Analyzing Congress's Multiple Approaches To Patent Reform 58
ectoman writes "Patent reform is becoming an unavoidable issue — and the United States Congress is taking note. But the scope and scale of the problem have prompted multiple legislative solutions, and keeping track of them all can be rather difficult. Mark Bohannon, Vice President of Corporate Affairs and Global Public Policy at Red Hat, provides an overview of four important legislative actions currently under consideration, offering clear and concise analysis of their goals and provisions. He also assesses their potential impacts. 'Given the widening attacks by PAEs [Patent Assertion Entities],' Bohannon concludes, 'it is essential that Congress work to produce meaningful legislation on at least the issues identified above in order to begin to stem the tide.'"
Re:Patents should be intelligible (Score:2, Informative)
A good (valuable) patent _is_ written to be understood. If you ever intend to take a patent to trial in front of a jury, you had better make it understandable by that jury. If it ain't writ, they will acquit. Any patent trial has an initial phase where lawyers from both sides argue about what the patent claims actually mean (a Markman hearing). The Judge's ruling after the Markman hearing can often be enough to bring the defendant to the bargaining table, as it makes clear how the patent language is going to interpreted at trial.
Re:Be careful what you wish for. (Score:5, Informative)
Health and Wellness should not be patentable - the drive to produce medicines will of course take dedicated researchers and the finances to power them, however this does not NEED to be aprfitable enterprise in order for it to happen. There exist a small group of very wealthy individuals who commit vast sums of money to the saving of lives with no other motive than 'it being the right thing to do' and self organizing groups of like minded donor can fill the shoes of profit motivated Big Pharma.
The argument made by Big Pharma - if we cannot monetize it, noone will do it - is as facile and pretentious as the MPAA/RIAA assertion that without their involvement music would cease.
Case in point, Sabin declined to patent his inventions in the search for a cure to polio; "costing" him an unknowable amount of revenue from all of the direct and indirect results from vaccination techniques and science. However, because of his unwillingness to patent, MILLIONS of people were and continue to be spared from debilitating and fatal diseases.
Yes, if we abolish medical patents, there will be a loss of future revenues for Big Pharma investors and speculators. Investors and speculators should be aware that there is risk of loss of any and all of thier funding through unforseen but inevitable changes to the marketplace. Tuff Shit! thats what happens to investors.
But how many lives will be saved in the short and long term by the transfer of medical research from patent hungry, financially motivated, greedy investors and replaced by TAX EXEMPT donations to medical research teams dedicated to a cure?!
I can't wait to see