Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama signs patent reform bill
CNN ^ | September 16, 2011 | David Goldman and Alan Silverlain

Posted on 09/16/2011 9:22:42 AM PDT by Morpheus2009

(CNN) -- President Barack Obama signed legislation Friday that will overhaul the U.S. patent system for the first time since 1952.

"We have to do everything we can to encourage the entrepreneurial spirit wherever we find it," Obama said at a signing ceremony at a high school in Arlington, Virginia. This measure "cuts away the red tape that slows down our inventors and entrepreneurs."

Obama used the occasion to promote his $447 billion jobs plan, calling patent reform a "part of our (larger) agenda for making us competitive over the long term."

Among other things, the measure, dubbed the America Invents Act, will transition the country to a "first-to-file" system, instead of the current "first-to-invent" approach. Issuing patents to the first person or company to file will help provide clarity in the patent-granting process, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office says. It will also prevent inventors from coming out of the woodwork to challenge pending patents.

(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: americainventsact; americaninventsact; business; cultureofcorruption; economy; firsttofile; firsttoinvent; globalism; invention; jobkiller; obama; patent; reform; unconstitutional; wilmerhale
A great deal of this sounds like your good old MSM B.S. for two reasons.

1) Invent or not, America is not about just inventing first. Only a fool would fail to realize how lawsuit and copyright sensitive American life is to realize that America is about being first to file, because the file with a patent office is proof that you came up with it first.

2) The main problem with inventions is not about the process and filing so much as about the resources involved in finally developing the invention. If I used company or some other person's property to produce the product, especially pharmaceutical development, it's a little complicated as to who deserves shares in ownership of the invention. Put in mind that I did not make the invention neccessarily on my own, and because I did use someone else's resources, such a person or organization deserves credit and acknowledgement for making the work possible.

Either way, agree with me or not, let the discussions begin!

1 posted on 09/16/2011 9:22:45 AM PDT by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Morpheus2009

Some advice from your friendly Freeper patent attorney:

1. Keep your invention secret until you understand the implications of this law (find a patent attorney to advise you).

2. Document all necessary disclosures of your invention to any suppliers.

3. Plan to file a fast Provisional application (cheap, if you have already done a writeup and some sketches).

4. Be security paranoid. The law makes fertile territory for industrial espionage. All they need to do is to learn of your invention, file before you do, and leave you unable to prove that they learned it from you. This means better employee agreements, and better computer security. Hire consultants.

I can advise on any of this to those who freepmail.


2 posted on 09/16/2011 9:33:44 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Are you better off now than you were four trillion dollars ago?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba

So I am guessing this bill could still leave problematic issues open here, simply saying because the industrial espionage still operates, and encouraging people to come out of the office doesn’t acknowledge the issue.


3 posted on 09/16/2011 9:36:15 AM PDT by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Morpheus2009

The House version was much better...the Leahy authored Senate version had “help” from large corporations and ‘vested interests’. The part about the auto review sucks. so, if you are a small time invientor, bring a patent to market, you have to have the $$$ to dfend it against the big guns for 9 months??? Yea, pass the bill so we can see what’s in it. Again.


4 posted on 09/16/2011 9:36:34 AM PDT by SueRae (I can see November 2012 from my HOUSE!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba

Thank you!!! Very much appreciate and expert’s opinion and advice on this one.


5 posted on 09/16/2011 9:39:08 AM PDT by SueRae (I can see November 2012 from my HOUSE!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba

Thanks.

Does the new law have any implications for those that already have a patent, but have not yet marketed a product using it?


6 posted on 09/16/2011 9:39:22 AM PDT by stevestras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Morpheus2009

What is being overlooked is that this bill is to give cover to one of Obummers cronies.

http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/breaking-news/president-obama-signs-the-law-giving-cover-to-politically-connected-law-firm-wilmer-hale-for-its-214-million-dollar-malpractice/

Spread the word.


7 posted on 09/16/2011 9:42:28 AM PDT by Lazlo in PA (Now living in a newly minted Red State.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stevestras

Does the new law have any implications for those that already have a patent, but have not yet marketed a product using it?


