Reed Intellectual Property

One of the major aspects of the new patent law is a switch from first to invent to first to file. The main reason for the change was to standardize with the rest of the world. However, I think the main attractiveness is its simplicity. You can give priority based on a simple filing date instead of figuring out who actually invented first. However, some studies suggest it hurts small business ( http://www.forbes.com/sites/ciocentral/2011/09/20/new-patent-law-means-trouble-for-tech-entrepreneurs/ ). It is true that the small inventor doesn’t have attorneys on staff to remind them to file and that may cause them to miss the advantages of filing early. Seems like getting the word out to EVERYONE about the new law may be the key. Right now, I suspect 99% of the population has no idea anything is changing. Only us patent attorneys know.

Fascinating article about how patent infringement is affecting the mobile phone operating system landscape.

The Rise of Android and why it could be about to Crumble

As a consumer, I understand people don’t like the prices of things being higher because of patent fees, but seems like the crux of this story is that Microsoft and Apple ( and others ) invested in the mobile phone market early and developed something innovative. Isn’t that the point of the patent system and, if Microsoft if making money off those innovations, isn’t that fair. If some “little” guy out there had developed the same thing, I think people would be pulling for them.

Perhaps the real unfairness in the system is that there is some “little” guy out there that had the same ideas ( and maybe even patents ), but not the resources to play the patent litigation game (often called the sport of kings in the legal world because it is so expensive )

Will the new Congress take any action toward the patent system. Probably not high on Congress’s legislative agenda, but, seems like if growing new companies is on the agenda, something ought to be done to speed up the process? Whether you are pro-patent or anti-patent, the current system charges fees that only go partially to the patent office and thereby keep it unable to respond quickly to applications.

ipwatchdog wrote an interesting article outlining what congress ought to do in 2011 ( http://ipwatchdog.com/2011/01/16/patent-legislative-agenda-what-congress-should-do-in-2011/id=14381/ ) Their proposed agenda is probably too much, but doing something to make the process speed up seems like it would help everyone ( except maybe us patent attorneys that charge by the hour )

The future of software patents remains unclear in the US as Bilski makes is considered by the Supreme Court. In the meantime, looks like Europe might be willing to accept them. See this article European Union: EPO Considers Relaxing Software Patent Rules

Interesting quote in the IBM amicus brief in regard to Bilski

“Given the realities that software source code is human readable, and object code can be reverse engineered, it is difficult for software developers to resort to secrecy. Thus, without patent protection, the incentives to innovate in the field of software are significantly reduced. Patent protection has promoted the free sharing of source code on a patentee’s terms – which has fueled the explosive growth of open source software development.”

IBM is a patent machine, so their opinion is always interesting to watch. I know many think the argument is weak, but in a world without patents, everything becomes about secrecy because the only protection you have is to keep it secret. Certainly the open source movement suffers in a world of secrecy.