A Day in the Life of a Patent Examiner

ahdkd writes "Forbes has an older article which describes the world of patent examining: Search 500,000 Documents, Review 160,000 Pages In 20 Hours, And Then Do It All Over Again. Might help people understand the USPTO and patents in general a little better."

Comments

A day

[Pingular]

10:30am
The SCO company: For the use of an acronym in a company name
ACCEPTED!

Re:A day

[Frymaster]

sorry. there's prior are from stanford university networks.

Re:A day

[muyuubyou]

11:00am Bezos from Amazon: clicking the mouse once in order to buy something

ACCEPTED


11:45am Amazon company: Internet-based referral system

Hmmm...there is prior art in referral systems... but the guy used a hyphen between Internet and based and Google doesn't give results...
ACCEPTED



01:00pm lunch break

03:00pm proudly recheck the glorious list of the top innovative patents I've granted.

Re:A day

[Citizen of Earth]

11:00am - arrive for work, rubber stamp a patent
11:15am - lunch, drinks, hookers
4:45pm - return from lunch, rubber stamp another patent
5:00pm - pat self on back for hard day's work, head home

Re:A day

[Anonymous Coward]

Your link didn't include the "Method of Exercising a Cat"

yeah right...

[Anonymous Coward]

You know whats a lot easier than reading all that stuff? Simply approving the application.. then a nice nap.

Re:yeah right...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, no

As an Examiner you get points for each disposal.
So, 1 for a rejection, and then you get to reject it again (+1), and again (+1) until you finally had enough fun and allow it.

That way you rack up multiple points and only have to do 1 prior art search. It is like pin ball when the ball justs keeps bouncing between two bumpers. Aprove it immediatly, and you get a new application and have to do a new search.

The real danger is getting the rejection appealed, and then you have to write up a note to your boss explaining why you rejected this, and you get a new app.

Re:yeah right...

[DaveHowe]

What they have failed to realise is that this sort of thing is *ideal* for using and abusing the Internet Delphi effect.
Why not just post all *pending* patents onto the web? its in the best interests of all the competing companies to do the prior art checks for the patent office, using their own staff (who know the field intimately) and for free!

Filing a patent...

[matchlight]

requires the filee to do proper research. The fact that this position exists does not mean you can get an idea, file it and get it approved and it be legit. This person is only there as a last attempt at trying to weed out the duplicates.
Given the increase in complexity for these filings, doing your own research appears to be even more important that ever. I've gone through the process with mixed success. Even when proper research is done by the person filing and the patent office, you can still miss something.

Re:Filing a patent...

[LiquidCoooled]

The slashdot editors could liase with the patent examiners to try and formulate a better solution ;)

On that score, Ive noticed less total dupe stories, and more disclosure in the main headline pointing people to the dupes/related /. articles. Kudos to the editors for listening to our ranting.

Re:Filing a patent...

[Frisky070802]

requires the filee (sic) to do proper research.

Perhaps this depends on your definition of "proper research". You have to disclose the truth, and the best way to do whatever you're inventing. But you aren't legally obliged to find out if it's the best way, AFAIK.

Several years ago when I started filing patents, I thought a full prior art search was an abligation of the filer. But my impression in more recent years that the filer is obliged to disclose relevant prior art but not to find all possible prior art that he or she didn't already know about. This is left to the poor PTO examiners we just read about, and explains why so much prior art is missed.

In fact, I once got mail from someone at a Large Software Company who said that if others on a mailing list were going to discuss intellectual property (pending patent applications), he didn't even want to see it, so that he could honestly say he was unaware of it.

Re:Filing a patent...

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not that a good idea to require the filee to do that since its in their own interest to do it badly so that the application will be accepted.

What should be done is to change the system and force the filee to put their patent in a category that it will be bound by. This means it will not be able to take up a patent fight in case something more similar comes in a different category. To make a fight over patent claim they need first to provide evidence that the other patent infrigdes their.

Secondly then when the patent assistant searches for the patents that look the same as this he would need only to type in keywords to see all similiar patents in that category.

That way he doesnt need to read through 160 000 pages in 20 hours. But just a few patent abstracts, and therfor can do a much better job without accepting duplicate patents.

This doesnt solve though the silly patents, to do that they need to change their policy in what is acceptable to patent.

Re:Filing a patent...

[matchlight]

This does make sense but it's too simple a solution to be usable. A complex patent could fall into one of many categories or make a new one (although I imagine few do these days). Choosing the keyword would cause the same effect of patents being missed in the review process. Keep mulling this over. Maybe you can come up with a new way of patent filing/searching. Make sure to patent it if you do!

Re:Filing a patent...

[Suidae]

This is a great system for anyone with lots of money. It doesn't matter if someone else has already patented something, you just file your own patent, then use it as legal justification against people who won't have the cash to mount a proper defense. Maybe it wouldn't stand up to a full attack because of previous filings, but that doesn't matter if you are careful.

Re:Filing a patent...

[kramer2718]

The slashdot editors could liase with the patent examiners to try and formulate a better solution ;)

I know you were joking, but you actually might be on to something here.

One way to better weed out bogus patents or patents for which prior art exists is to involve the public more in the process. Perhaps, making all of the applications available on-line with a Slashdot type message board for a period of weeks or months before patent examiners get involved might allow the public to do some of the research which could help to lead the patent process in the right direction.

There would still be some bad patents slip through because of the sheer volume of applications, but how often have you seen a patent award posted to Slashdot only to see three great examples of prior art in the comments right away.

Evidence that the system is a failure

[dada21]

I believe this article is yet another nail in the coffin of the patent system. It is time to rethink the patent system. Economist Fritz Machlup has proven that patents do not entice corporations to develop new products; in fact, the "short-term advantage a company derives from developing a new product and being the first to put it on the market may be incentive enough."

Patents offer a authoritarian power to destroy competition, increase prices, and skew the relationship between research and creation by scaring off new ideas developed on old ones.

Re:Evidence that the system is a failure

[Anonymous Coward]

3300 patent examininers to deal with 2M incoming requests a year? I'd wager the IRS has a higher investigation to filer ratio and the IRS less than 100 years old.

I guess we know where our priorities are.

Re:Evidence that the system is a failure

[mesocyclone]

There are certainly exceptions to this rule. For example, the pharmaceutical industry, because of its huge upfront costs, often will not develop a perfectly useful drug unless it can patent it. The reason is that without patent protection, other companies will free-ride on the FDA approval process and other startup costs.

Products which are high in intellectual content or up-front cost/risk and low in reproduction cost often need protection or they will not be developed.

There is no doubt in my mind that the patent system, applied to software, is extremely wrong and has the potential to destroy the industry or put it into the hands of gigantic corporations who can use cross-licensing to avoid patent problems.

But not every industry is software.

As to an economist "proving" something... well, give me a break. An economist can throw light on things, and come up with good ideas, but the idea of them proving things is, in most cases, absurd.

Re:Evidence that the system is a failure

[Doctor7]

The pharmaceutical industry possibly deserves special treatment (patents or the equivalent) simply because safety regulations require them to divulge the contents of their products, and therefore they can't benefit from trade secrets. In industries where this is not the case, it's not so obvious that patents are necessary or desirable.

Re:Evidence that the system is a failure

[dada21]

First, you are correct on the "proving" idea -- I will refrain from using the word "prove" along with "economist." I should have said "proved to me" instead.

As for the pharmaceutical industry, it should be known at part of the high up-front cost is FDA regulation. I believe the FDA is unconstitutional, and could be better created as a free market Underwriter's Laboratory type corporation. Target won't sell a lamp unless its UL tested. Why would drugs be any different?

If a company creates a drug, tests that drug, and brings it to market first, it would also be in its best interest to create contracts with distribution companies that they would not sell a competitors' version for a period of time. This is the best way to protect the interest of the discoverer of said drug.

Making a drug is only the first step. Testing is very important. Target and Walgreens and CVS won't just sell every drug. Your doctor probably won't prescribe a drug unless they know it is safe. If the FDA was knocked out, and patents dissolved, the drug companies would still have many incentives to create new products -- even with the threat of competition more visible.

What is the cost of creating a drug? It is the cost of discovery, the cost of development, the cost of testing, the cost of FDA approval, and the cost of advertising. I wonder how much the last two parts are compared to the first steps.

Re:Evidence that the system is a failure

[bug-eyed monster]

It's quite misguided to say the patent system as a whole is no good. Patents work well in some situations but not others. You can't cite a couple of bad cases from the software industry and conculde that the patent system is broken altogether.

E.g. pharmaceutical companies need to do a lot of research before creating new useful medicine. Research costs money and they can't make it back within just a couple of months of being first-to-market. They get a few years to control the market, make a profit, and move on. Another example, if you invent a better shovel, it'll be copied within a month easy, and there is no way you can make a profit from being first-to-market because people don't buy shovels every month. You need a patent of a few years to let you make some decent profit.

Patents work well for some industries but not others. There is also the way patents are used. Dolby Labs made a great use of their invention in noise reduction system. Nobody boycotts Dolby Labs, in fact everybody welcomes them, even though their patent and licensing increased the price of audio-visual equipment.

Dolby invented something, made it available to the public while making an honest profit and everybody's happy. Contrast that to the company who pops up with some vague patent and issues C&Ds or ridiculous invoices to the world, years after the public adoption of the patented system. We need to address and fix the latter stunts, not drop the entire patent system.

Re:Evidence that the system is a failure

[danila]

And the alternatives might be much better. Compulsory licensing coupled with compulsory investment reimbursement may work better than current patents.

I spend $10 bn to develop a new drug and plan to sell 100 mln packages for $200 each. If you want to join the fun and sell your own improved version, pay me about $50-100 for each package you sell. Let's also limit the total amount of royalty payment and time period.

Re:Evidence that the system is a failure

[joto]

For example, the pharmaceutical industry, because of its huge upfront costs, often will not develop a perfectly useful drug unless it can patent it. The reason is that without patent protection, other companies will free-ride on the FDA approval process and other startup costs.

And do you think they would continue this policy if the patent system was abandoned?

Re:Evidence that the system is a failure

[tmark]

I believe the FDA ...could be better created as a free market Underwriter's Laboratory type corporation. Target won't sell a lamp unless its UL tested. Why would drugs be any different?

You're crazy if you think drugs are like lamps.People go into hock buying the latest snake-oil-cure-all for any one of a number of ailments. Do you really want drug companies to even be able to market drugs whose safety and efficacy has not been ascertained ?

Re:Evidence that the system is a failure

[rzbx]

Without patents companies won't be so inclined to spend large amounts of money upfront for medicine, but it would still work. For one thing, they should be forced to keep the research open that they are doing. This way the scientists and various others working on these drugs will have all the information they need available to them and it will be a race by them all to be the first to discover and create. Second, the NSF (National Science Foundation) and various other groups exist for the specific purpose of funding research in the field of science. If something is going to take a lot of money and a fair amount of scientists and/or researchers are behind the idea then money can and will be put toward the research. Btw, there is more than one economist that has agreed to the idea of a world without patents, claiming that they do more harm than good. I believe there would be even more if it wasn't for the fear of coming out and making a statement that would upset many people. They still want their jobs. Patents are tied in to so much of our economy that I'm sure many are just afraid to say anything against it in a published medium.

Re:Evidence that the system is a failure

[damien_kane]

Yes... Survival of the fittest...
If you're dumb enough to buy the latest, greatest, completely untested snake-oil cure, then any side-effects you may incur are self-inflicted, and you will get no sympathy from me.
Just like if you jump in between a mother bear and her cub, then start hitting the cub with a stick, you deserve the mauling you will receive...

Re:Evidence that the system is a failure

[mesocyclone]

I think the FDA may be the wrong way to do things too. Too many people have been denied lifesaving drugs by the FDA, and too many drugs have not been developed because their lack of patentability makes it unprofitable to go through the FDA hurdles.

However, even without the FDA, you want extensive clinical testing. A UL or an FDA with merely advisory powers (I like the idea of having both) would still demand that testing before giving a blessing to the product. Thus there is still a massive upfront cost and massive upfront risk (a drug may go through $800,000,000 of testing and then be shown to be ineffective or dangerous).

But having run products through UL, that is also an upfront burden. Furthermore, patent protection to pharmaceutical companies encourages the distribution of scientific information, since they do not need to conceal their research. The only trade secrets are the process methods for creating the drug.

