Slashdot Mirror
US to Give Web Patents More Scrutiny
bitFliper was one of the people who sent us the public version of the Wall Street Journal article that talks about the USPTO proposed overhaul of the way it examines patents for many computer practices. Woo-hoo! Here's to sanity!
The problem with calling this a "fantasy invention" is that, in addition to the "hyper-light-speed" assertions, the inventor also asserts, right in the patent itself at column 1, lines 48-50, that he **and others** have actually **observed** that accelerated plant growth using the invention.
There is no requirement that an inventor understand or even be correct about the principles of operation of his invention, or to provide a correct scientific explanation. (Think of how many useful inventions would be rejected if the inventor had to give an exactly correct scientific explanation of its principles of operation!) Therefore, once an inventor has said that he and others have actually OBSERVED its effects, and those effects are useful, what is the examiner supposed to do? Finance the Patent Office Testing Laboratories (R) to go out and test the darn thing
to show that the inventor is wrong or lying? Think about how much THAT would cost, if it were required of every patent.
People ought to get over the idea that a patent is a government stamp of scientific approval, in the same manner that publication of a paper in a peer review journal indicates some sort of scientific approval. On the other hand, if that type of scrutiny is what you want patents to have, then perhaps you should lobby the government to establish and finance testing laboratories for the Patent Office.
In the meantime, your complaint rings about as hollow as the complaint of a person about how trees falling in a forest where no one can hear them making too loud a noise. If the invention does not, in fact, promote plant growth, or cause signals to travel faster than light, then who in the world is going to try to copy it? And do you actually believe that the owner of the patent is going to be able to successfully sue anyone if the invention does not, in fact, work?
"by the time 20 years rolls around, the technique is almost certainly completely obsolete" HMMMMM. Like CRTs, HDDs, Serial ports, Parallel ports, Tape Backup, Keyboards (remember when we hit swithces?). How bout Mice, Icons, Menus, RAM. The underlying principles are all 20+ years old. Yes specs have changed. Of course they have, but the patentable idea has not. Tech does not move as fast as you think.
What about the ridiculous patents like Amazon's that have already been patented? Will they be revoked, as they should? Now if we can only do something about those perpetual motion and anti-gravity machines! Also, I don't see how the US Patent Office which has shown such profound incompetance can be trusted to clean up its own house. I mean what are they going to do? It is like granting a schizophrenic psychiatrist permission to keep practicing.
For many years the most technologically competent and knowledgeable people of the world have been using the Internet and before that Usentt.
Why not use that to improve the patent examination process?
Simply post the disclosure where anyone can read and comment on it in the areas of "obviousness", "prior art", or "current practice".
Respondents could give a reference to an old book, magazine or juurnal article, or simply a hyperlind as appropriate.
EG: the Amazon case would probably not have happened if the examiner had read Netscape's description of the purpose of cookies. All Amazon (and others) did was use cookies in the way in which they were intended!
Am hard pressed to come up with an analogy that wouldn't be totally silly. Perhaps someone else can.
The other thing is the lack of expert review of patent applications, by real code gurus who've been around since the dawn of time.
I think that's addressed with my proposal that we use 'jury duty'-style draftings from people in the industry the patent would affect.
I also got the impression that he didn't quite understand the issue whe he said that software patents didn't need shorter expiry, since if they become obsolete so quickly, then people won't be violating them, so it doesn't matter that the patent is still in effect. But the issue isn't obsolecence, but rather that these new inventions (such as, say, selling something over the internet) start with one company, but quickly become extremely basic for the medium, and thus shouldn't be resticted to one company. So the patent ends up being violated by everyone, not by no one.
So, from what I gathered, Dickinson's basic gist was: everything is fine, and we don't plan any reform, but we're always willing to re-examine a patent. That really doesn't add anything useful at all.
I don't see the difference between some software and hardware patents. Obviously something stupid like 1-click shopping is one extreme, but what makes complicated software inventions unworthy of patents.
