Senate Nears Final Vote on Patents
thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com
thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com
After spending 5 years and more money than I'd like to admit on our patent that has still yet to be awarded I can tell you from personal experience that every response is cryptic, and the necessary follow-up actions are extensive and intensive. Furthermore, if they're not written in the proper legalese you have even less of a chance.
This is yet another boon to large corporations and their lawyers. Now that companies such as Apple, Google, and Microsoft don't have to worry about prior-art we'll see innovation slow to a crawl, and startups will have even less of a chance of disrupting the status quo as a lawsuit won't be too far behind. I can see it now, We demand you shutdown as you're infringing on the patent we were recently awarded, it won't matter that you were already operating. They can simply pay extra fees, get a faster approval and you're gone. This is supposed to be progress and improvement? Only to the lobbyists and their employers.
They're going to do what they're going to do. Its going to be the opposite of what would be best for us, and we'll find a way to work around it.
(1)I think perhaps this is the way its always been, and I was just too young to notice.
The article itself isn't much better, it barely touches on the real problems in patent law.
Who is suggesting that prior art wouldn't/shouldn't matter?
"First to file" patents would still be invalidated by any published (or publicly available) prior art. It just means that you couldn't invalidate by demonstrating that you were privately working on the same idea.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2288824
edit: changed link to relevant comment
Their job will be reduced to simply checking that the format and wording is in order and making sure there's a timestamp.
But I think I agree with asnyder for the most part. Most people don't even know where to start, and may lose protection simply because they didn't know what to do before the idea spread and someone else with the know-how made the product and patented it.
If so, that's a change (back).
A "long time ago", the clock started at issue, so some folks filed and kept an application alive for (in some cases) decades until the patent was worth something. They then let it issue and ... profit. That's what was known as "submarine patents".
A while back (20+ years IIRC), the rules were changed so the clock started on filing. (Despite that, some folks still rant about submarine patents.)
Have those rules really changed back? When?
See #3 here (also great info on patents in general): http://www.bpmlegal.com/howtoterm.html
"Patents based on applications filed on or after May 29, 2000 (actual filing date, not priority date), might have had their terms extended for Patent Office delays beyond certain limits. Such extensions, called "patent term adjustments", are automatically given when the patent is issued, and they are usually marked on the face of the patent, flagged with "()". For example, see patent 7,613,700 - "() Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this patent is extended or adjusted under 35 USC 154(b) by 291 days." These adjustments are calculated mathematically based on a formula which takes into account when each office action was sent by the USPTO as compared with a standard for such actions, and subtracts any delays caused by the applicant's delay, and so on."
However, if the standard is now different because of the new law, or if it is segmented by pricing, I have no clue what may happen.
It's only adjusted if delayed "as compared with a standard for such actions". I'll bet that the vast majority of patents get no such adjustment because the office actions were within standard, even if their issue takes 5 years.