The most important news stories are sometimes the least-covered

[jducoeur]

I just now came across this blog entry, talking about the fact that the Supreme Court is weighing a patent case with serious ramifications today. Apparently, it's being used as a test case for the question of what is "obvious", and they're seriously examining whether the current standards for patents (which have led to the enormous slew of patents in the past couple of decades) are really appropriate.

Neat stuff, and terribly, terribly relevant to the tech industry. For all the concerns that it will cause some chaos (which are probably true), I dearly hope that they wrestle with the problem seriously enough to come up with a better standard. We'll see what happens...

Comments

[osewalrus.livejournal.com]

It's been in trade press, but mainstream press generally don't cover such things until after argument or when the SCT issues an opinion. Only really huge things or maintsream issues get pre-game warm up.

[herooftheage.livejournal.com]

Ah, but I would have thought this one was really huge. I see the results every day - my favorite example being Motorola having the rights to flip phones, even though it was obvious enough to have occurred to the writers of Star Trek in the 60s.

[umbran.livejournal.com]

It is huge, for businesses.

For the man on the street, who never directly interacts with patent law, it is all stuff that happens "behind the curtain" - a possible reshuffling on who has the rights to what, and maybe a resulting change of prices some years from now as things get sorted out. Not really a big deal.

[herooftheage.livejournal.com]

For me, the big deal is in a bunch of things I use where the features are all fractured across several competitors because each owns a different set of patents that seem pretty obvious. Sometimes these companies manage to license to each other, but just as often think of their little twist on the world as the thing that is going to sell the product, and so it becomes very hard to get an item that has everything I want in it.

[umbran.livejournal.com]

I lump that under "price changes some time in the future" - it becomes cheaper to get certain technologies because nobody has to pay a licensing fee.

Of course, that may all be lost under the cost of retesting patents to see if they meet more stringent guidelines, or the legal fees around challenging patents.

[jducoeur]

True, but those are largely one-off fees, as the system adjusts to the new structure. In the long run, one would expect prices to drop a tad, not just because of a lowered "patent tax" from license fees, but because (as the new standards become better-understood) of fewer things being submitted to the moderately expensive patent process.

Of course, that's assuming that stricter standards do not, in fact, impede innovation, as the hardcore patent absolutists claim they would. I personally believe that they probably wouldn't, but it remains to be tested...

[umbran.livejournal.com]

True, but those are largely one-off fees, as the system adjusts to the new structure.

You're talking about a potential one-off fee for every patent filed in the last 20 years. Even if it only applies to a fraction of the total number of patents filed, the cumulative effect is likely to be considerable.

And that's not considering the fact that the patent office and courts are already overburdened - working through the tangle of change will be a major undertaking, with major costs to the nation. If that cost isn't paid, the system may slow to a crawl, and time is money.

Which is not to say it shouldn't be done. Any improvement in infrastructure has a cost. But we would be wise to not be dismissive of the effects, either.

[jducoeur]

Probably overstated. in that I think there's little chance of more than a modest fraction being challenged. I expect that some patents will quite clearly fail, and won't be worth defending, and others will clearly be solid enough that no one will bother challenging them. Bear in mind that the main premise here is that the current standard is too subjective; what they want to replace it with is something clearer and more objective, if that's possible. If they succeed, then a lot of potential lawsuits become moot.

Also, keep in mind that many patents are simply trash at this point -- filed, but really never used and no one cares enough to defend tham now.

Yes, the cost is considerable -- no question about that. *How* considerable would depend on what they decided. IMO, it's probably worth it, but I am admittedly biased -- I dislike the patent regime enough that I would probably be happier if the whole edifice simply crumbled, rather than what we have now...

[be-well-lowell.livejournal.com]

"The Supreme Court agreed to think about it" isn't huge, no matter how important the topic. If they reach an opinion that makes major changes to the status quo (which would be great, even if it would likely make me change my resume), that would be huge.

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

Check out ScotusBlog for some useful information on this, and all of the Supreme's Doings.

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

This article is a very technical description of what actually happened, with more technical links.
http://syndicated.livejournal.com/scotusblog/758228.html

[jducoeur]

Clear, concise and detailed description -- absolutely lovely. Thanks for the pointer! It's kind of dangerous -- I really don't have time to follow this blog in detail, but I really want to. At the least, I clearly need to bookmark it as a resource...