it is extremely rare that I ever agree with “mike” – but this proposal seems a bit absurd, and I (humbly) cannot possibly see this achieving its desired result.
ok, software patent issues aside:
1. limiting ownership from 20 yrs to 4 yrs –
fellas, i know its temping to see this as a plus, but will it really correct any major issue? the criticism agaisnt 20 yrs is one of “ownership until outdated is not pragmatic.” however, does 4 yrs truly do away with this concern. bare in mind that (at least) most major corporations use a strategy of incremental improvement, which presents itself in the IP world as a string of continuation patent applications. so, from a realistic point of view, corporate entities will not fear relinquishing monolopy on the state of the art – only the outdated. granted, in IP terms, the outdated (i.e. not the state-of-the-art) is not useless. However, it is unlikely (or at least uncommon) that a company which devotes consistent resources to development would suffer market position from an economic point of view.
2. so who would this effect?
my guess is, most likely, the little guy. the company’s with inconsistent means of supporting tech improvement to keep head above water in the market. Now, i wouldn’t confuse the “little guy” with what some techies call “patent trolls.” – without even defending this position, just simply check for yourself how quickly after issuance these guys assert their IP – not to make generalizations, though; the 4 yr limitation might prevent the dormant threat type patent. but on the other hand, a 4 yr limit may merely increase the competitiveness of landmine patents and result in increased dirty practices such as submarine patenting.
3. novelty-only search
wow, what a great way of dealing with obviousness issues – ignore it . . . without getting into speculation here (which is very tempting), i might just note that this idea of “shorter term, lower standard of allowance” is not new – it reminds me very much of the japanese “utility model.” i wont say much about this, because my experience with this is limited and im sure someone out there may have more to say. essentially, the japanese utility model is an option in JPO filing, where an inventor can opt for a more limited term (6 yrs?) in exchange for waiving an examination on the merits. needless to say, my experience in dealing with utility models is nothing short of pure frustration –
novelty-only? extremely extremely low standard. not to patronize, but this is essentially “anything under the sun not EXACTLY according to any preexisting specification” – as far as im concerned (i wouldnt push this opinion on anyone) this is in practicality a non-standard.
4. cheaper patents?
i guess that might be true… is that a good thing?? no.
i generally dont appreciate criticism not constructive, but this proposal is a bit in left field. let me know if you agree