ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

Difference between revisions of "Minor reform proposals in the USA"

(2013: * [http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/04/moving-forward-congress.html Patent Reform Moving Forward in Congress], 1 April 2014, '''Patently-O''')
(* [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/fight-against-patent-trolls-flags-in-the-senate-but-states-push-ahead/ Ten states pass anti-patent-troll laws, with more to come], 15 may 2014, '''Ars Technica''')
Line 4: Line 4:
 
==2014==
 
==2014==
  
 +
* [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/fight-against-patent-trolls-flags-in-the-senate-but-states-push-ahead/ Ten states pass anti-patent-troll laws, with more to come], 15 may 2014, '''Ars Technica'''
 
* [http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/04/moving-forward-congress.html Patent Reform Moving Forward in Congress], 1 April 2014, '''[[Patently-O]]'''
 
* [http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/04/moving-forward-congress.html Patent Reform Moving Forward in Congress], 1 April 2014, '''[[Patently-O]]'''
  

Revision as of 20:45, 16 May 2014

Weak "reform" bills are frequently proposed in the USA. At best, some can be called a step in the right direction but even those proposals carry the problem of distracting people from real solutions such as excluding software from patentability or shielding software from litigation. The America Invents Act, adopted in 2011, is a good example. It took five years of work to get it adopted, and it has had no noticeable effect on software patents.

2014

2013

Three such steps in the right direction were proposed in 2013:

Neither are close to being strong enough to justify using your time to support these instead of abolition.

In the state of Vermont, there's also a proposal:

2012

This was better than the 2013 proposals.

Related pages on ESP Wiki

External links

References