Talk:Leahy–Smith America Invents Act/Archive 1

Deletion from Post-grant opposition section
I have made substantial changes and additions to the Post-grant opposition section. As part of my changes I deleted the statement that "the legislation does not extend the lost life of a patent that is proven valid, thereby reducing the incentive to invent". I deleted this because, as I read the current law and H.R. 1249, none of the life of a patent that is proven valid is lost through either post-grant review or inter partes review. If you disagree and can describe such a situation, please post on this discussion page. I think this is the best way to ensure that our wikipedia article is accurate. ChagSameach (talk) 03:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing that meets WP:V, WP:RS -- June 2011
Most of the many references, websites and sources listed in the article don't provide the kind of verification needed for such a long, complex article, especially one written almost entirely by new, single-purpose-account editors, so I am starting a list of reputable news reporting that can be used to source this article. Please feel free to add to the list or discuss edits as they are added or deleted. Flowanda | Talk 05:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Serious NPOV Fail
Nowhere in the article does it mention the 75% savings the micro inventor gets, this is a blatant omission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.229.74.70 (talk) 23:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, serious NPOV fail big time, including the editing. I added cited references to over $7000 of savings in net patent fees for the small inventor of which were subsequently edited out. No explanation. Was the citing wrong, data wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.229.74.70 (talk) 23:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't delete it, but I would question any reference to a savings of $7k based on the micro-entity development. Costs for filing a patent application are largely with attorney fees.Toddsullivan (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The sentence in the preceding paragraph "Patent application are largely with attorney fees" is an invalid assumption considering 1) an individual can file a patent without an attorney or agent, and by law, the individual inventor can request an examiner to write their claim for them. Attorneys and agents are never required to file patents, they only exist to assist the inventor (or more likely large corporation).  You do not have to have an attorney or agent represent you in order to successfully file and prosecute a patent case, just as an individual can represent themselves in court.  See "Patent It Yourself" 15th Edition, by David Pressman, a U.S. Patent Attorney and former U.S. Patent Examiner.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.38.113.183 (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

There is an assumption in the "Costs for filing a patent application are largely with attorney fees" note. It was based (assumptions have no basis) on the identified $7k figure. An indepedent inventor can file US utility application by writing it on their own by paying a government fee of $530 (small entity fee) (where is this util app fee on the fee schedule at USPTO? I don't see it..  I see a $190 small entity app fee). Once allowed, an issue fee of $870 (small entity fee) must be paid to the government to allow the case. For a pro se applicant, paying a micro-entity fee (75% of the standard fee) under the new rules instead of the small entity fee (50%) as has been the practice is a savings of $700 (your first fee of $530, I don't know where you got it, the util app fee for small entity is $190.). Other fees can be incurred along the way, like a publishing fee ($300), request for continued examination ($465 small entity), maintenance fees ($565, $1425, $2365 for the 4th, 8th, and 12th years, respectively), but a pro se applicant wasn't paying $7k over the 20 year life of the patent under the old system, so I assumed the $7k savings for the new system was errantly calculated by adding in attorney expense (that is a stretching assumption, considering attorney fees would be highly dependent on the complexity of the application). Since the link was reposted, I read the article (good!). The author was comparing large entity fees and micro-entity fees, but that seems to inaccurately assess the change to the new system (agreed). Small entities previously had a 50% savings and all micro-entities qualified as small entities, so the change to a 75% savings is only an added benefit of 25% (the % difference is 25% agreed, but what does this really represent?). Further, the Act also hiked all fees 15%, so a micro-entity tomorrow (or whenever the PTO director starts allowing entities to enjoy the micro-entity savings) is only saving 10% off what he or she was paying a month ago (I disagree with the 10% off, the net effect of before and after is actually 42% off, see caculations and table below, if you can check, and agree, maybe we can include this in the wikipedia entry, or hopefully you won't remove it...). The $7k is misleading (agreed). (agreed, but it was also misleading to erase the new savings, without replacing it with actual corrected savings calculations.) Toddsullivan (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

From the very useful above paragraph discussion, here is my table of calculations in savings before and after for micro-entity (all please comment find errors, if we are able to make it accurate, maybe we can include/keep in the entry):

USPTO Fee Type	Small Entity Fee (Before 15% Surcharge)	New Micro Entity (Including 15% Surcharge, & 75% off of total with surcharge)	Savings in Fees for the Micro Entity (Small Inventor) Basic Utility Fee	 $165 	 $95 	 $70 Utility Search Fee	 $270 	 $155 	 $115 Utility Exam Fee	 $110 	 $63 	 $48 Issue Fee	         $755 	 $435 	 $320 3.5 year Maintenance Fee $490 	 $283 	 $208 7.5 year Maintenance Fee $1,240 $713 	 $528 11.5 year Maintenance Fee $2,055 $1,183	 $873

