CONTRIBUTORS
Denise Howell is a seasoned appellate and intellectual property litigator based in Los Angeles. Denise writes one of the first and most popular law-related blogs,
Bag and Baggage, coined the term "blawg" and helped pioneer podcasting for lawyers. Microcontent obsessed since 2001, she is frequently quoted in the media on legal issues involving intellectual property and technology law.
"Sound Policy" is Denise's show at
IT Conversations, and it's also what she hopes results from the briefs she submits to court. Email Denise at
dhowell@gmail.com.
Dennis Kennedy is a computer lawyer and legal technology expert based in St. Louis, Missouri. An award-winning author, a frequent speaker and a widely-read
blogger, he has more than 300 publications on legal, technology and Internet topics, many of which are collected in his e-books. Dennis has been described as someone who knows almost every rock song in existence and, more importantly, how they apply to technology and law. Email Dennis at his
gmail address.
Tom Mighell is Senior Counsel and Litigation Technology Support Coordinator at Cowles & Thompson in Dallas. He has published the Internet Legal Research Weekly newsletter since 2000 and blogged about the Internet and legal technology at Inter Alia since August of 2002. With Tom's singing, Ernie on guitar and Dennis' encylopedic knowledge of rock music, we may have the beginnings of a good band, if this whole blog thing doesn't work out. Email Tom at
tmighell@swbell.net.
Marty Schwimmer left a partnership in the largest trademark practice in the world and founded Schwimmer Mitchell, a full-service IP micro-boutique in Westchester County, New York, where he represents owners of famous and not yet famous trademarks. He founded
The Trademark Blog, the first IP law blog and the one with the most pictures. He is the first to come in and the last to leave in his firm. Email Marty at
marty@schwimmerlegal.com.
Ernest Svenson practices law with a mid-sized law firm in New Orleans, specializing in business-related lawsuits. Most of his practice takes place in federal court, especially the Eastern District. He is best known for his weblog
Ernie the Attorney, which he started as an experiment. Like many experiments it got out of control. Nevertheless, he continues to practice law and, occasionally,
to seek enlightenment. Email Ernest at
esvenson@gmail.com.
Denise Howell
Dennis M. Kennedy
Tom Mighell
Marty Schwimmer
Ernest Svenson
1. Nipper on August 17, 2005 3:12 PM writes...
My two cents on first-to-file (FTF):
http://nip.blogs.com/patent/2005/05/its_not_often_t.html
http://nip.blogs.com/patent/2005/07/first_to_fileja.html
The current system is first-to-invent (although first-to-file is presumed to be first-to-invent). Under the current system an inventor has one year from any public uses, sales, knowledge, etc. to file a patent application.
Thus, independent inventors and small busineses regularly wait for a good portion of that year to file their patent applications, refining the invention, deciding if they can afford the process, finding a patent attorney, obtaining funding, etc.
Under a FTF system...such inventors are (in my opinion) put at a great disadvantage to corporations who are on the ball, who have patent attorneys on staff, who have unlimited capital to file patent applications on, etc.
I foresee us moving to FTF within the near future...Congress is pushing pretty hard to have our patent laws harmonized with the patent laws of other countries and FTF is one of the few things that the US system is atypical on (in comparison to most other countries).
Of course, reasonable minds may differ...
[NONE OF THIS SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE. ;)]
Permalink to Comment2. Denise Howell on August 17, 2005 3:32 PM writes...
Thanks Steve. Sounds to me like first-to-file could have the net effect of exponentially increasing the number of (perhaps merely preemptive and/or tenuously supported) patent applications, and thus the (already unmanageable) workload for those at the USPTO. I suppose the argument contra is that first-to-file is designed to do away with red tape and subjectivism inherent in the current process, but I wonder if this proposed cure might not be worse than the disease?
Permalink to Comment3. Matt Buchanan on August 17, 2005 3:41 PM writes...
