27 thoughts on “

  1. Probably because corporations and repeat players know the rules of the game better than a first time I-did-it-in-my-garage inventor. A corporation will have procedures in place to get you face time with in-house counsel in no time, whereas an independent may not even know what a patent is.

  2. You forgot about the forty methods that patents are stolen and nothing in the legislation to prevent the incentive to create from being destroyed . Either new or old the system is still unusable.

  3. The big thing is they did nothing to break the big business money monopoly That is preventing reinvestment in top inventions.The other thing is the government did no investing in top invention conceptions so now nothing is in the pipeline. I am hoping for some smart economic development states or counties that want to turn into boom towns so far nothing.

  4. I guess the patent reform doesent matter with no investors or entrapreneurs the econony wont restart anyways my 200 yearly top marketable new product conception capability wont be needed.

  5. I guess ill have to start working on the brazilian patent system the other ones are about the same there is no signs of intellegent legislators around here beam me up not even any non def ones that want to start an economic recovery

  6. Your right there rights are already trampled and this does nothing to improve this to the point of indegent usability

  7. Ya but Oboma and america is counting on it to create jobs.So we have to tell them sorry The inventors were shut out along with the jobs that could have been created. better luck in the next major reform in another 59 years buy then we will all be unemployed.

  8. Starting in 18 months, the patent law will be tailored around inventions that you can think of in the shower and that are “ready to present the next day.” you know, the inventions that don’t present any significant risk, and don’t need the patent system anyway.

    – David Boundy, March 29, 1994

  9. Ahh I see, Senator Sessions’ amendment? You missed the apostrophe fella. But with regard to that:

    Senator Sessions’ amendment has failed. 47-51. The Sen. Session’s amendment had proposed an amendment stripping a provision from the Bill that would retroactively lengthen the deadline for applying for a patent term extension. This particular provision of the reform has no other real purpose other than to reinstate The Medicine Company’s (MDCO’s) patent covering its Angiomax drug. The law firm WilmerHale is on the hook for substantial malpractice damages due to the filing debacle. These two firms have spent around $20 million lobbying Congress on this issue.

    This can’t possibly be the amendment you are referring. I assumed that you couldn’t have been referring to this. Do you know what a patent term extension is? Do you know that this does not apply to small entities. As correctly mentioned by your one and only Mr. Patentlyo, this amendment would only apply to large companies, particularly big pharmaceutical companies and associated patents. This amendment has no effect on the small entity, or single inventor. What makes you think that this amendment would have prevented a “corporate giveaway”? The rejecting of this amendment is actually against the “corporate giveaway” argument. Get your facts straight.

  10. I’m sorry but there was more than one amendment. Do you even know what you are talking about? Which of the session’s amendments are you referring to?

  11. I am unaware of any provision that is a “corporate giveaway

    Then you should pull your head out of your axx. The Sessions amendment (which I mentioned above) was intended to remove one of the most blatant examples.

  12. Dave, I think you are too late with your dire prediction of patents “that you can think of in the shower and that are “ready to present the next day.”
    That is an excellent description of quite a few of the “business method” patents already being widely sued on by trolls that were issued under the present statute.
    {I’m not just being humorous, I’m also making a point.}

    [As much as I have enjoyed it, I won't any longer get into the long debate about how "safe" it really is to delay application filings under present 102(g) and Rule 131 based thereon, because it will be academic in a year or so when the new law goes into effect.]

  13. “Until today, our legal system was tailored around real inventions that need some investment — the kind that represent some kind of technological or financial risk.”

    Like business methods, giant computer brains, and simple “plans” for an invention you haven’t actually made yet.

  14. Until today, our legal system was tailored around real inventions that need some investment — the kind that represent some kind of technological or financial risk. The kinds of inventions that will never translate from idea to useful product if the patent system isn’t available to protect the investment.

    Starting in 18 months, the patent law will be tailored around inventions that you can think of in the shower and that are “ready to present the next day.” you know, the inventions that don’t present any significant risk, and don’t need the patent system anyway.

    Now do you understand how the patent system works? Or at least used to?

  15. It was a joke. I am unaware of any provision that is a “corporate giveaway”. We are discussing the first-to-file provision, but I am not under the impression this is a “corporate giveaway”. I doubt he would veto that provision anyway as it’s all about harmonization (with the other patent systems of the world) in the political mind.

  16. How do you know Obama would eliminate that provision? Has he said so? Or is this just your political bias assuming Obama would do something you consider desirable?

  17. haha, he would if he could, but veto must be done in its entirety. I still fail to see how this is any more a “corporate giveaway” than the previous first-to-invent system. You think have you a good idea, file a simple provisional with the Office. You don’t even, really, need one of those lawyers.

  18. Agreed. It is easy to see how it is a big “corporate giveaway”, though. Particularly given the failure of the Sessions amendment.

    Remind me: can Obama rub that part out and sign the rest?

  19. I don’t understand how it “tramples on the rights of small inventors” any more than the current law does. The first-to-file aspect will force individual inventors to file their provisional applications immediately after they conceive their idea. This may even provide an incentive to better their original conception immediately, as opposed to the old system, which provides for a fight as to when conception was. It isn’t difficult for individual/small entities to file a provisional application. They can simply send in the powerpoint they have ready to present the next day. How does this “trample on the rights of small inventors”? Yes, they may have to be more diligent than they were. But, since when does our legal system reward individuals who are not diligent?

  20. She’s totally hot when she’s mad.

    On a side note, she may even be right.

    I do have to wonder if, in her haste, she forgot that the entire patent system was a “big corporation” give away entitlement program that all too often currently tramples on the rights of small inventors?

Comments are closed.