There are fee changes, but nothing substantive I’m aware of.


8 posted on 09/16/2011 9:44:58 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Are you better off now than you were four trillion dollars ago?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Morpheus2009
Greta covered this bill last night, on FOX

Included in the bill is a bailout for a politically connected law firm in Boston.

9 posted on 09/16/2011 9:46:19 AM PDT by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba

Thanks!


10 posted on 09/16/2011 9:49:06 AM PDT by stevestras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Morpheus2009

This should be found unconstitutional. I don’t know who will file the suit, but the Constitution recognizes the rights of “inventors”.

SCOTUS will need to decide whether being the second to think up an invention but first to file makes you an “inventor.” Put another way, can one invention have several separate “inventors”?

I can’t say which way they would rule.


11 posted on 09/16/2011 9:50:49 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Are you better off now than you were four trillion dollars ago?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba

Freeper Patent Attorney:

Could you comment on the below three (3) issues as currently stated on wiki:

1. Opponents of the Bill contend that...venture funding will be diverted to less risky investments. Therefore startups, the primary source of inventions, will be unable to raise funding to commercialize their inventions. Over time, and compounding year on year, the decrease in economic growth and the failure to commercialize innovative, disruptive technologies will accelerate the economic decline of the United States relative to competing nations.

2. Proponents of the Bill argue that revision of both post grant opposition and interference will help US inventors. They point out that a patent that has survived a post-grant review will be stronger than one without. Neither side has put forward a cost-benefit balance showing that the added strength of these patents will compensate for the loss of access to venture capital, though the venture capitalists that have opined on the likely balance have concluded that the post-grant review will reduce access to capital more than it increases patent strength.

3. Opponents have raised the concern that the Law of Unintended Consequences could result in outcomes that cause the USA to lose its leadership position in innovation, particularly as a result of the adverse impact on small companies, who have not been represented in the negotiations leading up to this bill. The complexity of the innovation ecosystem being beyond most legislative bodies’ comprehension argues for small incremental changes that are less likely to cause harm in the manner that the well-intended Sarbanes–Oxley Act did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_Invents_Act


12 posted on 09/16/2011 9:56:20 AM PDT by luckybogey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Morpheus2009
I haven't read the legislation but in the past, if you had an idea, there was a procedure whereby you could establish a date of invention and the US Patent Office then gave you 12 months to develop the idea before filing a patent application.

If this has been done away with, the small innovator has been killed.

13 posted on 09/16/2011 9:59:18 AM PDT by fso301
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: luckybogey

1. Opponents of the Bill contend that...venture funding will be diverted to less risky investments. Therefore startups, the primary source of inventions, will be unable to raise funding to commercialize their inventions. Over time, and compounding year on year, the decrease in economic growth and the failure to commercialize innovative, disruptive technologies will accelerate the economic decline of the United States relative to competing nations.

Dunno. I don’t understand why this would divert funding. $1000 for a Provisional should secure the start-ups rights initially.

2. Proponents of the Bill argue that revision of both post grant opposition and interference will help US inventors. They point out that a patent that has survived a post-grant review will be stronger than one without. Neither side has put forward a cost-benefit balance showing that the added strength of these patents will compensate for the loss of access to venture capital, though the venture capitalists that have opined on the likely balance have concluded that the post-grant review will reduce access to capital more than it increases patent strength.

Any post-grant proceeding will be EXPENSIVE. Less than litigation, but more than getting the patent.

3. Opponents have raised the concern that the Law of Unintended Consequences could result in outcomes that cause the USA to lose its leadership position in innovation, particularly as a result of the adverse impact on small companies, who have not been represented in the negotiations leading up to this bill. The complexity of the innovation ecosystem being beyond most legislative bodies’ comprehension argues for small incremental changes that are less likely to cause harm in the manner that the well-intended Sarbanes–Oxley Act did.

This is a big concern. The main thing is to be aware of the law, and have a patent attorney with a plan to deal with it.


