Senators to Debate Patent Bill

I'm not generally a negative person but given recent circumstances, I've got to ask <i>"Is this how it goes now?! Does every meaningful reform get hijacked by special interests so that instead of fixing the suck, we get more of what made us need reform in the first place? Seriously?!"</i><p>Sorry for that rant, it just seems so damn frustrating what with the health-care debacle and now this.

"“The current system is just bizarre,” he said of the first-to-invent rule. “Imagine parking your car in a metered space, then someone else comes up and says they had priority for that space and they have your car towed. Under the new system, if you are the first to pull in and pay your fee, you can park there and no one else can claim it’s their space.” "<p>Wow. What a horrible analogy. Completely off base.<p>This bill is very radical, but there has been a call for reform for some time. I think this is the wrong way to go. The first person to reduce an idea to practice should still be the first person to get a patent. Making a mad dash to file @ the USPTO shouldn't be the way you decide who gets the rights to an <i>idea</i>. The decision should turn on who came up with that idea first.<p>My 2 cents.

If you thought our patent system couldn't get any worse especially when it comes to software patents, we get this...<p>The wrong kind of reform. As the article indicates, it's clear that it makes a deeply flawed system in favor of large companies and patent trolls even more so.

There's actually a whole lot more to this patent reform bill than the article lets on. Here is an article listing the proposals:<p><a href="http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2011/02/patent-reform-act-of-2011-an-overview.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2011/02/patent-reform-act-of...</a><p>I'm particularly interested in the new third-party challenge procedures, which would let people submit arguments during patent examination and then oppose patents on any grounds after they issue (for example, you could contest the patent at the Patent Office for being vague; right now you can only do that in court).

If the bill was just what the Times is portraying it to be, it does sound terrible. However, the poorly-written article seems to grossly misrepresent the bill in favor of a scare story. Reading the bill summary and Patently-O's run-down, there are some points of concern, but in general it looks like a net positive. Simplified and enhanced third-party prior art and review procedures sound like a huge win.<p>Bill summary here: <a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-23" rel="nofollow">http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-23</a>

vote up if you want to live in a world with no patents whatsoever.