1. The patent term should be shorter for software patents. It should last no more than five years from the application date.
Software doesn't move that fast. The Internet is now over 30 years old. It's been 61 years since the first FORTRAN compiler. At various times in the past, aircraft technology and radio technology advanced at least as fast as computer technology. Computing is not special; it's just a currently active area.
2. If the patent is invalid or there’s no infringement, patent trolls should have to pay the winning party’s legal fees.
This provides a way for big companies to intimidate patent holders. A small patent holder can be threatened with huge legal bills. The odds of winning a patent infringement lawsuit are about 40-50%, and even if you have a strong patent, it's common to lose.
3. Patent applicants should be required to provide an example of running software code for each claim in the patent.
The USPTO has the right to demand a working model if they are not convinced the patented concept would work. At one time, they did. (Patent models are cute collectables now.) Current USPTO policy is to demand a working model only for things such as antigravity machines or perpetual motion machines. Unworkable patents do not seem to be a problem in the software area.
4. Infringers should avoid liability if they independently arrive at the patented invention.
Absolutely not. Infringers will routinely lie about that, claiming independent invention, and it's really tough to prove intent. There's a provision in current law which allows for a defense of independent invention for, I think, one year after patent issue. That's sufficient.
5. Patents and licenses should be public upon filing. Patent owners should be required to keep their public ownership records up-to-date.
Patent applications are already published at the 18 month mark.
6. The law should do more to limit damages so that a patent owner can’t collect millions if the patent represented only a tiny fraction of a defendant’s product.
A patent is the right to say "no, you can't do that". Infringers aren't entitled to practice the patent at all and then just pay damages if they lose.
7. Congress should commission a study and hold hearings to examine whether software patents
actually benefit our economy at all.
The purpose of the patent system isn't to "benefit the economy". It's to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", according to the Constitution.
As for "patent trolls", according to the EFF's own database[1], there are only a few real "patent trolls", with one firm in Texas being the big generator of threatening letters. The top firm has 15 letters in the EFF's database. (They've sent more.) There are a very small number of patents being "trolled".
The EFF was arguing for this in the previous session of Congress. Once it came out how weak their case was, the legislation was dropped.
1. The patent term should be shorter for software patents. It should last no more than five years from the application date.
Software doesn't move that fast. The Internet is now over 30 years old. It's been 61 years since the first FORTRAN compiler. At various times in the past, aircraft technology and radio technology advanced at least as fast as computer technology. Computing is not special; it's just a currently active area.
2. If the patent is invalid or there’s no infringement, patent trolls should have to pay the winning party’s legal fees.
This provides a way for big companies to intimidate patent holders. A small patent holder can be threatened with huge legal bills. The odds of winning a patent infringement lawsuit are about 40-50%, and even if you have a strong patent, it's common to lose.
3. Patent applicants should be required to provide an example of running software code for each claim in the patent.
The USPTO has the right to demand a working model if they are not convinced the patented concept would work. At one time, they did. (Patent models are cute collectables now.) Current USPTO policy is to demand a working model only for things such as antigravity machines or perpetual motion machines. Unworkable patents do not seem to be a problem in the software area.
4. Infringers should avoid liability if they independently arrive at the patented invention.
Absolutely not. Infringers will routinely lie about that, claiming independent invention, and it's really tough to prove intent. There's a provision in current law which allows for a defense of independent invention for, I think, one year after patent issue. That's sufficient.
5. Patents and licenses should be public upon filing. Patent owners should be required to keep their public ownership records up-to-date.
Patent applications are already published at the 18 month mark.
6. The law should do more to limit damages so that a patent owner can’t collect millions if the patent represented only a tiny fraction of a defendant’s product.
A patent is the right to say "no, you can't do that". Infringers aren't entitled to practice the patent at all and then just pay damages if they lose.
7. Congress should commission a study and hold hearings to examine whether software patents actually benefit our economy at all.
The purpose of the patent system isn't to "benefit the economy". It's to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", according to the Constitution.
As for "patent trolls", according to the EFF's own database[1], there are only a few real "patent trolls", with one firm in Texas being the big generator of threatening letters. The top firm has 15 letters in the EFF's database. (They've sent more.) There are a very small number of patents being "trolled".
The EFF was arguing for this in the previous session of Congress. Once it came out how weak their case was, the legislation was dropped.
[1] https://trollingeffects.org/lawfirms