Co-sponsored by IEEE NCA Consultants Network, Baltimore Consultants Network, Society on Social Implications of Technology, Baltimore and NoVA/Wash. Computer Society, and Region 2 PACE Committee Congress has enacted sweeping patent reform that is adverse to small inventors and entrepreneurs. How will this affect you? Let�s explore what the future holds with our panel of experts. Lunch and networking reception are included. Student members may bring a guest at no additional cost. Door prizes! Additional details at the link below. When: Saturday, November 5 10am-2pm Where: Loyola University Graduate Centers Room 260 8890 McGaw Road Columbia, MD 21045 USA Cost: $10 IEEE members (advance), $20 general Web Page: www.ieee-consultants.org Registration: http://meetings.vtools.ieee.org/meeting_view/list_meeting/8771 Panelists: Dr. Lee Hollaar, Dr. Amelia Morani We are still looking for a panelist who is a consultant able to speak regarding the impact of this new law. Anyone available in the area?
Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network)
Started by ●October 24, 2011
Reply by ●October 24, 20112011-10-24
On Oct 24, 8:59�pm, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:> Co-sponsored by > IEEE NCA Consultants Network, > Baltimore Consultants Network, > Society on Social Implications of Technology, > Baltimore and NoVA/Wash. Computer Society, > and Region 2 PACE Committee > > Congress has enacted sweeping patent reform that is adverse to small > inventors and entrepreneurs. How will this affect you? Let�s explore > what the future holds with our panel of experts. Lunch and networking > reception are included. Student members may bring a guest at no > additional cost. Door prizes! Additional details at the link below. > > When: Saturday, November 5 10am-2pm > > Where: Loyola University Graduate Centers Room 260 > 8890 McGaw Road Columbia, MD 21045 USA > > Cost: $10 IEEE members (advance), $20 general > > Web Page:www.ieee-consultants.org > > Registration:http://meetings.vtools.ieee.org/meeting_view/list_meeting/8771 > > Panelists: Dr. Lee Hollaar, Dr. Amelia Morani > > We are still looking for a panelist who is a consultant able to speak > regarding the impact of this new law. �Anyone available in the area?In what have congress changed the law?
Reply by ●October 24, 20112011-10-24
In comp.arch.embedded Mark Wills <forthfreak@forthfiles.net> wrote:> In what have congress changed the law?The main ones are: - A move to first to file rather than first to invent (which brings the US into line with most of the rest of the world). - Allowing the USPTOs to set its own fees in a way that in aggregate covers its own costs. - A mechanism to allow thirdparty submission of prior art subsequent to publication of the patent. Unfortunately the bill does almost nothing to combat trolls nor does it get rid of the treble damages on wilful infringement setup. -p -- Paul Gotch --------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply by ●October 24, 20112011-10-24
In comp.dsp Paul Gotch <paulg@at-cantab-dot.net> wrote: (snip on patent rule changes)> Unfortunately the bill does almost nothing to combat trolls nor does it > get rid of the treble damages on wilful infringement setup.As I understand it (not very well), though, it does remove the submarine patent. Isn't it now some number of years from filing, instead of from approval? -- glen
Reply by ●October 24, 20112011-10-24
In comp.arch.embedded glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:> As I understand it (not very well), though, it does remove the > submarine patent. Isn't it now some number of years from filing, > instead of from approval?That one was fixed through a combination of a 1995 WTO treaty which change the term to start from the day of filing not the day of grant combined with a change in 2000(?) to publish most patents after 18 months rather than keeping them secret until they were granted. Together they mean that there is no benefit in terms of term in pushing the date of issuance into the future and that the patent will almost certainly be published before it is granted. -p -- Paul Gotch --------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply by ●October 24, 20112011-10-24