So I still disagree with your assertion that without patents the drug companies would have many incentives to create new products. They would still have to do the research and screening, and they would still have to do the testing. The testing would probably be just somewhat less bureaucratic. Furthermore, FDA testing provides at least some protection against cut-throat class-action lawyers (although not enough). Liability is another enormous risk for the drug companies, which can be spread over the patent life of the drug if it is patentable, and otherwise is not because competition will rapidly drive the profit margins down.

Thus patents provide protection against free riders. Without patents, the only protection is trade secrets, which inhibit scientific discourse and are not nearly as effective.

Re:Evidence that the system is a failure

[oolon]

Why does it and not the chip fabrication business? Whats the incentive to produce smaller fabs when the competion can just use your research?

James

Re:Evidence that the system is a failure

[mesocyclone]

Yes, without patents the problem of unpatentable drugs would continue, and in fact would get much, much worse. Basically, the pharmaceutical industry would be destroyed and no new drugs would come to market.

The policy is a simple business decision involving weighing the costs against the profits, the latter being dramatically reduced by competition which does not have the same upfront costs.

In other words, someone has to do the testing. Without the testing, the drug cannot (or should not) be sold. Whoever does the testing is the loser, because the anybody else can make the same drug and free-ride on the testing of the first company.

Thus the best way to deal with non-patentable drugs is to have some other mechanism to prevent free-riders. Whether that is having the government assume the risk, or requiring the other sellers of the drug to pay royalties to the developer (i.e. something like patents but based on investment rather than originality), or something else.

We are already dealing with a major free-rider problem. Many countries in the world have price-fixing in pharmaceuticals (Canada is a major example). Hence they par far less than their fair share for the cost of drugs developed for the American market. They are being subsidized by the Americans who pay a greater-than-full-price for the medication in order to subsidize these countries all over the world. Thus Europe and Canada and some other countries are, through government action, free-riding on the American consumer. Other countries cannot afford the drugs at full price, and the pharmaceutical companies will sell at lower prices because the price still exceeds their cost of production, which is far less than the total cost of developing, testing, and producing the drug.

Re:Evidence that the system is a failure

[Tablizer]

I have kicked around the idea of a fixed percentage "tax" on technological products. This "tax" is then divided amoung claimers of patents. It insulates manufactures and producers from surprise lawsuits and exorberrant fees. The legal battle is then between patent holders. No, it is not perfect, but it would give us more choices as consumers I beleive because there would be more predictability to producing innovative products.

Re:Evidence that the system is a failure

[mesocyclone]

I think you are missing the point...

Removing patent protection and forcing the research opens means that your are removing all intellectual property protection.

How are you going to pay for the testing? NSF, etc do not do the development and mass clinical testing needed to determine safety, efficacy and cilnical characteristics of medications. They do more basic research, and the private firms (who also do basic research, BTW) then assume all of the risk.

I have seen no proposals that solve this problem other than federalizing the whole drug development process, which would be a catastrophy. We would then have drug development being run by the same kind of people as TIAA, the FDA or NASA.

As far as there being economists who think the world would be better without patents, there are far more economists who believe the world would be better with socialism. Shall we listen to them too?

Patents are one method of protecting intellectual property, and are justified in that they allow capital to invest in property (such as drug research and its results) that otherwise wouldn't attract investment.

The fact that the patent system works poorly in certain areas ( such as software ) does not mean that it is a bad idea in general.

In fact, it is an old and tested idea that was considered so important that the Constitution of the United States *requires* a Patent and Copyright system.

Re:Evidence that the system is a failure

[Anonymous Coward]

Or if your dumb enough to live in a country where carrying handguns is legal and venture outside and get shot, oh well, survival of the fittest.

Re:Evidence that the system is a failure

[TroyFoley]

"For example, the pharmaceutical industry, because of its huge upfront costs, often will not develop a perfectly useful drug unless it can patent it. The reason is that without patent protection, other companies will free-ride on the FDA approval process and other startup costs."

Also, without patent protection, they'd be forced to stop screwing over third world countries suffering heavily from the AIDS epidemic. Brazil comes to mind.

If your argument is that they *needed* patents as a foundation for profit just so they would *want* to research treatments/cures for AIDS, then my argument is that they have no heart.

Re:Evidence that the system is a failure

[file-exists-p]

There are certainly exceptions to this rule. For example, the pharmaceutical industry, because of its huge upfront costs, often will not develop a perfectly useful drug unless it can patent it.

I remember a conference in which a guy from a lab told us that they did not look for certain efficient molecules because they were partly based on mecanisms patented by other labs. Thus, there are good molecules out there that could cure serious disease, but because they involve several mecanisms patented by different companies, nobody will ever look for them.

--
Go debian!

Re:Evidence that the system is a failure

[baileytal]

As to an economist "proving" something... well, give me a break. An economist can throw light on things, and come up with good ideas, but the idea of them proving things is, in most cases, absurd.

Oh, I don't know. I think economists have been proving for years that if you spend enough money to pay for enough jibberish, then greed, bald power-gathering and exploitation can be made to resemble forces of nature.

Re:Evidence that the system is a failure

[Anonymous Coward]

Better than living in a country of effete, mommied losers who give up individual liberties and with them any possibility of greatness. Enjoy your third world slum and pointless existence.

Re:Evidence that the system is a failure

[stephanruby]

You're crazy if you think drugs are like lamps.People go into hock buying the latest snake-oil-cure-all for any one of a number of ailments. Do you really want drug companies to even be able to market drugs whose safety and efficacy has not been ascertained ?

As much as I hate to agree with this point, I sort of agree with it. People have become far too complacent and dependent on others to do their thinking for them. It may make some people feel better to say "let all the stupid people die", but this solution is obviously never going to see the light of day.

Re:Evidence that the system is a failure

[Anonymous Coward]

It may make some people feel better to say "let all the stupid people die", but this solution is obviously never going to see the light of day.

Well of course it isn't going to see the light of day silly. We need to have *some* stupid people around. That way all the not-stupid people can observe the stupid people's mistakes and say "Yep, that was stupid all right, good thing he confirmed that for us."

In a way that is still sort of letting others do our thinking for us. Only it is the stupid people doing the stupid thinking which leads them to try stupid actions which most not-stupid people would never consider doing.

Society benefits because stupid ideas still get considered and tried out and the truly stupid ones become obvious and some truly stupid people are quite possibly eliminated due to their own stupidity. In the event that an idea that seems stupid really isn't but instead proves useful, then someone who is not-stupid can easily step in and claim the idea as their own because, hey, who is going to believe the stupid guy when he says he came up with a useful idea? (Note that your boss taking credit for your work is explicitly excluded from consideration here you big fat stupid!)

Re:Evidence that the system is a failure

[rzbx]

Everything would run the same. I only mean that those projects which companies wish not to pursue due to large investment costs would be done anyway by intellectuals in the community that feel the research is important enough to warrant some federal money for the research. The only difference here is that companies would not be relying on having complete ownership of some specific drug, but by continually providing good service, advancing science, competing as opposed to locking in customers with a patented drug, etc. The only good defense that patents have is the "large investment" defense. This defense goes away when you consider the fact that institutions like the NSF exist and that people will not stop investing time and money into research that will solve problems. Does a person with a currently uncurable illness put a price on keeping them alive and well? Money will always be there to solve problems, and so will competition. The only problem is patents destroy competition and therefore hinder progress.

"The fact that the patent system works poorly in certain areas ( such as software ) does not mean that it is a bad idea in general."

Software is the study of computer science correct? In both the study of medicine and computer science we build things to solve problems. The evidence already exists that a large open market for software is better than a segregated one. Both the study of computers and medicine is a scientific one in which the politics make all the difference in its progress. Software just happens to be one in which we engineer while medicine we reverse engineer to reengineer or find existing tools to solve problems.

"In fact, it is an old and tested idea that was considered so important that the Constitution of the United States *requires* a Patent and Copyright system."

The constitution is a great piece of work by great minds, but in fact, this part of the constitution was not favored by some of the original and most important constitution writers. Thomas Jefferson was not happy with the idea, but accepted it because of pressure by others. At the time the patent system did help only because it was almost like an information center. People from all around now had a place where they could provide their ideas and others with money now knew where to go for investment. Today, we don't need the USPTO to do this.

Re:Evidence that the system is a failure

[BrynM]

Chip makers do not have to go through the same FDA disclosure process that pharmaceuticals go through. By the time FDA approval is granted, the contents of the drug are public knowledge as is the process of synthesizing the drug. However, if Intel had to get FDA approval, we'd be typing all of this on Pentium Pro 233s.

Re:Evidence that the system is a failure

[Anonymous Coward]

The only problem is patents destroy competition and therefore hinder progress.

Herd sheep for a living?

Re:Evidence that the system is a failure

[mesocyclone]

And my argument is you have no clue.

They are an industry. It costs real money to do research. Huge amounts of it. I suppose you think they should just spend on good things until they are bankrupt, at which point there would be no more drugs for anyone.

Re:Evidence that the system is a failure

[mesocyclone]

This is certainly true. And the reason is that it takes a huge investment, after the discovery of the drug, before it can be sold. If that investment is public domain (as it would be on an unpatented drug), it usually isn't worth it.

In those cases, perhaps there should be other governmental mechanisms to encourage the investment (like there is with orphan drugs), but too often the government screws these things up and people (like pharmcos) game them.

Re:Evidence that the system is a failure

[mesocyclone]

Creating software is largely the engineering of computer programs. Very little of it involves research. Developing pharmaceuticals relies on vast amounts of research, ranging from work done by NIH to drug prospecting in natural plants to combinatorial chemistry to other stuff.

But the problem that you miss, and that is crucial, is that it takes a huge expense to develop the drugs for market, AFTER the NIH funded research. This is because of the costs of research borne by the companies (on top of publicly funded research), the huge costs of testing drugs, and the vast majority which fail, after significant expenditure, the costs of developing volume production chemistry and factories, and the costs of advertising to let doctors and other knows the details and advantages of the new drugs. Companies will not and should not bear these costs if they cannot have some way of recouping them plus a profit, and in this argument I have yet to see a system other than patents that provide this. Maybe you could provide some suggestions other than just assuming that in some magical way, the NIH (which as far as I know produces no medicines) will provide!

As far as the research community providing the needed work... it doesn't. The research community does research, some of which leads directly to drugs and a lot of which deepens understanding that may indirectly lead to drugs, but it doesn't incur all the rest of the expense needed to actually produce the drugs.

Lets take the analogy of computers and medicine.

Software researchers work in the same sort of environment as medical researchers - an academic one. They do basic research which sometimes leads to an increased understanding of something or a new technique (although not nearly as often as happens with medical research). They do not actually go through the expense necessary to produce their product in many cases, and when they do, they can have an a priori much higher probability that what they invented will actually work. The people who actually produce software usually protect it through copyright (which destroys competition in one sense) or patents (which are granted for way to manhy obvious things and thus are not achieving their purpose in software) or trade secrets (which you can't do with drugs because reverse engineering is too easy, and the drug company scientists want to be able to publish in scientific journals).

The idea that patents destroy competition is correct, within the confines of the patent. And sometimes that is the necessary price to pay. Having much of our medical research controlled by government institutions also destroys competition, because whole areas of inquiries may not be investigated because of the prejudice of a review committee or a bureaucrat or politician. Having the whole drug development process done by the government is a nightmare that I don't wish to experience. It is no accident that private companies develop most of the drugs we have today!

Patents have a purpose. Those who argue against them in the area of drugs need to provide an alternative suggestino with some change of working. I have yet to see that in this thread.

Re:Evidence that the system is a failure

[damien_kane]

umm... excuse me? You americans give you your individual liberties too... Can you say Patriot Act?
By the way, to the grandparent, I live in Canada... there are very few shootings here (especially when compared with the number in the US)

Re:Evidence that the system is a failure

[srleffler]

Yes... Survival of the fittest... If you're dumb enough to buy the latest, greatest, completely untested snake-oil cure, then any side-effects you may incur are self-inflicted, and you will get no sympathy from me.

Ah, but how would you know if what you are buying is snake oil? Are you, personally, capable of looking up each and every medicine you might use in the medical literature, evaluating the test results for yourself, and determining whether the medication has been proven to be safe and effective? Most doctors would not be able to do this. The drug companies would be free to develop "cures", do some cursory testing, and then put them on the market. Ordinary physicians, and their customers, would have no easy way to evaluate which medicines are really safe and effective and which are not.

Re:Evidence that the system is a failure

[Joe Decker]

Trade secrets wouldn't work well for drugs even if there weren't disclosure requirements--even if they weren't required to disclose the ingredient list, the actual drugs themselves would provide a pretty strong clue. This problem is common to many forms of technology, reverse engineering isn't necessarily difficult.

