European software patents via treaty?

Posted May 13, 2008 19:18 UTC (Tue) by allesfresser (guest, #216)
Parent article: European software patents via treaty?

FFII is recommending that the US switch to first-to-file?  What kind of madness is that?
Wouldn't that remove the whole avenue of disabling specious patents through prior art?

European software patents via treaty?

Posted May 13, 2008 19:42 UTC (Tue) by ohrn (subscriber, #5509) [Link] (2 responses)

No, first-to-file doesn't have anything to do with prior art, prior art makes the patent is
invalid no matter what. What it does do is remove the ambiguity when two applications for the
same invention arrive close in time, the first person who filed gets the patent (as long as
it's a valid invention).

As it works in the US now whoever of the applicants that can somehow prove that he thought of
it first gets the patent, leading to costly battles. Also it creates a nice opportunity for
less honest individuals, by duplicating existing applications and then doctoring some proof
they can game the system and steal ideas...

European software patents via treaty?

Posted May 13, 2008 20:09 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link]

It's easy to eavesdrop a standards group email list, and file patents as things go by, under the U.S. system. There has been no criminal prosecution for lying on a patent application since 1974, although it has the same penalty as other forms of perjury. There is no plan to introduce an enforcement office back into USPTO, so no prosecution is in sight in the future.

Want to make money fast? That's how. You just have to be a little dishonest. Nobody cares enough to prosecute you, so it's risk-free.

Bruce

European software patents via treaty?

Posted May 15, 2008 16:21 UTC (Thu) by hchristeller (guest, #4246) [Link]

The Constitutional purpose for patents is to reward publication of information about useful inventions, not to reward the act of invention itself. The market rewards invention; patents reward making knowledge of inventions available to the public. Special interests have been sowing confusion about patents for years, emphasizing the government role in rewarding inventors. But inventors don't need to be rewarded by government, the public isn't served by rewarding inventors, and inventors (and investors) should be dismayed by the idea of government choosing which inventors deserve reward. The public is served by publishing inventions. First to file rewards publishing.