>In comp.arch.embedded glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: >> As I understand it (not very well), though, it does remove the >> submarine patent. Isn't it now some number of years from filing, >> instead of from approval? > >That one was fixed through a combination of a 1995 WTO treaty which >change the term to start from the day of filing not the day of grant >combined with a change in 2000(?) to publish most patents after 18 >months rather than keeping them secret until they were granted. > >Together they mean that there is no benefit in terms of term in >pushing the date of issuance into the future and that the patent will >almost certainly be published before it is granted.This change stopped patents being dragged on forever, like the infamous barcode patent which lead to the change. However, that is just one form of submarining. Nothing has been done to flush out patents appropriate to standards, for example. People can still sit on the sidelines until their patented technique is committed to a published standard before pouncing. Publishing patent applications early helps very little, as the descriptions in patents are made purposefully obscure by the lawyers - the vaguer and obscurer the language they can get accepted by the PTO, the greater the coverage their patent will have. If the state can grant a monopoly to someone on techniques they develop, it might be reasonable they are committed to monitoring the use of that technique, with a requirement to be open about what they see as infringement at an early stage. Other granted monopolies, like trademark, are required to be handled in this way. Steve
Reply by ●October 25, 20112011-10-25
On Oct 24, 3:59�pm, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:> > ... > > We are still looking for a panelist who is a consultant able to speak > regarding the impact of this new law. �Anyone available in the area?I believe he is retired now but John D. Trudell was a knowledgeable and active campaigner against the changes made in 1999, which also favored the corporations at the expense of the individual inventor. His website isn't being maintained, but hopefully he might be willing to participate. http://www.trudelgroup.com/pwars.htm
Reply by ●October 25, 20112011-10-25
On Oct 24, 8:50�pm, "steveu" <steveu@n_o_s_p_a_m.coppice.org> wrote:> >In comp.arch.embedded glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > >> As I understand it (not very well), though, it does remove the > >> submarine patent. �Isn't it now some number of years from filing, > >> instead of from approval? > > >That one was fixed through a combination of a 1995 WTO treaty which > >change the term to start from the day of filing not the day of grant > >combined with a change in 2000(?) to publish most patents after 18 > >months rather than keeping them secret until they were granted. > > >Together they mean that there is no benefit in terms of term in > >pushing the date of issuance into the future and that the patent will > >almost certainly be published before it is granted. > > This change stopped patents being dragged on forever, like the infamous > barcode patent which lead to the change. However, that is just one form of > submarining. Nothing has been done to flush out patents appropriate to > standards, for example. > > People can still sit on the sidelines until their patented technique is > committed to a published standard before pouncing. Publishing patent > applications early helps very little, as the descriptions in patents are > made purposefully obscure by the lawyers - the vaguer and obscurer the > language they can get accepted by the PTO, the greater the coverage their > patent will have. If the state can grant a monopoly to someone on > techniques they develop, it might be reasonable they are committed to > monitoring the use of that technique, with a requirement to be open about > what they see as infringement at an early stage. Other granted monopolies, > like trademark, are required to be handled in this way. > > Steve***If the state can grant a monopoly to someone on techniques they develop, it might be reasonable they are committed to monitoring the use of that technique, with a requirement to be open about what they see as infringement at an early stage. Other granted monopolies, like trademark, are required to be handled in this way.*** Wonderful suggestion, dude ! To handle patents like trademarks ??? And how on earth can you possibly monitor the use of a "technique" if that "technique" is hidden inside an ASIC chip, combined and intertwined with other 1000 patented "techniques" to make a high-tech gadget like cell phone ?? In reality, only a court-ordered discovery procedure (and that includes court-ordered depositions of real people) after patent infringement lawsuit is filed can give a definitive answer. Otherwise it's just an educated guess "based on available information and beliefs", as they write in court filings. Apparently you live on another planet. Where is that planet of yours ?
