When I talk with fellow Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, inventors and investors about patent reform, the universal response is "What's that?" They are unaware that the patent landscape -- which has helped make the USA into the most innovative country on the planet -- is about to tilt in favor of the large companies that have representation in Washington. This topic is unknown to most Americans due to its complexity -- and therefore difficulty -- in reporting on it (or even writing a succinct Op-Ed on it).
This week -- perhaps today (Tuesday) -- the Senate will vote on S.23, the America Invents Act. Its main proponent, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), says that we are the last industrialized nation using the antiquated subjective First-to-Invent (FTI) system, instead of the First-to File (FTF) system, which awards the patent to the first one to submit an application, rather than the one who can prove having invented it first. Isn't it odd that ours is old, subjective and different, yet we are the world's leader in innovation?
Canada shifted to FTF in 1989, and a 2009 study found an "adverse effect on domestic-oriented industries and skewed the ownership structure of patented inventions towards large corporations, away from independent inventors and small businesses." The EU, which has had FTF for a while, last month declared an "innovation emergency" due to how far behind us they are falling in innovation and R&D investments. It's not working for them. There is even a movement afoot among small businesses in the UK and Germany to try to change their system to be more like ours!
This attempt to conform to other countries is called "harmonization," which is a melodious word for "succumbing to peer pressure." We tell our children not to do so when we know it's wrong. So should we. In reality, the FTF part of the bill only superficially harmonizes. There remain substantial differences, such that the claimed benefits of cost-reduction would not materialize. This bill "improves" so much on foreign law that it would make getting patents even harder here than overseas. For example, this potential law bars receiving a patent for inventions that were publicly used or offered for sale prior to filing. This rule, had it been in place then, would have prevented the Wright brothers from receiving their patent on their airplane due to its public use at Kitty Hawk. It is unconscionable that our government would intentionally establish trip-wires to eliminate the patentability of legitimate inventions in this way, and it's bizarre that they would make it more draconian than foreign laws.
Under current law, we have what's called a "grace period." That is the one-year between public use or sale, and the time by which the inventor must file the application. This enables entrepreneurs to present to investors, share plans with potential hires, or exhibit at trade shows during that time without concern that such acts would either preclude a patent or enable someone else to poison the well so that no one can get a patent. Under FTF, if someone else finds out about your invention, and if they apply first, they can win. Overturning that requires proving that they derived their idea from yours. This would be almost impossible to prove since there is inadequate right to discovery. What's most scary to me is that this creates strong financial incentives for usurping patents rights by hacking and industrial espionage, which is increasingly state-sponsored (think China). Through the new mechanisms of this new law, competitors could destroy nascent companies by using their own information against them. The flip side of the problem is that it will put a chill on the normal open discourse that occurs today between innovators, investors and customers.
The FTI regime was established in the constitution: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8). An inventor is defined as the first to CREATE an invention, not the first to FILE the forms. Overcoming a constitutional challenge may require legislators to engage in Orwellian doublespeak to redefine "inventor" or perhaps the concept of time embodied in "first" will be spread out to deem the same month as being "simultaneous." All scholarly publications on this have cast doubt on FTF in the USA without amending the constitution. The uncertainty of a constitutional challenge to this is yet another concern.
One of the great benefits of our FTI system is that inventors can refine and improve their inventions in private prior to filing for it. Under FTF, one should file early and often on each idea, however impractical it later proves to be. That burden falls disproportionately on smaller companies for whom patenting expenses are material. This will increase the workload of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), which will exacerbate their delays in processing patents. Those delays are probably the worst problem of the PTO. It now takes about twice as long to get a patent than it did 20 years ago. The main cause has been fee-diversion by congress to cover the national deficit. If ever there was an innovation tax, this is it. Ironically, one of the selling points of this bill to to reduce those delays, when all that is needed is to lay off their revenue. A simple bill to forswear taking the PTO's money would be universally accepted.
It is rare that both parties can agree on anything, so when they do, such moments would normally be worth celebrating. Unfortunately, this one is scary. During the six years that the Senate Judiciary Committee deliberated this and held hearings, they did not call any small company inventor or individual inventor. The one inventor that the House counterpart heard, Dean Kamen, was vehemently against the patent reform that was being proposed. They call them "hearings," but it's clear that few are listening. Senator Feinstein is one of the few who listened, and offered an amendment that would have struck FTF and solved many of the above issues, but it lost on Thursday by 87-13.
