Inventors: Patent Reform Could Stymie American Ingenuity

[Marcus Bryant]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...lick=pm_latest

On March 11, the Senate passed a series of reforms to U.S. patent law. If the House of Representatives passes a similar bill, it will amount to the first major overhaul of the country's patent system in nearly 60 years. One change in particular is causing some hullabaloo: a shift from the current first-to-invent system to the first-to-file approach used in most other countries. The new system would award patents based on who filed an application first rather than who originally generated the idea. Such a system could clear up confusion and reduce the numerous legal challenges that plague the current U.S. patent system—the patent office would have a clear-cut and unassailable do ent proving ownership of any invention. But some critics have raised red flags about how the change might affect small inventors, who don't have the resources to file patents as quickly as large corporations can. Popular Mechanics knows plenty of independent inventors, so we asked a few of them how they felt. The bottom line: They are worried.

[Marcus Bryant]

http://www.economist.com/node/18389167

[ElNono]

Just terrible... here's the bill

[Winehole23]

The US Supreme Court issued rulings this morning in two of the five patent cases it heard this term. In both cases, the high court unanimously struck down rules created by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the nation's top patent court.

The two rulings continue a pattern that has developed over the past several years, in which the Supreme Court has overturned key Federal Circuit rulings, finding them too favorable to patent-holders and too harsh on parties accused of infringement.

Top patent court almost never makes bad actors pay. Supremes see it differently.


All four of the companies involved in today's opinion are compe ors with real products—none represent the much-debated "patent trolls," that is, companies with no business beyond patent lawsuits. Yet, the issue of patent trolls looms large in the background of these opinions.

Both decisions will make life easier for Internet and other tech companies frequently accused of infringement. In the case of Limelight Networks v. Akamai Technologies, trolls were happy to use the Federal Circuit-approved theory about "induced infringement" to sue tech companies. They argued that even when a defendant didn't complete all steps of a patent itself, it encouraged its customers to do so.


In the case of Nautilus v. Biosig Instruments, the Supreme Court has made it easier to throw out patents on the grounds that they're "indefinite." The ruling widens another path of attack that can be used against vague patents.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...ts-in-rulings/

see also: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...-patent-cases/

[Winehole23]

Patent lawsuits can be very expensive to defend, especially because plaintiffs can, at very little cost to themselves, cause defendants to rack up millions of dollars in costs for legal discovery before the plaintiff even establishes what the alleged infringement is. Ever since the appellate court for patent cases (the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) loosened standards for patenting software during the 1990s, the Patent Office has issued tens of thousands of vague, overly broad software patents, including patents that cover methods of doing business using software. Indeed, in a study last year, the Government Accountability Office attributed 89 percent of the increase in patent litigation to software patents.

Now, several Supreme Court decisions offer some help to those being trolled. First, in decisions issued in April (here and here), the Court made it somewhat easier for a defendant to recover its legal costs if the judge sees the plaintiff’s suit as frivolous. Then in June, the Court made it easier to challenge the validity of a vague patent.


While it's true that the Patent Office is granting several hundred fewer business method patents each month, it is still granting record numbers of software patents overall.

Finally, and most importantly, in Alice Corp. v CLS Bank, also decided in June, the Court made it clear that you can’t get a patent just for implementing an existing business method on a computer. Alice Corporation is a patent troll established by Ian Shepherd, a former manager at the McKinsey consulting firm in Australia. In 1999, Shepherd received a patent on the general idea of handling escrow accounts on a computer.


Shepherd’s patent claimed the general idea of communicating these do ents over a computer system. But the Supreme Court, following a string of decisions going back to 1972, ruled that the simple notion of “doing it on a computer” was an abstract idea that was not patentable.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...ngle_page=true

[velik_m]

They should just abolish patents. It's a decent idea, but it just doesn't work.

[velik_m]

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/the-u-s-g...249688314.html

The U.S. Government Has a Secret System for Stalling Patents

Entrepreneurs and established companies alike depend on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to legally protect their inventions. But the Patent Office has been using a secret system to withhold the approval of some applications.

Newly released do ents reveal that the office, tasked with evaluating and protecting the rights to intellectual property, has a covert system for delaying controversial or inconvenient patents. It’s a system that attorneys say, if abused, could function as a way to limit or stomp out emerging companies.