Re:Evidence that the system is a failure

[Joe Decker]

I wonder how much the last two parts are compared to the first steps.

I tried to get some numbers, but ran into some ambiguities in your question, and some difficulty getting matching numbers from the same source (because in part of standard accounting practices, which tend to lump advertising in with marketing and other costs.)

It looks like the answer depends a lot on what you mean by advertising. Most drug company advertising, from the reports I've found, is directed towards doctors. (This is most advertising by dollars spent.) That advertising includes the efforts the companies make to educate doctors about new pharmaceuticals, which involves drug salesman literally visiting doctors offices, presenting new material, answering questions, and so on. Without that level of advertising, it's pretty unlikely you'd get a new drug used in this country.

If you exclude that, then while there's still a lot of money spent on advertising, it's much less than the research and development costs. One source I found listed US$3e9 for total direct-to-consumer advertising for drugs, a number only slightly higher than Merck's R&D figure for 2002. Note that the latter figure does not include the administrative costs of filling out FDA paperwork, that goes in a separate column.

Since I focused on a big pharma company I'm also seeing a smaller relative number for research than I would for the whole industry, a lot of research is done in small companies that then sell themselves to big pharma if they get a hit, in order for their products to hit the market. From the point of view of Merck's financials, they'd be buying the research, but that wouldn't end up listed as research.

One final note: when you try and figure out the cost of creating a useful drug, it's important to not exclude the costs of all the research you had to give up on. Most drugs fail. The numbers I remember hearing (but you can check my facts) seemed to imply that US$1e9 was a good starting figure.

Re:Evidence that the system is a failure

[TroyFoley]

Government grants, subsidized research, grad school pre-doctoral thesis work.

I agree that they are an industry and it costs real money to do research. It may even cost huge amounts of it. But there's still huge amounts of sick people's money/insurance going into the wallets of corporate workers who don't do anything other than look at the world in black and red.

Therein lies my clue, pick up on it.

Re:Evidence that the system is a failure

[Anonymous Coward]

But patents *do not work* here either! There are cures that go untested because they are based on open ideas and hence not patentable. The pharms don't go there because they cannot get monopoly rents on the cure.

Sick bastards.

Re:Evidence that the system is a failure

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do people always seem to think that scrapping the patent system means that inventors can't get a reward?

There are *plenty* of alternative ideas for compensatiting inventors that don't rely on artificially restricting competition.

Examples include compulsory licensing schemes, innovation awards, inventor sponsorships, tax incentives etc.

Many of these systems can reward inventors sufficiently to encourage innovation without needing to create damaging monopolies. In consequence, I remain convinced that the entire patent system is fundamentally broken and the sooner it is replaced the better.

Re:Evidence that the system is a failure

[mesocyclone]

And why is this wrong, if it is the most effective way for it to work?

Re:Evidence that the system is a failure

[deblau]

How about this as an alternative:

Drug companies get no patent protection, and medical and pharmaceutical research is done by the government, funded by tax dollars. I think it a resonable position that drugs research benefits all of society, and is therefore justified under the umbrella of government. Furthermore, any product so developed will be free of patent- and trade secret encumbrance. Manufacturers will be free to compete on the basis of process cost, with no artificial price overhead justified by having to recoup research losses. Individual companies are free to do private research, of course, but must realize that their results will not be protected.

I believe that profits should never be allowed to take precedence over medical treatment. Moving the responsibility for research to the government reduces medical profiteering. If the government refuses, but the research is truly important, it will be done by private enterprise.

Re:Evidence that the system is a failure

[mesocyclone]

I think the problem with putting all drug development in the hands of the government is simple: the government is not likely to be very good at it (for example, the FDA is horribly inefficient, puts huge burdens on drug development, and actively prevents people from getting drugs that are needed, and is politicized); the process will be highly politicized, with the funds often allocated to the victim group that screams the loudest.

Here is what I suggest: prohibit the selling of any drugs developed after a certain date to countries which have drug price controls or a single buyer for all drugs. Then those companies will be forced to do their own drug development. Then we can see which model works the best, because we will have both. This would also end the free-riding that those companies currently get.

Re:Evidence that the system is a failure

[TroyFoley]

Because it puts rich people in a position to get richer by holding out on third world countries that are being down right devestated by a disease unless the people afflicted by it give up a larger percentage of their income than they can usually afford.

Your contention that I feel these companies should pump out the drugs at a loss untill they're bankrupt actually puts in an idea: If Brazil can manufacture AIDS treatments at a very affordable price for its citizens and not end up putting that enterprise into the red, why is it that (when dealing with nations whose populations can't afford it) the drug companies can't do the same? They make more than enough money from North America and Western Europe, why do they need to sell treatment at a profit in poorer countries?

Also, the argument that being the most effective way for it to work making it not wrong is a bad one. Nazi Germany was doing some pretty effective medical research with Jewish subjects, it's still wrong.

Re:Evidence that the system is a failure

[mesocyclone]

The reason is that the total cost of the system it what counts. The incremental cost of producing a number of these drugs is small (which is one reason that they are provided to third world countries at greatly reduced cost).

Your argument can be extended too all of medicine, food production, and damn near anything else. It is a fundamental view that companies should be run as charities.

You may not realize this, but there are many diseases killing vast numbers of people in the third world - not just AIDS. Should we force the drug companies to give away their treatments for all of these? Should we force them to send people to those countries to force the populace to use the drugs properly (because in many of the poor countries, people use drugs improperly, increasing the speed of the development of drug resistance)? Where do we stop? Do you want poor people in America to subsidize the poor people in Africa?

"Holding out on third world countries" - holding out what? AIDS drugs that they spent billions of dollars developing? Food (a lot of people starve, too, you know)?

Somehow the idea that companies are morally related to the Nazi medical researchers because they don't give away all of their products to those who cannot afford them is just silly.

Re:Evidence that the system is a failure

[TroyFoley]

"The reason is that the total cost of the system it what counts. The incremental cost of producing a number of these drugs is small (which is one reason that they are provided to third world countries at greatly reduced cost)."

The total cost of the system is padded and fluffed up for the benefit of people who aren't pulling their weight when it comes to making a difference in good progress and lagging.

"Your argument can be extended too all of medicine, food production, and damn near anything else. It is a fundamental view that companies should be run as charities."

It can be, but being unprepared for such an endeavor, I'll opt not to. I hold no view that companies should be run as charities, I'm not sure what you mean by that.

"You may not realize this, but there are many diseases killing vast numbers of people in the third world - not just AIDS. Should we force the drug companies to give away their treatments for all of these?"

Not give, but certainly not profit in a financially gluttonous fashion. They get enough of that here.

"Should we force them to send people to those countries to force the populace to use the drugs properly (because in many of the poor countries, people use drugs improperly, increasing the speed of the development of drug resistance)?"

Send a phamplet. If they opt to use the drugs improperly in spite of knowing how to use it properly, I don't care.

"Where do we stop? Do you want poor people in America to subsidize the poor people in Africa?"

Where have we started? And no, poor people in America don't need to subsidize poor people in Africa. Rich companies in America simply ought to stop sucking cash out of poor people in Africa (and NO, this is NOT to say that the treatments should be GIVEN out. Stop saying that I'm arguing that point).

""Holding out on third world countries" - holding out what? AIDS drugs that they spent billions of dollars developing? Food (a lot of people starve, too, you know)?"

The rest of the sentence that you started to quote explains the question you've asked: Holding out on treatments *unless* the patients (as it were...) pay often more than they can afford and often more than the production companies need to stay in the black.

"Somehow the idea that companies are morally related to the Nazi medical researchers because they don't give away all of their products to those who cannot afford them is just silly."

What the... you said that this (in a royal, big picture sense) is the most efficient way to get things done, and implied that because of *that*, that there is nothing wrong with it. The quickest way to show that the most efficient and productive way to do something can still be wrong is to reference to Nazi medical research. It was a rebuttal, and a proper one to what you had said.

Google

[sik0fewl]

Maybe they'd save some time if they put all these pages online and simply used Google to look through them all.

Re:Google

[KoolDude]

... and simply used Google to look through them all.

Hey dude, thanks for the link. That site is very much to the point and does wonderful search. May be we should feature a Slashdot article about them, what do u think ?

Re:Google

[Pembers]

The USPTO has a search engine. The front page is at http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html. It has a full-text search going back to 1976, and you can (apparently) see scanned images of documents all the way back to 1790.

Do It Right

[SpamJunkie]

My feelings on this are simple: do it right or don't do it at all.

If the government can't create a system that approves patents corrently then there should be no approval process at all, and thus, no patents at all. It would be better to let the market protect innovators, however weak the protection, than to let a flawed patent office allow innovators to be harmed by those that would exploit the flaws.

Re:Do It Right

[Kirill Lokshin]

Most inventors throughout history (and I would guess most inventors today) were not in a position to market their ideas because they didn't have the startup capital.

If we take away the patent system, we'll get into another RIAA-like situation, where a group of large marketing/production companies will collect new inventions from their creators and sell them to the public, pocketing most of the revenue.

Re:Do It Right

[Kpt Kill]

Inventor takes his invention (a device that plugs into a wall and smells nice) to a company to see if theyd be interested in manufacturing it for sale. The company sees its a good idea, but instead of paying the inventor, they tell him to shove off and make they make their own. The patent system protects against this.

Re:Do It Right

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh. why? If the internet can kill the RIAA, it can kill such a monopoly before it even gets started. If patent's weren't enforceable I'd ALREADY be selling a 3D printer (plastics only, at the moment ) online, and other people could ALREADY be producing open source widget designs for it. But I can't. Because some MBA jackass who can barely screw a screw into a hole can arbitrarily decide to kill anything I do based on patent law, which means said MBA jackass (or his company) "owns" the idea (and patents as they are currently implemented DO essentially cover ideas, whatever the mealy-mouthed lawyers say). Perhaps if only individual natural persons could hold patents...

Re:Do It Right

[Anonymous Coward]

Word gets out that company screwed over someone and inventors never go to said company again with their ideas. If the company was soliciting ideas it would pretty much be suiside.

Besides NDAs and trade secret laws should cover stealing an exact patentable thing.

Patents are really mainly designed to protect AFTER a product hits the market. In this day in age products can be distributed so fast that tooling required for others to compete while the product is on the market offers a very comfortable window if done right.

Re:Do It Right

[cybersk4nk]

Exactly. That means better funding and more peoplepower/techpower. Besides, if you buy the idea that patents are good for the economy (not me) then to protect your investment in patents and the economy you should ensure all your patents are filed properly and correctly. That way, it won't cost you tons of time, effort and $$$ reviewing them. Reviewing patents wastes the USPO's and corporate time and $$$ as well. So get it right, you idiots, or don't do it at all!

Re:Do It Right

[EvanED]

>>If the internet can kill the RIAA, it can kill such a monopoly before it even gets started

*Really* poor analogy. Most things that are patented are material objects. How would the internet distribute, say, those 3D printers? Maybe if you had a 3D printer...

Sure, you could distribute plans for the 3D printer, but people still need to go out and by materials and assemble it. Even if you had a 3D printer and were talking about other objects, they are only useful for making a relatively small range of objects.

Suppose I panent a (musical) keyboard. You could print the keys and maybe even the frame, but you'd need another machine to print the circuit board, another to print the switches, etc. Then you need to put all these parts (many of which are very small) together so it'll work.

This sure compares to "this song looks good, I'll try it" followed by a double click and 5 minutes of waiting.

Re:Do It Right

[joto]

If we take away the patent system, we'll get into another RIAA-like situation, where a group of large marketing/production companies will collect new inventions from their creators and sell them to the public, pocketing most of the revenue.

And exactly why isn't that desireable?

Sure, I'd like the inventor to profit some, but if I have to choose between (1) progress and free exchange and use of ideas, or (2) getting the inventor richer, I'd choose (1), thank you!

Chances are, if the inventor wasn't paid by a company to make his invention, it was made in his spare time, and he would probably do it anyway, because it's the most fun thing he knows. And he never intended to profit from it either. If, on the other hand, he intended to profit, he would probably also form a company to produce/market/sell it.

Re:Do It Right

[SpamJunkie]

Well, a working patent system would work as you described, but currently the patent system isn't working.

In your scenario the current patent system would allow the company to patent the invention themselves, regardless of whether the inventor already has a patent. Then the company can sue the inventor for violating their patent. Even if the inventor might eventually win in court the amount of money needed to do so virtually guarantees that the company that stole his idea will be able to do so as well as stop anyone else from making a similar product.

