Lettuce us discuss Patent Reform

[kinggovernor]

I know a lot of you work IT/Science jobs and this may have an affect on your companies. Also, this is an interesting bill because it is not the typical bill that puts companies versus the little guy, in fact there are large companies both pro and against. The bill flew through the House and now is stuck in the Senate, and opposition is growing.

The bill would be the first major change the US patent system for the first time in over 50 years. It is trying to change the Patent system to similar systems across the world.

First-to-File
The largest change would be that patents would be granted on the "First-to-file", will our system is currently the "First-to-Invent". Currently we are the only country that still uses the "First-to-Invent" system, Canada changed about 10 years ago and they have not experienced many problems.

Pros:
The US Patent and Trade Office (USPTO) is currently required to conduct lengthy research when invented first when there is a conflict, and it usually ends in a lawsuit.

Cons:
This would create a "race to the mailbox" where patent applicants would submit crappy patents trying to beat the other guy.

Limitations of Damages
Currently damages are awarded based upon not on the value of the patented invention, but the entire sum of the product that the patented invention is used in. So for example, if a company is infringing on a patent for windshield wipers, the damage award would be for the entire vehicle. This can be applied for many other small inventions that are used in larger products. Those against the bill want to ensure the time frame for how damages are awarded are not based upon when the patent was awarded rather when the infringement stated. This assumes that the value of the patent product would be higher when the infringement starter then when the patent was awarded.

Post-Grant Review
Both sides approve of Post-Grant Review, where third parties can challenge the validity of the patent. Those in favor of the bill want it because it keeps cases out of federal court, but those against the bill want one attachment added, the ability for the patent holder to change their patent to answer any of the validity challenges raised during the review.

Venue and Patent Trolls
The Eastern District of Texas has become the place for patent trolls to have their cases heard, they get a 90% jury and 67% bench trial return in their favor. Both are way above the national average. The appeal rate for the district in patent cases is roughly 50%, so half of the verdicts are overturned. The district is so small that patent trolls can even have the same Judge hear their specific patent case 10-20 times.

I can go on and on with this, but the system is broken. The bill would restrict cases to be filed where the infringement happened or where the company is located. Those against the bill state that it makes unfair for patent holders because they have to try infringement cases in the home district of those they are suing.

I could go on with the specifics of the bill, if there is interest I will.

Now for a run down of the companies of those for and against, the most striking is that IBM, #1 patent holder in the US, has not come out with a position yet.

Those for are members of the "Coalition for Patent Fairness" to include:
Amazon.com, Apple, Autodesk, Business Software Alliance, Cisco Systems, Comcast, Dell, Electrolux, Financial Services Roundtable, Hewlett-Packard,
Information Technology Industry Council, Intel, Micron Technology, Microsoft, Oracle, SAP, TechNet, Time Warner and Visa.

Those against are members of the "21st Century Patent Reform" and also IEEE:
3M, Caterpillar, General Electric, Johnson & Johnson, Eli Lilly and Procter & Gamble, Aerospace and Defense, Chemical, Computers, Diversified Financials, Diversified Technology, Energy, Food Production, Forest & Paper Products, Health Care, Household & Personal Products, Industrial Equipment, Medical Equipment & Devices, Network & Communications, Payroll Services, Pharmaceutical/Biotechnology, Semiconductors & Electronic Components, and Transportation Equipment.

[7960]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

Venue and Patent Trolls
The Eastern District of Texas has become the place for patent trolls to have their cases heard, they get a 90% jury and 67% bench trial return in their favor. Both are way above the national average. The appeal rate for the district in patent cases is roughly 50%, so half of the verdicts are overturned. The district is so small that patent trolls can even have the same Judge hear their specific patent case 10-20 times.

My friend is a lawyer who works for a company that doesn't have a product.... all they do is have lawyers read patent shit all day and then buy companies that have patents on things that other companies are doing. They do this just so they can sue them.

For example, company A has a patent on powder coating widgets. Company B creates a machine that powder coats widgets. My friend's company will buy company A just so they can sue company B. Of course they have to figure out the differentials on money so it's worth it, but they're doing very well.

When he told me what he does for work I wanted to spit on him.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by 7960

My friend is a lawyer who works for a company that doesn't have a product.... all they do is have lawyers read patent shit all day and then buy companies that have patents on things that other companies are doing. They do this just so they can sue them.

