Thursday, 3 December 2009

Patent Reform that Matters

CONgress: Steal from the poor, give to the rich. So here we are going on 3 years waiting for CONgress to give us meaningful patent reform. As usually they are a day late and a dollar short, as the proposed changes only make it harder to get credit for your original invention or idea.

It's basically loaded with all kinds of changes that protect big companies who have infringed upon little companies inventions and ideas without giving them credit or money in exchange for using their idea. For instance:

Requires infringement suits be brought only in states where the defendant has a physical place of business that constitutes a "substantial portion" of its operations. What this means is that CONgress is limiting your imagined revenue from your invention to the state in which you live or your business is located, it also means that a big corporation that stole your idea or invention is only liable for monies it gained from your idea in the state which your business is located. Big Corporations will get to keep all the money earned from your idea in every other state and you get none.
Broadens the use and expediency of appeals. What this means is that the big corporations will be able to appeal on more points of law and more often when fighting you in court or at the patent office. They can essentially out spend you and beat your infringement charge.
Creates stricter rules and criteria for "willful infringement". The patent owner would be required to present compelling evidence that the infringer acted with "objective recklessness", intentionally copied a patented invention with knowledge it was patented, and that the patentee gave the infringer written notice of their violations in a manner that gives "objectively reasonable apprehension of a suit." What this does is force the patent holder to prove that the infringing party did so with recklessness (pretty obtuse standard!) and it puts all the pursuit of relief solely on the patent holder instead of the government (who can afford to go after large companies).
Proposes stricter rules about the criteria for "reasonable royalty" and creates a set criteria for measuring damages. What this does is limit how much a patent holder can claim from a company that has benefitted from their invention, an example of this could be a handheld device that nets a company 100 million dollars over 10 years, currently could lose half of that to the patent holder. Under the proposed it could only lose 1 to 10 million over that same period, thereby denying the inventor his just reward for the idea.
Allows defendants to win with a "good faith" defense, if they believed the patent was invalid, unenforceable or not infringed when violating the patent. This is perhaps the most dangerous change, because documents can be doctored or forged to say or give the appearance that the company 'acted in good faith'. Given enough money and a long protracted court battle, a large multinational corporation can simply outspend and out document a small business or single person inventor, thus effectively stealing the idea from them.

So much for rewarding the person that invented or came up with the new idea. These proposals will take away any incentive people have for creating new inventions.

"The Congress shall have power 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" - United States Constitution - Article I, Section 8, Clause 8

Obama and the Climate Liars want to use Patent Reform to steal technology for the already mega-wealthy and give it to an unelected Global Government. This is what they will do — these climate “scientists” on whose unsupported word the world’s classe politique proposes to set up an unelected global government this December in Copenhagen, with vast and unprecedented powers to control all formerly free markets, to tax wealthy nations and all of their financial transactions, to regulate the economic and environmental affairs of all nations, and to confiscate and extinguish all patent and intellectual property rights.⁷

If big companies can get away with 'patent infringement', which is what these changes will allow them to do, then it will basically make the idea of patents and protection of intellectual property a thing of the past... it will become a free for all where the mega corporations will always be able to steal ideas from the little guys and no one benefits but big money.

Real Patent reform would strengthen the hand of the little guy, give the inventor more protections against unscrupulous corporations.

I propose we petition congress to protect inventors rights and give them a stronger law that makes large companies not want to steal ideas.

One thing I would like to see them add is a provision that prevents companies from just shelving inventions that would provide invaluable benefit to the general public in such sectors of business as energy, production, automotive tech, etc.

The provision would mandate that they use or otherwise produce the idea such that the general public benefits within 3 years of patent application and approval or they go on a alert status. If after 2 years on alert status they have not made the technology available for the public benefit by producing or using the idea then it becomes available for licensing to businesses that will use or produce it. Of course at 'reasonable royalty', snick.

america's wealth engine is about to be shut down because the power of inventors to propel america's economy is being terminated