Slashdot Mirror
Patent Office Shows Record Backlog
acroyear writes "WTOP, 1500am, a news radio station in the DC area, is reporting that the Patent Office Is Seeing Record Backlog, with 2 years for a patent now, and potentially 4 years to wait by decade's end, and the PTO is considering a 15% increase in filing fees. Personally, I think if they had set a trend of actually rejecting patents that don't belong, they'd have sent enough of a message to keep application numbers to a reasonable level; right now, everybody files because just about everything can get one."
Infrasctucture overhauls and their willingness to revamp the system are key to sucess. I am afraid that in typical government fashion the backlog will be resolved with a shredder. Only time will tell.
I sold out for stock options.
Yeah, and us poor schmucks who can't afford several grand in expences have to get a corporation to help and hope they don't screw us. Too bad I can't make any money off of these ideas I have. Innovation my ass.
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
everybody files because just about everything can get one
Now we've all seen plenty of stories where stupid patents have been granted. But I don't think we're getting the entire picture. If they grant thousands of patents a year and we only see 20 stupid patent articles, then maybe they aren't doing the terrible job we're assuming they are. Maybe they are rejecting patents but we just don't hear about it because companies don't publicize their rejections.
I'm not claiming to have first-hand knowledge of the USPO but it's food for thought.
(OK...can we avoid all the stupid patent jokes and just get onto the weekly /. rants about patents and the obligatory "it's not stealing, it's copyright infringment" whining. Thanks.
everybody files because just about everything can get one
Why should we make the USPTO due the homework of a patent lawyer? Another way to filter patents (and lower taxpayer burden) is to leave it up to the courts. To prevent abuses, there should be strong penalties for filing a patent that gets overturned in court. Useless patents are never challenged and nobody cares; useful patents get their due. Lawyers make more money. See? Everybody's happy.
-Sean
I work for a large corporation, and they encourage every employee to try to create 4 patent proposals a year. Coworkers have submitted many proposals, but I don't know in my local group who's gotten a patent all the way through... I don't konw how much rubber-stamping the USPTO is doing given that our legal department is rejecting 90%+ of our submissions.
Become a Patent Attorney. With this kind of glut there's going to be a strong demand for those who can wade through it.
Excuse me while I get back to filling out my patent application for 'carrot and stick'
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Those bastards!
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
I am sick of all these patent infringements from dying companies. I hope that this will kill the dying companies with the "so called patent". so FU amazon with your click patent. FU SCO with your lawsuits. FU NCR with your clams of owning the PDA patent. I wish these shitty companies would just go away.
We are so quick to rush to judgement. Perhaps even reversing cause and effect?
Maybe the frivolous patents are a result of everyone bum-rushing the Patent Office. There might not be enough time to scrutinize every patent that comes in. Of course this encourages more frivolous patents, making it even harder for the Patent Office to give each patent its due care.
It's an interesting tactic: flood the Patent Office with useless requests, making it impossible for individuals to get their life's work patented. The longer an invention remains unpatented, the better chance of duplicating and marketing someone's idea before they have the chance (because you have all the production capabilities already). Vague patents and lawyers can keep away those who decide to challenge, and most will probably accept a small settlement.
...
Why should we make the USSA due the homework of a slave trader? Another way to filter slaves (and lower taxpayer burden) is to leave it up to the courts. To prevent abuses, there should be strong penalties for too much whipping. Beaten slaves are never challenged and nobody cares; useful slaves get their due. Slave whippers make more money. See? Everybody's happy.
Damnit, intellectual property is the slaver of today. Abolish it!
That way, the filing fees can remain low, but valuable patents (which in theory may require more protection) will pay the government for that protection. Something like 1% of profits on the invention. So, a million dollar idea would get the government $10,000 in exchange for the patent protection. If your idea never makes you money (say over $1000), then you don't need to pay it.
Is it possible that since patents take 2 years to be granted and time before your granted one is increasing, people might be filing more frivolous patents just because the time gap to profit with their innovation is decreasing. It would be better if the PTO hired was a group of 40-50 people consisting of IP/patent professors and industry people who would be consulted whether the patents submitted are valid or just a time waste.
e. If they grant thousands of patents a year and we only see 20 stupid patent articles
u s_stat.pdf the US Govt granted 166,000 patents in 2001. It's quite amazing how many they have to go through.
