful ideas all the time, and create demos and sample products, etc etc. Inventing something isn't the problem. Actually developing it and turning into a profitable product is the really difficult problem. In other words: The act of taking the idea to fruition is the issue here. Inventing new things just happens as a matter of course. Now in business the reason you will have a long time lag from invention, prototype, and then into production is lack of capital. It's extremely expensive process and you must have significant ability, credit, and resources to take something to public in a meaningful way. This means you either must sell your idea to 'big corp' or spend a huge amount of time, probably years, painfully making your case to various creditors and working a business up from scratch. Now the people that don't have this problem are obviously 'Big Corp'. They have lots of money and lots of resources so raising capital isn't a problem for them. Hiring lots of engineers and lots of lawyers to scrutinize the engineer's activity and then file patents on behalf of 'Big corp' isn't a problem either. Therefore 'first to file' as a matter of course will eliminate the competitiveness of 'individual inventors' and place pretty much all the market advantages granted by the patent system into the hands of massive corporations.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
learc83 14y ago
First to file only comes into play if someone is filing a competing patent. You can no longer say that you had it in development 10 years ago and just hadn't released it. Additionally, proving first to invent is difficult and favors large companies already. >Now in business the reason you will have a long time lag from invention, prototype, and then into production is lack of capital. It's extremely expensive process and you must have significant ability, credit, and resources to take something to public in a meaningful way. There is no need to actually produce a full commercial product. All you need to do is publish your work to establish prior art. You can publish and file a patent at the invention and prototype stage. Plus, after you publish it you have up to a year to file for a patent. Invent something, publish, file for patent, and then develop it commercially. In practice first to file will have very little effect on the vast majority of patents.

pbhjpbhj 14y ago

>However, soon it's going to be first-to-file. Meaning that even if you invented something first you can still infringe on a patent if somebody else is able to get to the patent office and pay them off first. // This is how it is in the rest of the world. If patents are about giving information about inventions to the public domain in exchange for a limited time monopoly; which is the best form IMO. Then it is right to put pressure on inventors to either publish their inventions or patent them, their choice. If you find the invention valuable then you can patent it - submit a minimum sufficient disclosure to get a filing date and go on from there. If the invention is not so valuable or you want to merely protect from others filing then you can simply publish the invention. The whole idea is to get new inventions published as soon as possible with enough detail to enable skilled practitioners to recreate the invention. In the UK it is free to file an application; but you need to pay to get it processed, searched and examined. WRT your last argument are you saying that you'd rather that patents take up more court time and attract more legal expenses (which ultimately get paid by consumers)?