Denise -- I've been tracking the patent reform issue for some time. For any readers interested in the whole story, they can follow the "post topic" link that you provided and read from the bottom up.
For those not looking for a sleeping aid, I suggest they check out this post as an introduction to a few of the hot issues.
We rethinkers have had some great discussions on the reform movement and hope to discuss (and possibly even argue over) several of the key issues in coming months. We've held back so far, though, because some (really just one...) of our readers have signalled that they don't want us to sound like patent attorneys on the blog. Hmmmm. I'm sure we'll come up with a solution soon, though.
Permalink to Comment4. Matt Buchanan on August 17, 2005 3:49 PM writes...
The first-to-file initiative is being driven by an overarching movement to harmonize our patent system with the rest of the world. Some see implementation of FTF as necessary leverage for us to achieve some of our objectives in the harmonization arena.
Also, although some see it as simply semantics, it's important to note that the proposed system is not just first-to-file, but first-inventor-to-file. And that's a really interesting wrinkle...
Permalink to Comment5. Dennis Crouch on August 17, 2005 3:53 PM writes...
I made some comments on the iPod patent to a BusinessWeek reporter (http://tinyurl.com/9gygw). My prediction is that this issue will be worked out amicably between M$ and Apple. At this time, neither of these parties are in the business of actively enforcing patent rights against other major corporations.
Permalink to Comment6. Ronald J Riley on August 17, 2005 6:25 PM writes...
1) First to file brings another huge problem, namely that all those published patent applications become prior art. Junk prior art, poorly thought out, often not really workable, but each and every one become a chip in a stack of such chips which large companies can use as weapons against subsequent inventors to bludgeon them into giving up their inventions for much less or no compensation.
2) The iPod situation is a perfect example of how the real inventor would be screwed under First to File.
Ronald J Riley, President
Permalink to CommentProfessional Inventors Alliance
www.PIAUSA.org
RJR at PIAUSA.org
Main # (202) 318-2222
RJR Direct # (202) 318-1595
7. Peter Zura on August 18, 2005 12:32 PM writes...
I agree with the other posts regarding FTF (and they have inspired me to officially come out against FTF - http://271patent.blogspot.com/). The two biggest problems I see is that small companies, particularly ones that aren't patent-savvy, can get creamed if they don't devote considerable resources to tracking innovation within the company and promptly filing applications on any and every perceived advancement in their technology, regardless of their individual merit. And as far as any "cost-savings" are concerned, I don't see any cost advanges for obtaining patents under FTF (1.131 affidavits are almost always cheaper than full-blown responses), and will likely increase costs for inventors by forcing them to file applications in fear that someone else may be subterfuging their technology.
The second problem will be the further and inevitable slide in patent quality (not to mention pendency for examinations). With thousands of applicants currently flooding the USPTO, I can't see how the USPTO will be able to cope during the initial years of FTF.
WIPO has been browbeating the US for at least the last 15 years about adopting first-to-file. Like most international organizations, there is the endless desire to create a "one world" solution to all of life's problems (see, e.g., criminal courts), but they seem to provide more problems than solutions in the end. I don't see FTF as being any different.
P.S. Regarding the iPod patent applications, it has to be the most overhyped story of 2005. I can guarantee that nothing will ever become of this.
Permalink to Comment8. Lawrence B. Ebert on August 21, 2005 5:25 PM writes...
Discussion of both the patent reform bill (H.R. 2795) and the iPod/Microsoft/Apple story can be found on IPBiz.blogspot.com.
An article, "Patent Reform 2005: Sound and Fury Signifying What?" appeared in the New Jersey Law Journal, July 18, 2005, and discussed the fee diversion issue, the so-called patent quality issue, first inventor to file, and injunctions.
Permalink to Comment9. Patent attorney on June 17, 2006 7:12 PM writes...
Check out this introduction article on Patent attorney:
Permalink to Commenthttp://www.articleworld.org/Patent_attorney
10. Anonymous on December 21, 2007 8:04 PM writes...
Cool.
Permalink to Comment