Comments on: Microsoft: Patent overhaul needed now

Proposed changes include cutting back on litigation--a potential boon for the company, which spends $100 million a year on IP lawsuits.

[aabcdefghij987654321]

Watch one thing carefully!

There's pressure being built to swap from the "First to invent" to the "First to File" model which could have a very serious negative impact.

With the "First to File" model you could have a person develop some software which is patentable but who fails to do so or deliberately chooses not to patent it. Some other company could quickly make their own code, file for a patent and then sue the true inventor for damages.

The proposed new model would appear to invalidate the "Prior art" model.

[hadaso]

What is needed is an "open prior art registry"

> ... a person develop some software which is
> patentable but who fails to do so or
> deliberately chooses not to ...

In a world (or country) were every line of a program is potentially patentable, it is impossible to patent everything. Certainly by those who cannot afford to hire a professional to do the filing. M$'s suggetion to remove the filing fees for individuals and small businesses is ignoring the fact that the real costs of filing a patent are not in the fees. What they ask for is an environment were smaller players can patent a bit more, but bigger player can grab the rest of the smaller players' work and confiscate it ("file first" someone else's work).

"Prior art" is a good concept, but it too is expensive to use when needed. How do you know/prove that prior art exists for something? especially when that something is written in a language only understood by "patent lawyers"? For a small company it is often impossible to defend against a larger one even if prior art exists, since finding it, or proving that it's relevant might be to expensive and too high a risk, so settling for peanuts is a better option.

What is needed for small players who might not want to go theough the process of obtaing a patent, but don't want someone else to obtain a patent on their work, is a different kind of registry, that just records the prior art in an accessible way, without providing the monopoly rights that a patent provides. The purpose of a patent is to create a (temporary) monopoly: no one else is allowed to "think the same thought" for a while (until the patent term expires). "Just prior art" does not disallow anyone else to "think the same thought". It just disallows anyone else to obtain a monopoly on the idea by filing a patent. However, when there is a patent and there is prior art, the burden (and costs) of proof lie on the prior art's side, and that side is often the side short of cash.

Some open and free registry that would collect facts and references relating to ideas, either patented or not, in a way that would make it easier to find the information about prior art and to find the relevant references to actual evidence (real documents, names of people involved that might be able to testify etc.) would make it easier for the small players or those who chose not to profit from their ideas to defend their rights. It would certainly be easier than filing patents on every written line of code, and it can also serve to collect info on older prior art that is not patentable now. Something similar to a wikipedia might work for this. Of course a lot of thought has to into deciding how to implement such a project, but the idea is that anyone who has info would be able to contribute it, and anyone who has to defend by showing a patent shouldn't have been granted because of prior art would have much easier life and much lower cost in finding the info proving the prior art claim.

Such a registry can be operated by a "not for profit" organization who would live on donations, or on reasonable fees for providing authirised copies of the information to be used in courts (i.e., info would be freely searchable on the web, and only when the info would be needed in court a formal certified copy would cost some money).

[aabcdefghij987654321]

Watch one thing carefully!

There's pressure being built to swap from the "First to invent" to the "First to File" model which could have a very serious negative impact.

With the "First to File" model you could have a person develop some software which is patentable but who fails to do so or deliberately chooses not to patent it. Some other company could quickly make their own code, file for a patent and then sue the true inventor for damages.

The proposed new model would appear to invalidate the "Prior art" model.

[hadaso]

What is needed is an "open prior art registry"

> ... a person develop some software which is
> patentable but who fails to do so or
> deliberately chooses not to ...

In a world (or country) were every line of a program is potentially patentable, it is impossible to patent everything. Certainly by those who cannot afford to hire a professional to do the filing. M$'s suggetion to remove the filing fees for individuals and small businesses is ignoring the fact that the real costs of filing a patent are not in the fees. What they ask for is an environment were smaller players can patent a bit more, but bigger player can grab the rest of the smaller players' work and confiscate it ("file first" someone else's work).

"Prior art" is a good concept, but it too is expensive to use when needed. How do you know/prove that prior art exists for something? especially when that something is written in a language only understood by "patent lawyers"? For a small company it is often impossible to defend against a larger one even if prior art exists, since finding it, or proving that it's relevant might be to expensive and too high a risk, so settling for peanuts is a better option.

