White House Announces Reforms Targeting Patent Trolls 124
andy1307 writes "According to Politico (and, paywalled, at The Wall Street Journal), the White House on Tuesday [released] plans to announce a set of executive actions President Barack Obama will take that are aimed at reining in certain patent-holding firms, known as 'patent trolls' to their detractors, amid concerns that the firms are abusing the patent system and disrupting competition. The plan includes five executive actions and seven legislative recommendations. They include requiring patent holders and applicants to disclose who really owns and controls the patent, changing how fees are awarded to the prevailing parties in patent litigation, and protecting consumers with better protections against being sued for patent infringement."
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
The you clearly haven't read the law.
Section 271 of Title 35:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.
The "uses" part covers customers who have bought the infringing product. It is not common to go after the customers but it is legal and there are examples.
Re:Seems hollow. (Score:5, Informative)
How does first to file change anything for small inventors? If anything it makes it easier for them as they will likely not be able to prove their date of invention nor afford a costly legal battle to do so.
You do know it just means that if You and I attempt to patent the same device the patent goes to the first to file not to the first to invent right? If either of us disclose the patent first, like say publish some FOSS software, no one gets a pantent.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
... and protecting consumers with better protections against being sued for patent infringement.
How's that new? I thought consumers were exempt from these type of lawsuits. Should I have been reading patents before wasting money on my iPhone?
Do you not remember that case of the people who "invented wifi" in patent form? They went around suing small businesses using wifi. They did an interview where they were asked "have you gone after any home users?" to which they replied "not at this point".
No one is safe from the reach of their filth. It's just that suing home users probably isn't profitable. I would be curious though as to what would happen if you acquired an obvious patent and tried to sue a politician with it
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
The you clearly haven't read the law.
Section 271 of Title 35:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.
The "uses" part covers customers who have bought the infringing product. It is not common to go after the customers but it is legal and there are examples.
As an example of going after customers, see the story about patent trolls extorting money from business who use scan-to-email functionality [slashdot.org]. There are more recent stories on this subject, but this one from January is what I can find right now.
Re:What is patentable? (Score:4, Informative)
The president can quite literally change the rules about what is patentable through an executive order, however, if that would stand up in court would be questionable. The fact that changing patent law wouldn't really go against anything in the constitution directly would probably hold a lot of weight. Of course, if the president is found to have overstepped his bounds, he can always be removed from office for it as well if the offense is big enough.