Patents 2.0 Continued
By Lee A. Hollaar
First Published February 2006
One of the
most important aspects of patent protection
is its disclosure requirement. The technology being
patented must be described in detail, and it can be
added to the prior art used to examine later patents or
serve as a source of information to those interested in
a particular technology. Software patents have remained
a problem in the United States partly because there was
a period when the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office was
viewed as hostile to them. So techniques from the early
period of computer applications are not in the patent
office's prior art collection, thus increasing the
likelihood of its issuing bad software patents.
What is needed is a new form of protection that can
be used in lieu of a patent or until a patent is
granted. IEEE-USA, through its Intellectual Property
Committee, currently chaired by Andrew Greenberg, has
long recognized the need for a new form of protection
for fast-moving technology, and a number of countries
have a "petty patent," which provides limited,
short-term protection. Australia, for example, recently
revised its patent laws to create an "innovation patent"
[see "Patents Lite: Aussies Pioneer a Cheap and Easy Way
to Protect Inventions," Invention, November 2004].
However, because the innovation patent appears simply
to trade off a reduced term for a lower standard of
patentability, and petty patents often exclude
technologies such as software where they could have the
greatest benefit, they should not be adopted as a way of
addressing software patent problems.
Instead, a new "limited patent" should be developed
that grants protection from the moment the technology is
first used in commerce. The primary purpose of the
limited patent would be to provide immediate protection
for technology that—once on the market—could otherwise
be copied by a competitor before regular patent
protection could be secured. Inventions not actually
available in the marketplace would not be protected.
Protection would last for four years, enough time to
establish a market and about the time required to
process a regular patent application today. That would
allow inventors to have immediate protection against
knockoffs of a technology even as they try to get
broader protection by meeting the more stringent
requirements for a conventional patent. It would also
encourage further innovation, because new features could
get their own four-year protection.
«
Previous
Page 2 of 3
Next
»