Lengthening the duration of patent terms as part of the reform effort? Don’t believe it for a minute

Cnet ran an article earlier this week about the recent congressional activity surrounding the patent reform effort.  The article includes a very misleading statement about the reform effort.  It closes with:

Other legislative possibilities include lengthening the duration of a patent, currently 20 years.

While I suppose it is a legislative possibility (isn’t everything?), lengthening the duration of the patent term is not a serious component of the current reform effort, nor is it likely to become one.

Senator Feinstein made the above comment during the opening statements of the Senate hearing held earlier this week.  With a sense of state pride, she relayed a story about Levi Strauss, the inventor of blue jeans, and the patent he obtained on his invention.  Then, suddenly, she stated:

“I’ve begun to wonder whether the time for the patent is an adequate time….“

This comment is the sole basis for the Cnet statement.  One Senator’s off-hand remark.  She was thinking out loud, really.  No questions asked of witnesses; no responsive comments were made by other members of the Subcommittee.  Nothing.

Indeed, Senator Feinstein’s comment is the first and only time, to my knowledge, that extension of the patent term has been mentioned in the context of patent reform.  It is not a component of any reform proposal at this time and is not likely to be incorporated into any bill that is introduced.

Had Cnet researched the matter more extensively, I’m sure they would have chosen not to lead people to believe that patent term extension is seriously under consideration.  Maybe they only listened to the beginning of the hearing (Feinstein made the comments in the opening remarks) and left with the impression that term extensions was important?

Kim Weatherall, of Weatherall’s Law, has a wonderfully sarcastic take on the Cnet article.  Think patents in the context of California, copyright, and Sonny Bono.