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

United States Transitions To A 'First-Inventor-To-File' Patent System

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 80 posts

Re: United States Transitions To A 'First-Inventor-To-File' Patent System

#41

Post by jmatthew3 »

rplnt wrote: post #16
Nursie wrote: post #6

I'd rather transition to a system where if two people try to file for the same thing within a few months or a year of each other, neither one gets it because it's probably pretty obvious.

What if both of them put real effort (money) into research and arrived at similar/same place? Should it be dismissed as well? Or is there something as joint patent?

If two people invented the same thing together (or, more commonly, one person invents feature A, and another invents feature B, where both feature A and feature B are part of one invention), then they are joint inventors (and without an assignment or an obligation to assign, they are both joint owners). On the other hand, if two people invent the same thing separately (e.g., similar research goals at two competing pharmaceutical companies), then the first to file gets the application.

It still must be an enabling disclosure, though. That is, it has to teach the public how to make and use the invention.

Re: United States Transitions To A 'First-Inventor-To-File' Patent System

#42

Post by Nursie »

feralmoan wrote: post #40
Nursie wrote: post #6

I'd rather transition to a system where if two people try to file for the same thing within a few months or a year of each other, neither one gets it because it's probably pretty obvious.

It's not always "that obvious", some ideas just make sense for the time, and there are some seriously low-grade patents filed which barely even qualify as invention anyway. I'd hate to be drawn into some BS politicking at the sake of concentrating on my technology. Look at Leibniz&Newton ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibniz%E2%80%93Newton_calculus...

http://xkcd.com/626/

Re: United States Transitions To A 'First-Inventor-To-File' Patent System

#43

Post by bediger4000 »

Gormo wrote: post #26
bediger4000 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To my mind, "first to file" removes some of the moral basis of patents. That is, even if someone invented something first, whoever gets to the PTO first gets rewarded with ownership of the idea. We've taken away the reward that should be given to the First Inventor based on that sacred, difficult act of Creation.

There is no "moral basis" for patents: they're entirely a creation of positive law, which generates an artificial monopoly in an inherently non-rival good, for the explicit purpose of "promot[ing] the Progress of Science and useful Arts". No "sacred, difficult act of Creation" is recognized, nor has ever been recognized, as the source of patent law.

I happen to agree, but in Europe, that's not 100% true: artists have some "moral rights" as to how and when their work is exhibited.

Even in the USA, even though the legal underpinnings don't recognize a "moral basis", legislation for the last 30-odd years seems to lean towards an "ideas as property" basis. I realize I'm conflating patent with copyright here, but so does the idea of "Intellectual Property". Why else would we grant a nearly everlasting monopoly (via copyright, again) other than to reward a Sacred, Difficult Act of Creation?

Re: United States Transitions To A 'First-Inventor-To-File' Patent System

#44

Post by bediger4000 »

pc86 wrote: post #28
bediger4000 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think in that case, the answer is "too bad, so sad". The patent system shouldn't guarantee some kind of monetary reward. If it does, it sets up the wrong incentives. Independent invention should be a sign that the idea isn't worth patenting, that it was "in the air" at the time.

> The patent system shouldn't guarantee some kind of monetary reward. If it does, it sets up the wrong incentives. They don't, unless people use it and the patent holder wants to charge for licensing.

The comment to which I responded seemed to take the view that spending a bunch of money on discovering or inventing something should more-or-less be automatically rewarded with at least a portion of the "intellectual property" rights. That's the concept I wanted to rebut.

I don't have facts at hand, but I imagine that like any other thing (starting a business, writing a book, creating an App) 99.9% of patents result in no monetary gain whatsoever. But if we're going to go all in on the property aspects of patents, then I think that morally and ethically, we have to give an independent inventor a share of the property. Anything else just looks arbitrary, and leads to disrespect of patents, "intellectual property" and The Law in general.

Re: United States Transitions To A 'First-Inventor-To-File' Patent System

#45

Post by mikeash »

feralmoan wrote: post #40
Nursie wrote: post #6

I'd rather transition to a system where if two people try to file for the same thing within a few months or a year of each other, neither one gets it because it's probably pretty obvious.

It's not always "that obvious", some ideas just make sense for the time, and there are some seriously low-grade patents filed which barely even qualify as invention anyway. I'd hate to be drawn into some BS politicking at the sake of concentrating on my technology. Look at Leibniz&Newton ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibniz%E2%80%93Newton_calculus...

How is "just make sense for the time" different from "that obvious"?

Re: United States Transitions To A 'First-Inventor-To-File' Patent System

#46

Post by gcb0 »

hmottestad wrote: post #9

I remember an article about SpaceX where Musk said that they didn't file many patents, because then other countries essentially had free access to their inventions if they didn't honour patents (China was mentioned). With this change in law, they may no longer have protection against a patent filed by someone else that they (SpaceX) invented first...simply because they were not the first to file. This may bring about…

I honestly thinks that's for the better. Basically, you patent, tells everyone how it works, and have the rights.

The move your described, you don't tell anyone anything and still have the rights... And that means i may be investing a lot of work on something only you will be able to profit from because i didn't know you invented it.

Basically this stops people from having the cake and eating it too.

Too bad about China.

Re: United States Transitions To A 'First-Inventor-To-File' Patent System

#47

Post by lifeisstillgood »

jmatthew3 wrote: post #36
Daniel_Newby wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does that work? The whole point is that the first filer wins regardless of prior invention.

Disclaimer: I am a former software engineer turned patent attorney. However, I am not your lawyer, nor am I the lawyer of anyone who reads this. (Sorry, I have to say that) Anyway, another thing that many people miss on the "first to file" issue is that it's the first INVENTOR to file. So, employee can't leave company, steal the invention, then file if employee was not the inventor. The law really is only changing in…

Interesting career choice.

Do you specialise in software patents?

Re: United States Transitions To A 'First-Inventor-To-File' Patent System

#48

Post by reader5000 »

jmatthew3 wrote: post #36
Daniel_Newby wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does that work? The whole point is that the first filer wins regardless of prior invention.

Disclaimer: I am a former software engineer turned patent attorney. However, I am not your lawyer, nor am I the lawyer of anyone who reads this. (Sorry, I have to say that) Anyway, another thing that many people miss on the "first to file" issue is that it's the first INVENTOR to file. So, employee can't leave company, steal the invention, then file if employee was not the inventor. The law really is only changing in…

(Sorry, I have to say that)

If you think that you have a poor understanding of the law.

Re: United States Transitions To A 'First-Inventor-To-File' Patent System

#50

Post by feralmoan »

mikeash wrote: post #45
feralmoan wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not always "that obvious", some ideas just make sense for the time, and there are some seriously low-grade patents filed which barely even qualify as invention anyway. I'd hate to be drawn into some BS politicking at the sake of concentrating on my technology. Look at Leibniz&Newton ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibniz%E2%80%93Newton_calculus...

How is "just make sense for the time" different from "that obvious"?

I read the implication 'that obvious' by the OP as being obviously in cahoots or as obvious derivative works, rather than independent works along the same line of enquiry and execution.
Post reply on HN