I met David a few weeks ago to talk about patents and software. I have to say that coming out of that meeting I felt a lot better about things than going in.
He has good intentions. He worked hard to get provisions in the new law that would allow his office to fix the most egregious problems.
They are opening the first satellite patent office in San Jose specifically to address software and technology hardware patents.
I have to agree with him -- we need to give the new laws a chance to work. They just went into effect a few months ago.
Intentions may be good, AIA may be better than previous. But, when we have public officials that can't even articulate logically how patents enhance / protect innovation, there is a bigger problem.
It's the hill-climbing problem, and empty rhetoric, illogical propaganda and protection of special interests is preventing a policy that is far better for innovation, and the country, as a whole.
It's true that the new law needs a chance. And it's true that all or the vast majority of politicians and bureaucrats have good intentions and want things to work. And it's unfortunately a reality that someone who is part of the system (head of the PTO!) has to protect and defend the system.
The problem is that software patents are in fact fundamentally broken. Think about it this way: does it make sense that the patent rules should be the same in fields as different as software/web/internet and pharmaceuticals/biotech -- where the innovation cycle, product lifecycle, and R&D costs are so dramatically different? If we had to design the patent system from scratch, would we put in place the same rules?
The reforms may help a little on the margins. But more fundamental change is needed in the software arena.
My view is perhaps a bit limited because I'm in the software industry. Are other industries represented fairly well by the current laws and is it only the software industry that are demanding changes?
Though government is adept at yielding to special interest and industry groups, fundamental change may be difficult to hope for if the software industry is the lone voice at this point.
It's not even the software industry generally. My background is in embedded software (military radios, heavy-duty network infrastructure), and I never saw that kind of opposition. I got my degree in aerospace engineering, and even among university kids nobody ever questioned the validity of the patent system or the fact that the university took out patents, etc.
I think the difference is that most engineering industries are very capital intensive. Defending the occasional patent lawsuit doesn't seem so onerous when your capital expenditures are measured in the hundreds of millions or billions.
He might be a good guy who has chosen to work within the system, and he might be defending the system to strengthen his influence over others that are also in the system.
But there's no reason software patent critics should believe that he's solving the problems, given the history of patents in the US and the contents of this article. What he should say: "'Amazon one-click' is a low-quality patent", "we judge XX% of software patents to be low-quality", and "our reforms will reduce this to Y%". Until then, keep making noise.
Agree with a small correction: The first USPTO satellite office opened was in Detroit. After that, the USPTO announced plans to open offices in Denver, San Jose and Dallas/Fort Worth.
He has good intentions. He worked hard to get provisions in the new law that would allow his office to fix the most egregious problems.
They are opening the first satellite patent office in San Jose specifically to address software and technology hardware patents.
I have to agree with him -- we need to give the new laws a chance to work. They just went into effect a few months ago.