4 ms·

I don't really understand who benefits from this change? Doesn't everyone lose?

nicktelford 14y ago
I'm pretty sure the USPTO and Patent Attorneys win, given that it'll encourage more people to file patents, and sooner rather than later. Not sure of the impact on innovation, but my gut instinct isn't good.
- jrs235 14y ago
  The number of applications consisting of just ideas, that haven't been implemented, tested, or tried, is going to sky rocket. And who can afford to file so many patents? The "big" established guys. Things just got worse.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- unavoidable 14y ago
  First to file actually reduces amount and cost of litigation. It removes the need to prove that you invented something 'first', which invariably involves a lot of wrangling over when an invention was 'invented' and at what point something could even be considered 'invented'. Those questions were deemed to be distracting and not particularly helpful to the patent process. First-to-file may actually be more helpful in prior art searches because it reduces incentives to 'sit' on an invention and wait out the market, and increases certainty.
icebraining 14y ago
Just to clarify, since some people (not necessarily you) confuse this: first-to-file does not mean prior art doesn't count. If you publish something, it can stil be used to invalidate a patent or application. First-to-file just means that if two people apply for a patent, there's no possibility for the second to challenge the first with an interference proceeding[1] to attempt to prove using non-published evidence that you actually invented first. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference_proceedings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference_proceedings
uvdiv 14y ago
A previous thread answers this question: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5211221 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5211221
scotty79 14y ago
Lawyers benefit. It'll be cheaper to extort. You don't have to be afraid that someone else comes and proves that he invented this first. Owning a patent becomes almost risk free goldmine. Also more this will lead to more patents because you have to patent to avoid someone else patenting your stuff bit later and extorting money from you. Also more patents means more cannon fodder for lawyers for use in future extortions.
- icebraining 14y ago
  Actually, lawyers lose the money they got paid to prove/disprove that someone else invented it first. And no, you don't "have to patent to to avoid someone else patenting your stuff bit later". You can just publish it, which then counts as prior art.
bediger4000 14y ago
To my mind, "first to file" removes some of the moral basis of patents. That is, even if someone invented something first, whoever gets to the PTO first gets rewarded with ownership of the idea. We've taken away the reward that should be given to the First Inventor based on that sacred, difficult act of Creation.
- Gormo 14y ago
  There is no "moral basis" for patents: they're entirely a creation of positive law, which generates an artificial monopoly in an inherently non-rival good, for the explicit purpose of "promot[ing] the Progress of Science and useful Arts". No "sacred, difficult act of Creation" is recognized, nor has ever been recognized, as the source of patent law.
  - bediger4000 14y ago
    I happen to agree, but in Europe, that's not 100% true: artists have some "moral rights" as to how and when their work is exhibited. Even in the USA, even though the legal underpinnings don't recognize a "moral basis", legislation for the last 30-odd years seems to lean towards an "ideas as property" basis. I realize I'm conflating patent with copyright here, but so does the idea of "Intellectual Property". Why else would we grant a nearly everlasting monopoly (via copyright, again) other than to reward a Sacred, Difficult Act of Creation?
    - Gormo 14y ago
      > Why else would we grant a nearly everlasting monopoly (via copyright, again) other than to reward a Sacred, Difficult Act of Creation? You seem determined to find a moral root for what seem entirely to be pragmatic objects of law, but I don't think one exists to be found. If I were to eschew cynicism in answering your question, I'd propose that the legislators behind copyright extensions believe them to be the most effective means of pursuing the purpose of both patent and copyright law defined in the constitution, which I quoted in my previous comment. If we were to admit cynicism into the conversation, I'm sure you could anticipate what my answer might be.
rayiner 14y ago
As mentioned elsewhere, this is narrower than it seems. It's a rule of decision for what happens if two parties file at the same time, claiming to have invented first. Before, they fight in court to see who invented first. Now, they just look at who filed first. It does not to anything about prior art. Inventing and disclosing first still bars future patents.

