Silicon Valley just won a major victory in the war over patents.
On Thursday, the White House announced that it has nominated former Google patent lawyer Michelle Lee as the next director of the USPTO. Lee, who holds a master’s degree from MIT in electrical engineering and computer science and a JD from Stanford Law School, has served as acting director of the office since she was appointed deputy director last year. If approved by the Senate, Lee will be the first woman to officially hold the USPTO’s top position, according to The Hill.
The nomination could signal the end of a nearly two year political struggle between the technology and pharmaceutical sectors over the directorship of the USPTO. The technology industry, plagued by “patent trolls”—companies that acquire patents for the sole purpose of suing others—has been fighting to reform the patent system for years. The pharmaceutical industry, meanwhile, has generally sought to preserve the status quo.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 18 2014, @06:50PM
I honestly can't tell the difference any more between government and the private sector.
Anyone who isn't a multi-billion dollar corporation is now the property of one.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by frojack on Saturday October 18 2014, @08:05PM
While it’s good news that someone who understands the problems with the modern patent system will be likely be head of the USPTO, it’s hard not to worry that Lee is too close to the technology industry, and Google in particular.
There are a great deal of Algorithm Patents currently in place hindering software progress in computer software. Patents on codecs, compression, encryption, audio, video, etc. No sooner does someone announce some new codec than a patent pool forms [spie.org] to try to encumber it. (MPEG-LA). And in each case, the work patented is nothing but an algorithm, a mathematical formula.
Such things were supposed to be unpatentable [uspto.gov]. (Or so we are often told).
I doubt the software patent industry is simply going to give up this kind of patent, and it may be that Lee's tenure may actually see a push for more of this kind of patent abuse.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aos on Sunday October 19 2014, @01:54AM
I prefer to argue the problem with software patents is even more fundamental than is it patentable or is it innovative. When was the last time you read a software patent for the purposes of implementing the invention it describes? I've had employers who blocked staff from even accidentally visiting websites containing patent information so that if we got sued, they would be unable to claim we knowingly infringed. Remember, we don't give patents to protect innovation. The protection is the incentive for companies to *disclose* inventions. Disclosure that is apparently useless because it is cheaper to reinvent the wheel and minimize collateral damage.