Example, why would a patent of a specific image procession/vision machine that checks for impurities in bottles or coke cans be any different from a more pure software implementation (with just a regular digital camera as the only hardware) ???
There are more examples, but I'd like to know how people are drawing distinction between soft and hard technologies, I don't see the big difference in a lot of cases. Specially if you see programs as abstract machines that can be done in both hardware and software.
- sigs are for wimps.
Not to mention all the bogus patents (sliding year windows for Y2K fixes, one click shopping, etc) that have been floating around lately. Well, here's hopin..
But why not take it a step further and just not grant patents for ridiculus stuff like the things just mentioned ??? Specifically, why should something as simple as 1-click shopping be awarded a patent for 5, 2, 1 years or even 1 month !!!
STOP the insanity !!!
- sigs are for wimps.
does this mean that i am goin to lose my patent on the 3.714 click method?
will i have to allow the entire world to use the word "Design" in their websites?
this stifling of creativity is really bogus
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. --Sun-Tzu
addressed by my proposal that we use 'jury duty'-style draftings from people in the industry the patent would affect
The major problem with such juries would be that we need to ensure it's not the executives, but the engineers that serve on these. And perhaps, existing patent holders (people) should be half of this pool.
But it needs to be not just Web people, but computer people. Many bogus patents are for Web implementations that are obvious from prior computer work. A code segment that is just the Web implementation of code from a non-web app is bogus.
Will in Seattle
Sorry, I was a bit unclear: I specifically meant software related patents (though I'll bet there are a fair number of bogus hw patents too). I'm just a moron who doesn't get enough sleep.
:)
Spend 100 million dollars and countless man-years inventing a hyperdrive, and you deserve a 20 year monopoly.
I could not agree more. That is new, innovative technology (duh), and deserves a patent with a fairly long lifespan (20 years seems long enough for any technology, since someone who invented, say, a hyperdrive, would make trillions in 20 years).
Spend an hour putting a pretty menu on the hyperdrive computer, and if there's something patentable about that menu, the monopoly should last a week.
I really couldn't agree that any patent on something in menu is valid, but let's say we give them a week, just to keep them happy.
BTW, sorry for the very late response. I posted that and have been doing other stuff (like trying to get Windows 98 and BeOS 5 to boot - both seem to have died) since then. LOL, I'm really amazed that got up to 4 - I posted without my bonus since I figured no one would care about my opinion. You should have gotten an Insightful for you post, IMHO. Regards - randombit.
What would be there to stop people from claiming that Google's really unqiue searching technology was obvious? And how could they prove that? Most inventions are something that when you see it you say "duh, I should have known that" but you could work for years on finding the solution and come up dry. Lots of people don't know that that situation is non-obvious. Also, people who weren't well-versed in things like search technology would have nothing to draw on to argue against and would just say "its not so complicated that it doesn't make sense to me, so it must be obvious!" and things like that...
Soliciting the net for concrete examples of prior art would be a very good idea, but I think not so good for evaluating whether a process is "obvious" or not...
Esperandi
Do you actually believe this would happen? All companies would work in complete secrecy and you would see 3x as many NDAs as there are now.
------
James Hromadka
"The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved." -- John Ashcroft
Yes, Bezos is very eloquent in explaining his side of things. Thats how someone gets to be the head of a huge company with a huge stock market valuation while losing money hand over fist. The other side is pretty simple as well. Computers are machines that were developed to be infinitely configurable machines (the ultimate lego set, if you will.) Software configures the basic logic gates of the computer into some sort of form to perform an action. Software patents simply prohibit you from being able to configure your computer in a pattern of logic that it was designed to do. (If someone else has already built a yellow duck out of legos, then you aren't allowed to.)
I don't quite buy the PTO being a patent factory, though. It seems to me that if they wanted to make the most money, they'd reject as many patents as possible, hoping that the patent applicants would fix their flaws and re-apply.
