President Obama Says Patent Reform Needs to Go Farther

February 15, 2013

  • February 15, 2013 at 1:22 pm
    Bill says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 5
    Thumb down 0

    So much for the small inventor, backbone of American entrepreneurship.
    No way he can survive against Big Business.
    Bill Price

  • February 15, 2013 at 1:29 pm
    Scott Romoser says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 17
    Thumb down 2

    Hmmm…how about tort reform Mr. President?

  • February 15, 2013 at 1:56 pm
    Dave says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 16
    Thumb down 2

    Taking on the really tough issues affecting the country I see.

  • February 15, 2013 at 2:11 pm
    Doubting Thomas says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 12
    Thumb down 4

    So, I come up with an idea for an invention, draw up a schematic, but do not manufacture the product. That is the basic underpinning of a patent.

    A company can come along and say that as I do not manufacture the product, I cannot claim the patent.

    I own the idea, but as I created it, should I not be financially rewarded if a company decides to use my patent?

    Obama’s friends/donors at GE and the like must be pushing him to wreck the patent system for big business.

  • February 17, 2013 at 4:54 pm
    anon the mouse says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 8
    Thumb down 0

    Sounds to me like another misguided Obama administration attempt at curing a disease by treating a co-related symptom. The true ailment canonly be cured by relavent Tort Reform.

  • February 24, 2013 at 4:23 pm
    Eric J Weibel, RPLU says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 0

    Obama didn’t really address the problem in his discussion – the inherant problem with most software and business method patents, and the perverse economics of patent troll litigation. Oh and of course submarine patents.

    In the administration’s brief on CLS v. Alice, they appeared to take a pretty reasonable tack, but included a provision that would effectively gut a district court judge’s ability to deconstruct patent claims where it is clear that an abstract idea is being dressed up as something patentable via “the draftsman’s art.”

    So basically it appears to me they are providing themselves cover, which many are unable or unwilling to see through (you know, people who don’t like software patents but fawn over him because he knows how to use a smart phone and uses facebook in his political campaigns), and then enabling things to go on as they were before – where you have to spend at least $2M to defeat an abstract idea that’s been dressed up as something patentable by an attorney.

    We are working on some additional way’s to insure against some risk . But there is only so much insurance can do. What happens in CLS v Alice, and also the tack any new Judges to the appeals court take, are going to be pretty critical.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


More News
More News Features