For example, company A has a patent on powder coating widgets. Company B creates a machine that powder coats widgets. My friend's company will buy company A just so they can sue company B. Of course they have to figure out the differentials on money so it's worth it, but they're doing very well.

When he told me what he does for work I wanted to spit on him.

many times patent trolls will be just be shell companies, their addresses will be in the same building as the law firm representing them. They create nothing other than lawsuits.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by 7960

My friend is a lawyer who works for a company that doesn't have a product.... all they do is have lawyers read patent shit all day and then buy companies that have patents on things that other companies are doing. They do this just so they can sue them.

For example, company A has a patent on powder coating widgets. Company B creates a machine that powder coats widgets. My friend's company will buy company A just so they can sue company B. Of course they have to figure out the differentials on money so it's worth it, but they're doing very well.

When he told me what he does for work I wanted to spit on him.

lawyers really are bottom feeders

[7960]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

many times patent trolls will be just be shell companies, their addresses will be in the same building as the law firm representing them. They create nothing other than lawsuits.

Yep. And nobody bothers to sue them back because they have no money. They don't have any products, no equipment, no assets at all. They're just a bunch of lawyers who buy companies, strip them, sell them, and keep the relevant patents so they can sue other companies. Most times they end up dumping the patent in the process of the lawsuit so it's almost always a one-time shot.

[Kytro]

I am opposed to almost all IP law, and patents should really be protection on innovation not a weapon.

I believe patents should only protect against simple duplication of ideas. You can stop someone from making a type of widget if you can show they simply copied you, but if you begun work on the widget before they released / patented it, you should also have the rights to use it.

You should not be able to acquire patents in order to sue, in addition there should be a limited window to enforce a patent. If you don't question a patents use by a given company in the first 6 months you should forfeit the right to challenge usage.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Kytro

I am opposed to almost all IP law, and patents should really be protection on innovation not a weapon.

I believe patents should only protect against simple duplication of ideas. You can stop someone from making a type of widget if you can show they simply copied you, but if you begun work on the widget before they released / patented it, you should also have the rights to use it.

You should not be able to acquire patents in order to sue, in addition there should be a limited window to enforce a patent. If you don't question a patents use by a given company in the first 6 months you should forfeit the right to challenge usage.

where is the incentive to invent when the second firm coming through can copy your idea without having to spend all the R&D money that you did developing it.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

where is the incentive to invent when the second firm coming through can copy your idea without having to spend all the R&D money that you did developing it.

coke does alright

so does tylenol

[7960]

Originally Posted by Phantom

coke does alright

so does tylenol

are you saying they don't have patents?

I'm not reading 50 pages of shit, but a quick google search brings up dozens of patents for each.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by 7960

are you saying they don't have patents?

I'm not reading 50 pages of shit, but a quick google search brings up dozens of patents for each.

I think they're all way out of date. Aren't patents good for some number of years?

Anyway, you can buy generic cola and generic acetometaphin (ya I butchered thath I know) but the tylenol company and coke company still do pretty well.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Phantom

coke does alright

so does tylenol

both companies use patents, and coke even has had trade secret laws passed to protect's it recipe.

Prison looms for Coca-Cola recipe thief
By staff reporter

LATEST NEWS HEADLINES

24-May-2007 - A former Coca-Cola worker was sentenced to eight years in prison this week for stealing and attempting to sell Coca-Cola trade secrets to its rival, PepsiCo.

Joya Williams, 42, a previous executive administrator at Coca-Cola, was found guilty earlier this year of stealing documents only available to the group's top five executives and then offering them to Pepsi.

Her accomplice, 31-year-old Ibrahim Dimson, got five years for his part. A third man is awaiting sentencing.

The sentencing judge praised Pepsi's "good corporate citizenship" for alerting both Coca-Cola and the FBI.

Williams' eight-year sentence was more than prosecutor's had asked for and has been taken as a warning to those who consider industrial espionage.

One US attorney said: "As the market becomes more global, the need to protect intellectual property becomes even more vital to protecting American companies and our economic growth."


During the trial, the court heard how Dimson, from Bronx, New York, had contacted Williams using the name 'Dirk'. It was his initial approach to PepsiCo, offering classified information on Coca-Cola, which triggered the FBI investigation.

