TMCnet Feature Free eNews Subscription
July 31, 2013

Exec Offers Suggestions on How to Fix US Patent Law

By Paula Bernier, Executive Editor, TMC

In an upcoming guest column in TMC’s INTERNET TELEPHONY magazine, CallCopy (News - Alert) president and CEO Jeff Canter says the U.S. patent system is broken and offers his prescription on how to fix it.



He recommends what he calls seven simple changes to stem the unchecked growth of exploitive litigation.

Software patents should last no longer than five years from the application date, according to Canter. “Currently, patents last 20 years, which is an outdated timeframe given the pace of software innovation. Patent lengths should reflect the speed of innovation within individual industries,” he explains.


Image via Shutterstock

If a patent is invalid or there is no infringement, the plaintiff should be responsible for the legal fees, he says. “Trolls and predatory tech companies frequently use the threat of a protracted legal battle to blackmail alleged infringers into an out-of-court settlement, even though the defendant would probably win in court,” notes Canter. “Making the plaintiff responsible will discourage this abuse.” 

Canter also suggests that patent applicants be required to provide an example of running software code for each claim in the patent. “If a patent troll lacks the ability to implement a software concept, why does it deserve a patent? Do I deserve a patent for a hovering skateboard that I cannot create? Absolutely not,” he concludes. “This requirement would prevent trolls from patenting concepts and processes that they intend to exploit rather than produce. This will let great thinkers and inventors actually bring these ideas to market.”

And he says that infringers should not be liable for independently arriving at a patented invention. “Software code is mathematics; therefore, it should come as no surprise that multiple people often reach the same or similar code,” he says. “Making such independent innovators liable is like accusing a student of plagiarism because he or she solved a math problem but submitted the exam after another student. You should not be able to patent common sense processes and single-answer solutions.”

To learn about Canter’s other three suggestions to fit U.S. patent law, and get more background on current patent rules and challenges, check out the Guest Room column in the upcoming October issue of INTERNET TELEPHONY.

Attending the SUITS Conference, colocated with ITEXPO (News - Alert) Vegas, is another opportunity to learn more about patent law. SUITS stands for Synopsis under IP/Patents Telecom Sourcing.




Edited by Alisen Downey
» More TMCnet Feature Articles
Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. [Free eNews Subscription]
SHARE THIS ARTICLE

LATEST TMCNET ARTICLES

» More TMCnet Feature Articles