Google's Left and Right Hands

Google's blog recently posted a statement about how the patent system should promote innovation and criticizing "low-quality software patents" that do not provide innovation and only "stake bogus claims...." Google then goes on to say that the best strategy is to create a great portfolio. I completely agree with Google's discussion and emphasis on high quality through the patent system, and with the strategy of making a bid for Nortel's patents in order to strengthen their portfolio. However, I can't help but reflect that Google was just issued exclusive rights to "doodles" that entice users to a website. Is this the type of innovation Google pronounces in the statement on their blog? Possibly. Offhandedly, I might say that, from a programmer perspective, I am unimpressed with the patent. However, I think the doodle innovation is not found in its software, but rather as a innovation in the marketing realm. Google has created a great a marketing niche which has been successful. Note: commercial success is a secondary factor to analyzing obviousness.

First-Inventor-To-File needs a name change.

First-Inventor-To-File has part of the patent reform bill is accurate, however, the results of the change would require a better title: First-to-Disclose. Currently, disclosure of patent-eligible subject matter can stop a patent from being issued if it is more than one year prior to invention. In the proposed system, any disclosure before filing creates estoppel from allowance of the patent eligible subject matter, unless that disclosure was "derived" from the inventor. This may create disclosure wars, where individuals will disclose ideas as soon as possible in order to block their competitors from being able to obtain patent protection for their idea. However, the solution may already exist; it is the provisional application. The provisional does not require claims, but only needs a description of the invention and a pictures, if necessary. The provisional would allow innovators to obtain a protective filing date before the invention could be reduced to practice or perfected. Then that original filing could be perfected into a regular application, as long as new matter is not entered. Query whether this will induce higher quality patents?