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

House approves major overhaul of patent system

news.yahoo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 48 posts

Re: House approves major overhaul of patent system

#21

Post by anamax »

true_religion wrote: post #18

I think the US should move towards a system where multiple patents are awarded for the same invention. For example: Lab A and B are all working independently on a project. 1. Lab A files first and receives a patent. If without reading the patent or knowing of the details of the invention, Lab B manages to re-invent the same technology they will receive a patent as well. 2. Lab A invents first, but doesn't file. Later…

> If a patent holder wants to ensure protection for their work, they need to file first and extensively publicize their filing as such no one can claim spontaneous re-invention as is the case with many software products.

In other words, billion dollar companies get all the SW patents.

HP can "extensively publicize" for almost nothing by piggybacking on other things that they do. Small companies and individuals can't.

IBM, for example, has numerous publications that would qualify. (They send them to every CS department library as well as other subscribers.)

What? You don't keep up with the literature?

I used to look at every tech report that Stanford CS received. That became impossible in the late 80s and things have only gotten worse.

Re: House approves major overhaul of patent system

#22

Post by gte910h »

sliverstorm wrote: post #14
gridspy wrote: post #8

The biggest concern to me - given two competitors, the one who delays their product to market while they get patents wins. I want a patent system that I can safely ignore without someone else later 'inventing' the same thing as me and taking me to court. "[T]he bill would put the United States under the same first-inventor-to-file system for patent applications used by Europe and Japan. Currently the country operates…

I would hope prior work would be an acceptable defense in court against a first-to-file-patent suit. e.g. you really don't care about patents. Guy later patents what you're doing and sues you. You prove prior work, suit fails. Best of both worlds?

You have to publish your work to make yourself protected.

Undisclosed prior art is not a defense in first to fiel systems

Re: House approves major overhaul of patent system

#23

Post by true_religion »

anamax wrote: post #21
true_religion wrote: post #18

I think the US should move towards a system where multiple patents are awarded for the same invention. For example: Lab A and B are all working independently on a project. 1. Lab A files first and receives a patent. If without reading the patent or knowing of the details of the invention, Lab B manages to re-invent the same technology they will receive a patent as well. 2. Lab A invents first, but doesn't file. Later…

> If a patent holder wants to ensure protection for their work, they need to file first and extensively publicize their filing as such no one can claim spontaneous re-invention as is the case with many software products. In other words, billion dollar companies get all the SW patents. HP can "extensively publicize" for almost nothing by piggybacking on other things that they do. Small companies and individuals can't.…

> In other words, billion dollar companies get all the SW patents.

All? No, they only get patents for those things that they invent.

It cuts both ways, the bigger you are the more liable the newly empowered patent bureau is to say that you could have easily found the existing patented invention.

On the other hand, since multiple parties can hold patents and subsequently re-licence them it will be easy for a a company, large or small, to protect other parties from patent trolls.

The something obnoxious like the famed "one click" patent would have multiple holders, and any could simply give a universal grant to it.

In the worst case scenario, which I don't think is plausible then the current status quo is maintained for some patents. A large company invents, files it, then publicizes it.

P.S.

I think that business form patents patents like the one-click should be null-in-void in any country.

Re: House approves major overhaul of patent system

#24

Post by kenjackson »

kkowalczyk wrote: post #11

Can anyone shed a light on how the "first to file" change affects prior art? In general "first to file" makes sense to me because it removes uncertainty (who filed first is indisputable, determining who invented first requires an expensive lawsuit). But what if I invented something, published it, don't intend to ever file a patent for it and someone comes in and files a patent for that invention? If the can get a val…

But what if I invented something, published it, don't intend to ever file a patent for it and someone comes in and files a patent for that invention?

Your published prior art blocks them.

If they can't get a patent, then "first to file" seems meaningless.

First to file is really about the windows between filiing and inventing. The argument for first to file is generally what you state -- that it helps clear up ambiguity.

The argument against is usually small businesses who believe that they may not patent (because they're expensive) until they have something in practice. So imagine you invent some new high efficiency light, and spend the next year getting it working. And once it works and you're convinced of it you file. But you find out that GE patented it a week earlier. But only discovered it a week before that and hasn't made much progress on it (it's only been a few weeks). You still lose the patent, despite the fact that you may be able to prove that (a) you invented first, and (b) have spent the past year implementing it.

With that said, the first to file vs invest, IMO is a small part of the reform. The bigger part is the grace period, which now has the following change. In the past you could build an iPhone, ship it, write a paper about it, and file a patent within the next year. Now you can write a paper about it, but can't sell it. Once you sell it, your grace period is over.

At least that's my IANAL understanding. And the other big thing in it is they've expanded the timeline of challenging patents. I'm surprised the EFF doesn't have a more coordinated effort to challenge patents when granted.

Re: House approves major overhaul of patent system

#26

Post by ScottBurson »

gte910h wrote: post #22
sliverstorm wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would hope prior work would be an acceptable defense in court against a first-to-file-patent suit. e.g. you really don't care about patents. Guy later patents what you're doing and sues you. You prove prior work, suit fails. Best of both worlds?

You have to publish your work to make yourself protected. Undisclosed prior art is not a defense in first to fiel systems

Well, you can file an invention disclosure with the PTO. I'm not sure, but I would think this would be sufficient to establish prior art.

Re: House approves major overhaul of patent system

#27

Post by Steko »

seats wrote: post #5
mechanical_fish wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember, though, that a patent troll's business card doesn't say "patent troll" on it: It says "independent inventor". Which is not to say that you might not be right to be worried.

I suppose. My quick read of the details makes me think this is no good. It sounds like the primary problem being solved for is the backlog of patent applications not the quality of patents being issued or anything at all related to litigation.

Increasing staff and relieving the pressure of a 3 year backlog on patent applications could result in a more thorough (read: better) job being done and less "obvious" patents approved.

Or it could water down the standards even further as undertrained people come in and rubber stamp whatever's in front of them.

Re: House approves major overhaul of patent system

#28

Post by noonespecial »

ScottBurson wrote: post #26
gte910h wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to publish your work to make yourself protected. Undisclosed prior art is not a defense in first to fiel systems

Well, you can file an invention disclosure with the PTO. I'm not sure, but I would think this would be sufficient to establish prior art.

An invention disclosure is just the actual description of the invention that an inventor writes used by a lawyer to write a patent. Its the actual description of the invention before its translated into patent speak.

The difference between one of these and a patent is best summed up by one of my favorite Terry Pratchett quotes: "It's the difference between using a feather and using a chicken."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention_disclosure

Re: House approves major overhaul of patent system

#29

Post by tzs »

seats wrote: post #5
mechanical_fish wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember, though, that a patent troll's business card doesn't say "patent troll" on it: It says "independent inventor". Which is not to say that you might not be right to be worried.

I suppose. My quick read of the details makes me think this is no good. It sounds like the primary problem being solved for is the backlog of patent applications not the quality of patents being issued or anything at all related to litigation.

It makes it easier for third parties to bring up prior art to challenge a patent. That should help with the quality issue.
Post reply on HN