Dyson on USPTO: the new policy doesn't help those who can't afford to fast track their ideas
Marketwatch includes text from Sir James Dyson:
New technology and global competition has spurred the pace and volume of invention dramatically. Governments and patent offices around the world need to respond with lower costs and quicker turnarounds. The Commerce Department is moving in the right direction, but the new policy doesn't help those who can't afford to fast track their ideas. Three years is a long time to wait for a patent.
A poster at PatentHawk adds a few more comments about the downside of the USPTO plan:
The other point you are ignoring is that the 1 year super-prosecution gives the wealthy two very major advantages:
First, it adds years of enforceable life to the patent in a system where patent life is measured from the filing date.
Second, the applicant will know 6 months before the publication date if the application is rejected. They can abandon at that point and avoid disclosure.
So they get to maintain the original quid pro quo the system used to be all about. The riff-raff will still, except for non-foreign filing small entities, be required to disclose their invention to the world regardless of whether or not they ever get a patent.
The battle lines in patent reform are less and less IT vs. pharma, and more and more "big guy vs. little guy."
A commenter at 271blog elaborates
Also, patents which are the basis of tech start-ups take too long to get, are too expensive, and too hard to get. Having to fight to get our patents is an outrage. Once having gone through the process no one wants to do it again. Even if we are successful at getting patents they are expensive and difficult to enforce against large infringers. That is another terrible disincentive to invest in new technologies. These days, even if infringers of small entities’ patents are found guilty we cant get an injunction and therefore we can’t obtain funds to commercialize. If we cant stop our competitors from using our technology, it's not worth creating it. There have been many other changes in the courts that make it harder for us to enforce our patents. If you want us to innovate, we need stronger patent laws and a more reasonable Patent Office that doesn’t force us to fight them to get our patents.
New technology and global competition has spurred the pace and volume of invention dramatically. Governments and patent offices around the world need to respond with lower costs and quicker turnarounds. The Commerce Department is moving in the right direction, but the new policy doesn't help those who can't afford to fast track their ideas. Three years is a long time to wait for a patent.
A poster at PatentHawk adds a few more comments about the downside of the USPTO plan:
The other point you are ignoring is that the 1 year super-prosecution gives the wealthy two very major advantages:
First, it adds years of enforceable life to the patent in a system where patent life is measured from the filing date.
Second, the applicant will know 6 months before the publication date if the application is rejected. They can abandon at that point and avoid disclosure.
So they get to maintain the original quid pro quo the system used to be all about. The riff-raff will still, except for non-foreign filing small entities, be required to disclose their invention to the world regardless of whether or not they ever get a patent.
The battle lines in patent reform are less and less IT vs. pharma, and more and more "big guy vs. little guy."
A commenter at 271blog elaborates
Also, patents which are the basis of tech start-ups take too long to get, are too expensive, and too hard to get. Having to fight to get our patents is an outrage. Once having gone through the process no one wants to do it again. Even if we are successful at getting patents they are expensive and difficult to enforce against large infringers. That is another terrible disincentive to invest in new technologies. These days, even if infringers of small entities’ patents are found guilty we cant get an injunction and therefore we can’t obtain funds to commercialize. If we cant stop our competitors from using our technology, it's not worth creating it. There have been many other changes in the courts that make it harder for us to enforce our patents. If you want us to innovate, we need stronger patent laws and a more reasonable Patent Office that doesn’t force us to fight them to get our patents.
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 9:11 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home