But if there is no patent system then the inventor is free to sell his invention himself or pitch it to any number of other companies, even after the first company has already stole the idea.

Re:Do It Right

[Saeger]

There are already "3D printers" used in industry for Rapid Prototyping, and there'll be consumer versions of these in a few years as price comes down. So what are you talking about? Who's sitting on the "3d printer" patent?

Can't wait for it myself.

First generation 3D printer + "liquid plastic cartridges" == never having to waste money or time buying stupid little knick nacks, figurines, replacement parts, etc. Of course, this printer will kill a few traditional businesses that made a living selling "cheap plastic shit" but this is nothing compared to true "desktop manufacturing" as nanotech matures.

--

Re:Do It Right

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh. why? If the internet can kill the RIAA, it can kill such a monopoly before it even gets started.

FWIW, you answered your own point. The Internet hasn't killed the RIAA. It hasn't killed the members of the RIAA. They're still very much alive, despite a fairly substantial recession.

Re:Do It Right

[baileytal]

My feelings on this are simple: do it right or don't do it at all.

Who's to say that they aren't doing it right? In who's service is the law meant to operate? You the independent inventor? Or the hugely-more-powerful IP lobby made up of multinationals seeking to consolidate their complete control of the marketplace? Who benefits from the status-quo? The proof is usually in the pudding.

Re:Do It Right

[SpamJunkie]

In who's service is the law meant to operate?

A quick review of the constitution would make this obvious.

Re:Do It Right

[baileytal]

Yeah, but the constitution requires someone to enforce it. It doesn't enforce itself. Unless the legislators or the courts are willing to do so, the constitution is no more meaningful than a post at Slashdot.

The life of a patent examiner...

[Anonymous Coward]

Review 160,000 Pages In 20 Hours

...sounds suspiciously like my college days. This was the time of my life also known as the procrastination period.

If they are overworked

[SirGeek]

They should ban together and refuse. That is what they need to do to protect the system. Yes, I understand that it is difficult but if they don't bitch all the way up the line, then who will ?

I mean, Ok. They get fired for saying that they can't do their jobs. They would be able to go to almost ANY news outlet and get their story printed . Patent Office fires worker for complaining about unfair practices . That would not look good for the USPTO.

I also find the article "lacking" in explaining HOW they search let alone WHERE they search.

If the internet isn't used , Why don't they mention it - We don't bother to check google if the idea exists already. We only look if it is already patented, not if it already exists in the public domain.

Re:If they are overworked

[RetroGeek]

If the internet isn't used

IANAL (so what else is new...) but,

They cannot use the internet. Simply put, the definition of a "published idea" is quite murky. If I do a search on Google, then the search text is transmitted across the internet. Google then returns the results in the form of a Web page, which includes the search text. I am now looking at my idea in a Web page.

You can also get a service which displays ongoing search requests (I can't find it right now). So there is your search request displayed for the world to see.

So, is it published?

Re:If they are overworked

[kyrre]

You can also get a service which displays ongoing search requests (I can't find it right now). So there is your search request displayed for the world to see.

Its called Referer and is a variable transfered from the http client to the server. They could of course change, say Mozilla, to not upload the uri to the refering site when conducting these searches.

Re:If they are overworked

[Xzzy]

> They should ban together and refuse. That is what they need to do to protect the system. Yes, I
> understand that it is difficult but if they don't bitch all the way up the line, then who will ?

You have no idea how government entities function, do you? :)

10% of the people (maybe even less) working at a site will actually be good workers who give a fig about their job and how well things are run. The issue is that this segment is never in a position to institute change. These people don't stick around long, they become cynical quite fast and generally quit and return to jobs in the private sector (which often have just as fucked up management systems, but in completely different ways).

Another 10% of the people are the ones who can make decisions, but have absolutely no background to make effective decisions (they got where they are mostly via seniority). They instead opt to spend their days in endless meetings hoping someone else makes a decision so they can go back to "fine tuning" the organization chart.

The remaining 80% is dead wood. Completely lazy, useless fatasses who know it's damn near impossible to fire a government employee and only show up to ensure they keep getting a paycheck. Their sole desire is to avoid rocking the boat, in effort to avoid losing their gravy train. Most of them have held government jobs for so long no one even notices how bloody useless they are, except for the original 10% who are powerless to do anything about it.

Point being, a majority of the people working for the USPTO plain out doesn't give a shit. They will NEVER "strike" or "take it to the press", soley because it means they would actually have to scrape their butts out of their chair and rub some of their brain cells together.

Re:If they are overworked

[RetroGeek]

No, this was an actual service provided by a search site. I think it used javascript to constantly show what other people were searching on.

Re:If they are overworked

[Gyan]

The ratios apply everywhere.

Re:If they are overworked

[kyrre]

Indeed you are right. I remember now. Askjeeves had this type of service. Quite amusing. That one was not Javascript though. Javascript could always be turned of anyhow.

Re:If they are overworked

[Anonymous Coward]

who the fuck modded this as "insightful" instead of "flamebait"?

Now it all makes sense

[grasshoppa]

Search 500,000 Documents, Review 160,000 Pages In 20 Hours,

Is THAT why they suck at what they do?

Re:Now it all makes sense

[squiggleslash]

Well, they probably do the Slashdot poster method, where you comment without reading anything, and then wait for someone to criticise you for not RTFA... ;)

Oh well

[Anonymous Coward]

You could solve most of the problem if you required the item to be physically created, or at least fully designed, before granting a patent. It's ridiculous to grant patents to mere ideas -- the flood of patent lawsuits over web techology claimed in patents before the web existed is a clear example.

Re:Oh well

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly right. The law used to require that you actually produced the item you wanted to patent and give a sample to the patent office for examination. They changed that a while back and chaos is the result.

It used to be a major distinction in law that you could not patent an idea. In fact, many legal textbooks, ones which are not that old, say explicitly that you cannot patent an idea. However, with the relaxation of the requirement that you actually produce something, we have essentially turned the patent system into one that does the thing (patent ideas) which everyone agreed in years past they didn't want. The entire system has been compromised.

Re:Oh well

[Gyan]

To an extent, I agree. Patents should be granted to implementations and thereafter the concepts embodied in them. If you have an idea, but are unable to implement it or shoddily implement it, let someone else get the chance.

Shades of 'Yes Minister'

[Space cowboy]

There was a British TV comedy about the manipulation of government by the civil service (and vice versa, sometimes :-) called 'Yes Minister', and 'Yes Prime Minister'. One of the favourite tactics of "Sir Humphrey" (civil service mandarin) is to deluge the minister with reams of information, to make it completely impossible to make a decision by a given deadline.

It strikes me that when a patent is 160,000 pages long, someone is trying the same tactic. Perhaps there ought to be a limit on the size of patent applications. After all, if it is sufficiently revolutionary to be awarded protection from its possible competition, it ought to be easily stated and understood. Let anything else just compete.

I suspect some would lose out, but I also think the patent system overall would win. The original patent applications were on a single sheet of paper....

Simon.

Re:Shades of 'Yes Minister'

[troc]

A 160,000 page Biotech patent will consist of around 100 pages of description, probably 100 pages of claims (or less) and 159,800 pages of DNA sequences.

Ugh.

troc

Re:Shades of 'Yes Minister'

[Cap'nMike]

The article specifically stated that biotechnology patent applications are often that long. This is for the simple reason that it takes that much space to write out the genetic code being patented. It would be hard to patent a new mechanical device without a diagram of how it works. Similarly, the sequence of genes is necisary to document genetic inventions.

Re:Shades of 'Yes Minister'

[Idarubicin]

A 160,000 page Biotech patent will consist of around 100 pages of description, probably 100 pages of claims (or less) and 159,800 pages of DNA sequences.

The largest constructs used in genetic engineering are usually no more than a few megabases in length; large bits of DNA tend to be rather awkward to manipulate. At, say, two thousand bases (each one of A, C, G, or T) per page, one megabase spans five hundred pages.

I suppose if one were to try to patent the genome of an entire organism, including all of the noncoding DNA, you might have a case for such a monstrous application document--the human genome would take up about 1.5 million pages. However, entire organism patents are still relatively rare, and few actually include the complete genome in the patent. (The patented Harvard mouse, for instance, only has one altered gene that predisposes it to cancer.)

Over a hundred thousand pages smacks of an attempt to hide something--security through obscurity, if you will.

On the other hand, I suspect that there might just be a bit of journalistic license at work here. The hundred sixty thousand pages is probably just someone saying that 2 kB of data are equivalent to one page. Someone probably included a CD-ROM with some images with their application. (I do time-lapse microscopy in a research setting, and I can very easily generate hundreds of megabytes of data in a day.)

Let's say I develop a special fluorescent protein that does something useful. If I submit a patent that includes a page of claims, a page of calculations, twenty pages of protein sequence, and fifty 1 MB micrographs demonstrating that my protein behaves per my statement of claim, is that really the equivalent of a twenty-five thousand (and twenty-two) page submission?

hmmm

[hypermegachi]

they are required to be citizens...

not a good idea considering the average citizen knows didly squat about computers yet they are given the power to give out patents....

Re:hmmm

[squiggleslash]

Absolutely. We should limit Patent Examiners to being British, or Canadian. They know much more about computers than citizens do.

Re:hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

> required to be citizens

That's so the government can fsck them over if necessary. Such as, in the case where investigators find a mole who delibertly holds patents up while they ship critical documents off to foreign countries who approve the patents more quickly than the US.

Generally, it's a sign of a "trusted position", but I wouldn't be suprised if there were patenent examiners who also hold various level of security clearance. ...and, of course, I'm positive that there has been the occassional rouge patent mole who cost US inventors hundreds of millions of dollars in patent royalties, but you would *never* hear about that sort of thing in the main stream press (least the US government be proven libel for maintaing a broken system).

60 patents a year

[penguinoid]

for each patent examiner. That gives them about 5-6 days to see if it is not copied. Is that good or bad?

Re:60 patents a year

[RetroGeek]

Less than that. You are not allowing for weekends, holidays, sick days, etc.

There are about 220 actual working days in a year (differences in vacation allowance).

Prior Art

[jolyonr]

It must be hard to go through hundreds of thousands of documents looking for prior art. look how hard it is sometimes for the slashdot editors to read through a couple of plages to look for previous posts of the same story :) (and yes, I know this story is ok)

The essence of how patents are used

[ZorroXXX]

From the article: ... says Nolan. "They want to see how far they can go, and almost anything I give them is going to limit what somebody else can do."

This is exactly what is wrong with the (current) patent system. It is supposed to promote innovation but instead it is used as a tool to put sticks in the wheels of the competitors.

Re:The essence of how patents are used

[infolib]

...the (current) patent system ... is used as a tool to put sticks in the wheels of the competitors.

It's not a bug - it's a feature. Businesses want monopolies, so we set up this type of deal called a "patent" that lets them have one in return for financing and disclosing an invention.

The problem is that we're in many cases showing really poor tradesmanship: We give away monopolies for inventions that we would have had for free anyway. (Or we give excessively broad monopolies for barely non-trivial inventions.)

I shouldn't have to expatiate on why monopolies are mostly bad, and government granting them for free to corporations outside democratic control even worse. Go read Adam Smith.

Rich and powerful interests want bad patents.

[Futurepower(R)]

Rich and powerful interests don't want good patent examinations. They want the control that comes from having spurious patent approvals, which must be contested in expensive court proceedings. Those interests make sure that the U.S. patent and trademark office is under-funded. Twenty years ago there was better funding.

This is just one more example of the rapidly widening corruption in the U.S. government. Another example: Vice-president Dick Cheney, when he worked in the defense department, had the rules changed about procuring services during times of war. Then, as Vice-president, he pushed for a war with Iraq, and made sure the services went to his former company, Halliburton.

As David Letterman said, when you write a check for your part of the $87 billion that will be used to "rebuild" Iraq (after bombing it), remember that there are two Ls in Halliburton.

Re:Rich and powerful interests want bad patents.

[Joe Decker]

Rich and powerful interests don't want good patent examinations.

You'd be surprised. Badly examined, bad patents in the hands of a competitor are as much a risk as bad patents in their hands are a benefit.

I have to add, I've been involved in four or five patents, and particularly in the last several years the examiners have been knowledgeable, thoughtful and on-point. I've been impressed, but perhaps I got lucky. Your mileage may vary.

Re:Rich and powerful interests want bad patents.

[Anonymous Coward]

What other companies do what Halliburton does?

Now tell me why...

[dark-br]

patent examining wasn't among the list of worst jobs right beside fart-sniffer and barnyard masturbator?

A day in the life of a patent examiner

[Dark Lord Seth]

09:00: Get up, sniff glue
09:30: Read newspaper, lick a poisonous toad
10:30: Arrive at work, get high on cough syrup
10:31: Review patents
17:30: Go home, yell at imaginairy wife, pass out on a skittle frenzy

Re:A day in the life of a patent examiner

[HumanTorch]

10:30: Arrive at work, get high on cough syrup

Ahhh... Robitussin

Re:A day in the life of a patent examiner

[Threni]

11:00 Click `approve`
11:30 Click `approve`
12:00 Click `approve`
12:30 Click `approve`
13:00 Click `approve`
13:30 Click `approve`
14:00 Click `approve`
14:30 Click `approve`
15:00 Click `approve`
15:30 Click `approve`
16:00 Click `approve`
16:30 Click `approve`
17:00 Click `approve`

Re:A day in the life of a patent examiner

[LaCosaNostradamus]

Eight Hours, And There's Nothing Going On:

get coffee and read paper:
1 hour
read and understand ONE application:
1/2 hour (skim submitter's corporation marks, lookup stock ticker on the NASDAQ)
yak with fellow examiner about last night's ballgame or movie:
1 hour
search for prior art:
0 (they applied for it, so it must be an innovation, duh)
evaluate patentability:
0 (they applied for it, so it must be patentable, duh)
communicate with the applicant:
0 (application+fee = all the USPTO needs)
work out necessary revisions:
1/2 hour (there are always some typos)
call gf and/or wife:
1 hour
lunch:
1 hour (not counted ... hey, it's personal time!)
push some paperwork around to make it all look good:
1/2 hour
reach and write up conclusions:
1/2 hour (apply cut-n-paste document praising innovation)
surf web for latest 1337 g4m3 k0d3z:
3 hours (hey, it takes time to get m4d 5k1llz)

But patents aren't only for corporations...

[fullmetal55]

also for individuals who don't have the resources to produce the products but have the ingenuity and drive to create the new products. and as such the patent system allows them to still reap the rewards of their hard work. I don't think corporations need patents either, but the patent system or something like it still needs to protect the little guy. disbanding the patent system punishes the little guy while rewarding the big corporations.

Re:But patents aren't only for corporations...

[dada21]

I wish I could agree with you in accepting that patents help the individual, but in my experience, the process of getting a patent does not seem to make the benefit worth it.

An individual with an idea can't go very far unless they have entrepreneurship as well. If they don't have the drive to promote an idea, what good is the idea? A patent may offer them something to sell to a bigger corporation, much more can be done just by getting together with people who want to promote the idea for their own mutual gain.

If I invented a new idea, and I couldn't distribute it, I would still have the ability to find someone else who can. Entering into a binding contract, we could create a partnership (or corporation). Until that contract is issued, I wouldn't have to explain the idea or the secrets of the idea. A non-disclosure agreement and a binding contract are really all you need to protect the idea (as is obvious from one of the links I posted in my original message).

Re:But patents aren't only for corporations...

[joto]

An individual with an idea can't go very far unless they have entrepreneurship as well. If they don't have the drive to promote an idea, what good is the idea?

This is a good point. There's really no reason we should reward people for good ideas. It's not like people would stop having them if they weren't rewarded. Just because mr Jones invented an ingenius new bird-feeding device, doesn't mean he should be entitled to profit from his invention if somebody else decides to manufacture it. At least, it's hard to see what the society at large can gain from this.

If I invented a new idea, and I couldn't distribute it, I would still have the ability to find someone else who can. Entering into a binding contract, we could create a partnership (or corporation). Until that contract is issued, I wouldn't have to explain the idea or the secrets of the idea.

Ahh, but that binding contract would be essentially impossible to write were it not for the patent system.

Say you are mr Jones, who invented a new bird-feeding device. You approach mr Dow, who has a large company specializing in manufacturing bird-feeding equipment. Naturally, he is interested in getting any new ideas, but he is not going to waste time and money unless your idea has some merit. So before you enter into a binding contract, you must answer some questions about your bird-feeding device.

Now, from these questions, mr Dow will either decide that you are a worthless looser wasting his time, or maybe he likes it. But he also has enough of the general idea to find out the rest himself. Leaving you with nothing, not even a contract. This is what the patent system is supposed to avoid. Whether there's any benefit for any other than mr Jones from such a system is another question.

Re:But patents aren't only for corporations...

[dada21]

Ahh, but that binding contract would be essentially impossible to write were it not for the patent system.

I hadn't thought of that. But now that I do think about it, I can see many ways that the binding contract would work.

When I want to rent a new commercial property, I enter into a binding contract with the landlord, showing my intent. I allow many "exit clauses" from this contract, but it is binding for all other circumstances. There is no federal law protecting the landlord or myself, other than tort law. Of course, tort itself has been destroyed from its original intentions.

The same is true with an idea. If I have an idea, I can go to two or three entrepreneurs. I can explain the idea in simple terms, and enter into an agreement with the one that is willing to take the risk and give me the most for my idea.

Maybe entrepreneur #1 hates the general idea and won't take the risk. Maybe #2 likes the general idea, but won't take the risk without me telling more. Maybe #3 likes the idea, and will take the risk but will offer me far less money than #2.

My options might be to offer #2 more thoughts on my idea (that is me taking a risk), but we'll create a contract binding him against stealing it. Tort law (if reformed to what it used to cover) would protect me. Or maybe I could go with #3, allowing him to take a bigger risk, but also get a bigger reward.

Patents to me seem silly. Tort law in a proper sense is all we really need.

Re:But patents aren't only for corporations...

[fullmetal55]

but without the patent system, whats to prevent one of your "friends" from saying, ahh screw you, I'm gonna go make my own, and leave you and your hard work in the cold. with no legal recourse to get rewarded for your work. corporations are especially greedy, I think we can both agree on that, and as someone else said here, whats to stop them from saying "bugger off kid, we don't want your gadget" and then go and manufacture a million of them before you have a chance to find a corporation who will produce it and pay you. so this theoretical person had the drive to pitch his idea to corporations and get some way to produce it, yet they were shoved aside and their invention is now helping the world do whatever it was intended to do yet he doesn't see a dime from his work, whats his incentive to produce another innovation? nothing. he won't invent anymore. people just steal his inventions. do that a few times, and individuals won't innovate anymore. when they have no chance to make money, money is the number one driving force for innovation. you remove that incentive and innovation is going to stall. only corporations could innovate, and its really not in their interests to innovate. it is essentially better not to innovate for corporations as they can continue to milk existing products from now til eternity. Its naive to believe that a corporation will look after the consumer's best interest. and whos to say that a corporation would even agree to an NDA from some shmoe off of the street. it again comes down to the fact that innovation isn't in the corporations interests, and essentially an NDA is similar to patent law in that respects anyway.

But they should limit the patents corporations are allowed to create and own. maybe have a seperate clause in it for corporation owned patents having a life-span of say 5 years. add another 5 years on top of that for individual persons. after that patent protection is no longer an issue, it ends.

Re:But patents aren't only for corporations...

[joto]

You have made some good points. I'm not entirely sure that this would have the same effect as the patent system. On the other hand, I'm not entirely sure that that would be desirable either. I'll have to sleep on it, but you have me more or less convinced that you are right...

Re:But patents aren't only for corporations...

[dada21]

A corporation is a group of individuals. They are never bad nor good. I own corporations. I deal with corporations. I make sure I don't deal with corporations I believe are not interested in the mutual gain of my corporation as well as theirs.

Why would you go to a corporation you don't have familiarity with? Why wouldn't you go out and reseach past inventors' experiences with a corporation before going and making contact with them about your idea?

Corporations are not bad. People who go into dealings with people they don't know are stupid.

Re:But patents aren't only for corporations...

[dada21]

I'm not trying to be right :) I'm just trying to find out what makes the most sense for me, and bang my opinions against those who agree and disagree. I love healthy debates, even Devil's advocate ones.

I'd love to continue this "debate/sharing" session -- here on slashdot, in private e-mail, or on a forum like anti-state.com to try to get further through this topic. It isn't one I've spent much time researching, but it is definitely an important one.

If you're interested in continuing it, drop me an e-mail or reply here!

Re:But patents aren't only for corporations...

[HeghmoH]

Until that contract is issued, I wouldn't have to explain the idea or the secrets of the idea. A non-disclosure agreement and a binding contract are really all you need to protect the idea (as is obvious from one of the links I posted in my original message).

This is precisely what happened before patents, and exactly why the entire patent system was invented in the first place. People would get good ideas, and try to sell them. But they can't disclose the idea, because then they don't get rewarded. They also can't find a buyer, because they can't explain the idea well enough to prospective buyers without giving the idea away. Thus, the good idea dies with the person who came up with it.

Lots and lots of inventions were lost in exactly this way. Many people would rather die with their invention a secret than have somebody else make a fortune out of it. The key component to a patent is that it is required to publish a full specification of the invention, enough so that a knowledgeable person could build it, in return for the patent. This way, even if the inventor has a heart attack or is hit by a bus or every city where his multinational conglomerate has offices is hit by gigantic rocks from outer space, the invention is not lost.

The simple fact of the matter is that, like copyrights, patents are fundamentally good ideas; it's the implementations that are broken. Both were originally conceived not as a way to let people make money, but as an aid to society, to promote invention and creativity. The problem now is that it's gone too far towards giving people money. Scale back the terms of copyrights and patents, examine them more thoroughly, make people pay (more) for them, etc., and you can fix the system. It's not necessary to destroy it.

Re:But patents aren't only for corporations...

[fullmetal55]

I never said they were bad, or good, merely greedy. as are individuals. research is always necessary, but it only takes one time for you to get screwed out of a lot of money. yes they won't be able to do it again, but, as i said they're greedy, if they steal an idea, they only have to do it once to screw over an inventor. and without patent law, the inventor could be played as a screwball trying to extort money out of the corporation... laying claim to something he didn't invent. who would joe six-pack believe? some guy off the street screaming he created gadget "A" and that corporation B stole it from him? while corporation B claims they invented it instead and this guy is trying to get rich quick off of their work. who would you believe? i'm sure a lot of people would side with the corporation.

Re:But patents aren't only for corporations...

[Anonymous Coward]

The sole purpose of a corporation is to make money.
YOU ARE A FUCKWIT

Re:But patents aren't only for corporations...

[SquarePants]

Binding contracts are only binding on those who agree to be bound by them. So what are you going to do? have everyone who buys a product which embodies your idea enter into a contract with you? How about everyone who just sees your invention? How are you going to prevent the consumers of products, or the competitors of the entity you are contracting with from copying the invention and running with it? Faced with those odds, who in their right mind enter into a contract with you?

If you have no way of protecting an invention (notice I didn't say idea, you can't patent those), it is unlikely you will put in any of the hard work needed to make it a reality. After all, why spend your sweat and blood to create a car that runs on water when as soon as you sell the first one Ford, GM and Chrysler will buy it, copy it and sell their own? In that case, because if there was no way for you to protect your invention the entire world would be deprived of its benefits.

They don't like it?

[Rogerborg]

Then they can resign. $45K starting salary rising to $90K for a 4 day week? Fuck them. Let's subcontract the whole lot to India.

If doing a good job's impossible, why bother?

[Junior J. Junior III]

So, if you know you can't possibly do a good job in evaluating that volume of patents, why not slow things down to a crawl, and do stuff the right way? Sure, we'd still be looking at the merits of the application for the patent for the transistor, but isn't that better than no-look rubber stamping of bullshit like one-click shopping?

and stop patent inflation today.

[ciaran_o_riordan]

this article is yet another nail in the coffin of the patent system

Hopefully, but that is somewhere far off in the future. Right now we have to stop expansion of the patent system, like the way the EU is considering expanding it to cover all ideas implementable through software. How would patent examiners possibly get better by increasing their workload?

Plus it will be a lot harder to revise the patent system if it is embedded in every industry.

If ever there was a need to automate operations

[Anonymous Coward]

then patent processing is it.
I don't care how the current system works - it obviously doesn't work. Using this as an excuse for nonsense patents being issues is not acceptable. What I do care about is how to make the present patent processing system better in order to reduce the issueing of bogus patents.
I and the rest of the software community would gladly offer our time for free to help build a better patent processing system. It would ultimately benefit us all - corporations and individuals alike.

I once new one ...

[ciupman]

... who worked at a patent office, he had so many little things to do that he created the theory of relativity, amongst other things ... Who knew that a patent worker could change the history and face of the Earth (literally)..

Re:I once new one ...

[Anonymous Coward]

could change the history and face of the Earth (literally)..

That's not that impressive. I mean, Donald Trump has arguably literally changed the face of the Earth too (he's a major property developer after all) but I'm not sure he's anyone to write home about.

Re:I once new one ...

[Anonymous Coward]

No one /anywhere/ can do this any more, in almost any job imagineable.

Employers have such a massive hard-on for "work efficiency" (to the complete exclusion of "Work Ethics" and "Work Competency") that you would never be able to remain in a job where you had enough time to create the Theory of Relativity.

In today's world, Einstein would have been fired by the second year, and would have been trying to think of relativity while working at a factory...

JD

Acacia and streaming video/audio patent

[Syncalot]

over the last year there has been a company claiming a patent on streaming video/audio, (ie not live) but anything recorded that gets d/l and then is played back on a computer. I would say that 3/4 of the internet does that. They are now targeting the adult industry first and sending out letters to individuals demanding $1500 and up from each webmaster who has video on their site. Some of you might not care and say well its the adult industry let them get screwed, but this is a more serious issue for everyone who uses video/audio on their web site and will eventually get hit by this company for voilation of their patent. now this may see really silly to alot of people having a patent on this but they are out there sending letters and getting some people to sign. Here is a PR released by a site called fight the patent which is helping people who get letters fight this. http://www.fighthepatent.com/v2/PR-1117.html I cant seem to find a link anymore to a scanned in letter, but its very generic, and lits the persons name with some paragraphs stating their claim on their patents, how ever no web sites are mentioned in the letter and their demand is $1500+ and you need to have this in by nov 30th. this goes even further. if your a website owner and LINK to a site that has video/audio on it and make money off of sending users to that site you are also in violation.. now come on fokes this is really out of control it seems their patent is based upon an idea of sending data from one location to the next then playing back that video/audio content. There is no actual software technology they developed that people are using with out paying. just another reason these patent guys really need to look at older patents and start really removing them. Hell I saw a special on a father who patent his girl swining from left to right instead of front to back.. its all about prior art and acacia patent lies in 1990. so if there is anything or any proof of video/audio d/l, streaming this patent can be changed. sorry for the rant, its just a few of my friends are in this situation and i thought maybe a voice for them would help.. just search google news for the word Acacia to find out more.

Re:Acacia and streaming video/audio patent

[Tablizer]

over the last year there has been a company claiming a patent on streaming video/audio, (ie not live) but anything recorded that gets d/l and then is played back on a computer......Some of you might not care and say well its the adult industry let them get screwed

All the porn industry has to do is threaten to withold any porn from ever being seen by the patent threatening company's employees. "You will never see another naked woman besides your wife again if you press this patent on us."

A threat like that has to work.

Re:Acacia and streaming video/audio patent

[Anonymous Coward]

just search the USPTO database for class 725 thats video distribution, seach class 348 as well (television)

A day day in the life

[Tablizer]

"I started my career as as a slashdot duplicate article inspector....."

Well, it can't work this way.

[Gadzinka]

Someone just wants to show that USPTO which should be public service can be milking cow.

I don't remember what is the cost of filling the patent, but I think that it was somewhere around $20k. So let the examiner check ten aplications a year and earn half the money from application fee.

If constant costs are bigger, let him earn a quarter of this money.

Sure, you would have to hire lots of people, but USPTO would still be on black and the patent system would work better -- win-win situation.

Apparently someone has incentives not to heal the patent system.

rrw

Re:Well, it can't work this way.

[SquarePants]

The USPTO IS in the black. Has been for years. It is one of the few agencies that makes money for the gov't. The problem is that the funds incoming to the USPTO from the public go into the general government fund, not in the USPTO's fund. Then, every year, the USPTO has to grovel to congress for money. It usually gets less than it asks for and ALWAYS gets less than it generates (its called diversion and many think it amounts to an unconbstitutional tax on inventors).

Also, the USPTO actually looses money on the examination fees it charges. Although it can cost upwards of $20K in attorneys' fees to prepare and file an application, the governement filing fees are usually less than $1,000. The USPTO makes about 2/3 of its monry from the maintenance fees that existing patent holders have to pay to maintain their patents in force.

200 Ph.D.s in the biochemical and pharma section

[danila]

Just think how much good could these people do to the industry by providing valuable advice to researchers and developers about which venues of research to pursue, what their colleagues are doing, which ideas lead to dead-ends, etc. Instead they waste their time granting and filing patents which no longer seem to benefit the progress of society that much...

Pretty straightforward

[Timesprout]

8:00 Arrive in office
8:05 Begin daily caffeine overdose
8:10 Check email
8:20 Check todays work schedule
8:30 Retrieve documentation for todays application
9:00 Begin carefully reading application, constantly referring to extensive memory of patents already extant that may cover this application
9:05 God this is boring
9:06 Begin fantasizing about a combination of Halle Berry and strawberry icecream
9:09 Mental decision: Approve patent
9:09:03 Resume Halle fantasy
...
4:55 Inform supervisisor by email patent is accepted as there is no evidence that Halle Berry has ever been used in this manner before.
4:56 Send additional mail to supervisor, correcting self by replacing Halle with object of patent

Hype job?

[Quixote]

I smell a hype-job.

Here's a quote:
When a patent is first filed, the key hurdles are novelty and obviousness; i.e., does this idea really represent something new, and is it informed by a particular creativity? Eighty percent of patent applications are rejected for failing to meet those first hurdles.

Someone please tell the writer about some of the "novel" patents issued by the USPTO.

get a real screen (nt)

[Anonymous Coward]

(nt) is kuro5hinian for "No Text"

Re:get a real screen (nt)

[Jedi Alec]

you know you're getting old when people think (nt) started on Kuro5hin...

Re:get a real screen (nt)

[Anonymous Coward]

I know it didn't start there but it's the most popular site using it.

No patents?

[DrEldarion]

So what happens when little Joe Inventor comes along and makes the Next Big Thing and starts selling it in his hometown until he gets the money to go bigger, and suddenly Huge Multinational Corporation comes along and steals everything from him, mass produces it, and undersells him?

Having NO patent system at all hurts innovators even more.

Re:No patents?

[Felinoid]

So what happens when little Joe Inventor comes along and makes the Next Big Thing and starts selling it in his hometown until he gets the money to go bigger, and suddenly Huge Multinational Corporation comes along and steals everything from him, mass produces it, and undersells him?

He eather makes his better or cheaper.
(It's called capitalism)

With patents Joe inventer is tied up in cort untill he can't afford to defend his patent anymore.
And that is when he can afford the patent to start with.

Todays inventers sell inventions to companys like Ronco who get patents on there own.
(However Ronco is one of the few examples of where patenst actually work...)

The ultimate irony would be the Communists filing a patent on crushing capitalism.
And being rejected the patent on the grounds that the patent system itself has been doing it for decades.

Re:No patents?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of the two, who do you think has a couple of billion dollars in R&D money to take somebody else's idea and do it cheaper/better and not give a dime back to the original creator.

Re:No patents?

[DaveHowe]

How exactly does he make it better or cheaper?
he can't make it better if they can just take his improved model and have it on shelves nationwide in a week, and he can't possibly undercut a retailer who not only gets price breaks on raw materials, but who can afford to sell at a loss for two years *in his area* if that's what it takes to put him out of business...

Re:No patents?

[PyromanFO]

How exactly does he make it better or cheaper?
he can't make it better if they can just take his improved model and have it on shelves nationwide in a week, and he can't possibly undercut a retailer who not only gets price breaks on raw materials, but who can afford to sell at a loss for two years *in his area* if that's what it takes to put him out of business...

Look, if a company can come along and do it cheaper, faster and better than someone else they should just do it. It's called capitalism. Why do we assume that all inventors need protection? He has obviously sold enough units by this point to make some money, or the large corporation wouldn't be trying to undercut him. He has his incentive, he's made his money back, why should he still be the only one on the market? It's called competition, we shouldn't be so afraid of it that we think we need regulation wherever it pops up. He has his investment back and his incentive, now the free market should take it and run with it.

Re:No patents?

[DaveHowe]

what makes you think he has made back his investment?
take a simple example - a minor improvement in technology. The average company will invest several million in new plant (leaving aside whatever research cost) and base their "cost" before profit on raw materials per item plus that capital "startup" cost averaged over three years of expected sales
If he gets a month or even three, then is undercut on the market, how does he make back that initial investment, never mind make a profit?

Without patent protection, it is not in anybody's interest to try and make or market anything new in the current world - not in the small inventor's interest as he will never see any money from it, and not in the big company's interest, as without innovation from outside sources, they can go on selling the same things forever.

Difficulty is no excuse for incompetence

[Morgaine]

My feelings on this are simple: do it right or don't do it at all.

Very true. Another way of saying the same thing is that difficulty is no excuse for incompetence. If something is hard then it can take a long time to do it properly, and if that results in collosal patent processing times then either get more staff or accept the long waiting lists for approval, which might even be a good thing.

In any event, the current state of patents is nothing short of a catastrophe in the world of ideas, and the blame lies squarely with patent office incompetence. Please note that this is being extremely generous; a less generous interpretation involves widescale corruption.

If you have a job to do, do it well or don't do it at all, like the poster said. Don't operate with an effective IQ of zero and let your incompetence lay waste to progress right across the US-affected world.

Re:Difficulty is no excuse for incompetence

[Saeger]

My feelings on this are simple: do it right or don't do it at all.

Very true.

For perfectionists, sometimes doing it right means not doing it at all. :)

"Perfection is the enemy of progress", and "A good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow."

--

LOL^3

[Anonymous Coward]

yuo made /me laff teh p00p out /me's nose

Slashdot says:

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Patents suck
2. Copyright sucks
3. Capitalism sucks
4. Bush sucks
5. SCO sucks
6. Linux rocks/no FreeBSD rocks/*BSD is dead
7. Socialism is kick-ass
8. ???????
9. PROFIT!!!!

-The OpenVMS troll

Distributed patent processing

[satyap]

Distributed patent processing -- have a bunch of (volunteer) people do the legwork etc. The patent officers can do the final check. It should help a little.

Excellent

[tmark]

Forbes has an older article which describes

One question, though: we know it's old, but was it also posted here too ? If so, it sounds like this article is perfect for Slashdot.

FDA unconstitutional? Please explain.

[tepples]

I believe the FDA is unconstitutional

In what way do you think Congress overstepped its constitutionally enumerated powers in establishing the Food and Drug Administration? What other kind of organization would regulate "commerce ... among the states" in drugs?

Re:FDA unconstitutional? Please explain.

[dada21]

I've posted in numerous slashdot replies in the past about the whole "interstate commerce" clause in the Constitution.

The "interstate commerce" clause had nothing to do with Congress or the federal government controlling how commerce is to be regulated or mandated or taxed. It strictly allowed Congress powers over any state or individual to make sure that commerce between the states went un-hindered. The founding fathers had realized that in order to promote competition within a state, there had to be the option to purchase an item from a person or entity in another state (or country). Congress was granted the power to make sure that no state could restrict or tax purchases from another state, hindering free trade.

The FDA is a bloated, grotesque organization that only exists today to help political cronies and friends of those in power. It does little to nothing to protect the average person, and has done more damage to people than helped.

It has withheld drugs from those who needed them, prevented doctors from making recommendations (who do you trust more with your health, your doctor or a bureaucrat?), and has created a red-tape system that makes it hard if not impossible to compete with the cartels that have the most power within the organization.

That was not the intent of the founding fathers, and should not be the desired organization for freedom-loving people.

Re:FDA unconstitutional? Please explain.

[Azure Khan]

For some reason, your diatribe hit something in me. I got the distinct feeling that when you spoke of doctor recommendations, you were specifically speaking about marijuana for medicinal purposes.

Alternative is PERPETUAL trade secrets

[tepples]

At least, it's hard to see what the society at large can gain from [a monopoly].

The goal of the U.S. patent system, stated in the Constitution, is "to promote the progress of science and useful arts." The rents earned from selling a patented product provides an alternative to NDAs, which may be enough of an incentive not to make the NDAs perpetual. In addition, public safety considerations demand the disclosure of the contents of some products such as drugs, and other than through monopoly rents, how can inventors afford to pay the up-front cost of getting a new health product past regulators?

Re:Alternative is PERPETUAL trade secrets

[dada21]

Public safety consideration? I'm sorry, but why do people keeping bringing this up???

Will your doctor prescribe you unsafe medication? Not if he might get sued (although tort law has destroyed a lot of this). Will your insurance company pay for medication that is unsafe? Not if they might get sued (again, tort law used to cover this). Will Walgreens or CVS sell you bad drugs? Not if they might get sued. Will ABC run a drug ad during Friends if its a bad drug?

Now, explain to me why government needs to protect the people from bad drugs.

Re:Alternative is PERPETUAL trade secrets

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the answer to all your questions is yes.

Re:Alternative is PERPETUAL trade secrets

[Anonymous Coward]

Aside from the fact that bad drugs get backed, advertised, and prescribed ALL THE TIME, that was a very insightful post.

The real answer is for all research to be public and open, paid for by the government.

Maybe someone should...

[thewils]

...patent a new method of submitting patents to the patent office.

Re:Maybe someone should...

[Anonymous Coward]

...patent the current method of submitting patents to the patent office -- the chances of anyone noticing prior art being virtually nil.

Re:Maybe someone should...

[SquarePants]

I bet if you look up every slashdot topic ever started in the past 5 years on the topic of patents, this same "joke" has been made at least once. Give it a rest. Who modded this up?

Oh, and BTW, such a patent does exist.

parent

[pyat]

thought it said parent examiner :-)

Using Patents

[mindhaze]

Here's a question for the opinionated Slashdot crowd...

Is it legit, ie: won't have me tied up with lawsuits for the next several years, to use patented technology for personal applications?

Think, perhaps, of a power-generation system that would be suitable for a small hobby farm. If I took the patent, built it, and used it on my own land, but did not sell it, am I violating the patent?

Re:Using Patents

[SquarePants]

Unequivocally, YES!

Re:Using Patents

[Felinoid]

IANAL: I couldn't tell you.

But from a business prospective.
Look at the industry your dealing with.
If your dealing with an industry where people are more into it becouse they like it and less for money then you won't have much of a problem.
But if your in a greed hunrgy industry there are whole business plans wrapped around seperating patents from inventers reguardless of how the law is drafted.

Now... if you invent something make the invention patent it sell the patent I doupt anyone would care that you still have the original invention.

Seams equally likely if you remade your invention for personal use AFTER selling the patent that the company who holds the pantent wouldn't care.

Could they tie you up in cort for decades? Yeah they can do that pritty much for any reason they want.
Will they? Naaa... no proffit. Just don't sell it.

Re:Using Patents

[scrytch]

Think, perhaps, of a power-generation system that would be suitable for a small hobby farm. If I took the patent, built it, and used it on my own land, but did not sell it, am I violating the patent?

From my interpretation of the below, I'd say definitely yes, you're violating the patent. Especially if you used the patent application itself to develop it.

From http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/i ndex.html#infringement

Infringement of a patent consists of the unauthorized making, using, offering for sale, or selling any patented invention within the United States or U.S. Territories, or importing into the United States of any patented invention during the term of the patent. If a patent is infringed, the patentee may sue for relief in the appropriate federal court. The patentee may ask the court for an injunction to prevent the continuation of the infringement and may also ask the court for an award of damages because of the infringement. In such an infringement suit, the defendant may raise the question of the validity of the patent, which is then decided by the court. The defendant may also aver that what is being done does not constitute infringement. Infringement is determined primarily by the language of the claims of the patent and, if what the defendant is making does not fall within the language of any of the claims of the patent, there is no literal infringement.

Re:Using Patents

[Anonymous Coward]

You're asking for legal advice on Slashdot? You get no more than you paid for, and it's free. Caveat emptor!

As for whether you'll get sued--even if you are in the legal right, that costs plenty--it depends on how low a profile you keep. Since you posted your intentions non-anonymously on slashdot, you're not off to a good start on that front...(begin troll) better buy it from SCO and ask Darl to indemnify you from his product's infringing IBM patents!

The Danger of Big Ideas

[fm6]

Lots of Big Ideas in your post: "Economic proof", "authoritarian power", and of course the "anarchocapitalist" in your sig.

Now, there's a danger with Big Ideas -- they make it hard to deal with the practical reality. You can argue all you want that the patent system, and other IP concepts, have outlived their usefulness. You might even convince a lot of people that you're right. (I, for one, am half-convinced already, and I haven't even looked at your links.) But that's not very useful. Big Ideas do nothing to address the enormous economic and political power of IP enterprises. Which consist, incidentally, not just of rich corporate execs, but also thousands of ordinary schmos. Including a lot of Slashdotters -- high tech still relies mainly on copyrights and patents to protect its assets.

With so many people dependent on the current system, proposals to start from scratch are simply irrelevent. (Unless the whole system simply breaks down, in which case IP issues are the least of our problems.) If you want to make a difference, you need to think in terms of resisting the growing abuses of the IP system, and maybe pushing back a little. That kind of change comes from simple hard work, not Big Ideas.

To summerize the responses you will get:

[Anonymous Coward]

40% - "Yes"
40% - "No"
10% - "Patents suck"
5% - "What's a patent?"
5% - "CowboyNeal"

I hope...

[Anonymous Coward]

...that the USPTO employees understand that when we condemn the USPTO for incompetence and laziness that we are really referring to the powers that be at the USPTO, specifically the powers that be that inhibit effective research by hamstringing resources. We don't mean to insult the employees, just their boss's boss.

Co-inventer, Heavenly father

[Anonymous Coward]

> Nolan's office once received a patent that listed
> the codiscoverer as "Heavenly Father." That claim
> was refused, but then, the deity lacks legal
> representation.

Damn straight. Everyone knows the devil owns all the lawyers. ;-)

Maybe we should make challenges cheaper

[MythoBeast]

It does seem that the process for creating patents is largely incapable of determining the validity of patents. It works more like a sanity check, and barely that.

Considering this, it would make more sense if it were cheaper for external entities to challenge patents after they were created. As things stand, it takes thousands, or sometimes tens of thousands of dollars to challenge even the most obviously flawed patent.

We could, for instance, create a standard reveiw process where an individual presents evidence of patent conflict or prior art. Since the claimant is doing much of the research in advance, the cost should be considerably less.

Re:Maybe we should make challenges cheaper

[SquarePants]

You make a valid point. But like most things in a capitalistic system, our patent examination system is a compromise based on the scarcity of resources.

In a perfect world, the patent office would have a million examiners and they would all have the time and resources to examine every application in infinitesimal detail to insure no bad patents are issued. But this is not a perfect world and we do not have the resources to hire a million patent examiners and let them take as long as they want.

So, in our system, the patent office examination is only the initial threshold step to achieving ultimate monopoly over an invention. The courts have the ultimate say as to validity. And the courts relie on litigants to exhaustively examine patents and, if warranted, challenge them in court. If a patent is insignificant, then nobody will give a crap and its validity (even if suspect) will not be tested. So what? se la vie, the patent is insignificant.

If, on the other hand, the patent is momentous, then there will be plenty of people who will challenge it and, if warranted, the patent will be invalidated.

The downside to all this is that patents that fall in between these two types will only be of interest to a few who may not have the wherewithal (i.e., money) to challenge their validity. So, the system is not perfect. Like I said it is a compromise.

I think it was Churchill wo remarked that democracy is the worst way to run a country, with the exception of every other system tried by mankind. It is easy to criticize the system but we need to see the forest from the trees. Our patent system is in great part responsible for the technological status our country enjoys vis-a-vis the rest of the world.

enlightenment

[munkinut]

this explains totally why the whole system is a farce. wish us well in europe guys, it's going to be a long war.

That old chestnut again

[Vainglorious Coward]

the pharmaceutical industry, because of its huge upfront costs, often will not develop a perfectly useful drug unless it can patent it

I might have more sympathy for this view were it not for the fact that pharmcos spend twice as much on advertising as they do on R&D

Re:That old chestnut again

[mesocyclone]

Pharmos are in the business to make money. They often do well at it. But to make money in a competitive industry, they also have to sell their product. Doctors are overwhelmed with information, and are very conservative. Pharmaceutical company reps cost a lot of money because they themselves have to know a lot about the drugs they sell and often have substantial education. Without those expenses, the drugs wouldn't get into use. The newer practice of advertising direct to consumers may also benefit consumers by advising them of choices their doctors may not be paying attention to.

The pharmcos aren't perfect and they aren't identical and they do some things that may not be right. But the problem they have is real.

The pharmcos have developed a lot of very useful drugs. They have risked huge amounts of money to bring drugs to market, and most of the drugs they invest in it fail.

You may not like their business model, and are free to try your own. Good luck.

As it is, the rest of the world is free-riding on the expenses Americans pay for drugs, because the costs in price controlled countries like Canada are below the total costs of the drugs, and the only reason those drugs are available at all is because the *marginal* cost of selling the drugs there is low.

If you think businesses should be charities, why don't you start one. The advertising budgets of pharmacy companies doesn't change the issue of patentability in the first place.

Re:That old chestnut again

[Vainglorious Coward]

Nicely dodging my point that it's specious to argue that pharmcos need special protection because of the R&D costs, when in fact they are not risking huge amounts of money upfront. In fact they are trifling amounts, compared to other spending. See, for example, the figures in the report produced by Families USA which shows that Merck spent 6% of revenues on R&D, but spent 15% on marketing. The figures for Pfizer are 15% and 39%. The fact is that the pharmcos are one of the most powerful lobby groups in Washington and get lots of, ahem, "special consideration" that I don't think they deserve.

The newer practice of advertising direct to consumers may also benefit consumers by advising them of choices their doctors may not be paying attention to.

Are you for real?!? I guess, given your comments, you or your dad must work for a pharmco, but even so, pretending that dtca benefits consumers is simply risible.

Re:That old chestnut again

[mesocyclone]

Okay, let's take Pfizer... They spent $5 billion on R&D last year. How much would they have spent without patent protection?

I never claimed that pharmaceutical companies are saints. They are businesses. But I did claim that patent protection is necessary for them to do the R&D.

You ridicule my comments are marketing. Have you ever been in business? Do you understand how it is necessary to sell your product? Do you know how doctors receive their education on new medicines? Yes, they get much of it from marketing.

Do you know how conservatives doctors are? It took a long time for them to switch to using antibiotics to treat helicobacter pylori caused peptic ulcers (the cause of the majority of those ulcers). Patients who saw ads about effective antibiotics could potentially get much better treatment by informing their doctors about the change in treatment.

In a perfect world, advertising wouldn't be necessary. It isn't a perfect world.

Everyone who pays attention knows that capitalism is inefficient in the details, in the sense that it pays a lot for advertisers, pays for cost of capital through interest and dividends, and often competes on equivalent product. But capitalism at a large scale is quite efficient and extremely creative.

Now, this side discussion was about pharmaceutical companies and patents. Take away those patents and please explain why Pfizer would invest $5,000,000,000 in a R&D on a product, only to have every other pharmaceutical company produce the same thing for almost nothing, simply by reverse engineering it (absolutely trivial).

Sorry, but patents aren't a "special consideration" that applies only to pharmaceuticals. And if they are so powerful, why is it that the FDA, whose decisions can destroy a billion dollar R&D investment, doesn't give them more of a pass? Why is it that a few bad outcomes that couldn't be predicted (such as the off label use of Phen-Fen, or is it Fen-Phen) cause them to be lose huge amounts of money to the real powerful lobby - the tort lawyers.

Let's look at one special consideration: the limits on importing drugs from countries where the prices are lower...

Lets say we allow anyone to buy any drug from anywhere (as long as said drug is legal in the US). Drug sales at discount prices to most other countries would end, because Americans would quickly start using the internet to buy all their drugs from the cheapest country, dropping the price below the profit level for the drug company. Then either those companies would violate international patent treaties and get the drugs that way (at which point Americans would again be prohibited from buy them, or at which point the pharmaceutical industry would simply stop doing any R&D), or their people would do without. Meanwhile, Americans would pay higher prices because the total income flow amortizing the drug development would be reduced to only that available from Americans. And, of course, the stockholders who invested in the companies would lose, because the companies would also bear the burden. Bigger and richer countries (like Canada) would see their prices rise to the American level (which IMHO would be a good thing - Canadians and others are free-riding on American drug consumers).

Finally, in response to your ad hominem comments.

My dad is a professor emeritus (semi-retired academic scientist) outside the medical field. My daughter is an academic research scientist in cellular-molecular neuroscientist. I am not in either field, but certainly am a consumer of pharmaceuticals in America.