According to this http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/
Photos.
Good - The two year wait may discourage the frivolous inventions we see, like say This one
Bad - Delays all the great technical inventions that are obsolete in a month
Anyone have any idea how many of these backlogged patents are stupid attempts to cash-in on common ideas?
Like this patent on linking...
or this patent on floating banners...
Why do I h8 apple?
I think the way fees are done for the patent office should be changed. Something that rewards good patents, and penalizes bad ones.
$patentCost = (some constant);
while( patentIsRejected() )
{
$patentCost *= 2;
}
And then we need to reimplement patentIsRejected() to something like:
1) flat-out-reject anything that's already patented.
2) reject anything with prior art
3) Have a QUALIFIED examiner spend some time looking it over.
4) Have a certain public review periond (6 months?) that anyone can register complaints
5) Review complaints (possible reject)
6) Have another, different qualified examiner check it out for an extended period of time.
For it is my sole intellectual property, as found in U.S. patent 1782824O4c3. I may or may not be willing to license it to you for a substantial, but reasonable (my opinion) sum. end sarcasm
Got fired from your rebate handling job because you were too slow processing applications? Fear no more! Get a job at the patent office!
I think there should be a study to determine how harmful it will be for the society if we move to abolish the patent system altogether. I have doubts whether the benefits of having the current system can outweigh the disadvantages like the chilling effect on innovations coming from individual or small company sources.
If you submit an excessive amount of 'frivolous patents you should get fined... a lot, or even better, your patents get reviewed with a lower priority until the 'quality' of the patents goes back up.
Did you read the article? There are 2900 examiners right now and they want to raise fees so they can hire 3500 more. How can adding 50 people possibly help with the backlog?
the extremely sad thing is that then economy is so bad for process engineers with little experience that I'm actually appyling to get a job there.
Pay is very good, work from what I heard is a typical government job. People have certain quotas, and they make them and dont try any harder because of lack of competetiveness within the USPTO.
From the article:
Last year the office issued an average of more than 3,000 patents a week. It is one of the few federal agencies that brings in more money than it spends.
Some of that money is siphoned off to other agencies _ more than $630 million since 1992.
The Patent Office has a positive cash flow. They actually take in more in fees than they consume, with the excess being diverted to non-productive (from a patent standpoint, anyway) agencies.
So, *of course* the only way for them to process more patents per time unit is to raise the fees.
Yes, I do realize that there are most likely mitigating factors (dealing with problems of expansion, etc.) that come in to play, here, which would make a noticable jump in speed more expensive. But, initial inspection of the problem does tend to make me think "plow the profits back in to the organization. Make *more* profits that way. Remember: The more we process, the more we *generate* here..."
Or could it possibly be an idea of "raise the fee enough to drive off all of these pesky little inventors...thus reducing our workload."
Nah...they wouldn't think that way...would they?
The PTO is a fully fee-funded organization. BUT... all the fees they collect go to Congress, who then gives back _A PORTION_ (100%) to the PTO for its operations. If the PTO were allowed to keep 100% of its current fees (without helping balance the rest of the Federal budget with them), the fees probably wouldn't have to go up.
You cant up the price, the people who can barely afford patents for their ideas wont patent but it wont stop the big guys patenting everything left right and centre. What needs to happen is either a system where you pay more on a sliding scale the more patents you have.Or a system where large companies pay more anyway. Stop penalising the little guy!!
Slashdot - The one stop shop for procrastination
Individual efficiency in the workplace has been geometrically rising for the past century and a half. Population has also been geometrically rising dramatically for the past century and a half. Therefore, the number of patent requests also be geometrically rising. Since government bureaucracies tend to be sticky in their use of technologies, it shouldn't be any surprise that there are a record number of patents applications with a large backlog.
Hoist Number One and Number Six.
For their sake I hope they don't let it get to the 4year mark...
Patent #45560986 Granted to Guy F. Ottawa on April 1, 1999.
Description:
The process of providing a service to individuals (or businesses) who's end result is not conveyed for 4 years (1460 Days).
using System.Awesome;
Perhaps a shredder is just what is needed! While some ideas deserving of patent may go un-protected, others that may be granted patents without merit will end up just where they belong, in the shredder!
