Slashdot Mirror
Patent Office Proposes Reform
leabre writes "The NY Times (subscription required) is running a story about how the Patent and trademark office is trying to reform itself. Among some of the reforms sought, is higher fees for the initial processing fee, higher fees for more than 20 claims, higher fees for the more work the examiners have to due (lower fees for less work and fewer claims), 2000 more examiners, and required continued relevance of the examiner in their field (certification and re-certification). My favorite quote "...Mr. Rogan says excessive claims not only slow patent processing but contribute to poor-quality patents." They are trying to crack down on abundant claims and too-technical jargon which they claim overworks the examiners, reduces the quality of the patent, and other things. Worth a read."
The PTO makes no money. It is a government service organization. If you read the article, you'll notice that they are really tied up by the fact that many unwarranted patents are filed every year along with poorly written patent applications.
Speaking from personal experience (both going through to process and having known employees) they are completely overwhelmed by people who are applying for patents for things that already exist, and primarily by poorly written yet overwhelmingly complex patent applicatons.
I don't see how charging according to the amount of effort that they have to put in is going to hinder the process. Most large organizations are going to ultimately be the ones paying the most. If an individual wishes to file for a patent, they hold workshops all the time on how to get through effieciently, and ultimately this will mean that you get to pay the least.
All in all, I think they need some reform, and I really hope this helps. They do provide a good service, when things are working.
--- I'll have a Bloody Mary, a Steak Sandwich and a uh Steak Sandwich.
BT's frivilous patent on "links".
BT's patent itself was valid (Filled back in the 70's). However, it was BT's attempted enforcment of the patent that was frivilous.
Of course I could be snide and point out that in the rest of the world, the patent had expired. It was only in the U.S, where patent terms are much longer, did BT even have a chance of claiming infringment. So in a way, it was your own damn fault for allowing your politicians to rape the commons with "IP" laws.
Maybe the reforms could be extended to cover patent and copyright terms? Oh, who am I kidding! Another Copyright Extension act for all!
But he's not going far enough. Simply charging more for more patent filings isn't going to stop the companies that exist to do nothing other than file patents. They'll just factor it into their business models and pass the costs on to licencees.
What the PTO needs to do is to charge punitive fees when they reject patents. Yes, you heard me. Currently, they get their income from granting patents, so there's absolutely no, zero, zilch, nada incentive to reject, and so there's no disincentive to file.
Let's turn that on its head. Patents should be granted grudgingly. Examiners should be looking for excuses to reject them.
I'd quite seriously propose a deposit of $10,000 for each patent filing, most of which would be refundable on granting. I want filers to be sure that they're actually filing genuine inventions, and I want the PTO examiner (and/or subcontractor) to be eyeing that $10,000 as her reward for finding prior art that you've missed or "forgotten" to mention.
If $10,000 looks like a lot, then consider how many genuinely novel inventions you're likely to have during your working life, and compare that to the number of cars you might buy over that same period. If you still think that's too much for basement inventors, then consider that they can always sell their idea to one of the patent swallowing companies, and we can go back to business as usual.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Isn't one of the reasons that large companies are able to get patents out faster and more often is the high fees in the first place? Way to squash the little guy.
And exactly how would all this have prevented the sideways swinging patent #6368227? How much expertise and certification to you need to spot the prior art in THAT one?
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
I didn't mean to say that less work for them was bad. It's just that some people would have this slanted as if this was some great news for the end consumers -- while the motivation for the reform seems much simpler than that. Less work & more money. Pretty easy, and not inherently good or bad.
You're right, though, I do want to abolish the patent system completely. I think this is sort of like "those who can afford to pollute/restrict the intellectual sphere with patents can do it". A classical case of rich-gets-richer.
Now, left-slanted as I may be, I don't have anything against people making it by working hard. What I am opposed is "it takes money to make money"-situations. The old Samuel-Vimes-cheap-boot-dilemma. Patents are harmful in another way as well -- they're about restrictions and enmity, not cooperation.
As for my position on Intellectual "Property", there's no such thing. I go back and forth on trademarks (long story), I want to see copyrights and trade secrets totally revised, and I want patents to go away.
So how many of them would he have paid $10000 for?
e .h tm?site=http%253A%252F%252Fedison.rutgers.edu%252F patents.htm
http://history1900s.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsit
If the patent is written in a way to make it obscure and not understandable (by suitable reviewes), then it should be rejected and the filing fee kept. This should stop comanies trying to "innovate by obscuration" and should also lighten the load on the patent office.
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
These 'reforms' further raise the barriers to entry for the small guy and compound the existing systemic faults in patents. That they are presented as 'reforms', perhaps gives a clue, that patent-opposition is _not_ a forlorn hope even in the US. US Geeks keep the pressure up.
Also we Europeans cannot sit on our laurels, the European Patent Office are still trying to force the introduce of software patent (http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/indp rop/comp/index.htm) through the back door of EU treaty obligations and legislation. The proposals are not dead or without critics. A final push could see victory, (at least for a time). This could be forced given the major issues on table at the moment. So we ALL need to stand up for our rights and complain to our various National and EU representatives.
