US Patent reform & the Sony Bono Patent Term Extension Act(?) (UPDATED 29 April 2005)

There was a Senate Subcommittee on Intellectual Property Hearing on the US patent system on 25 April.

The head of the US Patent Office, Jon Dudas, reportedly endorsed some key reforms to the US patent system His testimony is here. (pdf). In particular he seems to support:

• adoption of the first to file system (rather than giving the patent to the first person to invent, as they currently do (the rest of the world uses first to file) (generally supported, although the usual concerns about the effect on small inventors were raised)
• adoption of some kind of post-grant review (perhaps like the EU opposition system) (generally supported, but differences remain on the details of the system - particularly on when opposition should be allowed)

For other testimony, and a perspective on the hearings, have a wander over to the Promote the Progress Blog (multiple links and info titbits there). For those interested in the software patent debate, you might be interested in looking at this testimony (from Intel/Business Software Alliance). According to Buchanan, the themes of the hearing were:

There is widespread support among users of the patent system for several major reform measures, including both administrative reforms and litigation reforms.
Substantial differences of opinion exist on a few of the proposed reform measures, including proposed changes to the injunctive relief provisions of the patent laws.
International harmonization of patent laws is one of the driving forces behind the current reform efforts.
There is a seemingly unanimous belief amongst users of the patent system that adequate and stable funding (using the words of Michael Kirk) for the Patent and Trademark Office is critical to the success of any reforms that are eventually enacted.
Politicians appear ready and willing to tackle the issue.

A few reforms of the US patent system are well overdue. In particular, Buchanan's suggestions that there were talks about the automatic injunctions that lie at the heart of the problems in the US with 'evergreening' are very welcome.

But slightly more concerning is the suggestion in the CNet story:

'Other legislative possibilities include lengthening the duration of a patent, currently 20 years. "I've begun to wonder whether the time for the patent is an adequate time," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.'

You see, patent term (20 years) looks just so unfair beside the copyright term (life of the author plus 70 years). Aren't inventors just as important (if not more important) than those scruffy creative types who hang around in attics painting weird stuff? Come on! Surely patents should be longer. In fact, why shouldn't patents last forever minus a day? (ok, please note the ironic tone of this paragraph! But can't you just see the debate? Hopefully this suggestion from one lone senator is not serious. There's plenty of inventions, after all, where 20 years is way too long - software-related or computer-related inventions is one that springs to mind. Note also that a 20 year term is NOT the term for everyone anymore - lots of pharmaceutical patents can get extended to compensate for the period where they are seeking regulatory approval and can't enter the market)

UPDATE: According to Buchanan, "the duration of the patent term is not a serious component of the current reform effort, nor is it likely to become one". Phew. Thanks Matt.