Yes I am a Troll, but just how did you know I'm from Norway?
Not a patent but a trademark, but it's the same USPTO providing the quality service.
Denver Isuzu Suzuki
excellent first post.
that said, i think the patent office needs to completely overhaul its operations. If they actually hired more patent inspectors and set hire goals to obtaining a patent, then maybe we could clear this backlog.
I've heard somewhere in the past that MAILING YOURSELF YOUR IDEA/LITERATURE/POEM/SONG/BLUEPRINTS and never opening the letter makes it a document that MAY hold up to prove you invented your idea.
Think of it....it's an OFFICALLY STAMPED US DOCUMENT NOW (went through the mail) and you mailed it to yourself. As long as you never break the seal, it has a government stamp on it proving when you created it, right?
Are there any lawyers that know if this would hold up to prove it was YOURS first?
Small entities already pay less than large entities. For example, the filing fee for a small entity is only $375, compared to $750 for large entities. The definition of Small Entity is long, but, as a starting point, individuals and companies with fewer than 500 employees is considered a small entity.
for (pc = n; patent_is_rejected(); pc <<= 1);
Yes indeed, this is off topic, although probably not a troll or a flamebait. My guess would be that you wanted to insert a little artistry into an otherwise dry conversation - a impressionist view in a community of realists. If that's the case, even though I have mod points I simply can't mark you down for your ambition.
That said, your post does leave me wishing that there was a "-1, Unskilled." Listen carefully to me -- you should stop writing. What you perceive as buoyant prose is really just thesaurus-driven typing with arbitrary eccentricities posing as a personal style. I read what you posted and I think of you as someone who read Joyce and Pynchon, and was so utterly disconnected, so thoroughly ignorant of their works' goals and scope that the only coherent thought you could have when you quit at page 80 was "Hey, I think I could do that."
Please understand, I'm not saying that you are worthless as a person, only that you are worthless as a writer. So please make a big move, explore new horizons and new experiences, new arenas where you could make a great contribution to the world. Just do us all a favor and never write about them.
The only acceptable defense of scientific results is to say that they were the product of the Scientific Method.
The PTO is considering a 15% increase in filing fees.
Yeah that's the solution... let's make it even harder for the average joe to submit a patent... that's the problem. Those damn garage hobbyists doing nothing but submitting applications. The nerve. It couldn't be the corporations who don't care how much you charge and submit hundreds of applications a month...
I'm fairly involved in the paintball industry, and I've had occasion due to 10% need and 90% need to procrastinate to read/skim the vast majority of patents related to paintball.
;)) may not necessarily be the way the world really is. I'm willing to bet that the backlog is 98% due to growth of the economy/country rapidly exceeding growth of staff at the USPTO.
99% of them patent something useful in the industry. Maybe the USPTO drops the ball more often when it comes to software, but there's still a lot of patenting that goes on out there for just regular old "stuff"; genuine, true inventions. Even if you DID manage to find a way to prevent the frivolous patents from getting there in the first place, they're probably less than 5% of the total workload. Maybe 1 or 2%. Because patents are freaking expensive.
Just keep in mind that the way Slashdot "News" articles can make the world look (Many events happen twice!
paintball
...but WTOP is not the one doing the reporting. It's a writer associated with the Associated Press.
Personally, I think if they had set a trend of actually rejecting patents that don't belong, they'd have sent enough of a message to keep application numbers to a reasonable level; right now, everybody files because just about everything can get one.
yet another example of some moron analyzing the news in the article. your job is to report whatever happened, not to tell us what to think about it.
Let the patenet office grant as many patents as it wants (so long as they are basically relevant) then *if* the patent is ever relevant (and only about 1% of them are) THEN it can be debated in court.
Of course we need provisions to stop companies with patents forcing individuals to stop something, and using their size and finances to win the court case.
Implementing a step function on applications fees might work. For example, for the first 10 patent applications you'd pay the regular price and for every 10 patents afterwards the price would go up.
As long as they wait 1459 days or 1461 days or any other total number of days other than 1460, they're not in violation of the patent.
Should have hired a better patent lawyer to draft that one.
paintball
That's my theory: Throwing (paper) money at me will solve the problem. And just so you know, I patented this theory, so it must have merit.
WTOP 1500AM -- Where our motto is:
"Traffic and Weather on the 8's, Commercials every 30 seconds!"
Thank god for NPR.
People need to understand that the USPTO is a cash cow for the Feds. It made somewhere along the lines of 400 million dollars for the Feds in 2002.
It has done that, in part, by actively encouraging the general public to file for both patent and trademark applications. It has implied to the public that it is easy to go through the application process. It also has a lopsided bonus structure for examiners that encourages quantity, not quality. While I was a trademark examiner, I could have made up to $20,000 per year in bonuses for the quantity of my work, but only about $3,000 dollars for the quality of my work. Does that make any sense if you do not want stupid patents and trademarks being issued!?!
The USPTO has implemented a new strategic plan that will restructure how the PTO handles both patent and trademark applications. Most people in the field believe that this restructuring will increase pendency and decrease quality. You can read the PTO's annual reports and the 21st Century Strategic Plan"
So it should be no surprise that filings are going way up and pendency is going way up along with it... and that more mistakes are made and more garbage gets through. It also should come as no surprise that the PTO has a vested interest in making sure people believe that they can file applications on their own. So it offers "online filing", "online searching" and other tools that are really a poor substitute for having a complete search done by an attorney (or a patent agent). There is no question that some people don't want to put out the money for a professional search, and are willing to chance the money they lose in filing fees. That's fine. There are also those who earnestly get the impression that all they have to do is "file an application" and they will get a registration. Like most things in life (and especially with the government), it rarely works that way.
-A
Step One) Tax patents Step Two) ........
Step Three) Profit!
As to your response to #3 - I think this is one of the most important points, and the one where your response is incomplete. As an engineering law professor at Northwestern once told us, patent exmainers are usually going to be the least skilled graduates in their areas of expertise. Don't believe me? Well, take a look at these two links:
s /gradelevels.htm
First this http://www3.uspto.gov/go/jars/sgs.html
then this http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ahrpa/ohr/job
So if I've got a degree in Chemical Engineering, I can start at the US Patent office making a whole $32,819 a year! And it gets better. If I have a masters in Chemical Engineering I can start at $47,240! And my reward for these splendid salaries? I get to sit and stare at patent applications all day. Even in this crappy enconomy, those salaries don't look that good. Imagine the kind of employee they were able to hire in the boom of the previous decade. Yeah.
I realize that I could've been nicer and more politic in this post, but...well I have no excuse. I just didn't feel like it.
03.02.26.we | Non-Novel Patents
In addition to the alarm about the unruly expansion of copyright, an outcry over an offensive software or method patent is surfacing nearly every week now. But the storm is not yet upon us, these are merely the first chunky hail stones: it can, and probably will, get much worse.
Patents are supposed to be novel, useful, and non-obvious. However, these are rather subjective criteria that require the discretion of knowledge, experience, and good judgment. Such attributes belong to those skilled in an art, not to bureaucratic institutions. (Witness how those administrative functions formerly administered by John Postel, a skillful and respected Internet elder, are now bungled by ICANN, the bureaucracy now responsible.) However, we have no great patent arbiter, only a governmental process and this has led to a focus on, and misunderstanding of, prior art by computer professionals.
The question of novelty and non-obviousness is proxied by a mechanistic process of push and pull between a patent applicant and patent examiner. An examiner, on his own judgment, can not easily dismiss the application of a proprietary interest worth, potentially, millions of dollars. He can only ask, "how is your claim different than this prior art." Once this dance is done, a court is not likely to disregard the patent's novelty as documented in its file wrapper (the exchange between the applicant and examiner) and the resulting claims.
In the narrowest construction, this process of emulating good judgment with respect to novelty and non-obviousness works: the resulting patent claims are more narrow than the initial application with respect to some existing works. But in the sense of promoting innovation and the "useful arts and sciences" of computer software and networking, it is a huge failure.
As I've mentioned before, "Good technology, often created through simple processes, lends itself to applications unforeseen by its designers." As Lessig, in The Future of Ideas, amply demonstrates this principle is what makes the Internet and Web such an innovative force when as expressed as layered end-to-end architecture. To adopt his metaphor, our common roads permit arbitrary journeys; our private cars permit us to traverse our chosen paths. Much like the Internet and Web, there are no patents or controls on the roads that determine where you must go. (There are rules such as which side of the street to drive on, much like networking protocols, but these don't affect your destination.) It would be a shame to loose this flexibility, and this is just what the patent system encourages: claims that combine our common infrastructure and abilities in "novel" ways.
It's as if roads and driving themselves are recognized as an important infrastructure and ability, but someone could patent using a car on a road to drive to my house. Is using a car on a road to drive to my house really that novel? The Patent and Trademark Office can not make this judgment well, it will only look for prior art of someone previously, explicitly, specifying this exact method in the past. Perhaps they will find the method of driving to my house that I've provided on the Web. The applicant might then amend their application such that they have a claim for a car, on the road, driven to my house using a stick shift, and a new claim for the same using automatic transmission. The claims have been narrowed and there is no previous exact d
For those that do not live in the Washington/Baltimore/Northern VA area..
WTOP is an excellent news, traffic, and weather radio station in the DC metro area. They broadcast on FM and two AM stations and have a very wide coverage area. They do have some "talk" style presentations but they are limited to select people, mostly politicians and other decision makers in the area (police chiefs, transportation board members, governors etc..), they call them "Ask the Governor" or similar.
They are pretty much the standard in the area for non music information and are very respected by many in the area. I never was a news radio type of person but when I moved into the area I was very impressed with the presentation and now listen in either online or in the car. A good example is the traffic reports, most other stations simply spit out backup here and there. WTOP explains the backup, where it is at, possible workarounds and expected recovery times. Top notch. Of course, I know people who can;t stand to listen to it too.
Just some background.
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
Minor quibble, but I've noticed that /. postings often say 'CNN is reporting...' or 'The N.Y. Times says...,' when in fact the link goes to a story written by one of the news wires, like the Associated Press or Reuters. In the case of this posting, it's AP reporting the Patent Office backlog, not WTOP radio.
"Personally, I think if they had set a trend of actually rejecting patents that don't belong, they'd have sent enough of a message to keep application numbers to a reasonable level; right now, everybody files because just about everything can get one."
I just finished watching a short little biography on Hedy Lamarr on TechTV. She filed patents during her acting career but they weren't looked upon for several more years. Just think if they had rejected the idea like you said. Back then women were still considered inferior. If we start rejecting patents and heed to certain standards it might ultimately take us longer time before any groundbreaking technology comes our way.
"I hope if dogs ever take over the world, and they chose a king, they don't just go by size, because I bet there are some Chihuahuas with some good ideas."
-Jack Handey
"I think if they had set a trend of actually rejecting patents that don't belong, they'd have sent enough of a message to keep application numbers to a reasonable level."
Great idea, you should patent it.
In contrast, the average citizen with a great idea and not a lot of cash lying around will be the one harmed by higher fees. In that case, I wonder, who are patents for?
Look at it this way: they are proposing to raise filing fees as a deterrent, and a "fee as a deterrent" is nothing but a fine. So, it seems now that ingenuity is an offence punishable by fine.
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
First, I was mainly commenting on how I think it should get more and more expensive the more times the patent needs to be submitted. This will put a financial burden on bad patents that try to get pushed through, and give a reward for ones that make it on the first try.
The silly method for rejecting patents was just that, silly. I didn't really mean for people to focus on that!
Third. That being said, I think the function to determine patentability should be a boolean one-time shot. So if it doesn't pass the patent for any reason (bad patent, improperly filed, not enough details, etc.) the cost for that patent doubles. There shouldn't be any "Please clarify section X" or "Section Y is too broad, please update"
And obviously, the base fee should be slightly less than the cost of the patent application. (so the patents at 2x and 3x could make up for the shortfall)
And how are these things going to happen without serious investment, when they can't even do their basic work with the money and personnel they have? Maybe we can pass another tax cut. Tax cuts magically make money appear in the economy. That's why we have all these budget surpluses we can't figure out what to do with.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
Oh well, at least this will make it take longer for the really bogus patents to go through. Maybe it will be a deterrant...
Depends on the product, and also assumes that the inventor intends to be the one who carries out the idea. There's no reason to think that the person who invents something is any better able to carry out their own idea than anyone else. For this reason, it would be a good idea for the inventor to sell the patent to an established comany that would have the means to execute the idea. So, if I invent something, it might be a good idea for me to cash out on the patent after getting it.
So, if that's the goal, then $10,000 could be quite prohibitive. It means that someone who doesn't have a lot of money will basically be forced to disclose their idea to a potential partner before filing the patent, in order to get the money to file at all. Then they pretty much have to hope that they don't get screwed (even if they have a lawyer), and you can bet they will get very little for their idea.
I find myself in the same position - I have an idea for an interesting product that would actually be fairly cheap to make (Prototype would be around a few hundred dollars, and production would be under $5). Additionally, it means that for a cheaper product, you have to sell a jillion of them just to make back the patent costs. Not fun. Even if I had a profit margin of 75% (ie, sell it for $20 at $5 cost), I would have to sell about 500 units to break even.
I hope a conscientious moderator will mod down my uninformed rants.
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
They aren't as bad as the INS that's for sure. The backlog for a green card at the Nebraska office is 4 years and 3 months. Hell, if you lose a document and want to replace you can expect to wait at lease a year. Talk about a whole system needing an overhaul.
-----
One is born into aristocracy, but mediocrity can only be achieved through hard work.
I suspect they need the opportunity to get up to speed with technology and processes that will allow them to take the extra work on. However, they probably can't, because someone else holds the patent on the technology and process that they need to make things better, stronger and faster! ;-)
Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
At one time I'd swear I saw a quote from a high level USPTO officeholder who said something to the effect:
"If we get it wrong, that is why to court exists...to fix a mistake".
Does anyone have when/where/who in the USPTO said something like that?
I filed an elegant and cost saving answer to the solution - but I want to make sure it is patented... they said it should get through in only 3 years.
I feel like I'm helping.
There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
One-Click patent applications!
Table-ized A.I.
IEEE Spectrum magazine's Invention Department has been covering the patent backlog for the last few months, and the PTO's plans to do something about it. It's a matter of personnel--you have 3400 examiners looking at over 400 000 patents currently pending, with maybe a quarter million new ones coming in over the transom every year. The bloat of business method patents and software patents is particularly crippling, and the PTO's plan to out source prior art searches isn't going to solve the problem. David Kushner (author of the new Masters of Doom book on Romero and Carmack) visited the PTO to see what was going on in February. Scott Kariya wrote a piece on the proposed reforms in December 2002. Read on at:
p la te.jsp?ArticleId=i040203
p la te.jsp?ArticleId=i120202
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/careers/careerstem
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/careers/careerstem
So they need to reduce the number of applications filed each year? Easy. Reduce the incentive to patent. If they reduced the number of years that a patent could be held to 15 instead of 20, fewer patents would be filed, right? If not, it would at least prove that reducing the duration of exclusive rights to intellectual property does not reduce the incentive to create, and could potentially be used in the battle against copyrights (to prove that longer copyrights are unnecessary).
Wow, can I get your filing fees? Then, I'll go ahead and file your patent, as a small entity, for a whooping $500. That's selling *10* devices, not 100. And if you can't sell 10 of them, then trust me, it's not worth patenting.
Reality is, the Patent Office does try to make this affordable for small inventors. Almost everyone can swing $500 for filing fees.
Now if you want to hire a patent attorney to write your application, well then you're looking at closer to $10,000. But, if you don't have the money, but have the time, I highly recommend Patent It Yourself by Nolo Press. It'll help you write your patent for a grand total of $40. So, with filing fees, Assignments, and postage, the exercise might cost you $600. That's 12 of your devices at $50 profit. Not too shabby.
Thalia, why yes, I am a patent attorney
$100,000 non-refundable application fee, whether you get rejected or not.
That would stop 90% of this garbage, then we'd all be owned by 5 big companies though...
It is making it stand up in court that is hard. Everyone gets upset when company A claims to have a patent on the 1's in binary code or whatever. They may have such a patent but it probably will never stand up in court. Usually the cost of filing a patent is nothing compared to what you have to pay a patent lawyer to make sure that you patent is worded correctly; to make sure that someone can't claim that if they move the "on" switch over a few inches then the device becomea a different invention. I don't mind people getting useless patents -- if you want to pay that much money for something that is barely worth the paper it is printed on then that is fine! If there is too long of a wait to get your patent through they should just increase the cost of getting a patent. What I hate is when companies take their useless, never stand up in court, patents and try to get money out of the little guy. Maybe the patent system isn't the problem; maybe high legal fees and this sue first ask questions later attitude that we all (both the little guy and big companies) seem to have that is the problem.
You could have also been a more *correct* in your post, haha....according to the handy link you provided, chemists with a mere 30 semester hours can start off making $32k. So can physicists with only 24 hours. Simply graduating in the top third of your class means you start at $40k. And as your link also mentions, you are eligible for accelerated promotion after six months. Not only that, electrical and computer engineers start at higher pay grades and advance pretty rapidly. I know examiners (BSEE) who are making almost $70k after less than 4 years. This is not including overtime (which is there if you want it) and bonuses. So no, it is not the best deal in the world, but "in this crappy economy," as you put it, it is not too shabby. To say nothing of job security which is orders of magnitude better than the private sector.
As for your insinuation that examiners are the least skilled or unqualified simply because they make less than they might in the private sector, that is just asinine. I think you *do* have an excuse for not being "nicer" or "more politic" - you are a doofus. But as far as being ignorant is concerned, then no, you have no excuse.
... but I hold the patent on backlogging patent applications. In fact, I patented patent patenting, so there... Pppptttthhhhh!!!!
First is that the examiners at the USPTO primarily use the applications and granted patents in their collection to search for prior art, so in these fields (which were only recently, in patent terms, patentable) there isn't a lot of history.
Second, while the number of applications is way up, the number of examiners hasn't changed much. The amount of time available for each examination is very short, on the order of 30 minutes, so the re-check in item (6) isn't likely to happen.
You would do well to remember that the purpose of the government is NOT to turn a profit. It may seem that way on occasion, but it is not. The government is there to serve the people. *Sometimes* that coincides with making a profit, but the profit is not the goal.
Is that the USPTO is still using records when the rest of the world has been using CD's since the 80's. I suppose I'd let cassette tapes slide for the underpaid USPTO examiners who still don't have cars with CD players, but it's no surprise they have a backlog if they're still trying to use vinyl.
paintball
Why is the USPTO even listening to records? Shouldn't those be sent over to the copyright office at the Library of Congress or something?
paintball
Everytime a patent/Napter/e-book or other intellectual property-related story comes up, I see a great deal of posts that indicate the poster leans against strong IP protection. I wonder - how many slashdotters, like myself, think IP is a bogus concept altogether?
I'm still trying to come up with ways to automate signaling, acceleration, etc
:P
I recommend supporting mass transit. I automate all acceleration, signaling, etc when I get on the bus in the morning.
Non-professional drivers are far too stupid to be allowed to drive (myself included). Lets all take the monorail!
-Zipwow
I don't know which is more depressing, that 2/3 didn't care enough to vote, or that 1/2 of those that did are crazy.
It's all those goddamn useless "As Seen on TV" products! I.E. There is a product they're selling on TV right now that, picks up eggs!!!
-------
"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
-- George Orwell
I have irrefutable proof that Iinvented the log itself in the year 1900. My working model is a DOS box that made Zork available over a token ring net I forgot about in the basement.
I demand half of whatever you win in your infringement case. If not I will sue; half a semester of high school business law should be enough for me to win without hiring real lawyers.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
Well they still havn't made it to my patenting and trademarking of EACH AND EVERY WORD of EACH AND EVERY LANGUAGE. I wish they'd hurry up so that pretty so I will be the
first poster
and the
last poster
and the
ONLY POSTER on SLASHDOT
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!
Hospitals do it.
Have the submitter rank it 1 to 5.
Reduce the period to 13 years.
Have the submitter indicate if his/her invention would be eligible to get a patent in other countries.
When a layer says DONT look for prior art yourself, you know somethings crook.
Here's an idea, and I'm not going to patent it (it's free with a BSD license!).
