A day after Microsoft put forth a proposed platform for reforming the U.S. patent system, industry watchers began picking it apart.

Microsoft general counsel Brad Smith presented Microsoft's proposed reforms on Thursday during a day-long seminar at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research in Washington, D.C.

Microsoft is both a major patent holder as well as a defendant in a growing number of patent-related lawsuits. The Redmond software giant is calling for a wide swath of changes, including everything from the creation of a district-level patent court, to allowing third parties to submit prior-art evidence before, not just after, patents are granted.

Some Microsoft watchers found a lot to like about Microsoft's proposals.

"Whereas but a few years ago using the term 'patent reform' would have caused one to be classified a radical communist, today there is significant consensus that our current patent system is systematically flawed and in need of repair," said Don Ravicher, executive director of with PubPat.org.

(PubPat.org is a nonprofit group that has advocated for a major revamp of the U.S. patent system. PubPat was a force behind the U.S. Patent Office's preliminary rejection of Microsoft's File Allocation Table, or FAT, patent.)

"Most of it (Microsoft's platform) "seemed very logical and common sense," agreed Directions on Microsoft senior analyst Matt Rosoff.

Rosoff said Microsoft's proposals to cease the use of patent-office fees to fund other operations; harmonize patent processes internationally; and rethink the determination of "willful infringement" are all sound ideas.

"I strongly agree with the proposals to reign in willfulness and injunctions," concurred PubPat.org's Ravicher. "Those aspects of the law divert resources from technological development to attorneys and provide hold-up opportunities, which result in severe economic waste."

"Many of Microsoft's suggestions are good, though they have been made many times before," said Greg Aharonian, publisher of the Internet Patent News Service. Aharonian said that others previously proposed a number of Microsoft's suggestions, including ceasing the diversion of patent-office fees; making the patent process easier and cheaper for small inventors; limiting patent litigation costs; and redefining willful infringement.

However, "Microsoft's announcement hints at a bit of public posturing, in that like many others, they focus mostly on patents once they are issued," Aharonian said.

"(Amazon.com founder) Jeff Bezos put the weight of Amazon behind patent reform a few years ago when Amazon got some bad patent publicity," Aharonian observed. "Once the bad publicity died down, so did Amazon's interest."

Go to Page 2 For More on Pundits' Concerns About Microsoft's Proposals

("Pundits Weigh In On Microsoft Patent Proposals" Page 2)

Patent pundits also expressed some specific concerns about other Microsoft patent proposals.

Directions on Microsoft's Rosoff characterized some of Microsoft's suggested remedies as potentially "open to abuse."

Rosoff said Microsoft's suggestion to allow third parties to discuss prior art during the process and to allow patents to be challenged immediately after granting via an administrative procedure "could be used to create nuisances and stop legitimate patents."

While Microsoft has said it is aware of this issue, "still, I'm concerned that Microsoft and other big players could use a flood of challenges to obstruct smaller companies from getting patents that could present a challenge to their existing businesses," Rosoff said.

Rosoff also called into question the potential impact of Microsoft's proposal to change the current patent criteria from "first to invent" to "first to file."

"To me, that seems like favoring process over innovation," Rosoff said. "A large resource-rich company like Microsoft should be able to put processes in place to ensure that all patentable inventions get filed quickly. Smaller inventors shouldn't necessarily be penalized for not having the wherewithal to file a patent quickly."

Microsoft is interested in broadening the patent debate into one that isn't simply for-or-against software patents, officials said this week. But merely increasing the number of patents issued shouldn't be the end goal, PubPat.org's Ravicher cautioned.

"The solution to the patent quality crisis is not to increase the rate at which the patent office issues patents, but to remove the current perverse incentives placed on it that reward the issuance of more and more undeserved patents," Ravicher said.