Patent Reform: Some Good, Mostly Bad

from the it's-a-step dept

Well Congress is actually moving forward with its plan to reform the patent system, and (as you might expect) it's a mixture of good and bad ideas. It basically follows the recommendations of the patent office we discussed a couple of months ago. The really bad idea is that they want to make the patent system more like the rest of the world, where the patent goes to the first person who files rather than the first person who comes up with the concept. There's a logistical reason for doing this. It's obviously a lot easier to figure out who was the first to file, rather than the first to invent -- but it's not reasonable if you're really trying to encourage innovation (remember, that's what the patent system is supposed to do). All this really does is give everyone the incentive to file for any idea as quickly as possible, without actually exploring it and seeing if it's really innovative. That overloads the patent system. Also, if someone else came up with the idea before someone filed, then you have to question how "non-obvious" the idea really is. If patents are only supposed to go to non-obvious ideas, how can anyone justify giving a patent to a product that's already been invented? The second idea is to make it easier to challenge a patent after it's been granted or after infringement claims are made. This is a start -- as a patent dispute system really is needed. However, why isn't there a system to dispute a patent before it's granted? That would help clear up the issue before it becomes a problem and let examiners focus on the real inventions, rather than things with prior art or that should be considered obvious.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    nonuser, Jun 9th, 2005 @ 5:03am

    raise the bar

    When a knowledgeable observer in the relevant field reads a patent, his reaction for shouldn't be one of:

    1. Why didn't I think of that?
    2. Boy, someone filed for a patent for that?
    3. Huh?

    but, for a valid patent, it should be:

    - Wow, let's keep reading to see how they did it!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This