Patent Reform 2007 is old wine in a new bottle

Electronic Design (edn.com) has a short note on patent reform: Patent reform: Old wine in a new bottle?

IPBiz tried to make a comment, but the insipid Captcha feature (Before submitting this form, please type the color of the second character) doesn't work, so IPBiz couldn't make a comment.

Obviously, even Senator Leahy recognizes the similarity of the 2007 bill to previous bills, so this IS mostly "old wine in a new bottle."

See previous IPBiz post:

http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2007/04/more-on-proposed-patent-reform-act-of.html

See also a post at itbusinessedge.com .

***
See also
http://weblog.ipcentral.info/archives/2007/04/patent_reformpo.html

***
Note also "US Congress takes on patent reform" at
http://www.whatpc.co.uk/vnunet/news/2188093/congress-takes-patent-reform
which has the erroneous statement:

It also calls for more resources for the US Patent and Trademark Office to facilitate closer investigation of new applications and weed out bad patents. The vast majority of patents that are re-examined today are eventually invalidated.

IPBiz note to Tom Sanders: the vast majority of patent (claims) that are re-examined are NOT invalidated!

***
PatentProspector has the following comment about post-grant review (opposition):

Section 6 creates a post-grant review process. The whole concept is a disgrace. The presumption of patent validity is shot: "The presumption of validity shall not apply in a challenge." This should incur the wrath of anyone interested in the integrity of the patent system. Patent holders should not be subject to additional expense for granted patents. This measure puts a serious stink on patents their entire life until challenged. It is a slap in the face to the patent office, and, to the degree that agency management supports it, a blatant admission of incompetent management. The resources are there for better prior art search, but examiners need time, particularly on those applications, which are fairly identifiable, of potential economic significance. Clearer statutory guidance on obviousness would help. Most significantly, with the proposed statute as is, venture capital firms will be less likely to shower start-ups with seed money for patented technologies, retarding, not promoting, "the progress of .. [the] useful arts" that the Constitution prescribes.