Intellectual property Many patents, still pending

　　知識產權 懸而未決的專利

　　Congress tweaks, but does not overhaul, America s patent system

　　國會將對美國專利制度進行小幅修改

　　AFTER years of dithering, America is set for patent reform.

　　徘徊猶豫了多年，美國終于著手專利改革。

　　On September 6th a bill proposing to change the system passed its highest procedural hurdlein the Senate.

　　9月6號，整改議案過了最艱難的一關參議院。

　　With Barack Obama supportive, this means the America Invents Act could soon be signed intolaw.

　　得到總統巴拉克?奧巴馬的支持，美國發(fā)明法規(guī)將很快能正式寫入法律。

　　Instead of the first to invent principle, which America currently uses, patents will beawarded to inventors who are the first to file .

　　美國專利目前遵循 第一發(fā)明 原則，將改為授予第一個申請注冊的人。

　　This is similar to the system most other countries use. The aim is to avoid long and difficultlegal arguments over who was the first to come up with an idea.

　　目前大部分國家都實行這種規(guī)定，這樣可避免對第一發(fā)明人的確定爭論不休，難以確定。

　　As in most cases of patent law it is not going to be that simple.

　　如專利法中涉及的案例很多都不能簡單的界定。

　　One criticism is that being first-to-file gives big and sophisticated organisations, highlyexperienced at the difficult job of filing for patents, an advantage over smaller outfits thatmay be technically brilliant but not legally savvy.

　　有一種批評意見是，申請注冊專利會造成龐大復雜的機構，特別是申請過程更是項困難的工作，小型機構的優(yōu)點在于技術上的優(yōu)越而不只是合法的專業(yè)知識。

　　Another problem is that first-to-file may make companies rush to put in for a patent beforetheir invention is truly ready.

　　另一個問題是專利的申請可能促使一些公司在一些發(fā)明尚未成型時就急于將其注冊。

　　Moreover, the law does little to address the more basic problem of a patent system thathas grown in expense for all kinds of companies that want to protect their ideas.

　　另外，法律沒有解決專利體系存在一個更重要的問題：各類公司為保護自己的點子付出高昂的支出。

　　The number of disputed cases going to trial, average awards and legal costs have allballooned.

　　許多有爭議的申請案例被搬上了法庭，最后或平分獎金或取得合法補償，諸如此類的事件不斷發(fā)生。

　　To many, the system looks like a lottery.

　　對許多人來說，這種制度更像是博彩活動。

　　Those who think that patents are granted too easily complain that the bill will still allow toomany suits, especially those by non-practising entities , which are also known derisively as patent trolls .

　　有些人認為專利申請是件易事的人稱，此法案仍會造成大量訴訟糾紛，特別是那些毫無經驗的企業(yè)，它們被戲稱為 專利的釣餌 。

　　These buy up patents and then license them or sue for infringement, rather than using thepatents themselves.

　　它們購買專利不是為了自己使用，轉而注冊成為自己所有，或用于高發(fā)侵權行為。

　　The too-many-patents crowd wanted to do away, in particular, with business-method patents, which claim to have invented a new way of doing business.

　　擁有很多專利的人尤其希望去掉 商業(yè)用途 的專利，他們表示已經發(fā)明了一種新的經營方式。

　　Instead, the bill did this only for the financial industry, after strenuous lobbying by WallStreet.

　　然而，經過華爾街艱難的游說，議案只是在金融業(yè)去除了 商業(yè)用途 專利申請。

　　And many advocated making it harder to get any kind of patent at all.

　　另外，許多人支持提高所有專利申請的難度。

　　The bill does make some changes that could be positive.

　　法案并沒有做出一些積極地變動，只新增加了幾條打擊有害專利的程序。

　　It creates several new procedures to deter or defeat bad patents. One would let an allegedinfringer of a patent challenge its validity at the Patent and Trademark Office ,rather than going to court.

　　第一，被指控侵權者不必被送至法庭，可到專利商標局說明其非法性。

　　This would, in theory, be cheaper and faster. But it could still be followed by a lawsuit.

　　原則上說這樣做即省錢又快速，而且之后仍可對其侵權行為進行控訴。

　　Second, the bill expands the right of third parties to join the fray at the PTO by showing prior art meaning the invention is already known about and so a patent should not begranted.

　　第二，法案體現 優(yōu)先權之道 即申請專利的發(fā)明之前已有人知道則不能通過。這樣就擴大了在PTO參與糾紛的第三方權利。

　　This might save time and money for firms which would be affected by a dodgy patent,allowing them to argue things out at an early stage rather than later on in a costlycourtroom.

　　法案使雙方在初期就公開辯論，防止企業(yè)在遇到一些狡猾的專利申請者時，浪費過多時間和金錢在法庭上。

　　One of the biggest criticisms of the bill concerns the PTO s funding, which some think shouldbe increased so that the office can hire and keep the best examiners and so reduce a hugebacklog of applications.

　　對此法案一個最大的異議是有關PTO的成立，有些人認為應多建幾所PTO，這樣就能讓雇傭最好的審查官，減少申請案例的大量積壓。

　　Instead, Congress chose to multiply the alternative dispute-resolution procedures at thePTO,

　　但是，國會選擇在PTO大量增加可供選擇的爭論解決程序，

　　giving the office more work to do without a guarantee of more money. The result is amuddle as well as a missed opportunity.

