I think the US should move towards a system where multiple patents are awarded for the same invention.
For example:
Lab A and B are all working independently on a project.
1. Lab A files first and receives a patent. If without reading the patent or knowing of the details of the invention, Lab B manages to re-invent the same technology they will receive a patent as well.
2. Lab A invents first, but doesn't file. Later Lab B files for a patent it wins one as Lab A's work hadn't been described via the patent office. Lab A can still file for a patent if they can prove that their invention came first.
Essentially it seeks to turn the patent from a monopoly grant to a cartel grant, thereby rewarding invention regardless of when it occurs.
If a patent holder wants to ensure protection for their work, they need to file first and extensively publicize their filing as such no one can claim spontaneous re-invention as is the case with many software products.
> If a patent holder wants to ensure protection for their work, they need to file first and extensively publicize their filing as such no one can claim spontaneous re-invention as is the case with many software products.
In other words, billion dollar companies get all the SW patents.
HP can "extensively publicize" for almost nothing by piggybacking on other things that they do. Small companies and individuals can't.
IBM, for example, has numerous publications that would qualify. (They send them to every CS department library as well as other subscribers.)
What? You don't keep up with the literature?
I used to look at every tech report that Stanford CS received. That became impossible in the late 80s and things have only gotten worse.
> In other words, billion dollar companies get all the SW patents.
All? No, they only get patents for those things that they invent.
It cuts both ways, the bigger you are the more liable the newly empowered patent bureau is to say that you could have easily found the existing patented invention.
On the other hand, since multiple parties can hold patents and subsequently re-licence them it will be easy for a a company, large or small, to protect other parties from patent trolls.
The something obnoxious like the famed "one click" patent would have multiple holders, and any could simply give a universal grant to it.
In the worst case scenario, which I don't think is plausible then the current status quo is maintained for some patents. A large company invents, files it, then publicizes it.
P.S.
I think that business form patents patents like the one-click should be null-in-void in any country.
>> In other words, billion dollar companies get all the SW patents.
> All? No, they only get patents for those things that they invent.
As I pointed out, the "extensive publication" requirement is a significant obstacle for everyone else, so they won't get SW patents. Thus, all of the SW patents go to big companies.
> The something obnoxious like the famed "one click" patent
"obnoxious"? That's your objection to one click?
What's wrong with novelty/prior art and non-obvious?
In every other field, recognizing that there is a problem and patenting a broad-swath of mechanisms to solve it is considered good. Why is software different?
And yes, I'm familiar with James Bessen's work. I introduced his EE380 talk at Stanford.
For example:
Lab A and B are all working independently on a project.
1. Lab A files first and receives a patent. If without reading the patent or knowing of the details of the invention, Lab B manages to re-invent the same technology they will receive a patent as well.
2. Lab A invents first, but doesn't file. Later Lab B files for a patent it wins one as Lab A's work hadn't been described via the patent office. Lab A can still file for a patent if they can prove that their invention came first.
Essentially it seeks to turn the patent from a monopoly grant to a cartel grant, thereby rewarding invention regardless of when it occurs.
If a patent holder wants to ensure protection for their work, they need to file first and extensively publicize their filing as such no one can claim spontaneous re-invention as is the case with many software products.