Patent (Regulation) Pending
I'm tired of partisan politics. I would say, "like most Americans", but to be honest, I have my doubts as to how much supporters from either side of the political fence really want their representatives to reach across the aisle.
So upon perusing some press releases I got excited when I came across a statement from Steven Borsand, executive vice president of intellectual property for Trading Technologies (TT), on the dangers of congressional bill H.R. 1249-or, as it's more commonly known, the America Invents Act.
This is one of those sweet, sweet moments where Republicans and Democrats can shake hands and agree on one thing: They don't want to upset the people putting money into their coffers. This is a rare example of far-left liberals uniting with far-right Tea Partiers.
On Thursday, the House passed the Act by a vote of 304-117, with 136 Democrats and 168 Republicans in favor, and 50 Democrats and 67 Republicans against. Ahhhh, bi-partisanism.
For this bill, there are two parts that I find to be most interesting (even though there are several controversial sections, including where the fees for these patents will end up). The first is Section 3, which would change our current patent-filing system from that of a First-to-Invent to a First-to-File system, meaning that it doesn't necessarily matter whether you have an as-yet invented product or not, as long as you are first in the door at the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
First-to-File is the system that is most commonly used around the world and its proponents believe that changing to this method will create more innovation and, in this current environment, perhaps most importantly, more jobs.
But opponents say that a change away from First-to-Invent will greatly favor bigger institutions that have the money to flood the USPTO with filings, and that it destroys the idea of merit being most important and will create a massive strain on the USPTO.
"Ironically, this bill is not achieving one of the main reasons for patent reform in the first-place - reducing the patent office's backlog," Borsand told me. "This bill, due to first-to-file and post-grant review procedures, will do just the opposite."
I'll be honest: I'm not so sure that a first-to-file arrangement will spell doom for the system and this could actually stimulate job growth. I could be proved wrong on this, but if first-to-file works well for the rest of the world, maybe we can stop being so hegemonic.
But the section that interests me most is Section 18, which is being called the "Bank Bailout" part of the Bill in some circles. This provision was a "last minute" add-on, according to Borsand, that was created by the banking lobby.
The reason it is potentially dangerous is because it allows "Big Banks", as Borsand puts it, to retroactively challenge business method patents (BMPs) that have already been issued to, say, a company like TT, thus requiring a firm like TT to spend a lot more time and money defending an already-tested patent. Since the Big Banks have the deep pockets, this favors them.
"Members of Congress are realizing that Section 18 got inserted into the bill at the last minute in the Senate because of the powerful financial lobby," Borsand says. "All the things that people say that are wrong in Washington D.C. with provisions getting slipped into bills for a special interest, this is a pure example of that."
The reason this provision was created, it's defenders would argue, is to allow firms to challenge "suspect" patents and that many BMPs do not fit a high-quality standard.
But the worrisome thing is that Section 18 was made specifically for the financial technology space. This rule only applies to BMPs "used in practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service."
Now, this just doesn't pass the smell test. A) The banking lobby pushed to have this section included, and B) Why is this necessary just for the fintech space? Why shouldn't this affect all other industries?
"Statements that the patent office granted ‘suspect' business method patents are unsupported and incorrect," Borsand says. "If that was the case, why is Section 18 tailored to patents covering technology just for the financial industry?"
I have to agree. Sadly, those members of the House twho voted for the Bill do not, and have allowed this - and Section 3 - to pass. Up next is the Senate.
I'm all for patent reform, but like so much else in American politics, we are trying to change something with a broad stroke rather than examining all the little pieces.
Section 18 is one of those little pieces that could become a business-threatening issue for the vendor community in the fintech space. Let's hope the Senate does the right thing and strikes Section 18...although I'm not going to hold my breath.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@waterstechnology.com or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.waterstechnology.com/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@waterstechnology.com to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@waterstechnology.com to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. Printing this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@waterstechnology.com
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. Copying this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@waterstechnology.com
More on Regulation
Court case probes open-source licenses as movement stands at crossroads
The Software Freedom Conservancy’s lawsuit against TV-maker Vizio begins trial in California, raising questions about open-source licenses and the risks posed by adhering to them.
Waters Wavelength Podcast: Countdown to T+1
DTCC’s Val Wotton joins the podcast this week to discuss the impending move to T+1 in the US.
Consolidated tape hopefuls gear up for uncertain tender process
The bond tapes in the UK and EU are on track to be authorized in 2025. Prospective bidders for the role of provider must choose where to focus their efforts in anticipation of more regulatory clarity on the tender process.
Fighting FAIRR: Inside the bill aiming to keep AI and algos honest
The Financial Artificial Intelligence Risk Reduction Act seeks to fix a market abuse loophole by declaring that AI algorithms do not have brains.
Waters Wrap: The rise of AI washing… and regulation washing?
The SEC recently levied fines against two investment advisors over “AI washing”. Anthony takes issue with the announcement.
Prepare now for the inevitable: T+1 isn’t just a US challenge
The DTCC’s Val Wotton believes that firms around the globe should view North America’s move to T+1 as an opportunity—because it’s inevitable.
European firms prime for lopsided settlement in North America and at home
With T+1 imminent in North America and increasingly likely to traverse the Atlantic, operations and trading professionals in Europe are fighting on two fronts.
As crypto ETFs become reality, benchmark providers take center stage
The SEC’s approval of the first spot bitcoin ETFs will expose a growing number of traditional market participants to the maturing world of crypto data, a moment that some—such as CF Benchmarks, BlackRock’s benchmark provider—have been eagerly awaiting.
Most read
- Women in Technology & Data Awards 2024: All the winners and why they won
- Witad Awards 2024: Above and beyond award (vendor)—Susan Bennett, Tradeweb
- Fighting FAIRR: Inside the bill aiming to keep AI and algos honest