　　加大了PTO工作量的同時，有沒有給予更多資金保障，致使局面混亂，失去最佳調節(jié)機會。

　　Intellectual property Many patents, still pending

　　知識產權 懸而未決的專利

　　Congress tweaks, but does not overhaul, America s patent system

　　國會將對美國專利制度進行小幅修改

　　AFTER years of dithering, America is set for patent reform.

　　徘徊猶豫了多年，美國終于著手專利改革。

　　On September 6th a bill proposing to change the system passed its highest procedural hurdlein the Senate.

　　9月6號，整改議案過了最艱難的一關參議院。

　　With Barack Obama supportive, this means the America Invents Act could soon be signed intolaw.

　　得到總統巴拉克?奧巴馬的支持，美國發(fā)明法規(guī)將很快能正式寫入法律。

　　Instead of the first to invent principle, which America currently uses, patents will beawarded to inventors who are the first to file .

　　美國專利目前遵循 第一發(fā)明 原則，將改為授予第一個申請注冊的人。

　　This is similar to the system most other countries use. The aim is to avoid long and difficultlegal arguments over who was the first to come up with an idea.

　　目前大部分國家都實行這種規(guī)定，這樣可避免對第一發(fā)明人的確定爭論不休，難以確定。

　　As in most cases of patent law it is not going to be that simple.

　　如專利法中涉及的案例很多都不能簡單的界定。

　　One criticism is that being first-to-file gives big and sophisticated organisations, highlyexperienced at the difficult job of filing for patents, an advantage over smaller outfits thatmay be technically brilliant but not legally savvy.

　　有一種批評意見是，申請注冊專利會造成龐大復雜的機構，特別是申請過程更是項困難的工作，小型機構的優(yōu)點在于技術上的優(yōu)越而不只是合法的專業(yè)知識。

　　Another problem is that first-to-file may make companies rush to put in for a patent beforetheir invention is truly ready.

　　另一個問題是專利的申請可能促使一些公司在一些發(fā)明尚未成型時就急于將其注冊。

　　Moreover, the law does little to address the more basic problem of a patent system thathas grown in expense for all kinds of companies that want to protect their ideas.

　　另外，法律沒有解決專利體系存在一個更重要的問題：各類公司為保護自己的點子付出高昂的支出。

　　The number of disputed cases going to trial, average awards and legal costs have allballooned.

　　許多有爭議的申請案例被搬上了法庭，最后或平分獎金或取得合法補償，諸如此類的事件不斷發(fā)生。

　　To many, the system looks like a lottery.

　　對許多人來說，這種制度更像是博彩活動。

　　Those who think that patents are granted too easily complain that the bill will still allow toomany suits, especially those by non-practising entities , which are also known derisively as patent trolls .

　　有些人認為專利申請是件易事的人稱，此法案仍會造成大量訴訟糾紛，特別是那些毫無經驗的企業(yè)，它們被戲稱為 專利的釣餌 。

　　These buy up patents and then license them or sue for infringement, rather than using thepatents themselves.

　　它們購買專利不是為了自己使用，轉而注冊成為自己所有，或用于高發(fā)侵權行為。

　　The too-many-patents crowd wanted to do away, in particular, with business-method patents, which claim to have invented a new way of doing business.

　　擁有很多專利的人尤其希望去掉 商業(yè)用途 的專利，他們表示已經發(fā)明了一種新的經營方式。

　　Instead, the bill did this only for the financial industry, after strenuous lobbying by WallStreet.

　　然而，經過華爾街艱難的游說，議案只是在金融業(yè)去除了 商業(yè)用途 專利申請。

　　And many advocated making it harder to get any kind of patent at all.

　　另外，許多人支持提高所有專利申請的難度。

　　The bill does make some changes that could be positive.

　　法案并沒有做出一些積極地變動，只新增加了幾條打擊有害專利的程序。

　　It creates several new procedures to deter or defeat bad patents. One would let an allegedinfringer of a patent challenge its validity at the Patent and Trademark Office ,rather than going to court.

　　第一，被指控侵權者不必被送至法庭，可到專利商標局說明其非法性。

　　This would, in theory, be cheaper and faster. But it could still be followed by a lawsuit.

　　原則上說這樣做即省錢又快速，而且之后仍可對其侵權行為進行控訴。

　　Second, the bill expands the right of third parties to join the fray at the PTO by showing prior art meaning the invention is already known about and so a patent should not begranted.

　　第二，法案體現 優(yōu)先權之道 即申請專利的發(fā)明之前已有人知道則不能通過。這樣就擴大了在PTO參與糾紛的第三方權利。

　　This might save time and money for firms which would be affected by a dodgy patent,allowing them to argue things out at an early stage rather than later on in a costlycourtroom.

　　法案使雙方在初期就公開辯論，防止企業(yè)在遇到一些狡猾的專利申請者時，浪費過多時間和金錢在法庭上。

　　One of the biggest criticisms of the bill concerns the PTO s funding, which some think shouldbe increased so that the office can hire and keep the best examiners and so reduce a hugebacklog of applications.

　　對此法案一個最大的異議是有關PTO的成立，有些人認為應多建幾所PTO，這樣就能讓雇傭最好的審查官，減少申請案例的大量積壓。

　　Instead, Congress chose to multiply the alternative dispute-resolution procedures at thePTO,

　　但是，國會選擇在PTO大量增加可供選擇的爭論解決程序，

　　giving the office more work to do without a guarantee of more money. The result is amuddle as well as a missed opportunity.

　　加大了PTO工作量的同時，有沒有給予更多資金保障，致使局面混亂，失去最佳調節(jié)機會。