Gregnews on US patent reform proposal

[PILCH Hartmut <phm@a2e.de>]

Greg's rant indicates that there might be some good elements in this.
A few extracts follow.

---------

Date: Tuesday, April 19, 2005, 7:01:37 PM
Subject: PATNEWS: 52 pages of patent reform proposed in new House bill

!20050419  52 pages of patent reform proposed in new House bill

A new patent reform bill is being circulated - 52 pages of multiple wish
lists.  For the most part, the changes will do nothing to improve issued
patent quality (in fact, I calculate that the earliest it will possible
to achieve improved patent quality at the PTO won't be until Feb. 2007).

The bill has so many controversial changes (getting rid of first-to-invent,
getting rid of best mode, getting rid of most of the grace period, add
post-grant opposition, rewrite 101/102/103, etc.) to make it unlikely it
will come to be.  This year's Congressional menu is filled with too many
more important topics, and next year you run into mid-term elections.

[...]

SECTION 101

    Rewrites Section 101, as follows.  Stuff in brackets, [], is old
language - stuff in braces, {}, is new language.

    [Whoever invents or discovers] {The inventor of}
       any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition
       of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof,
    [has the right to apply for and to] {may}
       obtain a patent
    [therefor] {for the invention},
    subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

The key change is to eliminate "discover", maybe a crackdown on people
applying patents just for gene sequences without a use.  Someone made
a crack about this part being the Genentech Act - which makes sense
since Genentech invents products.

[...]

SECTION 271(f) - COMBINATIONS, COMPONENTS

    Added to the statute is: "(3) An item supplied in or from the United
States is not a 'component' under this section unless the item is a 
tangible item that is itself combined physically with other components
to create the combination that is alleged to infringe."

    This overrules Microsoft v. Eolas - that software components are
not tangible/physical.  Sad to see Microsoft betraying physics when it
will probably win on other grounds.  There better be a ton of pages of
Congressional Report commentary explaining what the brilliant scientists
in Congress (are there any?) mean by "physical".  If it passes, I will be
filing a lawsuit on behalf of physics.  Save this semantic nonsense for
Europe.  At least the bill doesn't mention "technical effect".

----- End forwarded message -----

More about GregNews can be found at

        http://swpat.ffii.org/players/aharonian/
        http://wiki.ffii.org/SwpataharonianEn

--
Hartmut Pilch, FFII.org, Munich Office +498918979927, Brussels +3227396262
Data Processing is not a Field of Technology        http://swpat.ffii.org/
400,000 Votes + 3000 CEOs against Software Patents  http://noepatents.org/