
House Bill for Patent Office Reform Nearly Finished - joshuacc
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/22/business/22patent.html
======
jinushaun
"The bill generally updates the process for challenging patents and would
change the patent system to one thatawards a patent to the first inventor to
file a specific claim.

Currently, the first person to invent something has patent priority, whether
or not he is the first to file an application."

First to file trumps first to invent? That sounds awful and a step backwards.

~~~
amalcon
That all depends on exactly what the bill says.

It could make prior art irrelevant (huge step backwards, but I think
unlikely). Alternatively, it could leave prior art intact. In which case, if
party B patents something party A invented a short time before, and someone
can prove this, then nobody gets the patent. Party A's invention is prior art
to party B's patent.

Under the current system, party A would get the patent.

edit: Tracked down the bill text. I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice;
read it yourself and make your own opinions:
<http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h1249/text>

    
    
      (a) Novelty; Prior Art- A person shall be entitled to a 
      patent unless--
    
          ‘(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in 
      a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or 
      otherwise available to the public before the effective 
      filing date of the claimed invention; or
      
          ‘(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent 
      issued under section 151, or in an application for patent 
      published or deemed published under section 122(b), in 
      which the patent or application, as the case may be, 
      names another inventor and was effectively filed before 
      the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
    

I'm still trying to track down the original patent act to compare with, but it
looks like prior art continues to be valid in the form of a publication or
product. The dubiously-valid trick of mailing a description of the idea to
yourself would not seem to work, and it's questionable whether the Internet
would count as "printed", but it shouldn't be too difficult to set up a
"protopatent publishing journal" that exists purely to protect inventors from
having their ideas patented later.

~~~
dwg128
Mailing yourself anything is useless in all lines of IP.

------
wccrawford
Doesn't look like they are working on the real problems at all, and are
instead creating others.

First person to invent won't matter, only who pays the fee first? UGH. Way to
discourage innovation and encourage patent trolls. With that they'll be able
to watch new products on the market and try to file patents on everything,
then sue the person who actually invented it.

~~~
monochromatic
> they'll be able to watch new products on the market and try to file patents
> on everything, then sue the person who actually invented it

No, they won't. If something was on the market before you filed, you are not
entitled to a patent. That's how prior art and statutory bars work.

~~~
ggchappell
FTA:

> The bill generally updates the process for challenging patents and would
> change the patent system to one that awards a patent to the first inventor
> to file a specific claim.

> Currently, the first person to invent something has patent priority, whether
> or not he is the first to file an application.

That sounds to me as if they are eliminating, or at least weakening, the idea
of prior art preventing the award of a patent. Scary.

Of course, this was written by a journalist, not a patent expert, so who knows
what the real situation is. But it's still scary.

~~~
monochromatic
Prior art is still prior art. What this particular element changes is
basically the situation where two people independently come up with the same
idea, and they both file for patents. (I'm leaving out some irrelevant
complications, but) under current law, whoever came up with the idea first
wins, even if the later inventor files first. Under this new law, whoever
filed first would win, even if he had the idea later. It's to save the trouble
of having to litigate about when you had an idea, what proof you have of that
fact, etc.

But it doesn't change the fact that you can't patent an idea that you stole
from someone else.

~~~
ggchappell
Well, that's good. Thanks for the clarification.

------
swombat
_The bill generally updates the process for challenging patents and would
change the patent system to one that awards a patent to the first inventor to
file a specific claim._

 _Currently, the first person to invent something has patent priority, whether
or not he is the first to file an application._

Wow, after 6 years of careful discussions and deliberations, they've finally
figured out a way to make the patent trolling situation even worse. Good job,
pat on the back!

~~~
tzs
This will have no effect on patent trolling whatsoever.

------
kenjackson
I'm honestly not sure that first-to-file vs invent is really that huge of a
deal. The bigger issues in this bill appear to be the changes in grace period
(bad) and the changes in the ability to challenge patents (good).

------
noonespecial
Even "reform" has become doublespeak now. It actually means "like it is now,
only moreso."

------
daimyoyo
Can we please stop calling the vivisection of the patent system "reform"? That
is just what congress is calling it to make the ideas more palatable. I have
contacted my congressman asking him to fight this, and I believe you should
too. First to invent is what makes our system unique, and is what gives small
inventors a chance to compete against patent farms like IBM.

------
nhebb
I haven't read the proposed law, but from previous commentaries the big issue
raised was that the invention didn't actually have to be on the market. You
could patent an idea. If this is in fact the case, a new form of patent troll
could emerge - think tanks that brain storm ideas and file preemptive patents.

~~~
gfunk911
You just described Intellectual Ventures exactly.

------
andrewguenther
I don't see any reference in here to reform of software patents and such. Is
this reform purely financial?

------
lysol
This is the opposite of reform.

------
wheaties
So it appears as if they're about to create a fund that they can appropriate
to whatever cause they want instead of the underfunded patent office. Great...
That's what they've done to infrastructure funds in many states.

