<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>The Technology Liberation Front - Latest Comments in Patent Reform Lite</title><link>http://tlf.disqus.com/</link><description>The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:20:54 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Patent Reform Lite</title><link>http://techliberation.com/2008/03/26/patent-reform-lite/#comment-1453671</link><description>Ryan: yes I think it's a small step in the right direction, but only in the sense that the magnitude of the damages being done will be somewhat diminished. Being able to challenge patents doesn't get you very far as long as the rules about what can be patented and how broad the patents can be are screwed up.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Tim Lee</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:20:54 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Patent Reform Lite</title><link>http://techliberation.com/2008/03/26/patent-reform-lite/#comment-1453670</link><description>This is a very good analysis of the patent bill. It's still probably a baby step in right direction, don't you think? Making it easier to challenge patents seems like a good idea, and so does the apportionment of damages and elimination of venue-shopping. &lt;p&gt; The hardest question to me is whether we ought to switch to a first-to-file system. &lt;a href="http://www.torys.com/publications/pdf/ARTech-19T.pdf" rel="nofollow"&gt;This article&lt;/a&gt; about Canada's experience with patents argues that many of the theoretical problems with first to file do not often manifest in practice.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Ryan Radia</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:03:43 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>