Patents Pending

Computerworld - Department of Let's-Try-This-Again: In my column last week about patents, I said the draft version of a new patent law would make all U.S. patent applications public after 18 months. That's true. But as Brigid Quinn of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office wrote to tell me, 90% of U.S. patent applications are already published after 18 months. The proposed law would just eliminate a current exemption for the other 10% of applications, in which the inventor promises not to file a patent application for the same invention in a foreign country. Thanks for clearing that up, Ms. Quinn.
Ron Riley has something different he wants to clear up.
Riley is an inventor. He likes patents, and not as a way of preventing anyone from using patented technology. Riley wants people to use his inventions and those of other small inventors. He just wants to get paid for his work.
Is the patent system broken? Riley doesn't think so. Will the proposed law improve things? Riley ran down a long list of provisions in the new law designed to make it easier for big companies to avoid paying for technologies created by small inventors -- something Riley says large vendors are notorious for doing.
Small inventors, big vendors, start-ups, standards organizations and customers all have skin in this game. But according to Riley, the proposed new patent law is full of proposals that benefit big vendors.
For example, making it easier to challenge patents sounds good -- who could object to spiking bad patents? But the draft law also makes it easier for deep-pocketed vendors to strangle inventors with legitimate patents, just by outspending them in court. And limiting infringement damages means even if an inventor wins a patent infringement suit, his legal costs might not be covered.
Other provisions are just bad ideas, Riley says. For example, awarding patents to the first person to file a patent application, rather than the first to invent something, sounds like it will encourage inventors to file patent applications promptly. In reality, Riley argues, it will just encourage rushed applications for half-baked inventions and result in more bad patents.
Am I convinced? Not completely. But I'm no longer so sure that the proposed patent-reform law will be good for corporate IT shops.
Will it give us fewer obvious or frivolous patents? That seems unlikely. Hiring more patent examiners for the patent office is probably a better way to clean up that process.
Will it give us a balance between what inventors need and