I assume this change is related to the patent office wanting to reduce its workload? Funding probably should be increased. Patent nonsense ends up costing everyone a LOT more in the long run.
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/blackmail-at-the-uspto-dir...
The EFF isn't a for-profit entity, so if they have problems with this rule, it might mean that they are so closely connected to one or more for-profit companies that they are treated as for-profit. That honestly makes the EFF sound suspect. I am assuming this comes from their ideological anti-IP stance rather than corruption, but either way it doesn't come off as an honest take on the new rules.
I mean, I don't want to be rude here, but it feels like "I've read the changes, I don't think they apply to EFF, so I guess the only explanation is that EFF is corrupt", seems a bit of a jump, compared to the simpler explanation that EFF does believe its process to be affected, as argued by the OP link.
(Due disclosure: I used to work for EFF. The fight for a reasonable way to overturn bad patents has been, IIRC, a multi-decade uphill battle, against an industry of patent troll adversaries, who did everything from trying to subpoena EFF's membership rolls[1], to suing in Australia to have an EFF blog post taken down[2]. I guess we could have been being paid off by Big Don't Patent Dumb Things, but I defy you to find any of the patents that the EFF has either exposed or organizationally fought that should, in fact, have stayed patentable [3])
[1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/01/eff-fights-patent-trol...
[2] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/11/court-rules-effs-stupi...
I am expressing doubt about whether the EFF actually has a stake in these rule changes, as they very clearly state several times. The article here isn't about generic third parties. It's about the EFF. This rule change also came after someone essentially tried to use an IPR to extort VLSI technology and Intel. The lack of recognition of that extortion and the corresponding limitations on these rules suggests to me that the EFF is not being entirely forthright here.
> I mean, I don't want to be rude here, but it feels like "I've read the changes, I don't think they apply to EFF, so I guess the only explanation is that EFF is corrupt", seems a bit of a jump, compared to the simpler explanation that EFF does believe its process to be affected, as argued by the OP link.
Holy strawman batman. Read the second paragraph.
Also, the rule change is in English. You can actually read the rule change and you will realize that it's a lot more narrow than the EFF is suggesting. In particular, the new rules only limit IPRs for (a) for-profit companies (b) not currently engaged in litigation on patents that are in litigation (c) where said for-profit company is not in that field. All 3 of those have to be satisfied for your IPR to be tossed under those rules. Since the EFF is a non-profit, they should really have no problem with this.
If we were to take the EFF's words at face value that this rule change applies specifically to the EFF's ability to fight bad patents, the only real conclusion we can draw is that some of the EFF's funding comes from for-profit companies who want specific patents struck down (invalidating (a) above) or want the EFF to hurt their competitors, which would, in fact, be suggestive of corruption. The other conditions certainly don't apply to the EFF.
So that leaves us with one of two alternatives:
1. The EFF actually has no dog in the fight but just doesn't want to have an effective patent system; or
2. The EFF takes money from companies with the purpose of hurting their competitors.
the IPR process exists in part to combat patent trolling, which is worse than that, and happens more frequently than that, to greater harm than that -- unfortunately for the victims there, they usually aren't rich, politically-connected companies like Intel
> the new rules only limit IPRs for (a) for-profit companies (b) not currently engaged in litigation on patents that are in litigation (c) where said for-profit company is not in that field. All 3 of those have to be satisfied for your IPR to be tossed under those rules. Since the EFF is a non-profit, they should really have no problem with this.
(1) those limitations sound bad, when I want a for-profit company who is not currently litigating a patent to be able to challenge arbitrary patent trolls' IP via IPR without court costs being a barrier
(2) 'these limitations don't directly affect X, therefore X shouldn't have a problem with it' is only true if X cares about nobody but themselves, which obviously isn't true here, given EFF's track record
Your entire perspective presupposes that you are correct. I'm surprised people fall for the EFF's shtick so easily - it's so heavily worded in a pointed fashion, that any other kind of writing of this style, is regularly rejected in places like this because of how biased it is. Oh wait... you used work for the EFF!
What's unreasonable about fighting patents in district court? EFF is trying to have its cake and eat it too. Pretending that it's all big bad companies AND patent trolls. but both of those entities are on the opposite sides of each other. The reality is that what the EFF is advocating for will absolutely benefit the big bad companies that the EFF attempts to disavow any commonality with it.
Of course the EFF describes anyone opposed to it as a patent troll, but that's totally unfair imo and pretty much an outright lie. any inventor that isn't one of the big tech co's stands to benefit from this proposed rule change.
And your point about the patents that the EFF fights is completely besides the point, because the EFF isn't the only entity involved in patents, so who cares whether the EFF has challenged valid patents or otherwise, that's exactly what district court is for...
Don't allow the initiator to _drop_ the request once started.
Initiator pays all costs (I think this is already done?).
Then any extortion has to happen up front, and it becomes much more obviously extortion.
"The USPTO is a demand-driven, fee funded, performance-based organization with a commitment to delivering reliable IP protection and information to its various stakeholders; including serving inventors, entrepreneurs, and businesses in the U.S. and around the world." [1]https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fy21pbr....