The Washington Post nods approvingly at some reforms to the present patent system proposed by Sens. Patrick Leahy and Orrin Hatch:
The U.S. patent system lags woefully. One example: Patents in the United States are given to those “first to invent.” This approach is out of step with the rest of the world’s “first to file” approach and is highly inefficient. It invites people to come out of the woodwork years after a product has been on the market to claim credit and demand royalties.
The secretive and lengthy U.S. process also too often results in patents for products that are neither novel nor innovative. It leaves manufacturers vulnerable to infringement lawsuits and damage awards long after their products have gone to market.
While they’re at it they might think about banning the execrable software and business process patents.
Another problem with our patent system is actually more a problem with our legal system. The present system allows large corporations to infringe at will and disincentivizes creation. For every story like that of Robert Kearns there’s a hundred little guys whose rights were simply ignored and were worn down in the courts by big companies.
“While they’re at it they might think about banning the execrable software and business process patents.”
Exactly. In fact those are the very two that I always choose as the first against the wall, when the patent revolution comes.
The present so called patent reform should be called patent deform. The goal of this bill is to make it easier for large companies to steal technology from start-ups and individual inventors.
Your thoughts on Software and Business methods are confused. Software is just a way configuring a general purpose electronic circuit. Unless you believe that patents should not apply to electronic circuits, your argument is contradictory. (Anything implemented in software can be implemented in hardware). As for so called business method patents there is no logical definition of a business method patent. The first patent issued in the US was for a method of making potash. I bet they intended it to be a business, so it was a business method patent. For more information see http://hallingblog.com/2009/06/08/bilski-software-patents-and-business-method-patents/