Shorter, Faster Patents?
from the one-solution dept
The folks at the IEEE are trying to come up with a compromise on the issue of software patents in the US -- something many feel shouldn't receive patent protection at all. Instead of doing away with software patents completely (something that's unlikely any time soon), they're suggesting a separate type of patent that is approved more rapidly, but which is only good for four years. It's an interesting idea, and you can understand the thinking behind it, but it also could just make things that much worse by encouraging more people to rush through questionable patents. We're still not sure what's wrong with just letting people compete in the marketplace...
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Once they get the foot in the door...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
all time bad idea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: all time bad idea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
4 yrs, novelty only search
ok, software patent issues aside:
1. limiting ownership from 20 yrs to 4 yrs -
fellas, i know its temping to see this as a plus, but will it really correct any major issue? the criticism agaisnt 20 yrs is one of "ownership until outdated is not pragmatic." however, does 4 yrs truly do away with this concern. bare in mind that (at least) most major corporations use a strategy of incremental improvement, which presents itself in the IP world as a string of continuation patent applications. so, from a realistic point of view, corporate entities will not fear relinquishing monolopy on the state of the art - only the outdated. granted, in IP terms, the outdated (i.e. not the state-of-the-art) is not useless. However, it is unlikely (or at least uncommon) that a company which devotes consistent resources to development would suffer market position from an economic point of view.
2. so who would this effect?
my guess is, most likely, the little guy. the company's with inconsistent means of supporting tech improvement to keep head above water in the market. Now, i wouldn't confuse the "little guy" with what some techies call "patent trolls." - without even defending this position, just simply check for yourself how quickly after issuance these guys assert their IP - not to make generalizations, though; the 4 yr limitation might prevent the dormant threat type patent. but on the other hand, a 4 yr limit may merely increase the competitiveness of landmine patents and result in increased dirty practices such as submarine patenting.
3. novelty-only search
wow, what a great way of dealing with obviousness issues - ignore it . . . without getting into speculation here (which is very tempting), i might just note that this idea of "shorter term, lower standard of allowance" is not new - it reminds me very much of the japanese "utility model." i wont say much about this, because my experience with this is limited and im sure someone out there may have more to say. essentially, the japanese utility model is an option in JPO filing, where an inventor can opt for a more limited term (6 yrs?) in exchange for waiving an examination on the merits. needless to say, my experience in dealing with utility models is nothing short of pure frustration -
novelty-only? extremely extremely low standard. not to patronize, but this is essentially "anything under the sun not EXACTLY according to any preexisting specification" - as far as im concerned (i wouldnt push this opinion on anyone) this is in practicality a non-standard.
4. cheaper patents?
i guess that might be true... is that a good thing?? no.
i generally dont appreciate criticism not constructive, but this proposal is a bit in left field. let me know if you agree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ascii art patent
z 88; ○ 。
&# 12288; 。 (�･ω･`) 288; ○ 。 しょ～ぼんだ& #65374;ま～
∧＿∧ 。 ｏ ○ z 88; とーん& #12540;だー
(*�･ω･)ｙ━o (�･ω･`)
( つ□ﾉ
し' し'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ascii art patent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ascii art patent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ascii art patent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One thing Mike missed...
The key thing about these proposed "patents" is that they are not presumed to be valid, unlike traditional patents. This is the feature that makes them a vast improvement over current software patents. Before attempting to enforce them, the patent holder must defend them from review, with the rest of the world watching. And having more of these mini-patents would mean more prior art.
No, this doesn't solve many of the problems with software patents (and "obvious" patents in general), but I do think it's encouraging that someone is thinking about the problem creatively.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One thing Mike missed...
in other words, without a presumption of a property right, nothing can theoretically be asserted in a lawsuit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One thing Mike missed...
But anyhow, let me get this straight...
Software patents that are currently being used are being abused by people who really do not have a valid software title to sale or have not fully developed yet, to hold off anyone elses ability to make a software title very closely related. So they are proposing this new patent to keep the "abusers" from getting away with that by making a patent that you have to defend with proof of a valid software?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One thing Mike missed...
So, the two ends of a patent's useful life consist of being created, then, after a time, being used. Currently, patents suck because too many bad ones easily get through, right?
Well, a LOOOT of patents are filed. This is where the examination of their validity occurs, and lack of resources means they only get a cursory prior art search. Obviousness never worked right anyway.
However, the validity of a patent can happend ANYWHERE between application and lawsuit/legal threat. The lawsuit/legal threat end only happens to a few patents.
So instead of wasting resources on every patent, with the new system we can put a much more concerted effort on verifying a smaller number of patents.
So what this ammounts to is an efficiency operation, with some other good stuff tacked on like shorter duration, and some incentives to use it.
Now that the reasoning is clear, I think I support this at least 92% :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]