How 'bout some. Especially for the tech companies.

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/12/patent-madness/

As Nathan Myhrvold unleashes the mother of all patent-troll battles Kevin Drum surveys the overall madness:

 

n general, it’s been a massive abdication of responsibility for Congress not to spend some time reforming patent law. Far too many patents are granted, they’re granted for inventions that are far too trivial and far too narrow, the patent office is far too poorly staffed to deal with them properly, and patent trolls like Myhrvold are allowed to sit back and do nothing for years and then suddenly start harassing corporations long after they’ve built up major businesses around supposedly infringing patents. It’s a disgrace, and it’s bad for innovation and bad for business.

 

Yes. This is a badly under-discussed policy fiasco in the United States. The idea of patent law is to spur innovation by ensuring adequate rewards for inventors, which is fine. But when the system is allowed to run amok and essentially be controlled by a patent bar with an interest in maximizing the overall quantity of litigation you get a disaster that does more to stymie innovation than to reward it. I was interested to learn a couple of days ago from Markus Beckedahl that in Europe they quite rightly simply refuse to accept the concept of a “software patent” altogether.

 

At any rate, this is not only an important issue, but since it’s not a particularly “ideological” or “partisan” one in a classic sense, it’s definitely something well-meaning members of the 112th Congress should try to take a look at. The prospects for major reform of anything in the US system are never very good, but this isn’t a topic on which partisan gridlock as such would be an obstacle to progress.

This issue fits into the category of "an issue that a lot of people care slightly about but not enough to make it a priority...while a small number of people care a whole lot and will spend whatever it takes to make sure that it never becomes a priority".

some pretty rich companies have had some pretty ridiculous patent trolling happen against them.

Most attorneys dont even understand the patent process.

 

Im not sure how the original patent wouldnt have been caught in the prior art search of the subsequent patent, but Im not a patent attorney so i dont deal with that stuff.

Thankfully, a recent court case was a set back, but some medical companies were trying to patent identified human gene sequences.

DEFINITELY needs to be addressed. I'll leave it at that.

Needs to be addressed as much as the poster above this posts avatar.

you guys have any examples? I'm trying to change the world with this thread.

Get rid of software patents

yep. But that was in post #1.

 

software patent trolls are hilarious. And they win. If you want to run a software company you need to buy every vague patent saying things you might be doing to prevent ridiculous lawsuits.

stupid patents like these is what i'm talking about

http://techcrunch.com/2010/12/21/where-geofencing-patent/

http://techcrunch.com/2011/01/20/twitter-l...s-technologies/

Thankfully, this issue is not overly ideological, so I'm sure no prominent people associated with any well-funded movement will back up on one side or the other.

The Senate on Monday will begin debating a bill that critics say will undermine American strength abroad, plunder the United States economy and exceed the government’s constitutional authority.

 

The subject: patent reform.

 

Rarely has the Patent and Trademark Office elicited such passions. But included in the bill is a long-debated feature that would change the federal patent system to a “first to file” protocol of determining patent priority — one used by nearly all of the rest of the world — from its current “first to invent” system.

 

“This bill would be death to innovation in America,” said Phyllis Schlafly, the conservative writer and activist who has rallied opposition to the bill among conservative groups like the Gun Owners of America and the Christian Coalition.

 

Those groups have joined in opposition with small-business advocates and groups of professional engineers, who say that the change would favor big corporations over small inventors and make it harder for start-ups to ward off people seeking to steal their ideas.

 

David J. Kappos, the director of the patent office and under secretary of commerce for intellectual property, disagrees, as do the Obama administration and scores of technology and manufacturing companies whose success can be traced, in large part, to the patents they received on their creations.

 

“This would be an enormous improvement,” Mr. Kappos said of the bill. The current, first-to-invent system does no more than grant an inventor “a lottery ticket,” with the right to defend in court whether he was the first to come up with an idea, Mr. Kappos said. A first-to-file system “adds transparency and objectivity” in the form of a clear line of priority — that is, who arrived first at the patent office.

 

The bill would also change procedures for challenging patents, before and after they are issued, alter how damages can be assessed and allow the patent office to set its own fees for applicants.

 

It also contains an odd provision that would outlaw patenting “any strategy for reducing, avoiding or deferring” federal, state or local taxes.

 

Sponsored by Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah and Senator Chuck Grassley, Republican of Iowa, the patent bill was unanimously approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee in February. As the first overhaul of patent laws in six decades, the bill appears to be on a bipartisan path to approval in both houses of Congress, each of which has approved similar legislation in the past.

 

But that effort could be threatened by grass-roots conservatives and the wild-card class of Republican freshmen in the House, who have already shown their willingness to break with party leaders. In the bill’s favor, the patent office is self-financing, and the legislation would not add to the budget deficit.

Britain is also redoing patent law.

New rules give advantages to large companies that can afford to patent first invent later. I would not agree with any change of the law that would take away invent first.

 

Many inventors do not have the funds to actually patent/prototype their invention. They often have to go to major companies and have them sign nda's etc, how would that work with the new law? If I have a NDA with GM and then GM goes and patents my work, they are technically in breach of my agreement, but they also have the patent.

 

I guess Id have to see more into it to see if there are going to be more protections for small inventors.

Yes but it needs to slow down the bulls*** patent suits being used against web startups. Twitter just got sued because somebody patented "a medium for which celebrities can communicate with each other" and they granted it. Software patents have been given out like candy and it's hurt the startups who have incredibly vague patents used against them. Even if it gets thrown out it's a waste of resources.

But those rules would do nothing more than just change the game. If I am a major company say Microsoft, I submit as thousands of patents hoping that I write one vague enough to some how say I patented twitter, etc.

 

So it wont end patent lawsuits, except if you consider the big boys leveraging out every small competitor via threat of lawsuit. As for patents themselves, they are extremely difficult and something that Ive only been a part of 1 time. Drafting was ridiculously annoying and problematic to say the least.

 

As for the proposed change, Im not a huge fan of a law that will significantly tip the scales in big businesses favor. But I can completely understand why big business is padding some pockets to make this change.

I guess Id have to see more into it to see if there are going to be more protections for small inventors.

Small inventors don't have lobbyists.

But those rules would do nothing more than just change the game. If I am a major company say Microsoft, I submit as thousands of patents hoping that I write one vague enough to some how say I patented twitter, etc.

 

So it wont end patent lawsuits, except if you consider the big boys leveraging out every small competitor via threat of lawsuit. As for patents themselves, they are extremely difficult and something that Ive only been a part of 1 time. Drafting was ridiculously annoying and problematic to say the least.

 

As for the proposed change, Im not a huge fan of a law that will significantly tip the scales in big businesses favor. But I can completely understand why big business is padding some pockets to make this change.

 

agreed

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/07/25/...-patents-attack

 

NPR takes on patent trolls. Yes, the system is broken. No, you shouldn't be allowed to patent windows that pop up when you scroll your mouse over a button.

Heard a good chunk of that Saturday. Our laws are seriously broken.