The President Signs New Patent Law

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
The President has signed the first major patent law change since 1952 into law today. The commander-in-chief said "we can't afford to drag our feet any longer." Apparently foot dragging on everything else is still okay. ;)

President Barack Obama signed into law Friday a major overhaul of the nation's patent system to ease the way for inventors to bring their products to market. "We can't afford to drag our feet any longer," he said. Passed in a rare display of congressional bipartisanship, the America Invents Act is the first significant change in patent law since 1952. It has been hailed as a milestone that will spur innovation and create jobs.
Click to expand...
 
Steve said:
Apparently foot dragging on everything else is still okay. ;)
Click to expand...

ZOMG [H] with the constant conservative flag waving, rabble rabble rabble! ;)

You know things are messed up when I spend much of my time bitching how Congress can't get anything done and isn't bi-partisan...then when they are bi-partisan and get something done, it makes me suspicious as hell. Like a parent, you're used to hearing the kids fighting and bickering, you only get concerned when it gets quiet...
 
Considering it passed 304-117 in the House, 89-9 in the Senate and was backed by the US Chamber of Commerce, somehow I don't think this is solely some Obama-led liberal agenda.
 
On a serious non-political note: Wouldn't this allow patents to pass easily and get less verification on prior art?
 
Among the major changes in the legislation is turning the U.S. patent system into a first-to-file patent system as opposed to a first-to-invent system. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's current use of the first-to-invent system awards a patent based on the conception of the invention, not necessarily when it's filed. The first-to-file system, as the name suggests, awards a patent to the first person who files for it.
Click to expand...

It would seem to speed up the process, but I haven't seen prior art mentioned in any of the articles about the new law.
 
TwistedAegis said:
when they are bi-partisan and get something done, it makes me suspicious as hell. Like a parent, you're used to hearing the kids fighting and bickering, you only get concerned when it gets quiet...
Click to expand...


agreed 100%. Reps and Dems agreeing on something usually means something bad is happening...to everyone but them.
 
Don't worry guys.

Someone will come along and find out just how this is actually a hinderance instead of helpful.

To me? We as the people have been bitching about patent reform long enough. I too agree that it's a little suspicious when Congress actually agrees for once.

Then again, we are used to politicians who don't take a particular stance without it being convenient for them or they benefit from it somehow.
 
Sooo.....will this make it easier or harder for Apple to sue everybody?
 
So this does nothing to stop anybody from creating super broad patents???

I still think that if you are applying for a patent, you should not be granted the patent until you have a working prototype AND it has been ruled out that you are NOT getting a patent for previous "art".

HELPING PATENT TROLLS AND SQUATTERS IS NOT WHAT WE NEED / WANT
 
The biggest change this makes is it changes the system from a "first to invent" to a "first to file" system. It will speed things up and make it cheaper simply because the patent office won't have to spend a ton of time dealing with arguments over who invented something first. It will now simply look at who filed first, which is a whole lot easier to determine. We're one of the last 1st world countries to do it this way.
 
Lol, oh god. What does this thing say? Everyone in the senate gets a bonus if they pass new patents?
 
The fact Google and Apple both support this worries me
The fact both republicans and democrats supports this worries me more
The fact this changes from first to event to first to file scares the living shit out of me.

Simply put broad terminology for "doing something" whether or not you figured out how to do it will become par for the course, and corporations with large reserves of money, and patent lawyers already on retainer will simply "invent" tons of crap.
 
Tokamak said:
The biggest change this makes is it changes the system from a "first to invent" to a "first to file" system. It will speed things up and make it cheaper simply because the patent office won't have to spend a ton of time dealing with arguments over who invented something first. It will now simply look at who filed first, which is a whole lot easier to determine. We're one of the last 1st world countries to do it this way.
Click to expand...

So is patent trolling and squatting even worse in other countries?

If a company or person gets a patent and then does absolutely nothing with it until some other company or person has made tons of money by making and selling something that inadvertantly infringes on their patent... how is that even considered legal for the company/person with the patent to seek licensing fees and/or sue?
 
sfsuphysics said:
The fact Google and Apple both support this worries me
The fact both republicans and democrats supports this worries me more
The fact this changes from first to event to first to file scares the living shit out of me.

Simply put broad terminology for "doing something" whether or not you figured out how to do it will become par for the course, and corporations with large reserves of money, and patent lawyers already on retainer will simply "invent" tons of crap.
Click to expand...

I'm with you on this. Google AND Apple both back this? The Apple one especially worries me with how they handle and troll patents.
 
Without limiting how much you can sue for, I don't think it it will help much, but on the plus side, all the branches of governorship agreed on something.

And that is the patent system is broken. So I think smaller iteration steps is a logical way to proceed.

Too tell the truth I never thought I was see a change in my lifetime!

3 Cheers for the Government! I guess.:eek:
 
From my understanding the only real change is that disputes concerning who 'invented' something first will be decided by who applied for the patent first.
 
