Patent reform season is set to kick-off today as many expect to see new reform bills introduced in both the House and Senate. Not surprisingly, the blogosphere is heating up with commentary as the latest round in the great patent reform debate gets underway.

In an effort clearly orchestrated to coordinate with the introduction of the bills, Google published its renewed call for patent reform on the Google Public Policy Blog. In this post, Ms. Michelle Lee, Head of Patents and Patent Strategy, explains that Google supports patent reform efforts primarily because of the IT industry’s now familiar three-plank complaint about the current patent system:

1. too many patent infringement suits from non-practicing entities (the trolls of years past)
2. based on patents of suspect validity
3. that trigger awards for damages that aren’t proportional to the value of the invention at issue

The post reveals nothing new about Google’s position on the issue (or that of the entire IT industry, for that matter). It does, however, end with a bold and interesting tidbit:

“As members of the Coalition for Patent Fairness, we’re optimistic that patent reform faces better odds in 2009 than it has before — not least because President Obama has pledged his support. Passage of patent reform is long overdue”

It’s widely known, of course, that President Obama supports some degree of patent reform. You can read about it on the Technology page from the platform touted by the President during campaign season. What isn’t known, though, is exactly what the President means when he says “patent reform.”

Reading the Lee post, it appears Google would have you believe that he supports their vision for reform – the IT vision for patent reform. He has, after all, “pledged his support.”

The Google post fails to explain that “patent reform” is not now, nor has it ever been, an all-or-nothing proposition. The biotech and pharmaceutical industries, often viewed as “the other side” in the debate, openly support many of the reform measures that have appeared in various reform bills over the years. These industries have lent support to a move to a first-to-file system, a post-grant review system (sans the controversial “second window”), and putting a permanent end to fee diversion. Indeed, it is widely known that pharmaceuticall industry leaders were instrumental in garnering early support for patent reform legislation before the debate was recentered around a late-arriving injunctive relief provision.

So what does President Obama think about “patent reform?” Decide for yourself – here is the entirety of the official Obama views on patent reform, taken from the page linked above:

“Reform the Patent System: A system that produces timely, high-quality patents is essential for global competitiveness in the 21st century. By improving predictability and clarity in our patent system, we will help foster an environment that encourages innovation. Giving the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) the resources to improve patent quality and opening up the patent process to citizen review will reduce the uncertainty and wasteful litigation that is currently a significant drag on innovation. As president, Barack Obama will ensure that our patent laws protect legitimate rights while not stifling innovation and collaboration.”

Extrapolating a current policy position from a four sentence blurb is difficult and risky, of course, but I think it needs to be done to counter the image of support conjured up by the Google post. To me, it appears the President believes that a reform that opens the “patent process” to citizen review will reduce the wasteful litigation of which Google complains. In that light, any reform effort that puts the litigation cart before the “patent process” horse might not be in line with the President’s original thoughts on the matter. At this point in time, I think that is all that can be said about the President’s views on the matter.

The President’s views on the issue might have changed, of course, and Google may very well know more than I do about his personal beliefs – after all, CEO Eric Schmidt was on the short list for Obama’s newly-created Chief Techology Officer position until he apparently removed himself from consideration. Based on the record before us, though, any suggestion that the President supports one particular vision for reform is premature and, indeed, irresponsible.