[MW Forums]

Tech industry executives pushed for US patent reform at a Tech Policy Summit in San Jose, California. more

[JMStafford]

I just wish that there were patent courts. The point being is to unify the review and infringement portions of the post-patent process so that a company cannot win a infringement verdict in a Federal Court while in a separate track a review is going on in the PTO challenging the validity of the patent that is allegedly being infringed.

[OM_user]

Quote:

---

Patents are not a driver of innovation, they are an impediment to innovation,

---

I can't remember the last time I've agreed more with a statement than with this one. While I certainly understand the need for patents, the mockery that is our patent system has turned them into more or less ammunition for corporate lawyers to find ways to extract money from the company's competition.
It's gotten so out of hand, I can barely stand to read the flood of stories that seem to come out each week about who's suing who.
It's a miracle any companies even try to come out with new products these days. You just don't know who's been sitting on some obscure patent waiting for the right moment to sic their lawyers on you.

[roadwarrior]

Quote:

---

A group called the Innovation Alliance was recently formed to protect companies that patent technology but dont manufacture it.

---

And these are the worst offenders in the entire patent scheme, IMHO. Companies like NTP, and these yahoos who just sued Apple, who just hold on to patents for the sake of licensing and litigation are dragging American innovation down.
There needs to be a limit on how long a patent can be held if it is not manufactured, and measured in only a couple of years (2-3). If it's something that's not manufacturable due to current technology restraints (say, a new silicon process) then there's an appeals process where they can get an extension. But this at least wipes out all those patent trolls.

[scottellsworth]

I have always thought that refusing to use a patent or to release copyrighted material should constitute willful renunciation of that patent or copyright. I realize that owners want to maximize their revenues, but if they choose not to enter a market after a reasonable period, or refuse reasonable licencing, then they should lose patent and copyright protection.
Frankly, once you create something and intentionally release it, you really should not be allowed to take it back. Authors, for example, should not be allowed to prevent a published book from being re-released, but they certainly should be allowed to not market it themselves. If you did not release it, of course, then you should, IMO, be able to keep it back, but for a published work, it has started to influence people.
I heard a recent Science Friday podcast on patents. A pharma company owns the patent on a gene sequence, which can be used to determine whether their expensive drug will work for you. Nobody can develop a test for this gene, despite the savings in money. Even speculating on drugs to supress that gene is infringement. Criminal seems like the word for this behavior.
Don't get me wrong: drugs are expensive to develop, just like manufactured goods, software, and music catalogs. Companies deserve fair compensation for their efforts. That said, the purpose of this protection is to encourage innovation, and the present system does not.
Scott

[macFanDave]

1. The number of patents issued ought to be dramatically reduced. If the requirements that an invention be "useful, novel, and non-obvious" were seriously applied, the vast majority of patents would not be issued.
2. Individual inventors need to be protected. An individual inventor can lead a nice life on the revenues of a modestly successful invention, but the legal system prohibits him, practically speaking, from protecting his IP. The bar for determining what is or is not a valid infringement case is the money ($1-3 million for an average patent litigation) and not the real merits of the case. This makes the patent system the exclusive playground of corporations.
3. The clock on drug patents ought to start once a thorough FDA approval process is completed. This will remove the incentive that makes Big Pharma rush dangerous drugs to market (Vioxx, Rezulin, Phen/Fen, etc.) Commercializing the research of the NIH ought to have a very short period of patent protection. The basic science of Tamiflu (the only thing that MIGHT help with Bird Flu) was done by the NIH, Gilead (a company with Donald Rumsfeld on its board) commercialized this work and is licensing it to Roche of Switzerland. This should be a very short-lived patent.
4. Lower quality patents ought to have shorter terms. If some company wants to shoehorn an obvious (to anyone skilled in the art) variation into a crowded field, let them have it for a few years and not the full 20. I believe that very few "inventions" these days are actually worthy of patents, but if the USPTO insists on handing them out like candy, they ought to minimize the damage these minimally-innovative dolts can do.
I once told a patent attorney with 30 years of experience that I had an opportunity to study for the patent bar and could become a registered agent. He told me I should turn and run the other way (I did). It's a thoroughly corrupt and depressing field and I don't have the regrets the attorney does.

[Grapho]

I am going to patent patent reform /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[j_drake]

Quote:

---

I am going to patent patent reform

---

Guess I'll see you in court, I have the patent on the term "patent patent" whether the term is used alone, in conjunction with or in proximity to any other term, phrase, noun, pronoun, or any other form of speech as found in everyday, or rarely used, oral, written, signed, tele-pathic or any combination there of but not excluding any form of communication not yet in use, or thought of nor even a gleam in dad's or mom's eye, which is to say that any possible, or impossible communication process that may arise in the next ten-thousand years or eternity whichever is longer, may not, yea shall not, be used, nor may it's use or inference of intent to use, be inferred in conjunction, relation, reference or association with the term as described in the attached addendum (see attachment 67.23.1.A.1 pages 1492 through 1672 inclusive, also see pages 1961 through 1974 inclusive and page 2201 Para. 5, Sect. A, sub-sect b1 as ammended Thursday, July 34, 20016 and brought back in-time to affect the court decisions of the use of the term referenced herewith by innuendo.) or to any degree that the patent holder may wish, or intend to wish, to use against the defiler of said patent and or the legal or illegal family members, current and or future partners, associates, fellow imbibers of alcoholic, or non-alcoholic beverages and or their assignees and all and any such decisions shall remain to be at the discretion, or whimsy of the patent holder and his assignees for time immemorial, not withstanding the possibility of an after-life or reincarnation or the possible regeneration of Cryonic tissue as described in the Encyclopedia Galactica /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif