Slashdot Mirror
Could You Really Do Better than the USPTO?
lllama asks; "Is there such a thing as an obvious patent? Some ideas are so obvious that they needed to be stated before it's clear how obvious they are. Some are so blindingly simple that maybe a few dead monkeys might not have thought of them first. How would one go about deciding which ideas deserve a patent? Could/Should the patent office open itself up for public voting or moderation? Could a voting system affect how long a patent is grated for? Should the system be allowed to be swayed by public opinion? Should there be another tier of patents that protect IP but cannot be licensed out for money (BSD style patents?)? Given that simply hearing an idea affects how obvious it appears, could a system be devised that would allow an unbiased measure? An Obvious Quotient as such. Is there an obvious other word for 'obvious' that I could be using?"
Is it implemented in software?
If so, no patent.
If it implemented in software and hardware?
If so, no patent on the software portion.
Is it implemented entirely in hardware?
Build a working model of it, and submit it. You might get a patent.
Karma: Food Fight (Mostly affected by Date Plate).
The problem with all of those ideas are the same as the ones we have with slashdot...
Voting won't work because large compnaies can get people to vote for them through PR and links on the site and all sorts of manipulations.
Moderation by outsiders is subject to all kinds of abuse. Even without trolls and people just putting an automatic no on everything.
Most importantly, by putting it up for review to the public, every company's competitors would work their butts off to ensure that patent wasn't granted so they could use the idea themselves.
An acedemic review of sorts could work with a public request for prior art previous to ussuance but how long should the USPTO wait?
The system in place is broken but you would have to re-look at the whole idea of intellectual property in order to create a working system.
Hire some qualified practicioners in each field (under strict NDAs). Give them a statement of the problem being solved. If they come up with the same solution within a few days, it's so blatantly obvious that the "inventor" is really trying to patent the problem instead of a solution. While you're at it, start enforcing this:
instead of the mountain of gibberish they've accepted to date, and drop the USD 2500.00 "request for ex parte reexamination" fee they demand for pointing out their own mistakes.
Remember, a patent only promotes progress if the cost of licensing it (plus their share of the USPTO overhead) is less than the cost of every licensee having to independently discover it. Granting monopolies on "inventions" that anyone competent would immediately produce in the ordinary course of their work doesn't benefit anyone productive.