The President wishes we'd stop dragging our feet on a lot of things. Unfortunately, no matter how hard he pulls the Republican dominated House is as hard to move as an elephant who doesn't want to move. Healthcare reform - compromise after compromise, public option completely gone, pretty much the majority of things left intact were Republican suggestions like the health exchanges and they still dragged their feet on it. Debt ceiling - raised how many times before? Suddenly this time it's something to drag our feet about. They can't use the excuse 'but look how big the deficit is' because the moment the Bush tax cuts were up they forgot all about deficits and insisted on extending those in their entirety.

If Democrats have one problem with Obama it's that he compromises, bends over backwards to give his Republican colleagues what they want (even implementing their own suggestions), and yet he gives absolutely nothing back. The problem is the worse off the country gets the happier that makes the House Republicans because they can turn around and say 'Look how bad things are, see, blame the President, this is all Obama's fault!' You can't improve things when a crucial part of the balance of government's goal is to make things worse.
 
sfsuphysics said:
The fact Google and Apple both support this worries me
The fact both republicans and democrats supports this worries me more
The fact this changes from first to event to first to file scares the living shit out of me.

Simply put broad terminology for "doing something" whether or not you figured out how to do it will become par for the course, and corporations with large reserves of money, and patent lawyers already on retainer will simply "invent" tons of crap.
Click to expand...
As if independent inventors didn't have it hard enough. This law virtually guarantees that if you don't work for an existing megacorp with a giant patent war chest, you're fucked forever.

This "reform" looks a lot like corruption to me...
 
TwistedAegis said:
ZOMG [H] with the CONSTANT conservative flag waving, rabble rabble rabble! ;)
Click to expand...

What are you smoking? I hope that was a joke.

We go so far out of our way to remain neutral it isn't even funny.

I personally have rules in place for all our news guys (literaly rules) on politics. These are my rules and I make sure they are followed.

We rarely post ANYTHING political unless it is directly tech related. When it has to be posted, We use:

The White House
The President
The current/former adminstration

NOT "Obama" (notice the headline when you actually click it? It says Obama...not The president)

When it says Democrat / Republican we use the term politicians (or scumbags, depending on the situation :) )

So on and so forth.

:(
 
fattypants said:
As if independent inventors didn't have it hard enough. This law virtually guarantees that if you don't work for an existing megacorp with a giant patent war chest, you're fucked forever.

This "reform" looks a lot like corruption to me...
Click to expand...

As if the way it was before when they would simply litigate you out of money, while costing the PTO tons of taxpayer time and money, was better?

Also, now you do have to exemplify what's in the patent within a year of filing. Hopefully no more perpetual motion machine patents.
 
Steve said:
What are you smoking? I hope that was a joke.

We go so far out of our way to remain neutral it isn't even funny.

I personally have rules in place for all our news guys (literaly rules) on politics. These are my rules and I make sure they are followed.

We rarely post ANYTHING political unless it is directly tech related. When it has to be posted, We use:

The White House
The President
The current/former adminstration

NOT "Obama" (notice the headline when you actually click it? It says Obama...not The president)

When it says Democrat / Republican we use the term politicians (or scumbags, depending on the situation :) )

So on and so forth.

:(
Click to expand...

You missed some previous thread wars. A few folks are claiming HARDOCP is a leftist rag now because of the global warming threads and tech economic news posts. He was trying to make a joke about all the ranting. These days man I'd just post the story and not look back. It's getting pretty heated in here.
 
It has been hailed as a milestone that will spur innovation and create jobs.
Click to expand...

ROFL!!

I'm filing this one, and coming back to it a year from now to see if the hype is just blowing some steam up my buttcheeks. Sounds like some well timed buzz-words when jobs are the only thing on people's minds.

I'll bet it doesn't spur anything except the same crap in a different flavor, and the only jobs created will be these:

"as many as 2,000 more examiners in the next year, update its IT system and open offices throughout the U.S. to help deal with a backlog of nearly 700,000 applications awaiting review - patents take an average of 34 months to issue".

It doesn't sound like the little guy's getting any help from this:

The risk is that the cost for filing a patent through the new system could drive overall costs higher, and, in the process, favor bigger companies that can afford to file for patents more frequently. Here's how: under the former, first-to-invent system, there was a one-year grace period that gave inventors time to perfect their inventions. They could also line up investors to help cover the cost of securing a patent or to cover the cost of launching the new product. During that period, an inventor might decide to forgo getting a patent if he realized there was no market for the new invention or manufacturing was too cumbersome or expensive, says Alec Schibanoff, the executive director of American Innovators for Patent Reform, an inventor advocacy group in New York.

But in the new, first-to-file system, inventors who want protection must shell out for a patent -- even if they don't end up bringing the invention to market. "This is not only costly -- not every independent inventor or small business has $7,000 to $10,000 to cover the cost of filing a patent application -- but it will result in the filing of more patent applications," says Schibanoff whose organization estimates that the patent office has a current backlog of roughly 700,000 patent applications.