What is needed for small players who might not want to go theough the process of obtaing a patent, but don't want someone else to obtain a patent on their work, is a different kind of registry, that just records the prior art in an accessible way, without providing the monopoly rights that a patent provides. The purpose of a patent is to create a (temporary) monopoly: no one else is allowed to "think the same thought" for a while (until the patent term expires). "Just prior art" does not disallow anyone else to "think the same thought". It just disallows anyone else to obtain a monopoly on the idea by filing a patent. However, when there is a patent and there is prior art, the burden (and costs) of proof lie on the prior art's side, and that side is often the side short of cash.

Some open and free registry that would collect facts and references relating to ideas, either patented or not, in a way that would make it easier to find the information about prior art and to find the relevant references to actual evidence (real documents, names of people involved that might be able to testify etc.) would make it easier for the small players or those who chose not to profit from their ideas to defend their rights. It would certainly be easier than filing patents on every written line of code, and it can also serve to collect info on older prior art that is not patentable now. Something similar to a wikipedia might work for this. Of course a lot of thought has to into deciding how to implement such a project, but the idea is that anyone who has info would be able to contribute it, and anyone who has to defend by showing a patent shouldn't have been granted because of prior art would have much easier life and much lower cost in finding the info proving the prior art claim.

Such a registry can be operated by a "not for profit" organization who would live on donations, or on reasonable fees for providing authirised copies of the information to be used in courts (i.e., info would be freely searchable on the web, and only when the info would be needed in court a formal certified copy would cost some money).

[qazwiz]

Prior Art MUST Remain

Without the Prior Art feature people will literally be able to reinvent the wheel.

No one should be able to profit from forgery and forging a patent from someone else's work is just as wrong as writing a check on his bank account.

Whether software code is patentable is another question. It fulfills the requirements of copyright law and is more applicable there in my opinion. (In the computer world, hardware is patentable, software is copyrightable and a ROM is both, for hardware design and software burned into it)

But in anycase PRIOR ART must remain!



:0) :^) :@)

[qazwiz]

Prior Art MUST Remain

Without the Prior Art feature people will literally be able to reinvent the wheel.

No one should be able to profit from forgery and forging a patent from someone else's work is just as wrong as writing a check on his bank account.

Whether software code is patentable is another question. It fulfills the requirements of copyright law and is more applicable there in my opinion. (In the computer world, hardware is patentable, software is copyrightable and a ROM is both, for hardware design and software burned into it)

But in anycase PRIOR ART must remain!



:0) :^) :@)

Submarine patents are evil

I think any patent holder who has not demonstrated any work or effort to materialize or create an invention within a year should lose their patent. Some people just create an idea and do nothing with it, in hopes that some other 'rich' sap (or soon to be) will have the same idea and do bring it to fruition, so that the person who patented it first will benefit from it. If we were to really apply the current system, most science fiction writers should hold the majority of patents. If a patent doesn't result in an idea that is brought to reality in some tangible form during a reasonable amount of time, it should be invalidated.

Submarine patents are evil

I think any patent holder who has not demonstrated any work or effort to materialize or create an invention within a year should lose their patent. Some people just create an idea and do nothing with it, in hopes that some other 'rich' sap (or soon to be) will have the same idea and do bring it to fruition, so that the person who patented it first will benefit from it. If we were to really apply the current system, most science fiction writers should hold the majority of patents. If a patent doesn't result in an idea that is brought to reality in some tangible form during a reasonable amount of time, it should be invalidated.

[Bill Dautrive]

More self-serving blather

Just what we need, make the already broken patent system, more broken so it works in microsofts favor.

Does anyone at Microsoft have any shame? Or ethics? Or morals? I have yet to see one shred of proof that anyone there(at least in a decision making capacity) has any shred of decency whatsoever.

[Bill Dautrive]

More self-serving blather

Just what we need, make the already broken patent system, more broken so it works in microsofts favor.

Does anyone at Microsoft have any shame? Or ethics? Or morals? I have yet to see one shred of proof that anyone there(at least in a decision making capacity) has any shred of decency whatsoever.