Patent law overhaul gets House panel OK
In a move that high-tech companies have been advocating for years, a House of Representatives panel on Wednesday unanimously approved a controversial patent bill that high-tech firms argue is critical to correcting perceived flaws in the U.S. system.
The Patent Reform Act of 2007 cleared the House Judiciary Committee with a handful of amendments, paving the way for its consideration by the full House. Supporters say its provisions would help curb litigation costs, weed out bad patents and restore balance to a system they argue tilts too heavily toward the rights of patent holders.
"Our objective in passing this bill is to reform the patent system so that patents continue to encourage innovation," Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.), the bill's chief sponsor, said in a statement after the vote. "When it functions properly, the patent system should encourage and enable inventors to push the boundaries of knowledge and possibility.
The bill proposes some of the most sweeping changes to the patent system in years, including replacing a system that awards patents to the "first to invent" with one based on the "first to file," which all other foreign patent systems use.
The approved version also includes a number of provisions long sought by technology companies--and contested by others. Most notable among the bunch are:
• A new framework for calculating damages in patent suits: High-tech companies, whose products generally rely on many thousands of patented components, have griped that the current system allows winners of patent infringement suits to obtain disproportionate damage awards--in turn, fueling inflated settlements and royalty agreements.
The approved bill would generally require courts to consider only the value the patent brought to the product unless the patent holder can prove the patent was the "predominant" reason for the product's market demand.
• A new, non-judicial body for mediating patent disputes early on: As an alternative to what is often time-consuming, expensive litigation, the bill would establish special review board within the Patent Office to handle challenges of recently issued patents. The final version removes a "second window" for such challenges that was criticized by pharmaceutical and manufacturing companies and venture capitalists as potentially undermining the value of their patents.
• Limits on findings of "willful" patent infringement: Patent infringers found to have done so "willfully" face the prospect of paying triple damages. The final bill attempts to limit such findings by requiring that patent holders take a number of actions, including presenting a court with "clear and convincing evidence" that their inventions were intentionally copied or proving they have already notified alleged infringers of an imminent lawsuit and exactly which products or processes infringe.
Technology industry groups were quick to applaud the move. In a statement, Computer & Communications Industry Association President Ed Black called the bill's passage "a step towards restoring balance to the patent system, rewarding those who create and hindering those who would abuse the system for unjustified gain." (CCIA's members include Google, Microsoft and Sun Microsystems).
But the tech industry shouldn't get too excited yet about the bill's prospects for enactment into law.
There is still significant resistance to portions of the bill from some pharmaceutical makers, universities, venture capitalists and other patent-dependent manufacturers (think companies like 3M, General Electric and Procter & Gamble). They argue that the changes proposed by the bill would water down the fundamental rights of patent holders and harm their business models.
A group called the Innovation Alliance--which includes representatives from universities, venture capital, biotechnology, nanotechnology and emerging-tech companies--said the committee made no "real progress" Wednesday in addressing its concerns. As drafted, the bill "will significantly erode the patent protections that have driven America's innovation leadership," the organization said in a statement.
It remains to be seen if or when the bill will advance to the House floor for a vote. Another variable lies with the Senate, which is still considering its own version of the legislation.
Still, the House committee's move is significant if only because efforts at so-called patent reform legislation in the last congressional session sputtered without a single vote, amid similar industry-specific disagreements.
If someone else has done it first, you should not get a patent. Prior art is very important. It keeps big companies from coming in and stealing the work of others.
If prior art exists, but the creator has not filed for a patent, no patent should be granted.
Using "first to file" will not allow companies to bypass prior art. Instead, it will help streamline the rare instances where two inventors want to patent the same invention at the same time.
BTW, I thought the US system was the bogeyman of the patent world anyways. Practically ALL of the world uses first to file, so it can't be that bad.
Under first to file, if someone else invented "it" first, then their invention will be used as prior art against the later filing, unless the earlier inventor failed to disclose their work and also failed to get a patent application in. So you see, the first to file system rewards those that try to either publish their inventions asap or patent them (which also results in publication). This is one of the reasons why the world uses this system...
That will fix this mess once and for all.
Honestly, THIS, is one of the REAL problems with the current "Patent System".