A year ago, one of my portfolio company founder/CEOs, Steve Perlman, was invited to present for one hour with a colleague --Â Tim, a patent attorney representing a small company that is developing non-invasive glucose monitoring --Â to a bunch of house and senate staffers. Unbeknownst to them, their slides were shared in advance with a representative of Johnson & Johnson who spoke both before them and after them and took up much of their time...prior to handing out laminated cards listing how to vote and misrepresenting the positions of Steve and Tim. (It has been captured on video if anyone is interested). The point is that small companies are no match for the maneuvers of large companies who have controlled this process and continue to. It is up to congress to actively seek out other voices to understand the counter-arguments to craft the most balanced path.
Follow Gary Lauder on Twitter: www.twitter.com/GaryLauder
One of the major problems with our patent system is that most patents are filed under the "Utility" classification. Mechanical patents are usually written with somewhat broad language so that someone can't come along and change the design slightly and file for their own patent.
For software and medical patents, by the nature of their business many inventions will be very small changes in existing processes.
I think we should have a separate main classification for software and medical patents with a requirement that the patent language cannot be too broad.
Also, we may want to add a "Public Good" patent classification. These patents would be for something like the Space Shuttle, as there is only one buyer it makes almost no sense for an individual or a small company for that matter to invest in a patent with very little chance of a return on investment.
Other than that the rights should be to the public domain for all to benefit from. No buying it, selling
it, shelving it. Open source it. If the original inventer relinquishes right to it, it then belongs to everyone. Period.
I believe that our world would be completely different today if the greedy weren't already hiding what we ought to have benefit of. Their is plenty of competition for improvement and inovation on any invention even after it enters the public domain. I stand by my original statement.
In modern times the US' intellectual property laws are being used to slow innovation and enrich those who know how best to game the system. All, of course, aided and abetted by a massive legal industry.
-GML
FTI is also a tool for large corporations accused of infringement to tie up small plaintiffs in court and saddle them with fees just establishing they invented prior to the corporations own invention and use.
-GML
It scares me that they will sign almost any change in a law if you label it reform.
The main motivation seems to be regularizing the patent process around the world. But the other provisions besides FTF are not helpful they are a disaster for inventors in general and small inventors in particular. It will cripple small businesses and even a lot of bigger corporations that are given too little time to publicise their research and get funding to continue invention work and filing for patents. Those provisions should be cut out.
Can you explain how the new law would let challenges to applications under review by examiners? To me that's like letting somebody watch you vote in voting booth. Its supposed to be a private act.
What were the Senators thinking when they approved that bill?????
Did they belive all the garbage about limiting the grace period? Did they belive they were benefiting the people or the economy, small business or independent inventors?
Shortening the grace period makes no sense. They cannot force inventors to publicise their data early since they will follow their own self interests of keeping it private. So what will be the upshot? Expect a shortened grace period to lead to less sharing of data and a slower pace of innovation. I'm angry about that!!! How much time is there to organize a campaign to educate the President and the Congress and the republic.
The business will be harvesting patentable idea content from computer-stored idea and correlation information. Since idea-to-application correlation follows a fairly set development pattern, algorithms to define variants of the pattern can be fairly easily developed. These, put to match patterns in gleaned information will make it possible for opportunists with the computer-power to "front-run" inventors, who usually define and then refine, using scientific method, to determine real applicability and troubleshoot potential flaws. The algorithms would be able to, essentially, pick out the gist from the inventor's notes, where the notes would be stored on a net-connected computer. The harvester will then be able to file on the potential in the gist so that when/if the idea survived to patentable the core concept patents would be already on file.
Inventors will have to be very careful. They will have to avoid exposing their ideas in media-forms that are electronically surveillable.
Someone develops a new technology and they give a conference paper on it. But they don't patent it, perhaps because they want the technology to remain in the public domain.
So someone else who read the conference paper files a patent on it, preventing everyone else, even the inventor, from using the technology. And there's not a darn thing anyone can do about it.
Is that what we're looking at with FTF?
-GML
Which is a relief, considering that the above scenario applies to me all the time.
This is a very serious infringement of citizens rights and there is not a chance in hell of Obama or Romney or Palin or Biden or Clinton doing anything about protecting us. The Stars of our politics do not even see the ordinary citizens when they invent something that tis not in their interest.
I think it is time for many of us to just quit taking care of the nation while these Stars pretend to take credit for it all.
You are correct. Just because they call it “reform” doesn’t mean it is. Patent reform is a fraud on America. This bill will not do what they claim it will. What it will do is help large corporations maintain their monopolies and kill their small entity and startup competitors (which is exactly what they intended it to do) and with them the jobs they would have created. According to recent studies by the Kauffman Foundation and economists at the U.S. Census Bureau, “startups aren’t everything when it comes to job growth. They’re the only thing.” This bill is a wholesale slaughter of US jobs.
Please see http://truereform.piausa.org/ for a different/opposing view on patent reform.
http://docs.piausa.org/2011PatentReform/