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.
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.
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!
"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.