$exytime: Thanks To An Easily Exploitable System, Three Lawyers Have 'Patented Sex'*

from the when-two-people-love-each-other-very-much-and-have-secured-licensing... dept

*No, not really.

We all yearn for several things, among them true patent reform and the touch of another human being. Especially there. And there. But maybe not there... at least not without some... but I digress. The U.S. has long held to the notion of "first to invent," rather than "first inventor to file." Until recently, that is. The America Invents Act silenced critics who complained that "first to invent" made the system slightly harder to exploit. But that's all behind us now. As these three lawyers point out in their hilarious parody video, "first inventor to file" opens the door for some pretty devious behavior. (CAUTION: Probably NSFW. Contains sexual terminology, some light swearing and Patrick Leahy.)

There's a lot to love in the video, even if the opening is a little slow (but entirely necessary). If you're a patent wonk (does such a thing exist?), shout-outs to patent laws (PL 112-29, yo) and an appearance by David Kappos, the director of the USPTO, will provide a few thrills. If you're everyone else, there's a ton of sexual verbiage and Patrick Leahy, both Obamas and Michael Jackson all get name checked. Keep your eyes peeled for a distracted patent officer 'rubber-stamping' an application.

All in all, it's good clean fun that takes a few jabs at the more ludicrous aspects of the patent process. I'd love to see them expand this idea out further, perhaps encompassing some of the research aspects, like somehow making Google's Prior Art finder harvest results from Google Images. Or checking a sexual partner for infringement by requiring a list of past partners and positions. Or maybe tackle the "patent troll" angle: the guy who patents sex but never actually performs the act.

Filed Under: first inventor to file, first to file, first to invent, patents, satire, sex

Patent Office Seeking Comments On How To Implement A 'First To File' Regime Instead Of 'First To Invent'

from the help-them-not-muck-it-up dept

You may remember that last fall, there was an incredibly weak attempt at patent reform known as the America Invents Act. This was the result of a nearly seven-year-long fight over patent reform, with nearly every good idea from early proposals being watered down to completely useless, and a few bad ideas ramped up for good measure. Nothing in the AIA actually dealt with the problems of patent trolls or patent thickets. One of the ideas that survived the years-long culling was flipping the US patent system from a "first to invent" system to a "first to file" system. I've long argued that this is a very bad idea for a variety of reasons. First, it encourages inventors to file for lots of patents as early as possible to beat anyone else to the Patent Office, rather than making sure that the invention is actually worth patenting. It also seems to go against the basic principle of the patent system, if it's supposed to reward actual inventors. Finally, switching to a first to file certainly seems likely to favor large companies with big legal staffs that can focus on rushing out as many patent applications as possible. Smaller entities might be in trouble.

To be fair, the arguments in favor of this switch are basically (1) everyone else does it (mostly true) and (2) proving who was first to invent is a total pain in the ass and can be slow and costly. Thus switching to a first to file system could save a lot of wasted time and money in the cases where there's a dispute. That may be true, but I'm not convinced it's a good reason.

That said, it doesn't much matter what I think: it made it into the bill and is now the law. The US Patent Office is now seeking comment on how it should go about implementing this new rule. It's put out two requests. First, it wants to know how it should change the examination guidelines for patent examiners (pdf and embedded below) to take this new rule into account. Second, it wants comments on how it should amend the "rules of practice," regarding this change -- since the current rules are based on the old "first to invent" system.

For those thinking of participating, this is not the place to argue why "first to file" is a bad system (or even why the patent system is broken). I imagine any such filings will be (correctly) deemed off-topic and discarded. However for those patent holders and patent lawyers (and scholars) for whom this change is a big deal, now might be the time to share some thoughts with the USPTO for how it can implement this change with as little damage as possible.

Filed Under: comments, first to file, first to invent, patents, uspto

No Surprise: Senate Approves Useless Patent Reform

from the moving-on dept

This is hardly a surprise, but the Senate has overwhelmingly approved Senator Leahy's "patent reform" bill. It's no surprise, because after many years of attempts to approve patent reform, the bill has been so watered down (from an already weak start) to be not just meaningless, but likely to do more harm than good. Basically, one by one, each aspect of patent reform that might actually help were removed from the bill. What's left is not patent reform. It's a minor patent adjustment, designed to serve the best interests of those who abuse the system. Of course, there's still no House patent reform bill, though it'll be coming soon. There are some indications that there will be some differences between the House and Senate versions, but there are no indications that the House bill will actually have anything useful in it. If this law does pass, it won't actually be patent reform. It'll just be a minor change to the patent system, including a switch to a "first to file" system, rather than a "first to invent." While it's true that most of the world uses first to file, all that really does is encourage people to file faster, rather than to actually innovate. This is not the patent reform we need. This is a joke.

Filed Under: first to file, first to invent, patent reform, patents, senate