Obama Signs Dramatic U.S. Patent Reform Into Law
The America Invents Act brings US patent law in line with the rest of the world
Today, President Obama signed the America Invents Act into law, formally bringing an end to more than two centuries of American patent law. Once the law takes effect, the "first to invent" standard previously used to determine patent ownership - roughly put, the person who can demonstrate by combination of conception and attempt to put their concept into practice is likely to be declared patent holder in the event of a filing conflict - will be replaced by a version of the "first to file" system favored by every other nation on earth. In a "first to file" system, priority of deciding who owns an invention's patent goes to the first person or entity to file for the patent, regardless of the date of invention.
The chief advantage advanced in favor of a first to file system is that it would reduce the number of patent disputes and enable businesses in the U.S. and abroad to interact on similar legal ground. Detractors of the system contend that it essentially skews the business environment in favor of large corporations, at the expense of individual entrepreneurs and small startup companies. Indeed, when Canada switched to a first to file system in 1989, a later study found a small but measurable adverse effect on smaller inventors.
In addition to the change in the standard of determining patent ownership, the bill also makes some significant changes to the process of filing a patent claim itself. For instance, an entity, such as a corporation, may now file a patent application on behalf of the actual inventor, if said inventor has assigned, or is contractually obliged to assign, the invention rights over to that entity, without requiring that the inventor's execution of the application. This essentially removes the burden of proof from a company for whom the inventor works, and places it on the inventor him or herself. However, the new law also expands some opposition procedures, including a post-grant review and expanded discovery.
It has been widely suggested that the new law could be contested on constitutional grounds. Article One, Section 8, clause 8 (AKA the 'copyright clause') of the U.S. Constitution empowers congress to pass laws in order "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." A "first to file" system seems to run afoul of the constitutional concept of invention, and the new law is almost certain to be challenged in the courts.
How the current Supreme Court would rule is a matter of speculation, though the 2003 upholding of the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act is probably a clue. Though many of the law's provisions go into effect immediately, the switch from a "first to invent" to a "first to file" system doesn't happen until March 16, 2012. The official White House statement on the new law is available online. A discussion of the portions of the law that go into effect immediately can be found at IP Watch.
- Business,
- patent ,
- first-to-file ,
- first-to-invent ,
- reform ,
- obama
- Original Portal Free on Steam for Limited Time
- Thunderbolt Heading to Windows PCs in 2012
- Archos G9 Tablet Available for Pre-Sale on September 20
- MSI Reveals Voice-Activated Motherboards at IDF
- Deals Sept 15: Sony Alpha NEX3K/B Black 14.2 MP $434
- Google Preps Remoting Chrome Function for Primetime
- Webroot Discovers BIOS Rootkit
- IDF: Intel Announces Enterprise SSD 710-Series
- Windows 8 Has a Slightly Friendlier Blue Screen of Death
- Corsair Launches New Line of PC Gaming Peripherals
- Opinion: Can Windows 8 Save the PC?
- Google Releases Chrome 14
- Intel Reveals More on Haswell 22 nm CPU Coming 2013
- Deals Sept 19: WD TV Live HD 1080p Media Player $65
- Windows 8 Dev Tablets Already on eBay
- Former Acer CEO Hired By Lenovo As Consultant
- DC Universe Online Going Free-To-Play
- IBM Patents Graphics Rendering on a Network On Chip
TL;DR - Frivolous lawsuits will continue.
Patents stopped protecting small inventors a long time ago. Now they protect large companies like Intel and Microsoft from competition because they sue small companies out of existence before they ever get big enough to compete.
*in before the conservatives start acting like one of their candidates would've bent over less for the big corporations*
Won't this promote a "File and forget it" approach?
On a side note it probably won't as it's what the rest of the world is doing but it *sounds* like it would
*edit, I had a longer text, shortened it*
Oh gawd its gonna turn into the European union lawsuits all over again.
What a surprise
Cloud + New Patent Law = Corporations always win.
I can see it already where the likes of google or MS snoop on your content you are paying them to host, and then patent it themselves.
i guess this will finally force me to patent that automatic toilet paper dispenser i invented in high school... where did i leave those blue prints?
This system may work in other countries, but when you combine it with other aspects of U.S. patent law it could be a disaster. In the U.S. you can get patents on a huge diversity of things including business plans and on very simple things. This leads to patents on things like "Selling things on website using a checkout button" and "Entering a name into a Videogame." The first to invent system acted to prevent some of these ridiculous patents by allowing them to be invalidated by showing how the idea was already in use Now the first smart-ass to file for some common action described in fancy language will get to patent troll everyone else.
Patents stopped protecting small inventors a long time ago. Now they protect large companies like Intel and Microsoft from competition because they sue small companies out of existence before they ever get big enough to compete.*in before the conservatives start acting like one of their candidates would've bent over less for the big corporations*
There are also small companies who's sole purpose is to sue everyone else for cash because of "patent patent infringement"
I was hoping theyd do something to prevent stupid illogical general idea patent filings.
"Detractors of the system contend that it essentially skews the business environment in favor of large corporations, at the expense of individual entrepreneurs and small startup companies."
Yeah, detractors like pretty much every individual entrepreneur and small startup company.
Why does it matter? It's not like China following any IP law from the states if it'll make them money.
In principle good, in practice this will be a disaster for small guys.