These arguments seem mostly against the patent office as it operates, rather than against their regulations say they should work. They are not supposed to allow patents which are either obvious ideas or can not actually be implemented
At one time, the patent office required an actual copy of the device to be given to the patent office. If they had to worry about where to actually store everything they approved a patent for, buying real estate, cataloging boxes, etc. (rather than just storing the paperwork) they would probably be much more careful about what they granted.
Software, since it is granting a patent to the process, would need to have an entire computer sent to the USPTO for storage, so the process could be demonstrated. Business method patents, with no actual devices would not be allowed patents because the USPTO would have nothing to put in the box.
I don't know what the pay involved is, I can imagine it is probably less than I a making now.
But the bigger problem is that I feel that software patents are simply wrong, and could not bring myself to be granting a patent to anything consisting entirely of a computer program.
So they probably wouldn't want me anyway.
It is a very recent development in human history for companies to have become the main source of innovation or invention. I don't think you really want to support this, do you? Patents (and copyrights) should be granted to individuals; the length of time the patent (or copyright) is supposed to last is based on reasonable life expectancy of a person, not a corporation, you know!
The real problem is that some decades ago, most corporations began including (in standard employment contracts) clauses about how employees -- or others working for the company -- would not own any ideas they came up with "while working for" the company. As a result, corporations now, in effect, own the brains of their employees. This is where the battle lines should have been drawn -- but in this era of employee-power (based on very low unemployment and high demand for intelligent employees), perhaps it will be possible to force rewording of those exploitive contracts, and make this the new legal standard.
If you think about it, it's pretty ridiculous to pretend any "corporation" can invent anything! Only persons (and possibly, in the future, computers) can invent.
In fact, in the field of theology, a Roman lawyer type (I think Tertullian, but I don't remember for sure) came up with the concept (more accurately, the term) of describing the Trinity as three "persons," based on the even-then-familiar personhood of corporate/company entities.
The problem of an essentially immortal entity not being subject to the death penalty regardless of its behavior is a well-known problem, too. I recall being asked to consider it in classes decades ago.
You guys forgot the disclaimer that the USPTO is a registered trademark of Amazon.com.
kwsNI
Well, I can see your point with software and some 'hard' technology, but the money that goes into these patents needs to be recoup, and a profit must be had,or companies will not develop them. Business neeeds to make money to survive.
personaly, I don't think software should be patentable at all, copywrite yes, patent no.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I think it is about time the people shaped up and didn't just give any little thing a patent. Also if you want to see a funny comic strip about Amazon patents go here: Userfriendly.
Maybe the Patent Office should publish this type of patent submission in the Internet and invite comment. I'm sure that would save the government a lot of money and improve the quality of the patenting process. And after all, "patent" means "open".
I bragged about my Karma at a job interview but I didn't get the job.
By abolishing patents, we would force companies to use secrecy to protect their intellectual property, which would reduce rather than increase collaboration.
Anyhow, what's wrong with someone owning the fruits of their (intellectual) labor?
By abolishing patents, we would force companies to use secrecy to protect their intellectual property, which would reduce rather than increase collaboration.
Isn't that what's happening now anyway? Companies are granted software patents without ever having to reveal the source code. There are two reasons that this hasn't become a major problem. First, the ideas are usually pretty trivial to implement and anyone who's done any coding could come up with a working model. Second, by the time someone could use their own model without getting sued, it will be worthless anyway. Another problem is that you don't even have to show that your idea works, so the patent database gets polluted with detailed drawings and descriptions for things that don't even work. The "Hyper Light-Speed Antenna" is a perfect example.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
When your evaluations and pay are based on how many patents you can push through, you have a lot of incentive to try to come up with a reason to grant a patent regardless of its real validity. Most people in the computer industry would starve if they worked in the PTO. They'd spend their day rejecting stupid web patents and get no bonus, a crappy evaluation, and eventually be shown the door. The patent office has to make money to pay for itself ya know. (Who's bright idea was that anyway?)
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
If the PTO keeps thinking the way it has been thinking, then this new process may not help much at all. It matters more what they search for than how many databases they search (although more is certainly better). If they are looking for an example of a web-based 1-click purchasing system as prior art, they may not find it. If, however, they read some information on cookies, then they could see how trivial the 1-click system is.