TOTALS	         $5,085 $2,925	 $2,160 % Net Savings for Micro-Entity Inventor over previous system =				42%

What's up with this article and all the trash talk about how a well funded infringer can go around crushing startups. This is seriously speculative stuff. Unless there is some empirical proof on this point, I suggest that this article be better balanced. While Wikipedians might be against patents generally, we operate in a society that has multiple perspectives and nothing is gained by thoughtless, biased rhetoric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.71.138 (talk) 03:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not purely speculative. This has been happening for at least a century. E.g. Tesla, Armstrong, Farnesworth, etc. Learn your history. 70.89.174.157 (talk) 05:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see the paragraph following the one discussing a well-funded infringer: Avistar and Microsoft. Purpuse (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this article seems massively biased against the AIA. ~23 citations of opponents' viewpoint vs. ~6 for proponents. The sheer word count assessing both POV seems even more skewed in favor of opponents. SanchoPanza (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Whose fault is that? Proponents have not had their advocacy deleted (advocacy? How is what is stated in the law, specifically, H.R. 1249 Sec. 11 where Subsection (h) of Section 41 of Title 35 U.S.S. (3) REDUCTION OF FILING FEES of "75%" is considered advocacy?  Or maybe you wish to pretend it's advocacy?)(I have, the 75% micro ((about $7000 total in net fees)) inventor savings on patent fees I added was deleted!  The person who edited it probably did not like it? For the small inventor, the 75% fee reduction is very (incredibly) substantial in helping them get intellectual property rights established to compete against deep pocket corporations). Not all issues have equal amounts of things to be said pro & con (Yes, this especially makes sense when people delete many pro arguments, probably because they just don't like them, even they are backed up by references). There is a lot to be said against this bill (and perhaps even more for it). The proponents have the benefit of lobbyists (as well as individual people and individual micro entity inventors, as well as universities, these are people not just "lobbyists") to deliver their point of view directly to congress. The opponents don't, so they express it here and on other blogs that congress doesn't read. 70.89.174.157 (talk) 05:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, "[they] express it here" is WP:OR and as such is not allowed in Wikipedia. Article clearly needs severe cleanup. Ipsign (talk) 06:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Clean-up, phase I
Yes, the $7000 worth of savings in patent fees got removed, why? Was the cited reference wrong, or data wrong? This also needs to be in the beginning of the article as one of the more substantial parts of the act beyond just "first to file", because a 75% reduction in patent fees to the small inventor is huge, or is this too incriminating against the major NPOV fail of this whole article? The edits are starting to have major NPOV fail also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.229.74.70 (talk) 23:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Phew, I've finally managed to complete what I consider "phase I" of clean-up of this article. I've tried to include remove most obvious WP:OR and WP:SYN (if something got removed as "collateral damage", let's discuss). The next part should be more detailed analysis of surviving references and their contents, with some clean-up and more precise attribution of statements in the article to references. I am not sure that I will have time for it myself, so help would be greatly appreciated. Ipsign (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The page is in desperate need of an overhaul. I'm not really familiar with the subject but I'd be happy to do copy-editing etc. -Cntras (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * One thing which IMHO would be useful, is going through statements in 'advocacy' and checking if they're *directly* supported by referenced sources or not. The whole 'advocacy' section was 99% WP:OR/WP:SYN, and I've spent quite a few hours eliminating most obvious WP:OR and WP:SYN, but I feel there is still lots of it there :-(. Full-scale rewriting would certainly be a good thing, but honestly, I don't have enough guts to do it myself (while IP is area which I'm routinely dealing with, I am certainly not an IP lawyer). Ipsign (talk) 14:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a fair amount of information in this article that is not directly related to the law and it more appropriate to other related articles such as patent. I'm starting to clean up.--Nowa (talk) 23:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

OpenSource.com
Red Hat, for whom I work, runs OpenSource.com which includes Erick Robinson's blog on this bill. http://opensource.com/law/11/4/patent-reform-bills-little-reform -- ke4roh (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will try to use. Ipsign (talk) 06:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

