Will Patent Law Boost Quality?

Imagine this scenario:

Person A makes an invention, but simply sits on it without filing anything.
Next, Person B makes the same invention independently, files for a patent and gets it, and manufactures the invention.
Now, Person A pops up out the woodwork....

Under "first to invent" doctrine, A could challenge B's patent. How is that just, pray tell?

For the moment at least, what I have said favors dumping the "first to invent" system in favor of "first to file."

What is "vastly inferior" about "first to file"?

(Incidentally, I don't think the blog's title makes much sense. The issue is more about equity than about quality.)

This proves again the fact that ANY inventor that talks about, describes anything anyway about an invention before filing is simply stupid.......

It was high time that the USA agreed with the rest of the world on patent law.......now you are "out of the dark ages"......so-be-it! Be happy not sad!!

You will find here a very short dissertation on Edison and his "Patent-Foibles" for example!:-

http://www.cracked.com/article_16072_5-famous-inventors-who-stole-their-big-idea.html

But he is an example only, inventions have been stolen all over by many people over the years......even today. The "Rotorplane" invention that is running on CR4 at this ntime are an example of how NOT to patent an idea (that probably is a scam anyway)....

See:-

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/73288?frmtrk=cr4sd#newcomments

Don't forget, that possibly "filing first" with an incomplete knowledge will probably not produce a "working" version, ever......and the original thinker should have kept the ideas to himself..........it's that simple!

This proves again the fact that ANY inventor that talks about, describes anything anyway about an invention before filing is simply stupid.......

Given stupidity, there exists a second possibility... the inventor is poor! I do have to agree with the above comment about this slanting things toward corporations. A simple patent for a simple invention (say a hammer) can cost upward of $10k or more just for the initial patent. How many "average inventors" have that kind of money to throw at an idea?

Here's a nice article describing the approximate costs involved...

http://ipwatchdog.com/2011/01/28/the-cost-of-obtaining-patent/id=14668/

I won't say I disagree with the "first to file" rule, but the whole argument would be moot if there weren't economic biases involved. i.e... make it cheap for the little guy to protect his idea and it won't make any difference.

The price precludes a lot of unnecessary patents......

Lets face it, the problems are the same for everyone.......that is at least fair.......

The use of a "Non-Disclosure Document" can allow an inventor to show his invention to a company for funding and help/development and protects his ideas, if properly made and costs very little....

Too few make proper use of such possibilities......

at the low end the same basic problem remains

if you can't afford the legal reprensentation to defend your patent or NDA

it's not worth the electrons you irritated to compose it

the process favors deep pockets...

It always has been expensive, I would expect most of us here to already know that, the problem is not being changed by the law very much if at all, it was there before the new law was made.......and will be there afterwards I expect!

The question here is:- "Will Patent Law Boost Quality?", not what it costs.

Many here are simply going off in an unimportant tangent, for no proper reason that I can see personally......

Many do that on CR4 no matter what the subject is!!

Lack of money should not prevent a genius from applying for a patent. That's why I said idea should be patented before design is patented.

I'm not exactly sure what an "unnecessary patent" is. If an invention has the required merits for a patent (new, statutory, useful, and non-obvious), then necessity is irrelevant isn't it?

Your statement... "The use of a "Non-Disclosure Document" can allow an inventor to show his invention to a company for funding..." only supports the position about an economic bias in the system. IMO, the average person should be able to secure his/her idea without having to take out loans or put a lien on the farm.

Again, I support the first to file philosophy and if they're spending the time, effort, and money to revamp the system, why not try to remove some of this bias out of it?

I support the first to file system (my first post here says just that, please read it!), primarily because the rest of the world sees it as the best way.

Surely so many cannot be wrong. Law of averages?

Also, big companies could previously try and "prove" they were first "after" the event with the previous law......as I am sure has already happened many times in the USA, but probably never anywhere else!!!

Now that was unfair in the worst degree......

A person can steal an idea from another and get "first to file patent". To make things fair "first to file" need not give elaborate design details but only the "concept" or "idea". Later any designer can buy it and develop the product and get a "design patent". Each designer can develop the same concept in different ways or forms.

Except that PTO has "streamlined" the process to reduce the number of new claims and updates. Again, great for Big Money.

