While patent reform is clearly necessary, I think some of your suggestions would be counter productive. Forcing the applicant to bear the full cost of a review, for instance, would most likely prohibit individuals from participating in the process. It would create an uneven playing field where deep pockets have the advantage in obtaining protection for inventions. They could, in fact, steal inventions from those who don't try to patent them due to lack of funds, then fund their own patent and get the benefit.
The exclusive use limit you propose also seems excessively short. It may well take that long for the patent holder to get their invention through production to market, especially if they are working with limited funding. The idea of litigation involving domain experts, however, seems like it has merit. Evaluating what constitutes "prior art" and "obviousness" requires deeper understanding of technology than most folks have.
I think the real flaw lies in the granting of so many patents in the first place and the breadth of claims that those patents make.If I were to reform the patent system, I would start by upgrading the resources available to the patent examiner's office to perform as exhaustive an evaluation as possible.
Well....having 30 patents myself and seeing the hubris in claims (actually saw a prior patent claming "knowledge is good"....so in essence, EVERY patent since then is really infringing on that patent...cant wait until the "patent trolling types" get a hold of it and sues everybody on the planet).
A more interesting scenario is whether tupperware sues Apple RE "rounded corners" piece of this. After all, tupperware has had rounded corners for 50 years and the idea of "pinching" goes back 100s of years ("just this much more of something"). Sounds like alot of people will get rich on this one!!!!
I don't think so. The difference between expert testimony and a discussion is when and where it takes place. "Testimony" behind closed doors is nothing more than a discussion. A discussion under oath in front of a judge and jurors is testimony.
RS, Great observation. I've heard the same, in the context of murder trials, when jurors did their own experiments on whether a victim would/could fall in a certain way (I forget which murder case), it was enough to cause a re-trial.
There seems to be people who believe strongly on both sides of this issue. I'd be interested to know how many commenters have patents and whether they agree or disagree with the decision.
I suspect that most that disagree won't have patents but it would be interesting to find out.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.