If you are in the UK, don't forget Fax Your MP remember keep it short, simple and professional. Don't be afraid to play up to the political position of the party in power, always claim past support & link future support to this issue, some points to use:
- Negative competitive pressure on Software sector.
- Negative economic impact overall.
- Anti-Competitive.
- Anti-Freedom.
- Anti-Democratic, process is at odds with consultation process results.
I'd also like to propose this Google Bomb, pointing the works Software Patents to the http://swpat.ffii.org/ home.
"You're right, though, I do want to abolish the patent system completely. I think this is sort of like "those who can afford to pollute/restrict the intellectual sphere with patents can do it". A classical case of rich-gets-richer."
I don't know. I have met a number of people who could only be called inventors. Were it not for the patent system they would not be making anything because those with money and resources could easily exploit their idea.
"Now, left-slanted as I may be, I don't have anything against people making it by working hard. What I am opposed is "it takes money to make money"-situations. The old Samuel-Vimes-cheap-boot-dilemma."
While I do agree with the general premise of "the more you have, the easier it is to hold on to it" I don't think patenets can really be applied in such a manner.
True, I would agree to such a thing if the price for reviewing patents was at such a level as to put more of a strain on those with less, but I'm not really sure it is (don't get me wrong, I honestly haven't looked into how much the proposed changes will be).
But I do belive that the PO is more likely to try to charge more to the big compaines. Those who put in a 100 applications a day, many of which are the same kind of application with just a few changed details.
So in a sense they're trying to raise the playing field rather than raise the bar (again, though I should note this is just mere conjecture on my part. I could be quite wrong.)
" Patents are harmful in another way as well -- they're about restrictions and enmity, not cooperation. "
But they're protective too. For example, if I invent the supersnooper and it because really popular, then I'm protected from big boys comming over and taking my tosh.
As for my position on Intellectual "Property", there's no such thing. I go back and forth on trademarks (long story), I want to see copyrights and trade secrets totally revised, and I want patents to go away.
I don't know.. Like I said I think that copyrights protect us to a degree. However I do belive that they should be more flexiable. Goverment and Public organizations should be able to make use out of them, and corperations shouldn't be able to sit on patents for years on end until someone else comes up with the idea too and figures a good way to make money with it.
I submitted this story some 3 or 4 weeks ago with a link to an actual USPTO proposal document.
Anyway, this is not something to get too excited about. Every time the USPTO thinks it needs money it makes these proposals. The complaints are always similar - too many claims, too difficult, yada yada yada. I even once ran across a newspaper story from the 1930s which complained of the same things (interestingly, back then, USPTO examiners were required to know a second language).
The PTO side of things is not geared toward the rich.
It costs relatively little for an individual to file their own patent.
The PTO also halves the cost on all fees for the little guy.
I am in agreement with your statement on the legal system, (the infringement side of the patent picture) with infringment lawsuits costing 1-3 million easily.
Some words from Barney Frank that add perspective toward your "class war" proclamation (although I am not a liberal, I respect these ideas he put forth):
We have two systems in this country. We have an economic system, capitalism, which is based on inequality. It is inequality which drives that system which has been so productive of wealth and which is so broadly supported. If people are not unequally rewarded for their labor, if people are not unequally rewarded for the wisdom of their investment decisions, if people are not unequally rewarded because they respond to consumer demand, capitalism does not work. So inequality, some of us want to keep it from getting excessive, but it is at the heart of that system.
We also have a political system, and the heart of that political system is equality. That was the genius of the American Constitution, not fully realized at the time, a goal that we have been striving towards with some success ever since. What we have in our public policy is a tension between an economic system built on inequality where people are unequally rewarded and unequally powerful and a political system in which people are supposed to be equal, in which people's preferences are supposed to count each equally one for one.
Increased fees will NOT deter the big-money players in the patent game. It will simply become more difficult for the ordinary person (who often has limited funding) to obtain patents for legitimate inventions.
We don't usually think of the average person as being an inventor, but most of us probably think of new products we would like to see offered, or new ways to use existing ones to solve some problem we are having. If we can write a description and pay the fee, the award of a patent is almost guaranteed.
Small inventors are the losers here, but at the expense of quality (or at least a step in the right direction)
/. can cut out some of these ideas and plug them into your own, and make this idea stream a bit better?
I still think other countries would benefit from this document avalanche in the US.
How?
Have a small nation like Haiti (or other nation that owes $$ to the US) create there own patent offices, with certified specialists, (probably from the US) then have a UN agreement accepting the mini-patents as art for all prior art cases, with the possibility of full patent rights after 5 years. The mini pats can only be filed by the average citizen, and can only fit on one sheet of paper, with a fontsize of 8 as the minimum font size. One extra sheet can be added for Graphics, or pics, and the price would be $50, of which the US gets paid $40-$45 from the country in question. Of course... the small country would accept applications from acceptable countries all over the world, this would bring in money from other countries, and not just recycle american money.
This will lower the cost of patents for the small time inventor, help other nations pay us back some of there debts, and have a system of recording prior art.
Maybe you guys at
Mabidex