...various FTF regimes in place in the rest of the world...
This section is very oblique. What is the definition of the "rest of the world" ? I certainly can't believe that it is all but the US or even the majority. --79.168.6.93 (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Believe it. No other country operates using a first-to-invent system. Robert K S (talk) 22:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Impact and Reaction
The Impact and Reaction section of the article seems to cover how people felt about the bill while it was working its way through Congress. Now that it's been passed, I think the section should be focused on the law itself. I've started to look for references articulating what supporters say, but I haven't been able to find many. Most of the supporters are White House employees or legislators. I suppose that's worth including, but the article would be much better if other stakeholders were also included, such as industry organizations, corporations, advocacy groups, economists etc. If someone can drop direct links in here, then we can work them into the article.--Nowa (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

These articles seem to give an indication of the impact that the new patent reform bill is having on different groups:

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/07/04/in-a-bill-wall-street-shows-clout/?scp=1&sq=new%20patent%20law%20impact&st=cse -focuses mostly the section 18 of the bill and its impact on larger business firms. http://www.businessinsider.com/new-patent-law-and-its-impact-on-small-businesses-2011-9 -focuses on the impact of large corporations and small businesses. http://www.chi.org/uploadedFiles/CHI%20Patent%20Law%20changes%20paper.pdf -an explanation of the impacts on biomedical patents. --Hattring (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * From the New York Times, July 4th, 2011
 * From Business Insider, Sept. 26th, 2011
 * From the California Healthcare Institute

35 USC 102
It seems that the article lacks a summary of the changes to 35 USC 102 (new definition of prior art). --Edcolins (talk) 07:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * True. There seems to be a lot of controversy around the exceptions of 102 (b).  I've been relying on the blogs (patentlyO, IPwatchdog) as the most authoritative source.  I haven't seen much in terms of conventional publications on the subject, however.--Nowa (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We should wait for sources that comply with WP:RS. Blogs are largely not considered reliable sources: "...self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." (from WP:BLOGS) --Edcolins (talk) 16:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

NOTE ON TABLE IN REGARD TO OTHER FEES
I really feel the point about what the act doesn't change is irrelevant to this article. I seem to recall we discussed it before, but I'm still going to go ahead and delete it. We can pick up the subject again here if needed.--Nowa (talk) 12:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

What an expert thinks.
I have written a book on this subject, given multiple presentations including to international audiences on the subject, and have been following patent reform closely since 2004. This article has too many odd-ball, idiosyncratic material. It has no coherent order. There are a number of possible ways to organize the topics. One would be to go chronologicaly, as parts of the bill have taken effect already, procedural changes take effect on September 16, 2012, and First-to-File (or make public) takes effect on March 16, 2013. Another would be to go section-by-section through the statute. The hardest would be to go through 35 U.S.C. and explain the changes from beginning to end.

Insufficient attention is given to the fact that two patent systems will coexist for about 20 years. Patents under the old system stay under the old system.

There is no clear target audience to guide editorial judgment. A businessman? A non-patent lawyer? An engineer? A layperson? There need to be a lot of qualifiers. The article says that interferences are being eliminated, but every patent filed under the old system or that has priority to one will have interferences. That will give interferences at least another 10 years to live after March 16, 2013.

I can't spare the time to fix it, but thought this might help someone.

Some resources: http://www.grayonclaims.com/storage/PatentLaw2011FourthEditionOct26REV.pdf http://www.chisum.com/wp-content/uploads/AIAOverview.pdf http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/index.jsp http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/issues_patentreformact2011.html http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41638.pdf http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/R?cp112:FLD010:@1(hr284)

The first two are respected scholars in the field, The fas.org is a Congressional Research Service report. The Thomas reference is the only substantive (not budgetary) legislative report on the bill. If one is interested in what Congress had to say about why they were doing things (neutral point of view?) that is the place to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChicagoCurmudgeon (talk • contribs) 16:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Useful resource
I don't have the time to work on this article myself, but I just read a helpful review of the topic in Physics Today and thought it was a clear and detailed description of how this act changes the patent system. As it is a secondary source written for non-experts, it might be useful to editors here. For one thing, this reference describes the Leahy-Smith paradigm as not "first-to-invent" but not "first-to-file" either, but rather something in between that he calls "first-inventor-to-file". Cheers, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the article really ought to mention who is the namesake "Smith". --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

A possible reference
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/technology/mark-stadnyk-challenges-sweeping-revision-in-patent-law.html?pagewanted=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120828 is an article in the NYT. It is itneresting, but I don't know if it is appropriate as a ref. Comments? Kdammers (talk) 11:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Just because they call it "reform" doesn't mean it is.
"patent reform"...America Invents Act, vers 2.0, 3.0...

“This is not a patent reform bill” Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) complained, despite other democrats praising the overhaul. “This is a big corporation patent giveaway that tramples on the right of small inventors.”

Senator Cantwell is right. All these bills do is legalize theft. Just because they call it “reform” doesn’t mean it is. The paid puppets of banks, huge multinationals, and China continue to brain wash and bankrupt America.