GA

A could only challenge B with well documented priority and evidence that A was developing the idea with the intent of protecting it. Many ideas are ahead of their time and a patent is only valid for a limited duration. Sometimes it is wiser to continue development and elaboration of a concept before applying for protection in order to allow the market or the technology for implementation to catch up. B would also need documentation of how he came up with the concept "independently" to prevent fraudulent claims.

That's similar to what happened in the case of Gordon Gould and the invention of the laser. [He didn't exactly sit on the work, but Townes and Shawlow filed a year before he did.] He (and the Patlex outfit) eventually won $millions in lawsuits and licensing fees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Gould

The simple answer is NO. Quality depends on design and manufacture.

A simple answer to what appears as the general discussion, is to give anyone with SUBSTANTIAL proof of prior use or prior intent to use, the personal (or company) right to use it in their current, or intended, way.

Some complication could ensue if the proved intention was to use the invention in terms of licensing, but the patent holder cannot always prove it was entirely their invention, some you win, some you lose, that's life.

Shouldn't to be fair, patents be free / small registration fees as they are in the countries governments best interests to bring new ideas as quickly to market as possible. On an international basis the first to register in whatever country could then register for all countries prepared to join this register. Countries not prepared to join should be excluded from markets of members. The very high patent registration fees required by some countries are only affordable by large companies and so many inventions never come to light. Surely pirating is something all inventors would wish to defeat. This new law would seem to allow cherry picking from other countries patent libraries. Can this really be allowed. Money will decide the quality. Governments should protect their investments in education and ensure that their countries products would be high quality. Pebbles might have been made from stone (not atoms) if we didn't have a Creator.

You can patent a rock with enough lawyers. Besides the Chinese will copy it anyway without ever seeing the inside of a court.

Ron

As a person that's currently involved in the patent process, ( 2 years and $10,000), whether it's first to invent or first to file, it all sucks for a small time inventor with an idea. I just got a bill from my patent attorney yesterday for $1500, to change one line in my claims.

The fees and processes are all the same, whether you are a multibillion dollar corporation, or a small time independent individual.

Regardless of if it's first to file or first to invent, I would like to see a system in place where the big players would pay more. This is not about punishing big corporations. I think they would happily pay big bucks to have a patent reviewed and issued within 12 months.

In addition, it would be nice to see some of that money used to start a separate division within the PTO specifically to review, and actively help the small time inventor that doesn't have thousands of dollars laying around and patent attorneys on retention. Obviously, the fees for a small timer would still have to be high enough to prevent them from being flooded with frivolous applications, but a little help would be nice. A lot of us are able to clearly describe an idea in writing, including the technical details.............................we just aren't able to do it in lawyer speak, which to me, seems to be nothing but a long, boring, waste of time and words, that unnecessarily complicate a description that could easily be made in layman's terms, in most cases.

The fees are reasonable, it's the attorney that's killing me. I would happily pay higher fees if I could skip the need for an attorney......................say, an online, interactive patent application that was specifically tailored to the "little guy".

A lot of us are able to clearly describe an idea in writing, including the technical details.............................we just aren't able to do it in lawyer speak, which to me, seems to be nothing but a long, boring, waste of time and words, that unnecessarily complicate a description that could easily be made in layman's terms, in most cases.
You are describing a different problem
lawyers have managed to insinuate themselves into everything & complicate them as much as possible, increasing the need for their "services"

What I thought was true was that if person A could prove that person A had created an idea or product before person B created it ,and then person B obtains a patent (by any means) on the idea or product, then person A could use the idea or manufacture and sell the product , and that person B owned the patent and could use the idea or product (as well as person A), and could legally bar others from using the idea or product, except person A ( or A', etc.). This was how the system worked in practice for a large research org. 50's - 80's. The research information was used to maintain production lead time over competitors since no disclosure was needed, patent costs were reduced, and theft was virtually certain in any case. The percentage of litigations decided against the patent holder being well over 50% was the nail in the coffin.

Are things different now? Or is the difference in the specific field being discussed?

He who patents first is the winner.....saves a lot of litigation and argument.

(Lawyers stop crying immediately, behave like men!!)

If B develops a product based on idea from A,the Patent office should see that B should pay royalty to A,otherwise cancel his right to manufacture and jail him.

Most of the free world honours the one coming posting first, America has now joined them.....its as simple as that.

As I posted before, a lot of litigation will now never take place, lawyers will lose half of their income......how sad!