If they were to look at grocery scanners (as someone else mentioned in a previous article here), they would find something similar to the 1-click method. The item has a tag (hyperlink) that let's the scanner (cgi script of some sort) know how much to charge to the customer's (user identified by the cookie) credit card that was swiped through the card reader (read from a database).
If, on the other hand, these "senior examiners" have a clue about how and where to look for prior art, the new process might actually stop some bad patents from being granted. Hmm.. new process... wonder if they've patented "Process of applying more intense scrutiny to patent applications having to do with Internet-based implementations of business methods utilizing email for communication between junior and senior examiners"? Probably not a lot of call for that sort of thing outside the PTO though.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I think it's pretty clear that Dickinson is doing it because he can use this as an argument to get more money and resources for his agency,
Isn't the PTO supposed to be self-sufficient? Doesn't it live off of the money it makes from patent fees? What he might want is for the government to keep its hands out of the honey pot, but I doubt he thinks they'll actually give him more resources. That's one of the major problems with the PTO. It's shouldn't have to depend on the number of patents it can grant for it's operating costs. That's a conflict of interest.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Quoting the article: "In the meantime, the patent office is moving to address more immediate questions about the review process. One concern is whether the government has accepted some patents that were too general, and given protection to technology ideas that weren't new or exclusive."
:(
Does this mean extisting patents that weren't reality checked are going to change? How radical changes would it require to the legislation? I'm pretty much under the impression that this just can't happen (based on earlier conversations on the subject).
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid, it is true that most stupid people are conservative."
Here's what I propose:
Option 1: revise the patent system
Provide a method for people to not only dismiss frivolous patents, but also to FINE people who abuse the system. Begin creation of patent 'classes' - you can apply for a 2 year patent, 4 year, or 10 year... for electronics, science, web, etc. Create a pricing structure. Start hierarchal organization of existing patents: make it like Yahoo - click, click, click, and there.. now you have all the patents for ("a method whereby..") computer-based input devices. Also make mandatory expirations, and disallow the use of 'extensions': X days after it's approved, it expires. No extensions, no modifications, once it's dead, it's dead. Here's another thought: expand the concept of 'fair use' into patents on a broader scale. ie, 'free for non-commercial use'. If you can prove that you aren't profiting directly by using somebody else's invention, they shouldn't be able to sue you. A remarkable idea, eh? Lastly, how about giving the patent office the ability to 'draft' people for 'jury duty' to review patents from people in their respective fields? a RANDOM cross-section would do nicely to curb abuses.
Option 2: Abolish the patent system
A radical option, but nothing in the Constitution mandates the use of patents. We don't need to give corporations monopoly-power over their inventions. I don't need to give the benefits, I think I'd be preaching to the chorus here.
That's my idea... but this announcement just serves as a political cover. It's saying to me "Hey, we gave you this (little tiny) concession, now leave us alone!" There is no real change occuring.
Ideally, the duration of the monopoly granted by a patent, should be a function of the amount of investment that was required to create the innovative part of that patent.
It bothers me that Bezos talks about "internet-related" patents. The issue is with software, where the investment is almost entirely labor, and almost no capital (just a computer). It's not just the Internet.
Spend 100 million dollars and countless man-years inventing a hyperdrive, and you deserve a 20 year monopoly. Spend an hour putting a pretty menu on the hyperdrive computer, and if there's something patentable about that menu, the monopoly should last a week. Spend $10000 inventing a widget that makes the hyperdrive function more efficiently, and you get a 6 month monopoly.
Patents have a purpose: we want people to recoup their development costs and make a good profit too. But it's silly to give them a monopoly that profits them 1000 times the investment, and prevents further innovation, or prevents anybody from making use of the innovation.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I've looked at the article and it looked like the classic CYA exercise. Somebody poked the chief of USPTO, so he woke up and automatically said "Yes, sure, we will very carefully consider... we'll make a study... we understand your concerns... we will re-examine... we..." As far as I am concerned this is just a bunch of hot air emanating from a bureacratic asshole (you shouldn't hold your breath, but might want to hold your nose). Treat it accordingly.