I'm pretty sure the USPTO and Patent Attorneys win, given that it'll encourage more people to file patents, and sooner rather than later. Not sure of the impact on innovation, but my gut instinct isn't good.

jrs235 14y ago
The number of applications consisting of just ideas, that haven't been implemented, tested, or tried, is going to sky rocket. And who can afford to file so many patents? The "big" established guys. Things just got worse.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
unavoidable 14y ago
First to file actually reduces amount and cost of litigation. It removes the need to prove that you invented something 'first', which invariably involves a lot of wrangling over when an invention was 'invented' and at what point something could even be considered 'invented'. Those questions were deemed to be distracting and not particularly helpful to the patent process. First-to-file may actually be more helpful in prior art searches because it reduces incentives to 'sit' on an invention and wait out the market, and increases certainty.

icebraining 14y ago

Just to clarify, since some people (not necessarily you) confuse this: first-to-file does not mean prior art doesn't count. If you publish something, it can stil be used to invalidate a patent or application. First-to-file just means that if two people apply for a patent, there's no possibility for the second to challenge the first with an interference proceeding[1] to attempt to prove using non-published evidence that you actually invented first. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference_proceedings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference_proceedings

uvdiv 14y ago

A previous thread answers this question: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5211221 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5211221

scotty79 14y ago

Lawyers benefit. It'll be cheaper to extort. You don't have to be afraid that someone else comes and proves that he invented this first. Owning a patent becomes almost risk free goldmine. Also more this will lead to more patents because you have to patent to avoid someone else patenting your stuff bit later and extorting money from you. Also more patents means more cannon fodder for lawyers for use in future extortions.

icebraining 14y ago
Actually, lawyers lose the money they got paid to prove/disprove that someone else invented it first. And no, you don't "have to patent to to avoid someone else patenting your stuff bit later". You can just publish it, which then counts as prior art.

bediger4000 14y ago

To my mind, "first to file" removes some of the moral basis of patents. That is, even if someone invented something first, whoever gets to the PTO first gets rewarded with ownership of the idea. We've taken away the reward that should be given to the First Inventor based on that sacred, difficult act of Creation.

Gormo 14y ago
There is no "moral basis" for patents: they're entirely a creation of positive law, which generates an artificial monopoly in an inherently non-rival good, for the explicit purpose of "promot[ing] the Progress of Science and useful Arts". No "sacred, difficult act of Creation" is recognized, nor has ever been recognized, as the source of patent law.
- bediger4000 14y ago
  I happen to agree, but in Europe, that's not 100% true: artists have some "moral rights" as to how and when their work is exhibited. Even in the USA, even though the legal underpinnings don't recognize a "moral basis", legislation for the last 30-odd years seems to lean towards an "ideas as property" basis. I realize I'm conflating patent with copyright here, but so does the idea of "Intellectual Property". Why else would we grant a nearly everlasting monopoly (via copyright, again) other than to reward a Sacred, Difficult Act of Creation?
  - Gormo 14y ago
    > Why else would we grant a nearly everlasting monopoly (via copyright, again) other than to reward a Sacred, Difficult Act of Creation? You seem determined to find a moral root for what seem entirely to be pragmatic objects of law, but I don't think one exists to be found. If I were to eschew cynicism in answering your question, I'd propose that the legislators behind copyright extensions believe them to be the most effective means of pursuing the purpose of both patent and copyright law defined in the constitution, which I quoted in my previous comment. If we were to admit cynicism into the conversation, I'm sure you could anticipate what my answer might be.

rayiner 14y ago

As mentioned elsewhere, this is narrower than it seems. It's a rule of decision for what happens if two parties file at the same time, claiming to have invented first. Before, they fight in court to see who invented first. Now, they just look at who filed first. It does not to anything about prior art. Inventing and disclosing first still bars future patents.