14 posted on 09/16/2011 10:00:50 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Are you better off now than you were four trillion dollars ago?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: fso301

I haven’t read the legislation but in the past, if you had an idea, there was a procedure whereby you could establish a date of invention and the US Patent Office then gave you 12 months to develop the idea before filing a patent application.


Yes, it’s called a Provisional Application for Patent. The fee is $150, and you can do it yourself if you’re confident that you have a decent write-up and sketches.
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/types/provapp.jsp


15 posted on 09/16/2011 10:02:49 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Are you better off now than you were four trillion dollars ago?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Morpheus2009
To streamline the patent process, reduce the backlog of 700,000 patents and promote "renewable green energy", Congress has authorized the purchase of one or more "perpetual motion machines" to handle incoming applications. The same solution was recently implimented at the U.S. Post Office to "mixed" results.
16 posted on 09/16/2011 10:16:43 AM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (REPEAL WASHINGTON! -- Islam Delenda Est! -- I Want Constantinople Back. -- Rumble thee forth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide

LOL!


17 posted on 09/16/2011 10:21:35 AM PDT by shove_it (Just undo it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
"This should be found unconstitutional. I don’t know who will file the suit, but the Constitution recognizes the rights of “inventors”.

One big problem here could be the issue of Trade Secrets. If I am an "inventor" who has developed something, but I choose to keep it secret for whatever reason, then somebody else can come along and patent the idea (by theft, or otherwise) under First To File. This wouldn't be possible under First To Invent.

I agree that the constitutionality of the final bill should be examined.

Ultimately, this bill will probably help Asian tech companies more than improving American competitiveness.
18 posted on 09/16/2011 10:21:47 AM PDT by indthkr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Morpheus2009

Now that the bill has been passed, where can we find out what’s in it?


19 posted on 09/16/2011 10:24:31 AM PDT by Auntie Mame (Fear not tomorrow. God is already there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morpheus2009
Obama used the occasion to promote his $447 billion jobs plan

Here's an idea - tell Obama that he can have the funds for the jobs plan, but he'll have to get it back from Solyndra!

20 posted on 09/16/2011 10:26:03 AM PDT by existentialist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morpheus2009

The perpetual motion machine, affectionately known to insiders as “the Perp”, is expected to have costs near zero after initial startups.


21 posted on 09/16/2011 10:27:36 AM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (REPEAL WASHINGTON! -- Islam Delenda Est! -- I Want Constantinople Back. -- Rumble thee forth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Auntie Mame

Now that the bill has been passed, where can we find out what’s in it?


http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/BILLS-112hr1249eh.pdf

Good luck.


22 posted on 09/16/2011 10:32:18 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Are you better off now than you were four trillion dollars ago?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Morpheus2009

FACTIOD: The first “perpetual motion machine” in the world was constructed to handle the U.S. Government’s 2009 Fiscal Budget processing.


23 posted on 09/16/2011 10:37:17 AM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (REPEAL WASHINGTON! -- Islam Delenda Est! -- I Want Constantinople Back. -- Rumble thee forth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morpheus2009

A cheater’s mentality. Go figure.


24 posted on 09/16/2011 11:15:20 AM PDT by Gene Eric (Your Hope has been Redistributed. Here's your damn Change!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All; Morpheus2009
More constitutionally dubious job killing reform.

Steve Perlman had a great letter to Boxer & Feinstein opposing the bill. He has over 100 patents and another 100+ pending.

Here's a portion of his Feb. letter.

If patents did not exist, established large entities would be the most able to survive, utilizing other forms of market power to defend their incumbency. Small entities with disruptive technologies, on the other hand, would simply not exist. Anything they would develop could be readily cloned by large entities, who could easily out-market them, and so no investors would ever fund the small entities.

S.23 is a Bill whose provisions dramatically favor large entities over small entities. Already, given the massive patent backlog, for many new products, the market window passes long before patents issue, placing large entities at an enormous advantage over small entities. Giving large entities even further advantage until the backlog is resolved will just make matters worse.

