Our right to challenge junk patents is under threat

I actually think that Sawstop (in general. Might be some details that are bogus) is a great example of the patent system working as intended.

The inventor reached out to several saw makers to license his new invention. None of them took it seriously. So he went and started a company with his new patent and became successful. Then other companies (Bosch specifically) tried to rip his tech off after they saw how effective it is, and he got to sue them and win.

Also, their patents are about to or have already expired (https://www.reddit.com/r/Tools/comments/p6bhhb/so_are_the_sa...)

Sounds like the 20 years gave him just enough time to:

1. Attempt to license the product and fail 2. Create a company 3. Market the company / product effectively 4. Exit ( https://www.sawstop.com/news/sawstop-to-be-acquired-by-tts-t... )

And now competition will begin to roll out their similar saws. I think 5 years would've been far too short for him. He would've been squashed. There would've been no motivation for companies to license his tech or buy out his company. They would've just waited 5 measly years and then stomped him.

Now. If this was software, this whole thing would've played out in what? 5 years? 10 tops? So 20 years, to me, seems to be about right for some things. but absolutely TERRIBLE for others.

> The alternative explanation is that EFF, having experienced incredible and well-funded push-back in its attempts to invalidate dumb patents, believes that this rule has been engineered to limit even further the ability of third-parties to challenge unnecessary patents.

I am expressing doubt about whether the EFF actually has a stake in these rule changes, as they very clearly state several times. The article here isn't about generic third parties. It's about the EFF. This rule change also came after someone essentially tried to use an IPR to extort VLSI technology and Intel. The lack of recognition of that extortion and the corresponding limitations on these rules suggests to me that the EFF is not being entirely forthright here.

> I mean, I don't want to be rude here, but it feels like "I've read the changes, I don't think they apply to EFF, so I guess the only explanation is that EFF is corrupt", seems a bit of a jump, compared to the simpler explanation that EFF does believe its process to be affected, as argued by the OP link.

Holy strawman batman. Read the second paragraph.

Also, the rule change is in English. You can actually read the rule change and you will realize that it's a lot more narrow than the EFF is suggesting. In particular, the new rules only limit IPRs for (a) for-profit companies (b) not currently engaged in litigation on patents that are in litigation (c) where said for-profit company is not in that field. All 3 of those have to be satisfied for your IPR to be tossed under those rules. Since the EFF is a non-profit, they should really have no problem with this.

If we were to take the EFF's words at face value that this rule change applies specifically to the EFF's ability to fight bad patents, the only real conclusion we can draw is that some of the EFF's funding comes from for-profit companies who want specific patents struck down (invalidating (a) above) or want the EFF to hurt their competitors, which would, in fact, be suggestive of corruption. The other conditions certainly don't apply to the EFF.

So that leaves us with one of two alternatives:

1. The EFF actually has no dog in the fight but just doesn't want to have an effective patent system; or

2. The EFF takes money from companies with the purpose of hurting their competitors.

I work for EFF and wrote the text of this blog post and action. On here I speak only for myself, but a couple points I want to add.

1) EFF has only filed one IPR ever, (linked in the post), against Personal Audio, to invalidate a patent asserted against podcasting. This was crowd-funded by hundreds of people. It required years of litigation beyond the IPR process itself.

2) Patent challenges should be open to all. There's nothing wrong with a "for profit" org challenging a government monopoly - it's a public benefit. A good patent will often hold up (many do), a wrongly granted one will usually go down.

Please read the examples in the post of (very) small businesses, individuals, and nonprofits (Wikimedia) who were protected because another organization, often a for-profit, filed a successful IPR.

It's truly upside down world when USPTO is concerned its very limited monopoly-challenging services are being overused by "for-profits" that file "serial" petitions. In my career I have analyzed hundreds of shell companies that have (each!) sent out dozens or hundreds of threat letters and lawsuits demanding patent royalty payments (patent trolls). Guess what? They're ALL for-profit. They ALL file serial petitions with the hopes of a fast payout.

We have limited means to challenge this extortionate business model, and now USPTO is trying to drastically limit one of the best options. I hope they reconsider, and we ask for your support.

Thanks to all and I appreciate the discussion here.

Allowing important systems to fail is not without cost.

Except that they are excessively gamed with reformulations.