They should have called these bills the America STOPS Inventing Act or ASIA, because that’s where they’re sending all our jobs.

The patent bill (vers 2, 3, etc) is nothing less than another monumental federal giveaway for banks, huge multinationals, and China and an off shoring job killing nightmare for America. Even the leading patent expert in China has stated the bill will help them steal our inventions. Congress passed it and Obama signed it. Who are they working for??

Patent reform is a fraud on America. Congress and Obama are both to blame. This bill will not do what they claim it will. What it will do is help large multinational corporations maintain their monopolies by robbing and destroying their small entity and startup competitors (so it will do exactly what the large multinationals paid for) and with them the jobs they would have created. The bill will make it harder and more expensive for small firms to get and enforce their patents. Without patents we cant get funded. In this way large firms are able to play king of the hill and keep their small competitors from reaching the top as they have. Yet small entities create the lion's share of new jobs. According to recent studies by the Kauffman Foundation and economists at the U.S. Census Bureau, “startups aren’t everything when it comes to job growth. They’re the only thing.” This bill is a wholesale destroyer of US jobs. Those wishing to help fight this bill should contact us as below.

Small entities and inventors have been given far too little voice on this bill when one considers that they rely far more heavily on the patent system than do large firms who can control their markets by their size alone. The smaller the firm, the more they rely on patents -especially startups and individual inventors. Congress and Obama tinkering with patent law while gagging inventors is like a surgeon operating before examining the patient.

Those wishing to help fight big business giveaways and set America on a course for sustainable prosperity, not large corporation lobbied poverty, should contact us as below and join the fight as we are building a network of inventors and other stakeholders to lobby Congress to restore property rights for all patent owners -large and small.

Please see http://truereform.piausa.org/default.html for a different/opposing view on patent reform. http://docs.piausa.org/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.179.138.197 (talk) 14:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

article needs major refactoring
This article needs major refactoring and updating now that the AIA has been passed and there's no serious repeal effort. Specifically, the arguments pro/con (section titled "Reactions during bill's pendency") need to be (1) moved into the legislative history; switched to the past tense (e.g. "opponents arguED"); and (3) shortened by perhaps 50% to reflect WP:UNDUE. I will do (1) and (2) but I have neither the time nor the accumulated expertise to do (3). Perhaps someone who was involved in balancing the policy arguments while the bill was pending can help out? Thanks in advance. --Nstrauss (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I also note that the pervasive bias identified by other editors still exists. The policy debate reads as heavily one-sided for the opposition. There are lots of loaded words supporting the opposition's arguments, and there's simply not enough balance between the two sides. However since I believe the problem is limited to the policy debate, and the other issues seem to revolve around neutrality, so I'm going to switch the multiple issues tag to a POV-section tag. --Nstrauss (talk) 17:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

"first inventor to file"
"First inventor to file" is, as far as I know, a made-up political spin phrase, not a real term. The article presents it as though it is a real term. Should the standard term "first to file" be used to describe the system? 208.74.117.9 (talk) 13:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Very little actual information presented
As a casual reader coming here for information, I found this relatively worthless. Nearly every paragraph begins with the words "critics" or "opponents". I came here for information on the Act, and instead found endless ramblings citing some huffy old men who didn't want it to pass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.133.42.70 (talk) 11:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Complaints
This article contains a number of acronyms which are not explicitly defined (eg FTI, FTFG, FTF).

This article voices points of view such as "The world is very competitive place. There are plenty of bright, highly motivated individuals and capable research institutions outside the U.S. If H.R. 1249 becomes law and U.S. venture funding is diverted to other investments, theses individuals and institutions will invent the technologies of the future, and the companies that grow up around these technologies will develop abroad."

"This whole page currently reads like a press release - it's pretty non-NPOV. 130.102.137.84 (talk) 06:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

This article really need entirely rewriting as it is completely NPOV and has a very heavy anti-reform bias. This seriously limits the usefulness of the the article. As a result I have flagged it as requiring a POV review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.98.70.14 (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

If people perceive the article to be unbalanced, then the solution should be to add the opposing viewpoints as counterweights to bring it back into balance, not the removal of important perspectives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.164.241 (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits/reverts
Editors take note: In WP:QUOTEFARM: Using too many quotes is incompatible with the encyclopedic writing style...Do not insert any number of quotations in a stand-alone quote section. The addition of lengthy quotes (many of which constitute an entire paragraph) is clearly a violation of this policy. Is largely redundant and is in violation of WP:NOTLINK. I'm sure that there are hundred of organisations - but is it really necessary to list them on this article? What purpose would it serve? Also, most of the organisations fail the general notability guideline.
 * Quotes
 * For/Against section