But worse than anything, S.23 undermines the uniquely American process of invention. It casually sweeps aside established paradigms that have successfully fueled the engine of innovation in America since its founding, and demonstrably fuels it today. We don’t want American invention to be like that of other countries. We want America to continue to be the world’s mecca for invention.

After 4 sessions of Congress considering the Patent Reform Act, not a single practicing inventor has ever been allowed to testify before the Senate, and only one inventor has testified before the House (and he strongly opposed the Bill). It should come as no surprise S.23 is so disconnected from the reality American Invention.

I urge you to oppose S.23. Focus instead on a much simpler Bill that would allow the USPTO to keep its fees and bring the massive patent backlog under control. After the patent system is functioning normally again, we can sit down and determine what changes would make it better. It is essential that practicing inventors from small entities are a part of this process.

More criticism of the legislation, from practical implications to constitutional questions, at Save Our Jobs

25 posted on 09/16/2011 12:31:46 PM PDT by newzjunkey (Will racist demagogue Andre Carson be censured by the House?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morpheus2009
a signing ceremony at a high school in Arlington, Virginia

He signed the bill at my alma mater - TJHSST - which is located in Alexandria (technically Annandale) NOT Arlington.

Stupid MSM can't even get their facts straight.

26 posted on 09/16/2011 4:43:50 PM PDT by rabscuttle385 (Live Free or Die)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba

I’m curious. Why hire consultants? Are you willing to elaborate on your recommendation?


27 posted on 09/16/2011 8:31:31 PM PDT by Sequoyah101 (Half the people are below average.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba

Thank you.

You may not believe it but I actually read some of it. Good luck is right.


28 posted on 09/16/2011 9:44:21 PM PDT by Auntie Mame (Fear not tomorrow. God is already there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Morpheus2009

Big Government ^ | August 30th | Bob McCarty
There is so much more here, please respect this man’s intellectual property by visiting the following link.
http://biggovernment.com/bmccarty/2011/08/30/patent-reform-act-threatens-engine-of-prosperity/

In early February 1997, I received a telephone call from a longtime friend in Washington. He was calling to say that we were being recruited for a very important assignment, an assignment related to national security.
He explained that, in 1996, the Clinton administration agreed to give the People’s Republic of China a complete set of magnetic tapes from the U.S. Patent and Trademarks Office computers, containing every iota of American technology registered with the patent office in the previous 160 years. With the information from those tapes on their computers, the Chinese would know exactly how to make everything we make. But more importantly, by tracking the long-term development of every conceivable kind of technology and extrapolating the path of development into the future, the Chinese could “leap-frog” our own technological development.
No American president could possibly think it was a good idea to do such a thing – unless, of course, he owed a debt of gratitude to the Chinese and he was more concerned about that than he was about the future prosperity of the American people. The American people would never have known how many factories were being built in remote provinces of China, employing workers who were happy to work for two or three dollars a day. When the proposed technology transfer was inadvertently reported in a Commerce Department newsletter, the offer was withdrawn.
But what was potentially more damaging to the United States was contained in a Memorandum of Understanding with the Japanese government, signed by Commerce Secretary Ron Brown… an agreement to introduce legislation in the U.S, Congress that would destroy the U.S. patent system, as we know it. The vehicles for that treachery, already introduced in Congress, were H.400 and S.507, the House and Senate versions of the Omnibus Patent Reform Act of 1997.
Because the legislation was so thoroughly “wired” on both sides of the aisle, our employers were seeking a small team of experienced government relations professionals who’d been in the political arena long enough that many of their longtime friends had risen to become influential members of Congress. They were looking for lobbyists who were on a first-name basis with members of Congress…. men whose reputations in the political world were such that they could ask members of Congress to take certain actions, on faith alone, and expect those requests to be honored.
What made the task so difficult was the fact that the legislation was supported, not only by the president and vice president of the United States, but by the Peoples Republic of China, the Japanese government, the Indonesian Lippo Group, and 80 or 90 of America’s largest multinational corporations… all but assuring the neutrality of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers.
On the day we arrived in Washington, April 12, 1997, we tuned in to C-Span just in time to see the House of Representatives pass H.400 on a voice vote. Not one member of the House of Representatives demanded a roll call vote on a bill that would severely emasculate a core function of the federal government.
When we were finally able to obtain a copy of S.507, we read it very carefully and we were horrified. Never in all of our years as lobbyists had we ever read a worse piece of legislation. If we had ever wondered what it was that the Chinese received in return for the millions of dollars they poured into the Clinton-Gore reelection campaign in 1996, there was no longer any doubt:


