The US patent system needs to be reformed, says Microsoft, which spends millions of dollars a year fighting intellectual property lawsuits.
Brad Smith, general counsel for the software maker, on Thursday called for reform in four areas: improving patent quality, reducing excessive litigation, improving the coordination of international patent law, and increasing the accessibility of patent laws for small companies and individuals. Smith was addressing an audience at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research in Washington.
"We have benefited substantially as an industry and a country from patent protection," Smith said. "But the combination of technological change and a globalizing economy are creating new challenges for the US patent system."
Microsoft, typically faced with an average of 35 to 40 patent lawsuits at any given time, is particularly interested in reform as it hopes to pare down the $100m it spends annually to defend itself against such suits. The software giant's interest in patent reform also comes at a time when the European Commission is exploring the introduction of US-style software patents.
The US Patent and Trademark Office has seen annual applications triple to more than 350,000 since the 1980s, Smith said. Microsoft has submitted more than 3,000 patent applications this year alone, he noted.
But funds to support the agency have not kept pace until recently, when patent user fees were increased, Smith said. Nonetheless, he called on Congress to stop the practice of channelling a large portion of the money raised from patent fees to other government uses.
"Microsoft strongly supports Congress' move toward eliminating this practice, but urges that steps be taken to put a permanent end to all fee diversion from the PTO," Smith said.
Microsoft's top legal executive also addressed the need for a special court to hear all patent cases at the federal district level, as an effort to bring consistency and predictability to patent litigation.
He also expressed a need for patent plaintiffs to demonstrate that they or their company would face irreparable harm that could not be compensated by monetary damages before a court issues a patent injunction on a defendant.
Coordination of international patent offices and their legal standards would be a good move, especially as Europe "wrestles with harmonisation across the EU," Smith said. On Monday, the of the European Union Council formally endorsed a controversial directive, which would legalise software patents. Several member states of the European Union oppose the legislation.
Smith advocated the setting up of patent offices in Europe, Japan and the United States to develop common recognition of patent reviews. One area the United States would need to change is the standard it applies in awarding patents, Smith said.
"The US is the only country in the world that applies a 'first to invent' standard for awarding patents. Every other country applies a 'first to file' standard," he said.
Finally, Smith called on the United States to eliminate patent filling fees for individuals and small businesses, saying the move could encourage more of these inventors to obtain patents.






Talkback
Don't talk to me about Software Patents, mate, I'm European.
Oh goodie, "coordination of international patent offices" wouldn't mean that if you already have a patent for something in the US you should also have it worldwide, now would it? Because that would give certain companies a huge advantage right from the get go.
Sigh, and why is it that this US patent system works so well yet needs to be overhauled?
And how good that smaller businesses should pay less patent fees. As if that is going to help when some big company is going to drag you along courts for a few years. And why build in a clause that would allow to simply pay off smaller companies and only under certain conditions?
Really, what's wrong with the old fashion way of delivering innovative solutions time and time again that the competition can't even hope to match? In a fair competitive and true to the free market spirit kind of way that is.
"The software giant wants the US patent system to be overhauled to cut down on the $100m it spends each year defending patent lawsuits"
When big companies demand so called patent reform it is really double-speak for changes to the patent system which will allow them to take others inventions with impunity. They could easily avoid spending that $100 million by licensing inventions instead of trying to litigate inventors into the ground. It is a fact that large companies often are school yard bullies who use legal thugs in suits to take others property.
This is really unfortunate, because if developed countries are to maintain their standard of living it has to be through innovation. Yet in their quest for greater short term profits some companies are destroying inventors with predatory litigation and at the same time destroying the very foundation of our inventiveness by exporting our know how and infrastructure to other countries. It is a devastating combination which must be stopped.
I am the Executive Director of www.InventorEd.org. InventorEd www.InventorEd.org is an IRS approved 501 (c) 3 non profit whose
mission is to educate aspiring inventors.
Information for new inventors is available at www.InventorEd.org/novice/.
InventorEd-L hosts a number of discussion groups for inventor-entrepreneurs. Inventors-L is for general discussions about how to proceed with your invention.
Follow the directions to subscribe at: http://www.inventored.org/forums/.
www.InventorEd.org