US Senate passes patent reform bill

[akand074]

http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/09/us-senate-passes-patent-system-reform-bill-obama-expected-to-si/

Not sure how I completely feel about this. Or how much it will even change. But at least they are looking into the patent system.

[sffvba[e0rt]

http://patentabsurdity.com/

[karlson]

http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/09/us-senate-passes-patent-system-reform-bill-obama-expected-to-si/

Not sure how I completely feel about this. Or how much it will even change. But at least they are looking into the patent system.

Which they've done in their usual fashion so I don't see the advantage.

[dniMretsaM]

In my opinion, patents are way off track. Emphasis on "way." Software patents shouldn't even exist at all, and regular patents have become so general that it's getting absurd. This "reform" is not nearly enough. But at least they're sort of trying.

[earthpigg]

If I invent something first but you hire a lawyer to fill out a patent application first, then (under this new law) you are officially the owner of the patent.

How could anyone possibly not love this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_Reform_Act_of_2011#First_to_file_and_grace_ period

Oh, and in addition to being a direct threat to independent and innovative coders (many of whom release their stuff as Open Source, and who can then be later sued for it under this appalling scheme), it is in clear violation of the US Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause) as it has been interpreted for the last two centuries:


To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

No sane person (excluding those Congressmen that have been corrupted by Corporate special interests) would interpret "inventor" to mean "first person to hire a lawyer and file a report with big brother documenting what he has been doing in his spare time," as the new law stipulates.

[halibaitor]

I thought they "lost it" years ago when they allowed companies to patent genes found in humans. Now any other company that wants to do research into a patented gene has to first pay the other company, or be sued for patent infringement. (just for doing research?)

Is it just me, or is that system completely broken? The patented genes have been around for a few hundred thousand years, and weren't invented by anybody. They should be open source just like Linux.

Maybe I should file a patent for water. Then anybody that drinks it would have to pay me royalties. :guitar:

[Chimes]

I thought they "lost it" years ago when they allowed companies to patent genes found in humans. Now any other company that wants to do research into a patented gene has to first pay the other company, or be sued for patent infringement. (just for doing research?)

I've always thought "how can anyone look at the issuing of patents for publicly known human genes and not think 'these people are insane'?" At the least, god has prior art. :p

For those new to the controversy, I loved This American Life's radio episode "When Patents Attack," which provides a thorough unpacking of the problem and its implications on the future (or lack thereof) of technological innovation (It can be listened to for free online here (http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/when-patents-attack))

The "first-to-file" part of this bill appears to be a large piece of cake thrown to patent trolls and to corporate lobbyists. It increases the capacity of those with the most lawyers to blackmail tech startups into settlements, or destroy tech startups outright, through legal harassment. Software patents in general do not bode well for freedom of speech in our country. They harken back to the stifling, gummed-up beaureaucracy of the USSR. Surely this system serves a few interests extraordinarily well and those interests may do much for our country; but in doing so it also destroys the potential for our society's greater conceptual, legal and technological advancement.

[Bandit]

If I invent something first but you hire a lawyer to fill out a patent application first, then (under this new law) you are officially the owner of the patent.

How could anyone possibly not love this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_Reform_Act_of_2011#First_to_file_and_grace_ period

Oh, and in addition to being a direct threat to independent and innovative coders (many of whom release their stuff as Open Source, and who can then be later sued for it under this appalling scheme), it is in clear violation of the US Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause) as it has been interpreted for the last two centuries:



No sane person (excluding those Congressmen that have been corrupted by Corporate special interests) would interpret "inventor" to mean "first person to hire a lawyer and file a report with big brother documenting what he has been doing in his spare time," as the new law stipulates.
Word is the word.. Wait.. Word is patented.. I cant write anymore..

[akand074]

In my opinion, patents are way off track. Emphasis on "way." Software patents shouldn't even exist at all, and regular patents have become so general that it's getting absurd. This "reform" is not nearly enough. But at least they're sort of trying.

That's what I was saying by I'm not sure how I feel about this. I mean it's not really any big of a change. Not sure how much it'll fix. But at least they are accepting the fact that there is something wrong with the current system, and this may prevent stupid patents from getting through.

[JDShu]

A couple observations:

IIRC, patenting genes is specifically patenting artificially modified genes. The genes that we are born with are considered a natural resource like water and air and so cannot be patented.

First to file from first to invent sounds bad at first but it seems that prior art can still invalidate a patent application as long as it is clearly documented. It seems to be only when similar patent applications are submitted, that the first application will be considered over the subsequent ones. The obvious benefit from the change is that it becomes much easier to deal with for the patent office, so hopefully that will help them clear their backlog and maybe even consider patent applications more carefully.

All in all, I don't think this is a game changer and the patent wars will continue to escalate. None of the real issues have been addressed.

[earthpigg]

IIRC, patenting genes is specifically patenting artificially modified genes. The genes that we are born with are considered a natural resource like water and air and so cannot be patented.

I agree that patenting artificially created genes is reasonable - it takes a lot of R&D to create a _____ plant that can survive sub-freezing temperatures by modifying a gene to see to it that the _____ plant creates a protein to coat it's leaves with that the plant previously did not have.

And in that case, I'll even go so far as to say that 20 years is reasonable.

If modifying genes ever stops becoming incredibly difficult, time consuming, and expensive -- then my take on genetic patents will resemble my take on software patents.

[Paqman]

If I invent something first but you hire a lawyer to fill out a patent application first, then (under this new law) you are officially the owner of the patent.


That's the way it works everywhere else in the world. The trouble with the American system has always been:

How do you prove that you invented it first if you didn't file? People should keep detailed files, but often they don't.
How do you decide when during the process of invention the patentable item comes into being? Design and invention is an iterative process, products don't pop into being fully formed at a discrete time.


The American system has always been a bit of a nightmare IMO. This is a sensible change and brings the US into line with international practice, which simplifies everything. If you want your idea protected, get off your butt and file.

[Ms_Angel_D]

Closed for review