Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Sunday May 03 2015, @09:55PM   Printer-friendly
from the make-them-live-under-a-bridge dept.

Timothy B. Lee writes at Vox that the PATENT Act is focused on dealing with patent trolls: fly-by-night companies that get rich by exploiting flaws in the way the courts handle patent lawsuits. If trolls are the primary problem with the patent system, then the PATENT Act will go a long way toward fixing it. But according to Lee patent trolls aren't the primary problem with the patent system. They're just the problem Congress is willing to fix. The primary problem is the patent system makes it too easy to get broad, vague patents, and the litigation process is tilted too far toward plaintiffs. But because so many big companies make so much money off of this system, few in Congress are willing to consider broader reforms.

A modern example is Microsoft, which has more than 40,000 patents and reportedly earns billions of dollars per year in patent licensing revenues from companies selling Android phones. That's not because Google was caught copying Microsoft's Windows Phone software (which has never been very popular with consumers). Rather, it's because low standards for patents — especially in software — have allowed Microsoft to amass a huge number of patents on routine characteristics of mobile operating systems. Microsoft's patent arsenal has become so huge that it's effectively impossible to create a mobile operating system without infringing some of them. And so Microsoft can demand that smaller, more innovative companies pay them off.

But according to Lee there is hope that the courts may help. The most important decision might have been last year's Alice v. CLS Bank ruling, which addressed the patentability of software for the first time. Lower courts are still working out the exact implications of that decision, but the ruling led to the destruction of a dozen software patents within three months. It's likely to destroy hundreds more in the future. "Over the last decade, the high court has handed down a series of opinions that have very slowly corrected the law's pro-patent tilt," writes Lee. "The pro-patent laws that produced today's patent litigation crisis were developed by the courts over a 25-year period, from about 1980 to 2005. Since 2005, the Supreme Court has been working to restore balance to the patent system, but it could take another decade or more for them to complete their work."

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by frojack on Monday May 04 2015, @01:01AM

    by frojack (1554) on Monday May 04 2015, @01:01AM (#178287) Journal

    Best is to start with something and refine it as we see problems. Even when you get to a state where its near optimum, time changes things and you'll have to revisit it again.

    Great approach for a software development project.

    Not so great for legislation. Stability and fairness are two things you need law, and throwing it all back on the fire every few years to roast it a little more never leads to stability, and often leads to loopholes for special interests.

    gewg_ expects the current bill to pass, but his own link shows there is serious opposition from moneyed interests and their man Coons from Delaware is really working to undo improvements past in recent years.

    Here is a guide to the key Patent reform bills [patentprogress.org]

    HR 9, is the one gewg_'s link was talking about. It really does NOT address vague promises.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by frojack on Monday May 04 2015, @01:04AM

    by frojack (1554) on Monday May 04 2015, @01:04AM (#178288) Journal

    I meant vague patents.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
  • (Score: 2) by arslan on Monday May 04 2015, @03:04AM

    by arslan (3462) on Monday May 04 2015, @03:04AM (#178305)

    No one is saying to iterate it as frequent as a software project, laws should be revise as time changes. Patent and privacy laws drafted pre-digital era is a good example of why laws should evolve with the times. Plugging gaps rather than taking a step back and looking at what cause the gap is a waste of everybody's time.

    • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday May 04 2015, @07:06PM

      by urza9814 (3954) on Monday May 04 2015, @07:06PM (#178701) Journal

      No one is saying to iterate it as frequent as a software project, laws should be revise as time changes. Patent and privacy laws drafted pre-digital era is a good example of why laws should evolve with the times. Plugging gaps rather than taking a step back and looking at what cause the gap is a waste of everybody's time.

      Can you point to any such laws that were actually invalidated due to new technology? Because it seems generally the problems stem from iourts/legislators/law enforcement pretending that laws simply don't apply to new technology. Like when they pretend the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply to searching your phone, because......it has Internets!

      • (Score: 2) by arslan on Tuesday May 05 2015, @02:36AM

        by arslan (3462) on Tuesday May 05 2015, @02:36AM (#178908)

        IANAL, so it is a matter of opinion of course, but you can also google for it. Here's a few articles where other's have noted the need to revise laws for the digital age.

        For example if you google for "revising laws for the digital age" [cornell.edu]

        A book about it here [cap-press.com].

        If you're American, which I'm not. This whole debate about meta-data collection skirting privacy laws (or one of the ammenmends in the US constitution?) is really brought about because the digital age brought with it new concepts that have yet to be formally adapted.

        I'm sure there are lots of other examples.