Dimson later told an FBI undercover agent: "I have information that's all Classified and extremely confidential… …I can even provide actual products and packaging of certain products, that no eye has seen, outside of maybe five top execs."

Video surveillance later showed Williams stuffing files and a liquid container, believed to be a new product sample, into a bag. Dirk later handed the contents over to the FBI agent at the Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport.

Coca Cola confirmed the product sample and documents were genuine.
Prison looms for Coca-Cola recipe thief

[7960]

Originally Posted by Phantom

I think they're all way out of date. Aren't patents good for some number of years?

I'll back up here and say I said soemthing wrong.

I've been saying patent when what I mean is trade secrets. The patent ran out on coke a long time ago but it's still protected as a trade secret, which still falls under IP.

Understanding Intellectual Property Rights through Coca Cola

[Phantom]

Trade secrets are a different beast. They don't create a right to exclusive use by any individual. For example, if I independently came up with the exact same recipe as coca-cola and sold it as "copycat soda," I don't think there would be a problem.

Trade marks are also different from patents. These protect consumers against rivals using misleading or confusing labels trying to trick consumers into thinking their product is the original. One could say they grant exclusive use to a name or mark, but this does not exclude anyone from competing.

I think upholding rights for trade secrets and trade names/marks is usually reasonable since they don't usually prevent competition. Patents are a whole different thing when they give the exclusive right to use a product or process to persons.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Phantom

Trade secrets are a different beast. They don't create a right to exclusive use by any individual. For example, if I independently came up with the exact same recipe as coca-cola and sold it as "copycat soda," I don't think there would be a problem.

Trade marks are also different from patents. These protect consumers against rivals using misleading or confusing labels trying to trick consumers into thinking their product is the original. One could say they grant exclusive use to a name or mark, but this does not exclude anyone from competing.

I think upholding rights for trade secrets and trade names/marks is usually reasonable since they don't usually prevent competition. Patents are a whole different thing when they give the exclusive right to use a product or process to persons.

they're both IP

also, in the story kinggovernor posted above the people were charged with stealing and trying to sell trade secrets

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by 7960

they're both IP

also, in the story kinggovernor posted above the people were charged with stealing and trying to sell trade secrets

Of course they're both IP. What's your point?

[7960]

Originally Posted by Phantom

Of course they're both IP. What's your point?

kytro said "I am opposed to almost all IP law"........just pointing out that IP law is more than patents.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by 7960

kytro said "I am opposed to almost all IP law"........just pointing out that IP law is more than patents.

got ya. I'll let him answer for that.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

where is the incentive to invent when the second firm coming through can copy your idea without having to spend all the R&D money that you did developing it.

I said patents should protect against simple duplication, but if two companies were putting R&D into an idea that is similar and one patents it before the other they should own that patent and control it's licensing.

The exception is that the second company who's idea infringes the patent should be allowed an exemption if they developed the idea themselves and began working on the idea before it was patented. This second company would have limited rights for the life of the patent. They could sell their own products with the patented idea, and even commission others to make a product / service for them to sell, bu they couldn't license others to use the patent themselves.

Innovation does not require patent law; Ideas build on ideas. It can be argued, quite easily that all ideas owe others' for basis of the idea so why should they be able to able to control the result? Nothing is completely original.

That said, I accept (rather than support) some limited patent law may, in some cases, increase innovation, but at the cost of future innovation

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Kytro

I said patents should protect against simple duplication, but if two companies were putting R&D into an idea that is similar and one patents it before the other they should own that patent and control it's licensing.

The exception is that the second company who's idea infringes the patent should be allowed an exemption if they developed the idea themselves and began working on the idea before it was patented. This second company would have limited rights for the life of the patent. They could sell their own products with the patented idea, and even commission others to make a product / service for them to sell, bu they couldn't license others to use the patent themselves.

Innovation does not require patent law; Ideas build on ideas. It can be argued, quite easily that all ideas owe others' for basis of the idea so why should they be able to able to control the result? Nothing is completely original.

That said, I accept (rather than support) some limited patent law may, in some cases, increase innovation, but at the cost of future innovation

how would you prove that the second company was infact working on the already patented idea? And what would prevent companies from abusing that?