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
"The patent office's new procedures aren't expected to have a direct effect on patents already granted."
Sigh...
If we revise the patent system, I think that Web patents should be in web-time. In other words, a Web patent is for 3 years. A Net patent (non-hardware) should be for 5 years at most.
The other thing is the lack of expert review of patent applications, by real code gurus who've been around since the dawn of time.
But my main problem is that patents for Web implementations of existing real-world systems should not exist. Granting a patent for a web button that sends two messages to two objects should be denied, in that code which does this existed in the non-Web sense for a long time. Just because it's new on the Web doesn't make it new. And they don't get this.
Will in Seattle
Those are trolling words, troll.
Only to one who hews to the Slashdot orthodoxy. The rest of us recognize it as a valid question, and one that needs to be asked in this discussion.
--
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
- someone violates the spirit of patent law so egregiously that it causes politicians to make it an issue; or
- after the 2004 election, which is likely to be driven heavily by tech-zillionaires who aren't well-informed enough politically to get pols' attention this time around.
If 1. happens, it's likely to happen to something that will at minimum inconvenience a large number of net users: e.g., an underlying patent in most common browsers, based on "obvious technology", results in a fundamental step back in web technology.In any case, none of this is going to happen with the USPTO as the driving force. It's already well-documented that technically, they can't find their ass with both hands, 5,000 pages of documentation, and forms filled out in triplicate. It's clear they don't understand the pace of tech, or the urgency of the reform they're contemplating, and won't until something changes the landscape for them.
I highly doubt the Patent Office though this upp 'all by themselves'. Some pissed off Senator on the appropriate subcommittee called them.
Senator: What the hell have you boys been doing down there?
USPTO: Ever since the sheep died, it's boring. Steve thought up this great idea for patent approval, though. See, we get this big Wheel of Fortune, and we spin it to see what we do about one of 'em. We're even going to have fire on one of the.....
Senator: Fine, fine, whatever makes you happy. Listen, I just got off the phone with Jeff Bezos. Ya know, that internet book guy. He seemed to be pretty pissed about y'all!
USPTO: So? It may have squeaked through on the line, but we gave him his patent! Think we ought to 'review' it?
Senator: Naw. Normally I couldn't give two shits what you boys are doing, hell, I know y'all play darts for dibs on the funny ones, but if you don't make a token gesture of reform now, Bezos is going to sic the press on me, the subcommittee, and you. I'll be forced to cut your budget again. I'll send over some suggestions for you to look at before you take the morning trip to the bar.
USPTO: Yes sir! One ineffective PR gesture coming up! So, when are you going to bring over the new sheep?
Moral of the story: When introducing yourself, mentioning that you are Time's Man of the Year helps your credibility. Mentioning that you have more money than God helps too.
.sig: Now legally binding!
But they should start looking at patents that have already been granted with the same guidelines that they are looking at new patents with. This functions as an admission that the system was broken. Let's invalidate some patents that were released under the broken system.
What are you smoking? You don't receive payment based on how many patents you approve! I have no idea where you came up with this, but its a salaried position. The companies have to pay for the research whether or not the patent goes through, so the patent office makes plenty of money even if they turn it down... but unlike on Slashdot you;d actually have to find the previous art and probably fill out 100 forms instead of just looking at it and saying "that's stupid, it's so obvious it should never get a patent"... I'd really like to see what kind of documentation has to be produced to prove that a process was "obvious"... prior art is pretty easy, but obviousness would be harder I imagine...
Esperandi
Well, let's see, there are a ton of computer guys bitching about the patent system. The USPTO has MANY jobs open in the area of computer-oriented patents. No one is taking those jobs. Wouldn't it be kinda a not-stupid move to get some knowledgeable people in there and get them to help with this process? Otherwise we might just end up on the worse side with even crazier laws...
Esperandi
Hurry!
