Slashdot Mirror
How Will Electronic Patents Affect the USPTO?
4/3PI*R^3 asks: "The US Patent Office has brought into full production its Electronic Patent Application Filing System (EFS). With so many patents being issued so quickly (161,000 last year alone) how will this affect the application process? Will more patent applications be submitted since there is one less barrier to filing? Will the increased accessiblity make the USPTO more selective in assigning patents? Read thePress Release and visit the Patent Electronic Business Center. Which department of the US Federal Government is the most technologically advanced from a customer service stand point? The USPTO is now searchable via the internet and applications can be submitted and tracked via the internet. It seems to me that most USPTO customer service functions now have some sort of internet access. Is it possible to completely do business with the USPTO over the internet?"
The easier you make something, the more idiots you will attract.
;P)
;P
Look at what happened to USENET when it was opened up to AOL and such...
I agree wholeheartedly that this will increase the number of patent requests submitted, and thuis increase the number of (frivolous) patents granted. At this point, the USPTO doesn't do even a passable job at reviewing technology patents - how can anyone think that will suddenly change when the patent apps double or triple in number? (hypothetically of course - it remains to be seen just how much this will affect the #s - the above is simply an educated guess
What should have been done LONG ago is outsource the review of patent applications to educated third-parties (such as certain university professors, etc...), especially in cases where the USPTO doesn't have the expertise or understanding to make a "good" decision. Right now in these circumstances, they grant the patent and wait for the courts to invalidate it. Complete wrong approach, IMHO.
This would, of course, lengthen the time necessary for a complete review of the patents applied for - so opening the floodgates for submission isn't the right thing to do either...it'll just make the queue so long it'll become unmanagable. So...instead of INCREASING the number of patents that get applied for, let's DECREASE it. Only allow any individual (or corporation or whatever) to apply for a certain number of patents in a given year...let's say a nice low number, like 5-10. That would make people THINK before they apply - hopefully cutting down on the frivolous patent submissions.
Of course, I could be wrong - I'm only on my first cup of coffee here
It's all about the point system.
Each patent examiner needs a certain number of "points" per pay period. (I'm intentionally keeping this simple, patent lawyers feel free to jump in).
Scoring goes like this:
Early approval: 2 points.
Denial: 1 point, plus you have to go through a bunch of crap if they appeal, which wastes time and earns you zero points.
This is all verbatim from the patent lawyer at my company (which I will not disclose). We're aggressively patenting common sense, and I'm helping. Her philosophy is: "if they'll let you, do it. if you don't, the competition will".
i agree with her. i've got options to protect. the problem is the aforementioned scoring system. if they changed that, stupid patents would come to a screeching halt.
--
What happens when you outlaw guns
[stock rant on the subject]
Patents are not about who is right, or who is first; patents are about who can sue.
The US PTO is a money-making service for the government, and this fact is why it operates as it does.
There is a misconception that it is the central duty of the PTO to form a blockade against granting patents. The PTO can and will block applications where there's heavy similarity with prior art or existing patents, but that's really just a guideline to using the service, not the core function.
The PTO's purpose is to grant patents for a fee, and it's wholly suited to do so.
The application vetting process of the PTO is a cost center for the operation of the PTO. This is akin to saying that customer service is a cost center for the operation of AT&T. It is required, but they'll cut costs as much as they can get away with.
To fix the patent application vetting process, two things must happen:
At the minimum, if the PTO would publish the abstract for each patent application at the time of filing, then third parties could submit "helpful" arguments against controversial applications. The PTO shouldn't publish the details, just the abstract; the PTO can then weigh obviousness against challenges without incurring the costs of doing all the searching themselves.
Once a patent has been granted, the Patent Office does not get involved in disputes; that is a matter for the courts.
[end of stock rant on the subject]
[
Mmmmm...not really. You still have to pay the patent application fee. You still have to pay for a prior art search, and for a patent lawyer to help you get your application into a form which is acceptable to the patent office. So, the "little citizen" is still pretty much only going to be able to file a few things, whereas people/organizations with money will now find it much easier to file immense numbers of applications with the USPTO.
I really question the wisdom of setting up this interface w/o making sure that the back end (the examination process) is robust enough to process these applications with a high-quality result. I foresee the patent examiners getting even farther behind than they are now, and letting things slip even worse than they do now to try and relieve some of the pressure.
Easier to submit a patent ==> More frivolous patents submitted ==> More likely to be approved, especially if the Patent Office can't afford to research/scrutinize each submission as extensively.
There's 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
The applications are MS-Only based, FYI. I work for a small Patent/IP firm and we're testing out the process and it's not running so smoothly so far.
It's basically templates integrated within Word. So far run into the issue of the user has to install the software the,self or it doesn't work correctly. If I install as Admin it borks it up...
fslg503-985-8686503-985-8686503-985-8686503-985-8
I think the broader outlook is that "intellectual property", as we know it, is dead. Patents were good for the steam engine age, when a patented boiler weighted 100 tons. And copyrights were meaningful only when "copying" meant performing macroscopic changes on a physical medium.
Information today has become too fluid and too mobile. What the current intellectual property concept says is that "the wind is not allowed to blow across this barbed wire fence". In other words, Yes, what I'm doing is illegal, but you can't catch me. An unenforceable law is not a law.
The EFS system will likely have no affect on the validity of issued patents. In fact, I suspect that EFS will be adopted very slowly (if at all) by most patent practitioners. Why? It actually makes the filing of patent applications more difficult: you generally have to cut-and-paste sections of the already-drafted patent application from your word processor to the USPTO's PASAT "authoring program," which is essentially a set of kludgey, counterintuitive XML/MSWord tools. Also, it is not clear exactly when the submitted file is considered "filed" (this can be very important). In addition, any application over 10MB (including TIFF drawings) must be mailed to the USPTO via snailmail anyway. The EFS will be used primarily where it must be used, e.g., for voluntary publication and republication of patent applications 18 months after filing.
I realize everyone is anti-patent here, but think for a moment: patents are already being frivolously filed in this country, TODAY! Under the current system! But who are the ones doing the filing? It's the well-moneyed corporations, who can afford to sink a few hundred dollars into a dead-end pursuit if there's a slight chance it'll pay off with a million-dollar windfall some day.
Making the patent-submission process an electronic one removes one more barrier, but that's a good thing: it helps the little citizen compete on the same playing field that the corporations have historically reserved for themselves. It lets us get a little piece of that pie and grows the pie at the same time.
Patents do have their downside, and the Supreme Court has recognized that fact for the last hundred years. Said the Court, "It creates a class of speculative schemers who make it their business to watch the advancing wave of improvement, and gather its foam in the form of patented monopolies, which enable them to lay a heavy tax upon the industry of the country." But for too long, it's been inanimate (and constitutionally unjustifiable) corporations who've drawn all the benefits from that system. If we abolish it and embark on a new more enlightened path some day, then great, but in the mean time, let's not screw ourselves at our own expense and not at the expense of the corrupt.
Equality has been the rallying point of the modern enlightened state, and we should achieve it wherever and whenever possible. Electronic filing is yet another step towards equality for all, and I applaud it.
-- Anne Marie