

Senate Nears Final Vote on Patents - asnyder
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/07/senate-nears-final-vote-on-patents/

======
asnyder
I'm sorry, the notion that this somehow levels the playing field is completely
wrong. It's very difficult for a layperson to file a patent properly, in the
proper legalese and keep track of all the necessary actions. This bill
definitely opens up patents to large corporations and patent holding companies
that can essentially throw teams of lawyers at particular fields.

After spending 5 years and more money than I'd like to admit on our patent
that has still yet to be awarded I can tell you from personal experience that
every response is cryptic, and the necessary follow-up actions are extensive
and intensive. Furthermore, if they're not written in the proper legalese you
have even less of a chance.

This is yet another boon to large corporations and their lawyers. Now that
companies such as Apple, Google, and Microsoft don't have to worry about
prior-art we'll see innovation slow to a crawl, and startups will have even
less of a chance of disrupting the status quo as a lawsuit won't be too far
behind. I can see it now, _We demand you shutdown as you're infringing on the
patent we were recently awarded_ , it won't matter that you were already
operating. They can simply pay extra fees, get a faster approval and you're
gone. This is supposed to be progress and improvement? Only to the lobbyists
and their employers.

------
noonespecial
I'm so tired of the whole thing, I'm not even keeping track of it anymore.
Reform these days _(1)_ has just become doublespeak for "like it is now, only
more so". Status_quo++.

They're going to do what they're going to do. Its going to be the opposite of
what would be best for us, and we'll find a way to work around it.

 _(1)_ I think perhaps this is the way its always been, and I was just too
young to notice.

------
akavlie
Does the Senate seriously think THIS is the sort of reform we need in the
patent system? Are they that out of touch?

The article itself isn't much better, it barely touches on the real problems
in patent law.

------
extension
If prior art doesn't matter, what stops anyone from patenting someone else's
publicly known invention and then suing them?

~~~
michael_dorfman
Wait, what?

Who is suggesting that prior art wouldn't/shouldn't matter?

"First to file" patents would still be invalidated by any published (or
publicly available) prior art. It just means that you couldn't invalidate by
demonstrating that you were privately working on the same idea.

~~~
extension
What counts as private/public? If I show someone a project I'm working on but
I've never shown anyone else, can this person go patent it?

------
salsakran
This is basically an abdication of any attempts at making certain a patent is
valid on the part of the PO.

Their job will be reduced to simply checking that the format and wording is in
order and making sure there's a timestamp.

~~~
tzs
How so? First to file doesn't eliminate the requirements of novelty and non-
obviousness. It just means that if two people both claim the invention the
first to file wins instead of whoever can prove they invented first. First to
file is used everywhere except the US.

------
johndlafayette
From my limited understanding, if you simply submit a application, you are
protected until it is reviewed plus the time granted with a patent. So if you
pay the new smaller amount, and it takes the PO 5 years to review your patent
instead of the normal 1 for corporations, you'll have an extra 4 years of
protection over the life of the patent. Clock starts once it's reviewed and
accepted, but protection starts once it's filed. Depending on how much cheaper
this is for small businesses, it could potentially help them out by offering
longer protection for less money, if only because it takes longer for their
patents to be reviewed.

But I think I agree with asnyder for the most part. Most people don't even
know where to start, and may lose protection simply because they didn't know
what to do before the idea spread and someone else with the know-how made the
product and patented it.

~~~
anamax
> Clock starts once it's reviewed and accepted, but protection starts once
> it's filed.

If so, that's a change (back).

A "long time ago", the clock started at issue, so some folks filed and kept an
application alive for (in some cases) decades until the patent was worth
something. They then let it issue and ... profit. That's what was known as
"submarine patents".

A while back (20+ years IIRC), the rules were changed so the clock started on
filing. (Despite that, some folks still rant about submarine patents.)

Have those rules really changed back? When?

~~~
johndlafayette
I apologize for being unclear. You are correct on the clock starting, but the
clock can also be adjusted by the PTO if your patent is delayed in approval if
I am understanding what is below correctly. If all patents granted to 'small
business/inventors' are delayed to a great extent due to larger companies
paying more for earlier patent approval, I assume that smaller inventor's
patents will be adjusted, allowing them a longer term of protection, as they
can start their business as soon as they file.

See #3 here (also great info on patents in general):
<http://www.bpmlegal.com/howtoterm.html>

"Patents based on applications filed on or after May 29, 2000 (actual filing
date, not priority date), might have had their terms extended for Patent
Office delays beyond certain limits. Such extensions, called "patent term
adjustments", are automatically given when the patent is issued, and they are
usually marked on the face of the patent, flagged with "( _)". For example,
see patent 7,613,700 - "(_ ) Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this
patent is extended or adjusted under 35 USC 154(b) by 291 days." These
adjustments are calculated mathematically based on a formula which takes into
account when each office action was sent by the USPTO as compared with a
standard for such actions, and subtracts any delays caused by the applicant's
delay, and so on."

However, if the standard is now different because of the new law, or if it is
segmented by pricing, I have no clue what may happen.

~~~
anamax
> I apologize for being unclear. You are correct on the clock starting, but
> the clock can also be adjusted by the PTO if your patent is delayed in
> approval if I am understanding what is below correctly.

It's only adjusted if delayed "as compared with a standard for such actions".
I'll bet that the vast majority of patents get no such adjustment because the
office actions were within standard, even if their issue takes 5 years.

------
c1sc0
What would it take to DDOS the patent office?