I'm getting my patent in on every obvious thing I can think of before they change the laws!
You should to!
-- Bird in the Bush: The Renewable Energy Blog http://www.birdinthebush.org
Although the original purpose was promote the arts and sciences, it seems that they have been hijacked by large corporations. The government, taking the side with the most money, has perverted the intellectual property laws to continue to favor the corporations.
Just look at what has been do with copyright terms over the years. As soon as Mickey Mouse is about to enter the public domain, Congress extends the length of protection.
I used to be all "kill amazon.com" and "patents are stupid" until i read Jeff Beezos' answer to all the patent gunk going around.
Jeff explained how the amazon.com patent was not just "one click shopping", but rather it was a patent of the whole look and feel of amazon's website (which i have to admit, B&N was copying rather closely).
In addition, Jeff did say that he felt internet patents should carry different weight than "regular" patents - and be of much shorter length - he sugested 1-2 years, if i remember correctly, which is enough time for a company to establish themselves as the sole user of this software and to get their name associated with whatever it is they patent. And then considering the growth of the internet (3000% on the www from 92-96) 1-2 years is plenty of time for the patent, when it runs out, its fair game. Jeff noted that this fair game scenario is what has kept the internet growth what it is.
Jeff also (much to my delight) endorsed the cluetrain manifesto, which is something all business should get a hold of and read.
All this is to say that this USC thing is a move in the right direction, and probably has the support of the "enemy" in the case - amazon.com.
Completely unrelated - sign up with W.A.V.E. america and get a free mail.waveamerica.com email address - here
and sorry - i already took trenchcoatmafia@waveamerica.com
~zero
God what a stupid login name - i should get a new one, but it'll be 6 months till I moderate again.
sig?
tcd004
LostBrain
I wonder... how would our economic system fair if we somehow abolished patents entirely?
Would the technology industry be stifled because noone would want to invest the time and money into research? Or would companies work together to research mutually beneficial technology?
Just a thought..
Rats would be more funny if they could fart.
If more evidence is needed that the USPTO is completely out of control, I offer the following patent, granted just last month:
...
... I thought that you could only patent REAL inventions, not fantasy inventions. Write up your warp drive and dilithium crystal patents now, kids, because they'll give you a patent on ANYTHING these days. The most important criteria for a patent to be issued these days appears to be the inclusion of a check for the patent fees. Your "new improved" self-funding patent office at work ... for you!
US Patent 6025810: Hyper-light-speed antenna
Some actual quotes from the patent:
The following describes, in simple terms, what the present invention actually does. The present invention takes a transmission of energy, and instead of sending it through normal time and space, it pokes a small hole into another dimension, thus, sending the energy through a place which allows transmission of energy to exceed the speed of light.
And if that isn't spiffy enough
For accelerated plant growth, first, you need to create a hot surface that is more than 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Next, you need a strong magnetic field. Only one device is needed for this function. This allows energy from another dimension to influence plant growth.
Silly me
things will not really be what i would call acceptable, though, until it's as easy for someone who notices a bad patent to lodge a complaint, have the patent publicly reviewed, and have the patent struck down
as it currently is for a corporation to file a bad patent, get it approved, and then use it to harass/sue/destroy people.
Currently it takes how much money to go into court and have a frivolous patent struck down? There are so many frivolous/dangerous patents out there that no ACLUish organisation could make a dent in them, and each one would be a long, long, drawn out legal struggle that would take forever and drain a huge amount of money. Meanwhile if a corporation has a patent that they should have no right to, and some other group or company annoys them, they can just do a few quick things with the lawyer they already have, and bam, semiinstant results. Unlike someone striking down a patent, who must go all the way to the end of the legal process to get the patent struck down, the corporation abusing their patent only has to go a little way, because these things are _always_ settled out of court. Assuming they even go to court in the first place; the mere threat of a lawsuit is probably enough to get what they want, esp. against companies small enough that having to hire a lawyer to even look into things and make a settlement would be a major problem. Threats cost nothing, and in most cases the patent owner is large enough it will barely hurt them to sue even if they lose and it will destroy the other side to get sued even if they win.
