Pilot Program To Educate Judges On Patent Issues Really Depends On Who's Doing The Educating...
from the pros-and-cons dept
It looks like attempts at patent reform this year may come in small pieces, rather than a big comprehensive plan. For example, Rep. Adam Schiff and Rep. Darrell Issa have reintroduced some new legislation that would create a pilot program to enroll certain judges in a program to educate them on patent issues. On the face of it, this sounds good. After all, more education on issues related to patents seems like it should help avoid some of the more ridiculous outcomes we've seen in patent courts in the past. So, it's no surprise that some are excited about this proposed program.However, just as when similar legislation was introduced in the past, I'm worried about unintended consequences. Specifically, there's a big question in terms of who is going to be doing this "educating" and what the "curriculum" will entail. After all, when a specialized patent court, the CAFC, was first created, even though not all judges involved were patent lawyers, those who had less experience simply deferred on many issues to those who came from that world -- and, as we've seen too often, patent attorneys view the world differently than many technologists -- and seem to think that patents are the answer to many questions. So, if the "education" program simply comes from patent attorneys, then the end result could be much, much worse, because judges will have been taught only one side of the issue. That would be very troubling.
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: education, patents, regulation
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
In patent cases, both sides get a crack at education
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Damn Patents!
They didn't go after big guys, they went after the up and comers.
Details of the patent? Well, if you have a network that displays a screen that requires users to sign on (through a browser) then you violate it. Several Open Source products do this too so weeeeee.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Good idea
More seriously - who picks which judges get sent to dumb judges school?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
patent cases are dispersing
This education is timely but it needs to be saved for judges who need it and it's going to take away their time from court duty.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: In patent cases, both sides get a crack at education
How is "a program to educate them on patent issues" the same as educating the judge about the technology in dispute ?
I would think them to be different and separate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Patent attorneys can't teach patent law?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Patent attorneys can't teach patent law?
1) Patent Attorneys would not have a conflict of interest.
2) Patent Attorneys would only teach patent law and to apply it.
3) Those who are not Patent Attorneys would teach anti-patent and anti-software propoganda.
4) Those who are not Patent Attorneys would teach an anti-patent agenda or that patents are anti-competitive.
Well, ok then - I guess that sums it up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Patent attorneys can't teach patent law?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Patent attorneys can't teach patent law?
They should be taught to apply the law properly, as put forth in the Constitution: for the promotion of progress in the useful arts and sciences.
Of course patent attorneys need to be the ones teaching them.
To date, I have seen an awful lot of patent attorneys who prefer not to focus on what patent law actually is about, but how to make the most money from it.
Judges are not supposed to legislate from the bench, so teaching them anti-patent and anti-software propoganda is not helpful.
Who said anything about teaching them anti-patent propaganda? My goodness. And what the hell is anti-software propaganda? Who's against software?!?
Nice strawman!
They need to learn patent law and how to apply it
Wait. Aren't they judges? If they don't understand the law, how did they become judges? The very problem appears to be not that they don't know the law, but that they've done a piss poor job interpreting the law for ages... in large part due to patent attorneys who have worked quite hard to push the interpretation of patent law WAY beyond any level ever intended by the system's creators, and certainly significantly beyond the boundaries of the constitution.
not an anti-patent agenda or that patents are anti-competitive.
But patents are, by definition, anti-competitive. In fact, that's one of the big worries that the framers had about them, so I think it's *quite* relevant for a judge to understand the significant harm that he or she may be causing. Indeed, part of the way the system was designed was to make sure that any result was promoting the progress. How can a judge properly determine that if they don't understand or are not taught the potential downsides?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Government:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
stop the shilling!!!
they are the answer unless the question is how does a big company protect its market dominance without innovation
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Do you need to be a "technologist" to serve as a judge in patent litigation? No. Competent counsel serve the very useful purpose of explaining the technology so that the judge can understand it and how it pertains to the issues at hand.
I was fortunate when I first began practicing in the IP field to be taught as my very first lesson that patent applications should be prepared and the claims presented in such a manner that they would be comprehended by a non-technologist judge. It is unfortunate that this lesson is not uniformly applied in the training of all of engage in the preparation and prosecution of patent applications. If this practice was followed, as well as a thorough search of the prior art before and application is even considered for filing, life would be so much easier and a good deal of litigation contentiousness would not rear its ugly head.
By the way, if an application is prepared as noted above, it far, far exceeds the disclosure requirements set forth in 35 USC 112, which states an application be directed to those of ordinary skill in the relevant art. Scrupulously following the lesson I was given would result in an application directed to persons with no skill in the relevant art, a standard far stricter than the statutory minimum.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Patent Education for Judges
I would like to see obtuse, muddled patents invalidated for lack of clarity, rather than being "interpreted" by "experts" in the employ of the parties. That would defeat the purpose of many patents - making litigation expensive!
Some patents are abstract and hard to understand (take PCS, for example), but an independent expert (paid for by both parties?) can fairly quickly figure out if this applies.
I suspect the EFF, etc., would supply experts, for that matter.
[ link to this | view in thread ]