Patent Reform Signed into Law

25

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

bling581

"The law also moves the US patent system to a “first-to-file” policy. That means a patent will go to the first person to file it, not the first to create a product."

Why do I not think this is a good idea? I can see large companies abusing this by filing for tons of patents only to sit on them until they're good and ready to try and stop competition. I think the company that develops the first sellable product deserves the patent. I agree the patent system needs revamping but the purpose is to stop the trolling and help innovation, not to create dumb rules like this that will do the opposite.

avatar

Nimrod

This would have ment that Nicola Tesla was an even LESS well known figure if it had been the rule way back when.

avatar

sign4u

Article I Section 8 of The Constitution of the United States reads in pertinent part:

"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"

This is the basis for the "First to invent" system of patenting in the United States.

Changing this sytem cannot be done by a bill signed into law.  It requires a constitutional amendment in order to change it and on proper challenge with appropriate standing to bring the case before the proper court (SCOTUS or Federal Appellate Circuit Court) the law would not survive scrutiny.  As the constitution is itself offended by such a law, I take it on faith that this particular abortion of jurisprudence will be overturned.

 

avatar

Carlidan

Even though they both fall in the legislative branch. I do believe they are two different entities. Their function in governement are drastically diffrent.

avatar

sbud4u

The House and Senate together make up Congress.  You said Congress instead of House in your other post. 

avatar

Carlidan

Yeah your right. I just noticed when I googled diffrences of House and Senate. LOL.

 

KEY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND SENATE
CONSTITUTIONAL DIFFERENCES
HOUSE
Initiates all revenue bills
Two-year terms
Comprises 435 members (apportioned by population)
Initiates impeachment procedures and passes articles of impeachment.
SENATE
Offers "advice and consent" on many major presidential appointments
Tries impeached officials
Approves treaties
Six-year terms (1/3 up for reelection every two years)
Comprises 100 members (2 from each state)

DIFFERENCES IN OPERATION
HOUSE
More centralized, more formal, stronger leadership
Rules Committee fairly powerful in controlling time and rules of debate (in conjunction with the majority leader) More impersonal
Power less evenly distributed
Members are highly specialized
Emphasizes tax and revenue policy Emphasizes foreign policy
Seniority important in determining power SENATE
Less centralized, less formal, weaker leadership
No rules Committee; limited on debate come through unanimous consent or cloture of filibuster
More personal
Power more evenly distributed
Members are generalist
Seniority less important in determining power

CHANGES IN THE INSTITUTION
HOUSE
Power formerly centralized in the hands of key committees and the leadership; breaking down
House procedures are becoming more efficient, with less debate and fewer amendments
Turnover is low
SENATE
Senate workload increasing and informality breaking down
Members are becoming more specialized; debate and deliberations less frequent
Turnover is moderate

 

Their are others, just have to keep googling some more references. Just give me some time.

avatar

I Jedi

Please explain? There are only a few difference between what the House does and what the Senate does. For example, any revenue bill must originate in the House; Likewise, any ambassador or treaty must be approved by the Senate. The House has less stricter rules than the Senate does. Other than that, there truly isn't much of a difference between the two.

Oh, sure, you could say one has its members elected for two years and the other for six years. You could even say that the House is meant for the common man, whilst the Senate is meant for the wealthier. (At least back in the old days) Hell, I might have bought you a round of drinks, if you told me, and if it still held true, that the House is nominated by the people whilst the Senate is nominated by state legislature back in the young days of our republic.

In reality, both pass bills, both have committes, both get the same salary, and both are nominated directly by the people.

Other than the few differences I labeled above, there truly is no real difference, in my opinion, between the House and the Senate.

avatar

poee

The differences you site are quite substantial. But the most germane differences are representation of Districts vs. States, and crafting the two bodies as a check and balance on each other. Each State is apportioned House Districts based on population, with the intention that House members represent a specific group of people roughly uniform in number (on average, about 710,000 people per Representative since the House is capped at 435 members, with the proviso that every State gets at least one House District). Senators, on the other hand, represent their whole State, with no regard to population, every State having two Senators.

Far from being "no real difference," this bicameral arrangement was designed to represent the people directly while providing a check on a "tyranny of the majority" from the House. In the Senate, each State is equally represented by two Senators, giving the least populous States the same legislative voice as the most populous. In the House, the least populous States have the fewest Representatives, and therefore the more people in a State, the more power they can wield in the House.

