Who Should Be In Charge Of Patent Reform?
from the everyone-wants-their-cut dept
Every year for the past few years, Congress has put forth a patent reform bill. Every year that bill has had serious problems in that it might fix some of the problems of the patent system, but would exacerbate others. And then, of course, there's a big lobbying fight, and the pharmaceutical companies (who don't want any sort of patent reform whatsoever) win -- and the bill gets killed. It's an annual tradition. However, plenty of people still realize that patent reform is necessary, and now they're debating just how it's going to happen.Apparently, everyone seems to think they should be the ones to determine how it works. At an FTC hearing on the matter last week, FTC Chairman William Kovacic suggested that the FTC should guide the process of patent reform. Meanwhile, Chief Judge Paul R Michel of CAFC (the appeals court that handles all patent cases) disagreed, suggesting (not surprisingly) that CAFC was perfectly capable of handling modifications to patent law, claiming that CAFC had a much better handle on the situation than Congress. Of course, that ignores the long series of problematic CAFC decisions over the past few decades that only slowed once the Supreme Court got involved and started overturning CAFC time and time again.
Of course, what this probably means is that despite plenty of hand-wringing and tons upon tons of evidence of harm done by the current patent system, nothing is going to change any time soon.
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
Filed Under: cafc, ftc, patent reform, patents, paul michel, william kovacic
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It has to be..
People should be granted patents not for business plans or for gluing together some well known concepts, but for the actual invention. Not for bringing it to the market.
Patents are here to prevent people with good business skills from taking advantage of people with good engineering skills.
And start shooting people for software patents, business method patents and for writing patent application that are too vague or intentionally too broad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It has to be..
No, they're not. They're here to promote progress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It has to be..
You are selectively quoting Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution to make your point, which is manifestly incorrect. The clause actually states, insofar as it pertains to patents:
To promote the Progress of...useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to...Inventors the exclusive Right to their...Discoveries
While you and others may personally hew to the view that "innovation" as defined on this website is the purpose of our patent laws, those who enacted the Constitution made it only too clear that such rights are to reside in the first instance with inventors.
In this regard Shohat at #1 above is much more accurate in his charaterization of our patent laws than the majority of those who post comments on this website.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FTC and Much Overdo Patent Reform
The new PTO is over budget 600 million dollar new facility, backlogged three years, issuing junk patents and causing more cases in court, courts backed up, all the while China is stealing the technology faster than we can create it. FTC? Well, they cannot do anything right, so I wouldn't hold my breath.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who indeed ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike Masnik should be in charge
Isn't what your corporate masters want, Mikey ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who should be in carge?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Asking the wrong question
The real question should be, "How the hell do we get rid of the patent system?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Asking the wrong question
Perhaps you should know that US Patent System is over 200 years old and it has its basis in the US Constitution written by the Founding Fathers
I recommend finishing high school first before you are even allowed to open your mouth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I Nominate Mike!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, under that logic, perhaps it's best to return to the original intent. To do so, reading up on Thomas Jefferson would be helpful.
I just finished becoming re-acclimated to Alexander Hamilton, who not only created the first two national banks, he also developed a manufacturing strategy in 1791 which was used until Reaganomics started becoming the norm.
While some have commented on this blog that Mike and others have been labeled "a spokesperson for a dead guy", I ask what's wrong with that?
Thomas Jefferson was a great President. Perhaps it's ill forgotten that his work inspired a man to carve his face on the side of a mountain. As I read the ideas of these "Founding Fathers" (Not Dead Guys), I become more and more hopeful that the can be solved if we return to 200 year old sound principal.
One observation is that there was an enormous amount of public pride for Presidents who do the right thing. Until you've visited these public monuments, I have doubt others will ever truly appreciate their effect on humanity and America as a whole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Turning to Jefferson, it is generally believed that he was one of the drafters of the Constitution. Of course, he was not a party to its drafting given that he was then serving as the US Ambassador to France. He did exchange views with some who did participate in its drafting, with the best documented being his discussions with John Adams.
Now, much is said about his letter dated about 1817 or so. Unfortunately the letter, which of course represents solely his views, if oftentimes "cherry picked" by those who view patents and copyrights with distrust and in many cases would like to see them abolished. In point of fact, Jefferson, like most of his colleagues, was quite opposed to monopolies as they were employed back in England. However, he did make an exception in the case of what eventually became our initial set of patent and copyright laws, but with the proviso that "limited times" should mean just that..."limited". As a general rule patent law has remained fairly true to his "limited time proviso".
Copyright, however, is totally off the scale. I do not recall the original term of copyright, but for many years it comprised a 28 year term subject to renewal for one additional 28 year term. It was not until the Copyright Act of 1976, which went into effect on January 1, 1978, that copyright drifted towards what is now in place. Now, many people are quick to heap scorn on Congress for the copyright term expressed in the 1976 Copyright Act. Perhaps their scorn is better directed at primarily those countries in Europe having copyright laws on their books. US copyright terms were extended under international treaties requiring that the US adopt longer terms, not to mention change its very formal rules so that they more closely corresponded with european practice. Hence, out laws that were based upon "date of publication" were significantly changed to reflet "date of creation". Our formal system of registration and renewal was largely displaced, as was out longstanding requirement that the use of a formal copyright notice was necessary for an author to retain copyright and prevent his work for falling into the public domain.
For all of its failings and/or problems, the patent law has retained a much closer nexus to "original intent" than copyright law, the latter of which is largely off the charts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
When it comes to issues of Patents, Thomas Jefferson's ideal should be at minimum considered. However, it seems Thomas Jefferson's work has become overly complicated and seems to veer far, far away from his original intent.
Have you considered that Intellectual Property was only valued when the banking community could use it in their warchest against undesirable companies, and hence the support for it? In 1978?
Let's not forget that the Rothschilds, Warburgs, Morgans, or Rockefellers don't have their face on our currency.
Principal will always win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Re "cherry picking", my comment related to others (not you) who cite Jefferson's letter in an incomplete and inaccurate manner to bolster their arguments that he saw patents and copyrights as a bad thing.
I am not sure what you are trying to say in your third paragraph.
Re the "robber barons" of the world, I guess they were too busy taking money from others to sit down for a picture...not that they would ever have appeared on currency anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
patent reform
Court Greatly Limits Software And Business Method Patents
http://techdirt.com/articles/20081030/1117172691.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
stop the shilling!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who Should Be In Charge Of Patent Reform?
The patent attorney industry could also be invited to comment - but they should state in whose interest any contributions they make would be. Yes, they are not a disinterested party.
I don't mind the patent attorney industry making IP rules for its own creations - but I do not accept that they dictate the rules for my creations. I do not accept those rules.
The patent system kills many inventions, and not a few inventors. America's best inventor was hounded to death by a totally ineffectual patent system. And it's only getting worse.
"Put simply, the patent reform bill would make patents harder to obtain, easier to challenge and more difficult for patent holders to collect damages in infringement lawsuits." San Diego Business Journal. 24 May 2008
Really sounds like we are 'Encouraging the arts and sciences', doesn't it?
Stuart 'Patented by Smith and Wesson' Saunders.
IPROAG
Intellectual Property Rightful Owners Action Group.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The principal problem with patent reform proposals to date is that they do not in any meaningful away deal with the root cause.
Believe it or not, most attorneys are committed to the enactment of meaningful reform, but as yet have not seen anything coming out of Congress that even comes close.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]