Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

House Bill for Patent Office Reform Nearly Finished

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–28 of 28 posts

Re: House Bill for Patent Office Reform Nearly Finished

#21

Post by sitkack »

nhebb wrote: post #8

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.

This is not new. Reform would be to have actually created the thing you are patenting and not a loose description of how one might/could build the thing. It shouldn't be patentable unless you have done it.

Re: House Bill for Patent Office Reform Nearly Finished

#22

Post by anamax »

nhebb wrote: post #8

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.

> You could patent an idea.

That's always been true. In fact, "an idea" is the only thing that you can patent. Why do you think that it shouldn't be true?

Suppose that my company makes airplanes and I invent a new kind of bearing. What kind of patent protection do you think that I should have? (Should I only be able to claim uses of that bearing in the planes that we make?)

Re: House Bill for Patent Office Reform Nearly Finished

#23

Post by ggchappell »

monochromatic wrote: post #17
ggchappell wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

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.…

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

Re: House Bill for Patent Office Reform Nearly Finished

#24

Post by tzs »

jinushaun wrote: post #6

"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.

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

How so?

Are you thinking it means that A can invent something, B can see it, and then B can rush to the patent office, get there before A, and get the patent? That's not a problem, because B is not an inventor in this case and is not entitled to a patent.

All first to file really means is that in the case of two independent inventors whose inventions overlap, the patent goes to the one who files first. That person is still subject to all the usual requirements for novelty, utility, non-obvious to one skilled in the prior art (and note that the other inventor's invention might be prior art if it was disclosed).

With first to invent, you have the problem of determining which competing inventor actually invented first--which is often quite subjective (many inventions develop over the course of a long stretch of research, and saying when exactly the inventor actually had the inventive step is not well defined), and involves a lot of interpretation of things like lab notebooks, recollection of discussions, and stuff like that.

First to file is much cleaner--just look at the timestamp on the filing.

Re: House Bill for Patent Office Reform Nearly Finished

#25

Post by tzs »

swombat wrote: post #18

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…

This will have no effect on patent trolling whatsoever.

Re: House Bill for Patent Office Reform Nearly Finished

#26

Post by tam7t »

tzs wrote: post #24
jinushaun wrote: post #6

"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.

> First to file trumps first to invent? That sounds awful and a step backwards? How so? Are you thinking it means that A can invent something, B can see it, and then B can rush to the patent office, get there before A, and get the patent? That's not a problem, because B is not an inventor in this case and is not entitled to a patent. All first to file really means is that in the case of two independent inventors whos…

Interesting. This along with amalcon's posting of the actual bill text seems a lot more fair than my previous notion of a first-to-file system.

Re: House Bill for Patent Office Reform Nearly Finished

#28

Post by dwg128 »

amalcon wrote: post #20
jinushaun wrote: post #6

"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.

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 pat…

Mailing yourself anything is useless in all lines of IP.
Post reply on HN