The significance of current patent reform efforts
In an article titled Time growing short for patent reform, DOUG SHERWIN manages to entirely miss the boat on the latest round of patent reform.
Of the text
He [Rosenberg] said the current provisions in the bill are focused on litigation reform.
IPBiz notes that once Arlen Specter walked, there has been no "focus" on litigation reform in the patent reform bill. It's status quo.
The current focus is in tinkering with procedural remedies, specifically altering some aspects of re-exam.
Sherwin did NOT talk about fee diversion. In contrast, Gary Griswold of the Coalition for 21st Century Patent Reform got to the point:
The Coalition for 21st Century Patent Reform appreciates the work and effort by Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Sessions, along with that of Senators Hatch, Kyl, Feinstein, Specter and other Judiciary Committee members, to reach a compromise agreement on patent reform legislation. Our coalition of nearly 50 companies from diverse industry sectors has been actively supporting fair and balanced patent reform for several years. We believe the compromise agreement, coupled with the USPTO being able to retain and use all of its fees, would achieve that goal.
The IAM blog wrote on 26 Feb. 2010: Let's not forget that a couple of months ago, the legislature voted for what was essentially a cut in the USPTO's budget, at a time when it desperately needed (and still needs) support. It seems to me that unless the topic of the office's funding is properly addressed, any other measures that might be agreed are going to be pretty worthless. In any case, I came to the conclusion a long time ago that legislative patent reform in the US is not going to happen for a while yet. Right now, I see no reason to change that view.
IPBiz had written on 25 Feb. 2010: Unless the fee diversion is tackled, this is not the real deal. "it's a joke, son."
Of the text
He [Rosenberg] said the current provisions in the bill are focused on litigation reform.
IPBiz notes that once Arlen Specter walked, there has been no "focus" on litigation reform in the patent reform bill. It's status quo.
The current focus is in tinkering with procedural remedies, specifically altering some aspects of re-exam.
Sherwin did NOT talk about fee diversion. In contrast, Gary Griswold of the Coalition for 21st Century Patent Reform got to the point:
The Coalition for 21st Century Patent Reform appreciates the work and effort by Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Sessions, along with that of Senators Hatch, Kyl, Feinstein, Specter and other Judiciary Committee members, to reach a compromise agreement on patent reform legislation. Our coalition of nearly 50 companies from diverse industry sectors has been actively supporting fair and balanced patent reform for several years. We believe the compromise agreement, coupled with the USPTO being able to retain and use all of its fees, would achieve that goal.
The IAM blog wrote on 26 Feb. 2010: Let's not forget that a couple of months ago, the legislature voted for what was essentially a cut in the USPTO's budget, at a time when it desperately needed (and still needs) support. It seems to me that unless the topic of the office's funding is properly addressed, any other measures that might be agreed are going to be pretty worthless. In any case, I came to the conclusion a long time ago that legislative patent reform in the US is not going to happen for a while yet. Right now, I see no reason to change that view.
IPBiz had written on 25 Feb. 2010: Unless the fee diversion is tackled, this is not the real deal. "it's a joke, son."
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 4:18 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home