Reply by ●October 25, 20112011-10-25
>On Oct 24, 8:50=A0pm, "steveu" <steveu@n_o_s_p_a_m.coppice.org> wrote: >> >In comp.arch.embedded glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu>wrote:>> >> As I understand it (not very well), though, it does remove the >> >> submarine patent. =A0Isn't it now some number of years from filing, >> >> instead of from approval? >> >> >That one was fixed through a combination of a 1995 WTO treaty which >> >change the term to start from the day of filing not the day of grant >> >combined with a change in 2000(?) to publish most patents after 18 >> >months rather than keeping them secret until they were granted. >> >> >Together they mean that there is no benefit in terms of term in >> >pushing the date of issuance into the future and that the patent will >> >almost certainly be published before it is granted. >> >> This change stopped patents being dragged on forever, like the infamous >> barcode patent which lead to the change. However, that is just one formo=>f >> submarining. Nothing has been done to flush out patents appropriate to >> standards, for example. >> >> People can still sit on the sidelines until their patented technique is >> committed to a published standard before pouncing. Publishing patent >> applications early helps very little, as the descriptions in patentsare>> made purposefully obscure by the lawyers - the vaguer and obscurer the >> language they can get accepted by the PTO, the greater the coveragetheir>> patent will have. If the state can grant a monopoly to someone on >> techniques they develop, it might be reasonable they are committed to >> monitoring the use of that technique, with a requirement to be openabout>> what they see as infringement at an early stage. Other grantedmonopolies=>, >> like trademark, are required to be handled in this way. >> >> Steve > >***If the state can grant a monopoly to someone on >techniques they develop, it might be reasonable they are committed to >monitoring the use of that technique, with a requirement to be open >about >what they see as infringement at an early stage. Other granted >monopolies, >like trademark, are required to be handled in this way.*** > >Wonderful suggestion, dude ! > >To handle patents like trademarks ??? > >And how on earth can you possibly monitor the use of a "technique" if >that "technique" is hidden inside an ASIC chip, combined and >intertwined with other 1000 patented "techniques" to make a high-tech >gadget like cell phone ?? >In reality, only a court-ordered discovery procedure (and that >includes court-ordered depositions of real people) after patent >infringement lawsuit is filed can give a definitive answer. Otherwise >it's just an educated guess "based on available information and >beliefs", as they write in court filings. > >Apparently you live on another planet. Where is that planet of >yours ?You took what I said and turned it completely backwards. Do you work for Fox News, by any chance? Steve
Reply by ●October 25, 20112011-10-25
On Oct 24, 6:20�pm, Paul Gotch <pa...@at-cantab-dot.net> wrote:> In comp.arch.embedded Mark Wills <forthfr...@forthfiles.net> wrote: > > > In what have congress changed the law? > > The main ones are: > > - A move to first to file rather than first to invent (which brings the > US into line with most of the rest of the world). > > - Allowing the USPTOs to set its own fees in a way that in aggregate > covers its own costs. > > - A mechanism to allow thirdparty submission of prior art subsequent to > publication of the patent. > > Unfortunately the bill does almost nothing to combat trolls nor does it > get rid of the treble damages on wilful infringement setup. > > -p > -- > Paul Gotch > --------------------------------------------------------------------** - A move to first to file rather than first to invent (which brings the ** US into line with most of the rest of the world). Believe it or not, but we need "first to file": it just makes life simpler for everybody, including small guys ** - A mechanism to allow thirdparty submission of prior art subsequent to ** publication of the patent. I can predict exactly what happens: PTO will be flooded with junk "third-party" submissions of "prior art" completely irrelevant to patent claims (There was a bounty prize on invalidating Amazon's "one- click patent" some years ago which produced tons of junk "prior art" and not a single invalidating reference) Poor, poor patent examiners... ** Unfortunately the bill does almost nothing to combat trolls nor does it ** get rid of the treble damages on wilful infringement setup. And who are those evil "trolls" ? Have you seen one ? Are they some PhDs on a loose not employed by corporate monstrosities, just sitting in their basements and filing evil patents on their own ? How can you allow this in America ? Or maybe they are some shrewd investors who buy patents from those PhD and then use those patents to beat the shit out of fat corporate infringers ? And why treble damages for willful infringement should be removed ? To encourage willful infrigement ??? I say: make willfull infringement a criminal offense (Hint: it's awfully hard to prove willful infringement nowadays)
