US Patent Reform thoughts

Right wing American legal thinker and keen Clinton-basher Viet Dinh has today unleashed his erudite thoughts on the need for patent reform in the US. In his paper, titled “Patent Reform: Protecting Property Rights and the Marketplace of Ideas”, prepared for the Coalition for Patent Fairness, he argues that the US patent system invites abuse through litigation, does damage to the US economy and deters innovation.

The paper claims that the Patent Reform Act (see Patently-O for more details), currently before the US Senate, would go a long way to restoring balance to the current system.

The IPKat thinks that there is much sense in the paper, such as the obvious need for decent examination at the USPTO and stopping excessive awards for damages. The paper is, however, rather over-done in its respect for the fabled American inventor, "that rare breed of risk-taking entrepreneur who invests his or her own intellect for the sake of innovation", which made the IPKat feel like he had a furball coming. He is also a bit wary of being too hopeful about expecting positive changes to the US system, given recent events, and would put money on the US not implementing a 'first to file' system (or overcoming the current problems at the USPTO) in the foreseeable future.

More thoughts on US patent reform here (pro) and here (against). More furballs here.
US Patent Reform thoughts US Patent Reform thoughts Reviewed by David Pearce on Monday, December 03, 2007 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.