Further, critics suggest that small-scale inventors will likely face added challenges to their patent applications thanks to a provision in the new law that creates a second method by which a patent can be challenged. This "post-grant review" process, which gives the Patent Office another opportunity to inspect granted patents, could push the cost of securing patents higher. The bill for securing a patent can already run upwards of $10,000.
Click to expand...

We can hope for reform, but I'm not holding MY breath waiting.
 
WhyYouLoveMe said:
Did Ron Paul vote yes or no on this thing? That's all that really matters. ;)
Click to expand...

He is in the House Of Representative, which is seperate from the Senate (but still collectively called "congress").

According to this roll call (H.R. 1249) his son Rand voted against it if that is any indication.

He did not vote (no vote) on H.R 1908 Patent Reform Act of 2007. Which also passed 9/07/2007.

I'm not insinuating anything about it. I am a huge supporter of him.
 
"Prior Art" no longer invalidates a bad patent. Big Business wins, small inventors lose.

The Patent Office now gets to keep filing fees, which will promote the granting of more patents for the very trivial and obvious.
 
piscian18 said:
agreed 100%. Reps and Dems agreeing on something usually means something bad is happening...to everyone but them.
Click to expand...

Agree and when I read that"It was backed by companies including Google and Apple as well as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce." "Backed " means Influence peddling (Lobbying) big time. I'd like to know,who(politicians) got paid what and how it will stream line the Influence Peddlers pockets.
 
fattypants said:
As if independent inventors didn't have it hard enough. This law virtually guarantees that if you don't work for an existing megacorp with a giant patent war chest, you're fucked forever.

This "reform" looks a lot like corruption to me...
Click to expand...

Agreed, that's the first thing that popped into my head when I read first to file not first to invent :( More screwing over the little guy :(
 
The new parent law won't stop people from getting overly vague patents and then going through a long legal battle to determine what belongs to who. It really won't change much.
 
Since the main "reform" seems to be the first-to-file, this really doesn't change anything except make it easier for the patent office to decide who gets awarded the patent..
Being a small company or large company has no impact on whether or not you're the 1st one to file.
If the criteria was first-to-make, that'd be a different story.
 
Saw this mentioned earlier... they kept saying "OMG it takes over 3 years to get a patent" --- and that is the supposedly the whole reason for this new law from the president.

To add, My man Fareed Zakaria(one of the awesome-est of awesomely gifted reporters, honestly, watch his show please) talked about how it was almost impossible to get investments because of this 3 year gap. It would basically mean that investors would have to spend 2-3 years of "just waiting'' on these patent ideas, and it would hinder the advancement and potential product profits because it took so damn long.

This should be good for America, but I do not know the ENTIRE PICTURE (bad AND good things) that come out of this law.

I see it basically as less regulation... which is good because of all these nonsense Apple lawsuits. but on the other hand, it might help the greedy corps like apple, no? Need to learn more, but I'm sure its all for "good' mainly.
 
Little inventor invents something and files for a patent. Big corporation sues, claims "we already invented that." Little inventor cannot afford costly court battle to prove that he was the original inventor, and/or did not keep documentation proving this fact. Big corporation gets patent without doing any work.

This is the situation that first-to-file fixes. It puts corporations and individuals on equal footing as far as patent applications go, as it doesn't take an expensive lawyer to show that the date on your application is earlier than the date on his application. Such a simple, no-nonsense criteria for awarding a patent is more fair for everyone and also makes things much easier for the patent office and courts.

It doesn't fix other problems such as companies buying patents and shelving them, but it is a step in the right direction.
 
You guys seeing this as "bad for the small guy" must be watching Fox News only... so you only hear the nonsense, complaining like Fox News gets paid (political bias channel, not #1 news channel, unfairest of all news corps, and certainly not America's news HQ, rather republican news HQ, IN ACTUALITY AND REALITY)

This (actually) makes it easier for small inventors. They can now get the investment money to get these patents done (see my post above explaining why).

Basically..... nobody small can get investments for patents these days, all because it takes over 3 years. because of this long, questionable gap of uncertainty, most investors are drawn AWAY because of this long wait. They must pay 1-3 years of just 'waiting' and after that it still might go through.

so now........ investors will have LESS RISK, thus increasing investments into American inventions.

Fox News fails yet again at telling the TRUTH.
 
HOCP4ME said:
Little inventor invents something and files for a patent. Big corporation sues, claims "we already invented that." Little inventor cannot afford costly court battle to prove that he was the original inventor, and/or did not keep documentation proving this fact. Big corporation gets patent without doing any work.

This is the situation that first-to-file fixes. It puts corporations and individuals on equal footing as far as patent applications go, as it doesn't take an expensive lawyer to show that the date on your application is earlier than the date on his application. Such a simple, no-nonsense criteria for awarding a patent is more fair for everyone and also makes things much easier for the patent office and courts.

It doesn't fix other problems such as companies buying patents and shelving them, but it is a step in the right direction.
Click to expand...

Well said man... well said. Exactly how I feel.
 
Fox bends the truth IMO, They flip it 180 degrees and after enough time spewing their nonsense people start to believe it. Fuck 'em
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top