29 posted on 09/17/2011 7:11:54 AM PDT by Haddit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba

if you are in fact a friendly patent atty I may take you up on your offer regarding advise.


30 posted on 09/17/2011 7:38:06 AM PDT by roofgoat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sequoyah101

I’m curious. Why hire consultants? Are you willing to elaborate on your recommendation?


Sure. If you have employees, a Human resources consultant will help you update (or create?) an employee “manual.” That’s teh friendly word for “contract.” It will help you secure the best rights in the situation where an employee who knows patentable secrets is tempted to take them to a competitor (being disgruntered is probably more common than doing it for a payoff).

A computer security consultant can set you up with monitoring software that records all employee computer usage, and sends you reports of unusual activity (like downloading company files before they quit their job. This can be used to enforce the first. Maybe $100 per year per station the first year, less thereafter.

I can provide names of real people who do this if you Freepmail.


31 posted on 09/17/2011 7:56:48 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Are you better off now than you were four trillion dollars ago?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: roofgoat

if you are in fact a friendly patent atty I may take you up on your offer regarding advise.


I’m happy to offer a free phone consult to any Freeper who leaves me their email address via freepmail to make arrangements.


32 posted on 09/17/2011 8:01:31 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Are you better off now than you were four trillion dollars ago?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba

Beelzebubba, is there an “Infringement” provision attached to this new patent law?

Meaning, me the small inventor who has already filed a provisional months ago now meets with “Big Corp” to sell/license the product and Big Corp says we already have prior memos/documents/art that show we have these ideas (no patent though), but have been sitting on it so therefore we have just as much right as you do to the “idea” or product?


33 posted on 09/17/2011 10:02:23 AM PDT by roofgoat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: roofgoat

As the first filer (your provisional counts for this) you have the rights. usually, the big company will have the faster patent department, but the lesson is to file at least a provisional before you disclose anything to anybody.


34 posted on 09/17/2011 11:43:42 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Are you better off now than you were four trillion dollars ago?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba

Thank you for the reply. Upon clarification I see we are thinking about two types of consultants, one for issues related to personnel and CA but my version for consultants to do projects as opposed to employees. In general, I feel a contract with an employee is more binding and carries less risk than the contract to protect IP via the employee manual. I would rather have consultants and pay them all of the cost of an employee and maybe a little more than to have employees.


35 posted on 09/17/2011 1:45:33 PM PDT by Sequoyah101 (Half the people are below average.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: All
I've read the law, and it's more appropriate to say that we will soon have a "first to file or disclose" system, not just a "first to file" system.

Starting in 18 months, if two parties file patent applications for the same invention and both held the invention in secret, the earlier filer wins, even if the second filer conceived of the invention first.

But, if a first party publicly discloses an invention, a second party files a patent application for the same invention, and the first party then files a patent application within a year of the disclosure, the first party wins even though he or she is the second filer.

It's a weird kind of system, sort of a merging between the old US system and the system used by most other countries. The old US system was first to invent, and you could disclose an invention and wait a year to file. Most other countries said first to file wins, and you had to file a patent application before you disclosed an invention because you lost your rights if you didn't. We've started moving to a first to file system but are still allowing someone to disclose an invention before filing.

I'm not real sure how many people will have to worry about the 9-month "post grant" review. My guess is that most challengers would prefer to let a patent issue and save their invalidity arguments for a court later. The party getting a patent is allowed to amend the claims during the "post grant" review if needed, but they couldn't do that in court.
36 posted on 09/18/2011 7:20:45 PM PDT by DTxAg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson