[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[FYI] Patent Reform Pending
- To: debate@fitug.de
- Subject: [FYI] Patent Reform Pending
- From: "Axel H Horns" <horns@ipjur.com>
- Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 19:32:21 +0200
- Comment: This message comes from the debate mailing list.
- Comments: Sender has elected to use 8-bit data in this message. If problems arise, refer to postmaster at sender's site.
- Organization: NONE
- Sender: owner-debate@fitug.de
http://www.idg.net/crd_idgsearch_3.html?url=http://www.thestandard.com
/article/display/0,1151,23202,00.html
-------------------------------- CUT ---------------------------------
April 2, 2001
Patent Reform Pending
The U.S. Patent Office has cracked down on Internet business-method
patents. But critics aren't satisfied.
By Aaron Pressman
WASHINGTON – It was a symbol of the excesses of the Internet age: The
U.S. Patent and Trademark office's propensity to hand out patents for
such ideas as pop-up advertising and one-click shopping systems.
The Patent and Trademark office's willingness to grant patent
protection for what many considered to be pedestrian schemes provoked
hostility from lawmakers and industry critics who charged that the
United States government was endorsing dubious business practices. It
got so bad that that patent officials pledged in March 2000 to
subject so-called Internet business-method patent applications to
more stringent review. A year later, the agency is issuing fewer
patents. But that hasn't satisfied detractors in industry and
Congress, who will hold hearings on patent reform this month.
Since last year, the patent office has slowed down the examination
process by adding a second level of review of business-method patent
applications. The change seems to have had an effect: The percentage
of business-related patents approved this year fell to 47 percent
from 57 percent a year ago, already well below the agency's 67
percent overall approval rate.
Nevertheless, patent examiners are rejecting only about one in 20
applications after the second review. Those patents can be
resubmitted if the applicants sufficiently narrow their claims.
"What we're seeing initially is a reduction in the number of cases
allowed," says John Love, director of the Patent Office's Technology
Center. "Many of these will eventually get a patent, though."
So Internet-related business method patents are hardly dead. Just
last week the patent office granted its stamp of approval to such
loosely defined business methods as collecting data from users of
interactive television services and creating semi-anonymous online
chat forums. Even a process that creates a customized Web page based
on a user's query passed muster.
"The PTO is not designed to catch all bad patents – it just doesn't
have the time or the resources to do so," warns University of
California at Berkeley law professor Mark Lemley. He predicts that
the tech industry increasingly will turn to the courts to rule
whether obvious ideas deserve patent protection. Already a federal
appeals court has narrowed Amazon's one-click shopping-system patent.
Reviews are pending on other controversial awards, such as NetZero
(NZRO) 's patent for pop-up ads.
There's also momentum in Congress to reform patent law. Democrats are
planning to introduce legislation in the House of Representatives to
create higher hurdles for business-method patents. The law would bar
patents for known processes whose only novelty is that they are being
conducted on the Internet for the first time. A House Judiciary
subcommittee has scheduled hearings on patent reform for April 4. In
the Senate, Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) will
examine the issue at a hearing in May.
Patent Office officials won't take a stand on any proposed
legislation. But they do defend their handling of Internet-related
business-method patents and efforts to beef up the review process.
"We're going in the right direction," Love maintains.
A change in the law may not entirely succeed in eliminating the
problem, however. Clever patent attorneys will still look for
loopholes. In Europe, for instance, applicants get around a ban on
business-method patents by passing off new processes as novel
technology, according to Brad Lytle, a patent attorney in Virginia.
So a patent crackdown in the United States may leave companies fuming
– or racing to the patent office with new, improved ideas.
-------------------------------- CUT ---------------------------------