Representatives must be re-elected for every Congress (every two years the entire House is newly elected). This was a cause for concern among the Framers of the Constitution that there would be little continuity of government with each election. So they gave Senators 6-year terms and staggered their elections so that only one-third of the Senate is elected every Congress (two years), with a max of one of each State's two Senators being up for re-election per cycle. This is also the reason the Senate is much more traditional in its rules and procedures, as this continuity stretches back a very long time. One of these rules being the infamous fillibuster that can require every vote to be a super-majority in order to pass, giving the party out-of-power much more of a voice than they would otherwise have, further extending the check on majority-rule that the Senate was conceived for. In any case, the two Houses of Congress are quite different in many ways.

avatar

Carlidan

Actually Montana, it has to be passed in Congress, then Senate and the signed by the President to become law. Or the president veto's it and goes back to Congress and if Congress wants it to be law it needs a 2/3 majority or something like that without the President's approval. But I got what your saying.

 

avatar

I Jedi

"it has to be passed in Congress, then Senate"

Suggesting that Congress and the Senate are two separate entities.

 

avatar

Brewskie

FTA:

"The law also moves the US patent system to a “first-to-file” policy. That means a patent will go to the first person to file it, not the first to create a product."

In other words...if you take an idea to a company you better patent it before you go. Otherwise these companies can patent YOUR idea and steal out from under you.

It literally takes the ball from the little guy, who can rarely afford the costs for patent searches and filing, to large companies that do it on a daily basis.

Another way to look at it. It's government of the Corporations, not government of the People.

avatar

Arlips

Seriously? This is the exact opposite of what they needed to do. All this will do is increase the number of patent trolls that patent an idea and just sit on it and wait for others to do the work for them so they can sue and only reap the benefits. First to file is terrible, indeed. I wonder which corporation came up with that idea and presented it to their back pocket politician.

 

So long, progress....

avatar

don2041

Ah the layrers are wringjng there hands in glee

avatar

Danthrax66

God this is fucking stupid. Actually an episode of Suits showed exactly why the old system actually worked. First to file is fucking terrible.

avatar

I Jedi

Sigh, a bill signed by the President usually doesn't become a law until after it has gone through the proper channels. The proper channels usually are dealt by individual departments that actually implement the bill into law. If you're interested in following the "The America Invents Act" bill, please visit your Federal register here: http://www.federalregister.gov/

In the next few days to a few weeks, you should see some sign of the "America Invents Act" being put on display for folks to follow exactly how this new patent reform bill will be implemented into law. There is another Federal website, related to the Federal Register, which allows people to send in their own comments, concerns, and ideas about upcoming rules and proposal, but I forget the name of it.

P.S. It usually takes about 90 days for a new bill/law to become official, even after the President signs it. In other words, if you don't want to pay money for a new patent, and you've got a great idea, now would be the time to get your idea patented.

avatar

Eoraptor

So in otherwords, the "reform" shuts the little guy out, leaving it all up to big companies with big lawyers to file patents first even if they didn't create the product, and to agrue patents applied for by little guys until they win. yeah, America sure invents allright. invents new ways for corporations to win

avatar

wolf17

I agree, this first to file is damning to the little guy, the bill should titled yet another way to fuck over the people act.

avatar

I Jedi

Actually, in my opinion, the first to file act will work out a lot better for the little guy. Often times the little guy has no resources starting off, unless he gets a backer, such as a bank loan. Even then, he or she still has to build the prototype. In other words, the little guy doesn't need to race to build a design he or she thought about, and then file a patent for it. The system isn't perfect, but I prefer a first to file over a first to invent.

avatar

CaptainFabulous

Why do you think Republicants supported it? It's not like they ever do anything for we the people.

avatar

US_Ranger

CaptainFabulous, are you aware that the president is a Democrat and signed this? Before you post from now on, you should try removing your head from your ass first. 

avatar

CaptainFabulous

Oh, is this like the debt ceiling bill the President signed and the Senate agreed to? Y'know, the one where they rolled over and allowed the Republicants to fuck them up the ass?

The Dems have their own motivations to push this through, which is completely different than Republicants' motivations.

Maybe you should both understand the issues at hand before you open your mouths and talk about things to which you're completely ignorant. Cause otherwise you just look foolish. Foolish Tea Bagger boot-licking Joe the Plumber (who wasn't named Joe and was an illegal plumber) Republicants.

avatar

Nimrod

your stupid and this is more  than you deserve

avatar

jcollins

Rolled over?  How so?  It held to exactly what Obama said was his most critical goal.  Pushed it past the next election.  Kind of hard to say the dems rolled over when Obama got exactly what he wanted.

avatar

CaptainFabulous

So I guess you missed the whole "I won't approve any debt increase legislation that doesn't include new revenue" speech by Obama, about a week before he rolled over, spread his cheeks, and got boned by Boner, er, Boehner and company.

I'm not exactly sure how that translates into "getting everything they wanted". No, they didn't get ANYTHING they wanted. They wanted tax increases on the rich, as part of a common sense plan to reduce the deficit, and got nothing except the ability to keep postponing the issue.

avatar

big_montana

To pass and become law it had to pass the Senate and the president needed to sign it into law. Both the Senate is Democratically controlled and the President is a member of the same party last time I checked, jackass.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.