Contributors

  • Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« Baker & McKenzie Adds Tax Partner From Jones Day | Main | Ex-PTO Director Dudas Leaves Foley to Head Nonprofit »

June 15, 2010

Comments

N. T.

For the record, with regard to First to File, the statement, "That provision proved uncontroversial to the panelists" is an outright misstatement of fact!

There were a number of panelists who pointed out there are numerous problems and objections to FtF particularly for small inventors.

The author should get a hearing aid.

They should have recorded and published a transcript to avoid this sort of obfuscation.

staff

"One fundamental shift: the Patent and Trademark Office would no longer award a patent to the first person to come up with an idea...That provision proved uncontroversial to the panelists."

None of the panelists were small entity inventors. If they were, they would think otherwise. As the Constitution says, the purpose of the patent system is to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". As the lion's share of groundbreaking discoveries come from small entities (not to mention new jobs), any changes in the law that does not give proper consideration to small entities would only further cripple our economy.

Patent reform is a fraud on America. It is patently un-American.
Please see http://truereform.piausa.org/ for a different/opposing view on patent reform.

Dale B. Halling

D.C.,

The question is not whether your patents are important to the world, but whether a strong patent system is critical to our economic growth. The evidence is overwhelming that a strong patent system is critical to economic growth. Until the advent of the modern patent system technological growth was so slow that people lived in a Malthusian economy, meaning that population expanded until people were on the edge of starvation. Only with the advent of property rights for inventions (patents) were people given sufficient incentive (and justice) to invest in new technology, which is the only way to increase real per capita income. For more information see http://hallingblog.com/2010/05/11/source-of-economic-growth/

First to File
I strongly disagree that changing to a First-to-File system is uncontroversial. This change will result in poorly thought out patent application, increasing the workload of the PTO. It will also favor large companies. All countries with a First-to-File system have significantly fewer patent applications by small entities and individual inventors. Finally, the First-to-File system is unjust. The inventor is not the first one to file a patent application, it is the first person to reduce the invention to practice.

Gena777

It's time for the USPTO to give more consideration to a multi-tiered approach to patent examination. The traditional one-size-fits-all approach doesn't meet the needs of today's environment. If Congress ever actually passes a patent reform bill with teeth, then maybe we'll see significant change for the better in patent law someday. If some kind of patent reform does indeed pass this year, then hopefully it will at least be a version of the legislation that prohibits fee diversion and stops permitting Congress to deplete the coffers of the USPTO. That would be a start -- though I'm afraid that, for any substantial and significant reform of the patent law system, we'll have to keep waiting much longer.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/25/patent-reform-misses-the-mark/

D. C. Sessions

"If some legislation passes and it increases cost and uncertainty and risk, won’t it decrease the value of the one million-plus patents out there?” Michel asked. “The value of patents is the most important ball for us to keep our eyes on, and it seems to me this is not a step in the right direction."

Silly me, I would have thought that the patent system had other objectives than maximizing the value of millions of patents. Such as, oh, increasing innovation, boosting the economy, or promoting the progress of science and the useful arts.

FWIW: I hold upwards of 20 US patents. If none of them had been awarded, the world would be no worse off.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad

Advertisements