Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 23rd Jun 2011 22:49 UTC, submitted by Jennimc
Legal "The House on Wednesday took up the most far-reaching overhaul of the patent system in 60 years, a bill that leaders in both parties said would make it easier for inventors to get their innovations to market and help put people back to work. The legislation, supported by the Obama administration and a broad range of business groups and high tech companies, 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." In other words, more protection for large companies like Google, Apple, and Microsoft, and an increasing number of nonsense patents due to faster application procedures.
Thread beginning with comment 478458
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Why is this better ?
by flynn on Fri 24th Jun 2011 14:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why is this better ?"
Member since:

In Sweden you cannot patent something that is "out in the wild". If you give a public demonstration before filing for the patent then you are screwed. Once its out its out.

I thought this was common sense and standard procedure...

The concept you are referring to is called "prior art" and is present in the US also, with the slight caveat that the original inventor has one year from the public demonstration to file for the patent.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Why is this better ?
by ephracis on Fri 24th Jun 2011 15:28 in reply to "RE[3]: Why is this better ?"
ephracis Member since:

Yes, of course. But how would this change prior art? If I am to understand korrel correctly then it would drastically change this.

If there's one change I want to make to the judicial system in the US it would be this:

Make the looser pay for the winners costs in civil matters.

If you threaten me with your patent and I feel that your patent is bogus I can challenge you and if I win, I won't loose any money, which I shouldn't, because when the patent was declared invalid so was your threat and thus, it shouldn't have costed me anything to call your bluff.

That's the one change I would love to make. Oh, and do I need to tell you that we have it like this in Sweden. I may have a lot to complain about but there are some things that we actually do right. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Why is this better ?
by david6477 on Fri 24th Jun 2011 16:02 in reply to "RE[4]: Why is this better ?"
david6477 Member since:

In the US, it is possible to have the loser pay for the winner's court costs. I don't think it is an automatic ruling, but it is possible.

But that really isn't the big problem. The big issue is that all parties have to get to the end of the court process to find out who the winner and loser are. Getting to the end requires resources. This is actually a common tactic, I think: a big corporation bogs the court process down in an attempt to "wait-out" the opponent who has less money. This turns into classic siege situation: the winner is determined by who has the most resources to intelligently expend.

So, you get threatened with a patent and you feel the patent is bogus; the only way to become the winner in the court room is to go through the whole court process. Yes, you may not end paying anything in the end, but you have to pay for the interim court costs until then (you have to eat as well). Having a guarantee that you will pay nothing out of pocket "in the end" to call someone's bluff is not enough; you actually have to have enough resources to get to the end of the court process. If you don't have the resources to get to the end of the court process, you give up and you lose and get nothing in return. In fact, you get double-screwed: you had to pay for a court process that ultimately netted you nothing except expended resources, and now you have to pay resources to be compliant with a "bogus" patent.

But maybe your system collects no money until the court process is over? A practice like that would help mitigate at least the financial resources required for a court process. There would still be the legal quagmire to swim through which may or may not require non-monetary resources to deal with.

I am also with the camp that is not sure how this new patent system will help. I will have to do a lot more reading to figure that out. However, of this I am sure: if there are any loopholes that allow big and private corporations to push around those with less resources, the system will be no improvement. Whatever benefits come from the system will be swallowed up by the exploitation of the loopholes.

Edited 2011-06-24 16:06 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2