When the USPTO approves a patent, the patent goes on the open market for auction whether you like it or not. If the applicant wants to keep the patent, they must pay 1% above the highest bid.
The winning bidder must also pay an additional percentage of the bid to the government, as part of the quid pro quo for having the government enforce the patent. Payment can be amortized over the lifespan of the patent, but the patent expires one year after the last payment if they stop paying. The patent can be sold to another party before it expires, but the new owner must continue to make the payments.
This way, unprofitable patents would fall into the public domain faster (so they won't prevent innovation that builds on top of them), and there will be a disincentive to hold on to a portfolio of a bazillion patents for the purpose of lawsuit ammunition.
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
Let me clarify .... I meant that if the winning bidder is not you, the winning bidder pays you the money. If you want to keep the patent, you pay the government.
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
IANAL
;-)
;-)
However, I do know that patents vary in scope quite a bit. If you are the first one to patnet the turn signal stick, your patent might be on the entire concept. Others might have to use buttons, etc. I suspect that the concept of using lights as signals has not been patentable for a REALLY LONG time (prior art).
When a patent gets filed and even approved, it can be difficult to determine how wide the scope is without going to court (and having the scope narrowed by examples of prior art, etc). This can be very costly for the plaintiff who has to be prepared for every piece of the patent to be attacked. If you think filing for patents are expensive, ask a lawyer about enforcing them
Now the plaintif's attourney has to try to uphold the patent in the broadest scope possible.
However, if a patent for a hyperlink were to be approved today, I would not stop using hyperlinks and would let them drag me to court. I think there are plenty of examples of hyperlinks being used for just about anything that the concept is probably no more patentable than the concept of a nail is for fixing shingles on roofs
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I noticed several complaints on the POPA site about expectancy remaining constant even though the number of shoes to search in the unit grew significantly.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office fees have been paying for significantly more than the cost of operating the Office for many, many years now. Instead of turning those funds into additional resources, the federal government has for years, through administrations both Democratic and Republican, siphoned off the surplus, and then some, for general revenues.
In other words, inventors are paying for our tax cuts already -- not the other way around. Want better examinations? Tell the government take its mitts off the fees. Right now, the fees are paying for our wars.
Bad idea. It will be a penalty for successful ideas. Instead it must be a penalty for stupid ideas. So, the tax must be aka the property tax: $10,000 a year just for the right to keep a patent. If the idea is good then it will bring enough profit to pay such "patent lease fee". If not - you should have your right to reject your payent by yourself.
"I shall explain this by waving my hands about in an appropriate manner." -- Cambridge University Math Dept.
well...with money they could higher more people to review the patents faster and in more detail
I think right now they are just swamped and overloaded. Letting things that should be rejected slide because they just don't have the time to really think about them.
Ya, becuase even more thurough checking of every single application will speed up the process.
I don't know how the system is set up now, but maybe if application were broken up into categories, and then only USPTO workers educated in that field(computer science, for example) would be able to accept patents. Rather than Joe Average walking into the office and show the clerk a floppy saying that it contained something called "Linux" and getting accepted(yes, that did happened) and having Jane Clerk believe him because she had no idea.
The reason for requiring the model ??? It clearly separated the real progress of man vs nature from the semantic progress of man vs man.
It was simple and it worked - and it was a bother for the patent clerks - so today no models and you can patent the last three words of this note - i.e. we are screwed.
Given many of the patents we've seen lately, throwing those in a shredder might do a lot to help us all ... :(
Well this is getting to be like a broken record and I missed this story when it was still on the front page, but this is important to me, so here goes one more time.
Patents have gotten out of hand again as they were before the Great Depression because of a very specific move in the federal courts made in the heady early days of the Reagan administration.
The big change is called the CAFC and it is a court system especially made to create and strengthen monopolies. I'd love to debate it if somebody would like to show evidence otherwise, but the people who know about it usually don't like to talk about it. So, I'll just mention it one more time for those of you who don't know about it.
Nobody is throwing money at the US patent office. The US government has even been using it as a revenue source for years now, diverting some of the fee income from patent applicants to other government projects. So the patent office is not even allowed to keep and spend on its own operations all the patent fees it receives. The rule has been cuts in costly operations, and a number of commentators blame the current brief and cursory examination of patent applications partly on this factor.