US House Takes Up Major Overhaul of Patent System 205
Bookworm09 writes "The House took up the most far-reaching overhaul of the patent system in 60 years today, with a bill both parties say will make it easier for inventors to get their innovations to market and help put people back to work. Backed by Obama and business groups, the legislation aims to ease the lengthy backlog in patent applications, clean up some of the procedures that can lead to costly litigation and put the United States under the same filing system as the rest of the industrialized world."
Re:Yeah, but... (Score:5, Informative)
(I know, too much to ask, etc. Knowing Congress, they'll just make it all that much easier for patent trolls and big corps to plow through even the silliest patents now.)
New patent process for large businesses:
Patent Clerk: OK, let's get started. Is your company valued at over $1 billion?
Applicant: No, not yet. We're hoping this patent will help us get there.
Patent Clerk: I'm sorry, please come back when you're large enough to matter. Next!
Patent Clerk: OK, let's get started. Is your company valued at over $1 billion?
Applicant: Yes, of course.
Patent Clerk: Excellent. All right then, have you checked for prior art on this application?
Applicant: Yes, of course.
Patent Clerk: And did you find any prior art?
Applicant: Of course not.
Patent Clerk: Good. Did you really invent this?
Applicant: Yes, of course.
Patent Clerk: OK. Anything else I should know about this application?
Applicant: Of course not.
Patent Clerk: Piny swear?
Applicant: Piny swear.
Patent Clerk: Great - application granted! Anything else I can help you with today?
Applicant: Do you happen to know the name of that guy who was in line ahead of me? I think he's violating my new patent.
Re:Mod parent up (Score:5, Informative)
All those conversations about "prior art" that we love to throw around here? Whooosh....all gone. Prior art only matters in "first to invent" instead of first to file.
Get a clue. Prior art is relevant to "first to file" as well as "first to invent". You cannot invent something which already exists, so prior art is an absolute obstacle in either case. The difference between first to file and first to invent is that it's much easier to determine who was first to file. For first to invent, it's necessary to examine the evidence of invention (lab notebooks, internal emails, notes of discussions, etc.).
On top of that... (Score:4, Informative)
That sounds like a savings, but the reality is that the change means you're just FUCKED. Now, if you find you're infringing a patent you can spend 400 to 500K and show that you invented it first and you are not infringing (other may be, but not you). After this, the option to defend yourself WILL BE GONE. Because some company patents something you're already doing, you will be barred from doing it. period. end of story. Because they filed first.
I find it odd that the US considers itself to be a leader in innovation, but we need to change our system to match the rest of the world...
Re:Patent value-based system (Score:2, Informative)
The intent of patents isn't to protect knowledge that is out in the open as if it were a secret.
The intent is to give incentives to make secret knowledge public.
Think publishing a "how to build a Stradivarius violin" manual, not a "how to make several small pieces of paper out of a big one" manual.
Basically patents weren't meant for technologies that are practical to reverse-engineer. They were meant for technology that is impossible to reverse-engineer.
I know modern reality is far from the ideal.