And, frankly the, alleged, "anti-obviousness" and "prior art" restrictions have NOT stopped the filing of huge numbers of such patents... Nor, has it helped invalidate this obscene pilferage of the "public domain". And, in my opinion, "First to File", is just another barrier to invalidating such, clearly, bogus attempts to unfairly abscond with such ideas.
But, then... after observing the Governments priorities for the last few years... I really didnt think that the Federal Government actually would stand-in-the-way of, such, -Big Money Interests- getting exactly what they wanted... no matter how damaging it will be to the tech-industry, the vast majority of true-innovators, or consumers and citizens.
Still... as this marches-on... I cant help but feel, overwhelmingly, disappointed.
Only those who really invent something revolutionary new that has not been thought of before should be awarded patents. Simply packaging existing known objects or methods into a new patent should never receive protection.
In other words, reward the man who invented the wire, not the man who twisted it into a paper clip because anyone is capable of doing that on their own once shown a wire.
At the turn of the century, in order to get a patent you had to show that the inventor had a "eureka moment." The inventor had to show that they greatly differentiated from prior work by an instant stroke of genius.
This proved unworkable very quickly. Especially nowadays it also wouldn't work since most inventions are "boring" and involve improvements over what else is out there as opposed a flash of genius. While there may be too many patents today, under that standard there would be too few. Getting a patent would be too difficult and only big companies would have the resources to prove to the patent office that their employees' work is the product of true discovery and innovation.
This is why the law changed somewhere around the 1920's.
obvious to you - however you have the benefit of knowing that
something like the paperclip is possible. Think about it - wire
and spring wire have been known for hundreds of years. People
have had the need to bind paper paper together for hundreds of
years but the paper clip was only invented in 1899. Why?
Because it *wasn't* obvious to people for the hundreds of years
preceeding that moment of invention.
The moment of insight - and the resultant work to bring that
insight to the point of feasibility - is what patents protect. They
give people the motivation and financial incentive to invest their
time, resources, and money into the process of innovation.
Lawmakers: ask any company that lobbies for increased patent protections what percentage of their workforce is in India, China, or any other country that doesn't respect patent rights and that actively tries to depress US wages and working conditions. If they lie, jail them. If they answer truthfully, tell them to ask China and India for protection.
They should be demanding the Indian and Chinese governments change patent laws: they have no moral right asking for any type of US protection.
Yeah, Microsoft and Oracle and all kinds of megacorporations are all in favor of making sure that they can rip off any and all ideas they want with miminal penalties. And, of course, the Open Source crowd is down with that, because stealing someone else's innovation is what makes their nerves jangle.
But how about the actual, well, innovators? You know, the guys and gals who come up with the ideas that these other people get off on thieving? What's in the "reform" for them?
How about squat, and lots of it?
So why do Americans insist on believing that the patent system is so wonderful when, across all industries, and particularly across software, it's so bad? Perhaps the same reason we turned to Margerine as a substitute for butter, corn syrup as a substitute for cane sugar, and SUVs as a substitute for a much safer and more practical family car.
I hope that House takes this as a starting point, and continues reforming until we are all free to innovate again!
- Yesss...innovation is good
- by bcroner July 22, 2007 6:53 PM PDT
- "A group called the Innovation Alliance--which includes representatives from universities, venture capital, biotechnology, nanotechnology and emerging-tech companies--said the committee made no "real progress" Wednesday in addressing its concerns. As drafted, the bill "will significantly erode the patent protections that have driven America's innovation leadership," the organization said in a statement."--
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- non-workers can position themselves elsewhere
- by bcroner July 22, 2007 7:03 PM PDT
- If a bunch of capitalist crooks insist they sit around and do nothing, but get other people's worlds placed into their outstretched hands, they can sit around and do nothing way the hell away from me. A job is a form of labor. A position isn't necessarily anything of the sort.
- Like this
-
(18 Comments)Kind of like calling "anti-rights" "pro-choice," or "slave brainwashing lobbyists" the "Christian Coalition." They are an alliance against innovation. I'd like to address this here statement:
'"will significantly erode the patent protections that have driven America's innovation leadership,"'- Well good. America's innovation leadership should be handed over to the actual inventor himself. No idiot venture capitalist owns what I make. It's my brainchild, it's my leadership. You want something innovative, invent the damn thing yourself. America's current and recent innovation leadership is a bunch of morons who muscle, bully, and blatantly steal inventions to capitalize for themselves.