It appears that not only is the article substantially non-neutral, but that edits of cited quantitative data on savings was removed for unknown reasons. Details on a net savings of well over $7000 in patent fees was included in the for and against section but then subsequently removed. It is highly relevant to detail the substantial monetary savings in patent fees for the micro inventor. For an inventor without the financial capability, a 75% reduction in patent fees is a potential catalyst to over come the greatest impediment, financial challenge, of the small inventor. Everyone is welcome to edit, regardless of their particular views regarding the Invents Act. Do it constructively and in accordance with Wikipedia policies.

Why was my table note removed? I put it back, because I haven't seen an explanation why it was removed. Please provide an explanation. I will persist to keep it in until I am told why it was removed and for just cause.
 * John: The note on pro se representation was removed since it is already covered at Patent_prosecution.  If you feel that the patent prosecution article doesn't cover pro se representation well enough, especially the economic aspects, then your material should be added there with at least one suitable reference.  This article should be devoted exclusively to the new law.--Nowa (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Nowa, I agree that the article needs to be focused on the new law, however, this article is full of information of before and after the law. How else can you know the effect without stating the before and after what has changed, and what has not changed is all part of it.  To delete relevant contextual information is misleading on your part, especially considering the financial aspects of individual inventors of which is critically relevant, and thus I see no justification in your reason to remove it.  I'll re-write the note to state that this fact that there is no change in this regard with respect to the new law, that attorneys and agents are never required to successfully prosecute a patent application and that this has not changed with due respect to the new law.

-Cntras (talk) 11:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The For/Against section is unique and does not exist elsewhere. There are not hundreds of organizations that have expressed an opinion about this.  It serves a valuable purpose insofar as it is valuable for interested people and Congress to know that there is lots of opposition to this, but those opponents don't have a voice.  This web page is one of the few places where one can discover the degree of opposition.  The proponents have lobbyists and PR firms, but the opponents don't. Thus this listing is even more important.LadyArguer (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (Note - I moved LadyArguer's comment from the middle of Cntras's post to below it and indented it for readability. No changes were made) Ravensfire ( talk ) 18:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As that section is currently written, it's something I'd expect to see on a blog post, not an encylopedia. Views should be summarized and cited, with highlights of exceptional comments or from very notable people actually quoted.  Many of the quotes don't even mention who said them or provide any context around the quote.  That's not good writing.  If that's actually one massive quote from one person, I'd like to see some really good reasons to keep it, beyond WP:ILIKEIT.  See WP:UNDUE.  The Financial Service section appears to have the potential for value, but right now it doesn't help the article.  Summarize and chop it to at most a quarter of it's current length.


 * The for/against section can probably be summarized to a large extent - what type of entities are generally pro? generally against?  Exceptions to that rule?  We're not here to right great wrongs, but describe the situation.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 18:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Now that the bill has passed into law, can we just cauterize the For/Against as moot?
 * I think some discussion of impact is important now that it has passed. I also think that some discussion of the politics leading up to the passage is appropriate.  But in general I agree that a lot of the For/Against can be removed, particularly about earlier versions of the bill.--Nowa (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Since the article used a pejorative word in the Other Issues section, I substituted a neutral paraphrase for the substance. Much in the way that it wouldn't be appropriate to say that the KKK is critical of "N-word behavior," I don't think it's appropriate to say critics of NPEs are critical of "Patent Troll" behavior. As Wikipedia states in its article on the subject, it is pejorative, and also violates NPOV because it is a term created by large industry to humiliate and force out small competitors that don't have the resources to manufacture yet, but have patent rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilligen (talk • contribs) 19:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Constitutionality of first to file
The article makes statements about the definition of the word "inventor" without any citations. It also seems to imply that the courts will view the word "inventor" in colloquial terms. Why should this be the case? The courts have long taken a very expansive view of language in the Constitution. They may do the same here. Additionally, the article states "All peer-reviewed papers published in scholarly journals have found this or similar problems" regarding the constitutionality of the first to file system. Yet one of the articles cited (a summary of academic analyses of first to file) includes two articles which conclude that first to file may be Constitutional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djosephkennedy (talk • contribs) 17:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Expert Analysis
I found a fun little quote from Donald Chisum, arguably the most important authority on U.S. patent law. Not sure where it could go in (perhaps as this page is substantially re-written...), so I'll dump it here: "Never has so much attention been focused on a patent enactment that accomplished so little." [] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djosephkennedy (talk • contribs) 17:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)