US Patent Office To Hire 500 New Examiners

ddillman writes to us with a story from EEtimes that is reporting that the US Government, specifically the PTO, is hiring up to 500 electrical engineers to help assess the validity of new patent claims on technical gadgets. Good - and with the downturn in the high tech industry you can get them cheap.

Comments

Open Source People : Apply!

[Jeppe Salvesen]

This is a good chance to inject some open source talent into an important public body. It really sounds like they could use some talent, and most importantly a broader knowledge base!

Why only EEs?

[c_jonescc]

The article states that comp. engs. and EEs are the ones being hired, but most scientists with higher degrees should be able to do this job. Physicists usually arn't considered for engineering jobs, both in govt and industry, and I have never understood why.

Re:Why only EEs?

[c_jonescc]

I do not think that an engineering education is at all more broad than a physicists. True, with a bachelors degree an engineer is probably more prepared to build something distributable, but engineering degrees are inherently specific. You only learn optics, or mechanics, or electronics, whilst a good physics program should cover all those areas with depth. I just don't think an engineer can cover as much as a physics Ph.D. But then I am working on my physics Ph.D. so I might be somewhat biased.

But during my undergrad days I interned for Lockheed Martin and they just didn't know what to do with a physics major. All the engineering majors had placements, but since I wasn't optical or mechanical or chemical or electrical, they didn't know what I could do, while I honestly think I could have been productive in any of the groups. I may not have memorized the "right" formulas for calculation at that point, but I did have a deeper understanding of the fundamentals, and from there the calculations are a small step away.

Seems that the label before the word engineer is what HR usually looks at.

They need to change the revenue model.

[IGnatius T Foobar]

The real problem with the PTO is that they make money when a patent is awarded. Therefore they are motivated to award as many patents as possible. This needs to change before the "patent everything" mindset will stop getting its way every time.

Re:They need to change the revenue model.

[hamburger lady]

man, that is one of the dumbest things i've ever heard.

we make money from everything, from the filing to the issue. in fact, i've made the PTO more money in fees from NOT allowing cases, since the attorney has to pay evertime he amends the application.

the real problem is people who don't know what the hell they're talking about.

New Hires vs. Policy

[HiThere]

New hires don't set policy. The policy appears to be to grant as many patents as feasible. So more new hires will just let them grant more patents quickly.

I may misunderstand this, but my understanding is that the funding for the patent office is somewhat dependant on the number of patents granted. Possibly that was the performance evaluation of the patent examiner. I'm sure that many of the people there try to do the best job feasible under the circumstances. But with those circumstances...

(+5, Insightful) [mod up parent]

[ijx]

What a wonderfully simple and powerful concept...

It reminds me of something Joel Spolsky wrote, about how Microsoft programmers get paid per line of code written, not by the quality of the code. Furthermore, they get paid more for every bugfix. This means that their personal 'revenue models' encourage flawed code.

Just something to chew on...

Yeah, but when are they going to hire SW engineers

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder whether the anti-patent crowd here on /. and elsewhere would be happier if the PTO had a cadre of software engineers who specifically vetted software patents. Perhaps if the one-clicks and other "obvious" ideas never made it through in the first place, there wouldn't be so much to complain about. Where were the complaints against software patents prior to the rise of the Open Source trend?

Re:The real question, however...

[spectecjr]

...is whether or not they'll help keep down the level of bullshit patents (defensive patents or whatever you call them) so certain companies *cough*adobe*cough*macromedia*cough*microsoft* won't be able to sue willy-nilly anymore. Well, I'm sure they'll find a way to do that anyway, but it might slow them down a bit.

Name ONE case where Microsoft has used their patents aggressively, rather than to defend themselves from lawsuits against others.

Just ONE. That's all I ask.

Simon

Re:Circuit patents == software patents?

[re-geeked]

While I agree wholeheartedly with your feelings on overbroad patents, to answer your question: what's wrong with old-patent-plus-one-bit patents? I'd say that they are evidence of the fact that our patent system has become an expensive, elaborate joke.

If a company has enough resources and enough of a stake in an area of technology, they can pepper the patent office with enough variations and guesses and might-work-somedays to leave others with the choices of: do the same, stay out of the field, or take your chances.

Sometimes, they'll take a shot at a big home run, which gives the overbroad patent, and sometimes they'll look at someone else's home run attempt and find a little room for improvement. The fact is that neither patent is worth as much to the public as the applicant hopes to get out of it.

I agree that your IC patent example is silly, and is a counterincentive to those who would put capital behind technology development. Isn't a patent that adds that millionth transistor just as silly, and a counterincentive to someone who would like to establish a new venture in the field?

Anyone still reading wants to know what the answer is, and I'm not sure, but I think the only way out is for the PTO to treat a patent grant as a damn special thing that occurs to the rare, deserving breakthrough. Maybe there should be a limited number of patent grants?

The PTO also needs to avoid punishing those who don't apply for patents (boy I bet that farmer from Ur is rolling in his grave over the wheel patent!), since that seems to just encourage the defensive-patent peppering.

As it stands, I'm having a hard time seeing how patents really serve to protect inventors or reward capitalists much.