I'm not sure how coherent what i just said was, but just consider that even if the USPTO _IS_ more careful about preventing bad patents from being put into use, if a bad patent does slip through, for the owner to abuse that patent will still be far, far easier than someone preventing the owner from abusing it.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
I seriously doubt these changes will have much of an effect on the way patents are awarded. As long as the US Patent Office continues to base examiners' pay and bonuses on the number of patent applications they review, the process will be rushed.
Since the field of computer/internet patents seems to be exploding, I propose this solution: after each individual reviewer has finished their work on a patent, they take it to a board or panel of patent "judges" (don't really know how else to describe them). The reviewer says, "Well I researched this patent and here is what I found/didn't find, what do you think?" This would hopefully eliminate a lot of oversight and possible bonus pushing by reviewers.
love,
br4dh4x0r
Under fire for his company's suit, Amazon chief executive Jeff Bezos has proposed a sharp reduction in the duration of Internet-related patent rights, which, like all other patents, are good for 20 years from application.
I'd like to see patents for anything involving computers to last 3 or 5 years from the time the patent is granted. It's just totally unreasonable that someone can patent something, and basically prevent it's use forever, since by the time 20 years rolls around, the technique is almost certainly completely obsolete (replaced by new patented technology, etc etc). Not to mention all the bogus patents (sliding year windows for Y2K fixes, one click shopping, etc) that have been floating around lately. Well, here's hopin...
But I doubt this is going to address the fundamental problem: the USPTO has greatly expanded the fields in which patents are granted, to include software, business methods, and scientific data. This happened without direction by the legislature, and it represents a change from previous practices. This is particularly unfair because a number of the inventions that the USPTO granted patents on in the 1990s were already developed by practitioners in the 1970s and 1980s, but they couldn't apply for them then because the USPTO wouldn't have granted them then.
If you permit patents in these newly created areas of patentability, no amount of additional examination is going to address the underlying problem.
I also have my doubts that even "senior" examiners are going to be significantly more effective in weeding out patents with ample prior art, in part because the definition of "prior art" that the USPTO and courts apply seems to be very narrow. For example, patents like the shopping cart, e-commerce, on-screen television program grids, etc., have already been used for many years on the Minitel system, but I suspect that despite their technical similarity, courts and examiners would consider Minitel and the Web to be different uses.
Altogether, I don't see this announcement as much progress. I think it's pretty clear that Dickinson is doing it because he can use this as an argument to get more money and resources for his agency, a common goal of federal fiefdoms, not because anybody convinced him that something is wrong. If he gets the resources, he has more power and gets good PR out of it ("see, we are responsive"), and if he doesn't, he has an excuse for granting more bad patents ("if you had only given us more people").
Not to be misunderstood, given the current system, no matter what Dickinson's motivations are, more careful examinations are a slight improvement. But this doesn't address the underlying problems and issues at all.
I think that this is absolutely the right first step to handling the internet/software patent issues. A lot of casual talk here on slashdot (and elsewhere) has focused on making fundamental changes to the law, when in fact, the law as it was written by Congress has never really been in effect in the real world because the PTO has been doing such a lousy job of examining software patents. A large number of the complaints about individual patents that have been raised on slashdot have centered on the "that technique is old" or "that's obvious, any skilled programmer could do that" type of complaints. If the PTO does correctly implement this more rigorous examination process most of these kind of complaints will go away.
There will still be the larger policy debate on software/internet patents in general, but I think that that debate will be much more focused without the distraction of the really bad patents. This is important because the truly lousy patents aren't so much the fault of bad law but more the failure of the PTO to do its job. And in the spirit of using the right tool to do the right job, changes at the PTO are probably a better tool than changing the law, at least at this point.
Additionally, changes at the PTO will not require the incredibly long process of new legislation to change the law, etc. We may see results sooner this way.
It will be interesting to see if the PTO can actually pull this off given the usual government bureaucracy problems.