How exactly has the US had a "First to Invent" style patent system? The "First to Invent" system would actually require the company to "invent" something at some point. Apple hasn't actually invented anything, but holds countless "proof of concept" patents...which don't require them to ever actually make use of said patents.
just another step towards total government control. Now the government will have to step in to stop disputes when big companies file a patent that they can afford to file for that they saw someone else invent but didnt have the money to patent (like me if they ever catch wind of my ideas). Then the next step is that the government will take over the patent process and then its a short hop to the government will confiscate for a period of years to collect the revenue it generates so they can spend it on giving money away to people who didnt work for it.
This system may work in other countries, but when you combine it with other aspects of U.S. patent law it could be a disaster. In the U.S. you can get patents on a huge diversity of things including business plans and on very simple things. This leads to patents on things like "Selling things on website using a checkout button" and "Entering a name into a Videogame." The first to invent system acted to prevent some of these ridiculous patents by allowing them to be invalidated by showing how the idea was already in use Now the first smart-ass to file for some common action described in fancy language will get to patent troll everyone else.
Well it depends on how you look at it.. In european patent law yiou can go about claiming every piece of written software code- So the amount of software patents is fortunately low in comparison to the usa. In europe most software development falls under the text copywrite protection. As they say software is more like a written novel than a real invention. That is why courtcase about software patents take place in the usa, where they allow every bit of crap to be filed as a patent and this givng companies like microsoft and apple a way to sue their competion into oblivion or handing the rights over to their respective software Borg collective.
just another step towards total government control. Now the government will have to step in to stop disputes when big companies file a patent that they can afford to file for that they saw someone else invent but didnt have the money to patent (like me if they ever catch wind of my ideas). Then the next step is that the government will take over the patent process and then its a short hop to the government will confiscate for a period of years to collect the revenue it generates so they can spend it on giving money away to people who didnt work for it.
An amazing view especially because if tehir is one country in the world in controk by multinationals it is the USA.. And you expect it this way to become even worse?
Guys, before you get all whiny & bitchy please note that he could be trying to make the patent system less corporate oriented. All the conservatives complain no matter what he does, good or bad!
This system may work in other countries, but when you combine it with other aspects of U.S. patent law it could be a disaster. In the U.S. you can get patents on a huge diversity of things including business plans and on very simple things. This leads to patents on things like "Selling things on website using a checkout button" and "Entering a name into a Videogame." The first to invent system acted to prevent some of these ridiculous patents by allowing them to be invalidated by showing how the idea was already in use Now the first smart-ass to file for some common action described in fancy language will get to patent troll everyone else.
Um, prior art would apply just as it always had.
So generally this make current stupid patent system twice even worse.
Unless they change rules on who can be patented and on which basis this will only bring disaster to real inventors.
Of course it will make happy any patent troll.
so now i can just patent an idea by drawing it up on a pice of notbook paper and never put it to use and no one can do anything about it? Wow lets just make the patent laws more moronic...
How does this change the definition of "proir art"? I've done some inventing, got a patent, even made a bit of money on my idea manufacturing it myself although I can't say, to this day, that the patent was worth the money because I kept my market by being first, best and disciplined on price. Filing a patent is expensive for garage inventors. It's a safe bet that from the time you start working with a concept until it's perfected enough to make patent claims is going to be a year plus. Does this push inventors to be even more secretive than they already are? The need to hide invention work is a burden on development for a variety of reasons.
Copyright and patent protection are crucial to western civilization. Traditional islamic law is hostile to both. How much literature or technology do nations with that legal tradition produce lately?
There are also small companies who's sole purpose is to sue everyone else for cash because of "patent patent infringement"
i4i comes to mind. Then again, people glorified them for their settlement with Microsoft.
Instead of a common sense approach that would clear up the trolling lawsuit, we decide to tangle things up a bit more. At least I have my Obamacare and will be able to buy seats in NASA spacecraft around 2015.
just another step towards total government control. Now the government will have to step in to stop disputes when big companies file a patent that they can afford to file for that they saw someone else invent but didnt have the money to patent (like me if they ever catch wind of my ideas). Then the next step is that the government will take over the patent process and then its a short hop to the government will confiscate for a period of years to collect the revenue it generates so they can spend it on giving money away to people who didnt work for it.
lol how many more republican and liberatarian meme's can you mash together in one tom's hardware comment?
i think this is a very bad idea. what this will cause is that people will keep sueing John Carmack for all his inventions because he invents a lot and doesn't patent anything as far as i know.
... next step? Marihuana get's legalized...
However bad this patent reform might turn out, it is still a beneficial move. Because at least someone is brave enough to change a two centuries old patent system. It won't be the last of the US patent reform that we'll see. I'm certain more reform will come as we smooth out the rough edges.
This is not good for inventors. I have always been against large corporations taking the credit and the money made from inventions. So this makes my worried. Our Government does it again, passing laws we did not even know was on the table. Ill just invent them out of office in 2012.
So corporate espionage can steal another's invention that haven't been patented yet because they wanted to keep it secret and legitimately claim it for themselves. This is got to be worse than first to invent.
So corporate espionage can steal another's invention that haven't been patented yet because they wanted to keep it secret and legitimately claim it for themselves. This is got to be worse than first to invent.
That's what the patent system works correctly for. It makes it harder for corporations to steal secrets from other corporations.
What is awful about the system is that it punishes corporations that come to a vaugely similar solution completely independently. If two corporations that haven't ever heard of each other come to the same solution to a given problem but one patents it first, the other one is liable to be sued. That shouldn't happen, ever. When something like software can be patented, it happens all the time. There's a good reason you can't patent the solution to 2+2, and you shouldn't be able to patent software for the exact same reason.
Cant wait! I am going to be the first to file the patent on the recipe for Coca Cola. Until now it has been a trade secret protected against patent trolls because everyone knows Coca Cola invented it first. KFC is next on my list...