Re:That old chestnut again

[Anonymous Coward]

Touched a nerve, huh?

Fact remains : it is specious to argue that pharmcos are burdened with onerous R&D costs.

I'm having a hard time taking anything you write seriously when you persist in claiming that dtca is about benefit to patients. I will retract my comment about you working for a pharmco; I just assumed that there must be some personal reason why you would shill for the industry.

Re:That old chestnut again

[mesocyclone]

I wouldn't say you hit a nerve. I'd say you revealed assumptions that you were incorrectly making! There was no nerve there to hit.

I didn't say that dtca is about benefits to patients. I do, however, believe that some advertising in beneficial to patients, and the reason is because of the too-slow uptake of information by many doctors. Furthermore, preventing the advertising had long been an unreasonable prevention of commercial speech. After all, the people selling snake oil in the herbal "medicine" area didn't face those restrictions. So letting people know that there might be a medical alternative to whatever quack potion they are taking is indeed a service.

For example, persistent heartburn significantly increases the risk of esophageal cancer. The ads for Nexium informs people that persistent heartburn is dangerous, something few actually know. Nexium is basically a patented replacement for Prilosec (which is no longer patented) and itself seems to offer, at a significant cost, only some benefit over Prilosec.

Please don't confuse motives (pharmacos want to make more money) with results.

Obviously the pharmas lobbied for the ability to advertise. And obviously they use it for reasons that are not helpful in some cases, such as promoting still patented drugs that are functionally equivalent to ones that have expired patents. But the fact that they spend the money doing this is in itself evidence that they protection of investments through patents is important.

Now, as far as R&D costs... it is not specious to argue that protecting the products of R&D's, whether they are 15% or 30% of the pharmacos total expenses is critically important to the continuation of those efforts. Pharmacos do indeed go through massive costs to meed often overly burdensome regulatory requirements in order to sell their inventions. To strip them of protection of the invention is to end the invention process by them. That should be obvious to anyone familiar with how businesses operate. To say they are not overburdened just because they also spend a lot of money in areas outside of R&D is overly simplistic.

Now, those who are statist enough to believe government can always do things better won't care about this. After all, let the pharmacos go under. So what? Then we won't have advertising costs and executive overcompensation (which is being fixed anyway, as stockholders are starting to hold their fiduciaries to much higher standards after the scandals of the '90s). We wont have, gasp, that evil thing: profits!

And that is why I proposed that perhaps we force have some experimentation. There are countries whose health payments systems are free-riding on the R&D expenses of pharmacos and, by passthrough, on the prices Americans pay for those drugs. Lets try out other approaches in those countries and see what happens. Its a big world, we don't all have to do it the same way.

To simply end patent protection of pharmaceuticals is to discriminate against one particular industry, one that is very important or critical to the health of many people. In my opinion, it would be idiotic to do so, regardless of what sort of snakes are involved in running pharmaceutical companies.

With the current dramatic progress being made in genomics, proteonomics, and genetic engineering (my daughter is using a powerful technique just discovered 1.5 years ago0), a progress rate far exceeding Moore's law according to Science Magazine, forcing innovators to rely on secrecy (hence damaging the exchange of scientific information) instead of patent protection, or just depriving innovators of capital (because why invest in a losing business proposition - one which free-riders can and absolutely will destroy) just doesn't make sense.

Much innovation is being done by government. But much is being done by private companies. Craig Ventner really ticked off a lot of government folks because he, for profit, sequenced the human genome far faster than the government forecast, and did i

Re:200 Ph.D.s in the biochemical and pharma sectio

[penguinoid]

Because it is so hellishly expensive to develop a new drug and prove that it is not harmful that only big corporations can do it. And they will only do it if they can make money out of it.

ABC's parent

[tepples]

Will ABC run a drug ad during Friends if its a bad drug?

Given the ABC network's parent company's track record, I wouldn't rule it out.

Open Patents

[penguinoid]

Perhaps patent reviewers should only classify patents and put them on the internet for a year. Then anyone who knows prior art can pitch in

Re:Open Patents

[Carl Oppedahl]

Indeed most US patent applications are published 18 months after the filing date, for precisely this purpose. You can see some examples on my web page. Members of the public are then free to send prior art to the Examiner.

Many patent offices around the world, including the European Patent Office, do the same thing.

Re:Open Patents

[alasdair]

Indeed most US patent applications are published 18 months after the filing date, for precisely this purpose. You can see some examples on my web page [patents.com].

That's great, and it's unfair to use you as an example since you've been good enough to volunteer yourself - but "20030143358: Vehicle floor mats"? You've patented a floor mat pack which the customer can cut to size? Forgive me, but I don't see that as very innovative. Now I might be wrong and it might be the most novel invention ever, but can you hand-on-heart admit that if I (say) found a good prior art example and posted it to the Patent Office, the patent would be revoked? Or would it cost thousands of dollars of legal fees and a court time to make the same point? And how exactly does the world benefit from your monopoly on cut-to-size mats? Does it encourage your client to invest in research and development on floor mats, knowing their inventions will provide benefit? Or does it let them charge more for their product, protected from competition by law? I know these aren't mutually exclusive things, so let's put another way: what R&D expenditure lead to this breakthrough over and above that required for normal competition in the market, and how much expenditure would be cut if the patent was lost? Would "none" be a reasonable answer to both questions? And if so, again, what is the benefit to society of your artificial monopoly?

Re:Open Patents

[Carl Oppedahl]

No such thing has been "patented". This is a mere published patent application. There is no "monopoly" and nothing to "revoke" because there is no "patent" at this time.

The cost to you to send relevant prior art to the Patent Office (if you are in the US) is 37 cents, not "thousands of dollars".

Your comments about "cut to size" mats, as if that is what the patent would cover if one were to issue (and no patent has yet issued) suggests that you may be under the mistaken impression that a patent covers what described is in its abstract. This isn't a patent, but if it were, it would cover only what is in its claims. Thus the relevant question is whether the subject matter of the claims is novel and unobvious.

And yes, I can say with hand on heart that if a member of the public timely submits relevant prior art to the Patent Office after such a publication, the Patent Office will consider it. But please keep in mind that "relevant" in this context means "relevant to what is claimed."

full map is still in progress, right?

[michajoe]

Looks like their webserver is busy building the full version of the map.

They missed the bit about...

[devnulljapan]

• riding around on trains getting hit by lighning
• Mulling over the implications of spacetime
• Wishing you had a twin
• And still have time left over to play the violin

Re:200 Ph.D.s in the biochemical and pharma sectio

[danila]

Sure, you are right. But the fact still remains - 200 Ph.D.s are wasting their time (and taxpayer's money), because they are not doing anything productive. I agree that pharma companies need additional incentives currently in the form of patent protection, but I believe that there are better alternatives.

And I would not really feel much pity if all big pharmas go under tomorrow. They are worse then useless, because they waste their (our) resources on goals of secondary importance, while humanity's primary goal, achieving physical immortality is neglected.

It's almost too simple...

[Anonymous Coward]

My favourite quote, in light of the Microsoft Anti-Trust settlement, has to be the following:

"Esther Kepplinger, deputy commissioner for patent operations and self-described "supervisor of supervisors of supervisors," was one of fewer than ten examiners doing biotech patents 30 years ago; she has overseen a fifty-fold increase in demand and specialization. Still, she says "when you're experienced at this, you can make decisions whether you know the art or not," a process she compares with a court's ruling on antitrust in high technology."

and this is a good thing?!

190,000 patents granted a year?

[rollingcalf]

That is a major symptom of the problem. Obtaining a patent should be just a notch below the level of rare and high achievement required to be an Olympic medalist, discover a new galaxy, or win a Nobel Prize. For crying out loud, you are saying that none of the other six billion people on earth did what you claim to do, and that no one else will naturally create that when faced with a similar problem in the course of their work. That is an extremely strong statement against the rest of the human race, and IMHO there aren't enough inventions that rise to the standard of novelty to truly deserve 190,000 patents in a decade.

If the USPTO were more strict with upholding a high standards for patents, the vast majority of applications that are submitted today would get thrown out even before commencing a prior art search. Eventually, the flood of applications would be reduced to a small number of worthy contenders, which would be a much more manageable load.

Unfortunately, the policies of the USPTO put the burden of proof on the patent examiner. They have to grant the patent unless they can find prior art or make a strong case why the creation is obvious. But the burden should be on the applicant to impress the examiners with the device's originality and utility, because a patent granted in error places a very high burden on the rest of society. The benefit of the doubt should be given to the public at large, not the patent applicant. Until that policy is changed they will be flooded with frivolous applications, and be pressured to grant patents for most of them, because it is so much more difficult to deny them.

"It was never the object of those laws to grant a monopoly for every trifling device, every shadow of a shade of an idea, which would naturally and spontaneously occur to any skilled mechanic or operator in the ordinary progress of manufactures. Such an indiscriminate creation of exclusive privileges tends rater to obstruct than to stimulate invention. It creates a class of speculative schemers who make it their business to watch the advancing wave of improvement, and gather its foam in the form of patented monopolies, which enable them to lay a heavy tax upon the industry of the country, without contributing anything to the real advancement of the arts. It embarrasses the honest pursuit of business with fears and apprehensions of concealed liens and unknown liabilities lawsuits and vexatious accountings for profits made in good faith."
-- US Supreme Court (Atlantic Works v. Brady, 1017 U.S. 192, 200 (1882)).

Morals Provide Instant Answers! {tm}

[LaCosaNostradamus]

The short answer is "yes", you'd be infringing.

But there's a much more complicated, long answer of "no" to your question, dealing with the sheer reality of Human needs.

You didn't mention if the power-generation system was NOT for sale if you wanted one. If it's a patented system, and is NOT available, then go ahead and make one ... I would. It is immoral to sit on a patent without providing the product or service that the patent is providing monopoly protection for.

You didn't mention if the power-generation system was for sale, but at an exorbitant price that far exceeds the benefits of using it. In such an instance, the patent holder is a buffoon and deserves to be undercut by infringement. When force and economics collide, I have no moral problem with siding with economics.

Patent Examination

[zungu]

Many people think patents are evil. The system of Patents, like any other system, is played with certain rules. Obtaining a patent does not mean that you have a ultra-strong right. Any issued patent is open to various challenges like reexamination and validty. When a patent owner sues another party for infringment, the infringer typically challenger the validity of the patent on all possible grounds. During such challenge a wide search of art, which is much more specific and comrehensive than that carried out by the Examiner, is carried out to invalidate patents. So even if there are patent examiners who have allowed crappy patents yet that does not mean end of the world. In a sense patents are the original open-source movement. It is to be more correct a open-concept with a little delay movement. Coke's formula is protected as trade-secret, and nobody can force them to reveal it. On the contrary, if Coke had patentended it it would have available to chemists to study as early as in 18 months (patnent App Publication). And anyone could make Coke after 15 years when the patent expired. Yes, 15 years seems long, yet within that time someone could have used the information in the Coke Patent and devised a better drink! That is the value of patent. Today no-one will ever know the software techniques embedded in proprietary products yet if they were patented or their techniques patented, we would have a printed record of such techniques which would enrich the knowledgebase of computer science. Without patents we can only rely on the charitable sense of these monolithic corporations to reveal their secrets. One must understand that patents apply to many things. A drug company keeping information secret is harmful to progress of medicine and society immediately, while a software company not patenting and keeping its techniques secret may only be a long-term threat to society. We must think of patent in more broader sense.

Re:Patent Examination

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, coke did have a "better drink"; unfortunatly, it's illegal now... ...so I guess we're just stuck with the mediocracy that the "trade secret" system enforces upon us.

wow you totally dont have a clue

[Anonymous Coward]

I work as a patent examiner. We work on a quota system, meaning we have a certain number of hours allocated towards each case, it is totally dependant on each technology as to how long you have allocated towards each case, but on average it is about 20 hours, that is 20 hours to read the case, search the case, and write the case, and then respond and subsequently preform any additional required search after an attorney ammends the case. That is not enough time to give an exhaustive search, but after a certain period, examiners are familiar with what is patentable. More often that not something may be out there, but if the attorney claims it specific enough, it must be granted.

Examiners can't just allow a case just because they feel like it, they have to write a reasoned argument why it is not ovbious to combine, or why the closest art that they can find to the applicants invention is different, it is called "reasons for allowance".

There is a patent examiners union, and if you go by the newsletters is filled with whiners.

www.popa.gov

however, there are legitimate complaints.

the patent office is one of the few government agencies in which it is relatively easy to get fired from because you are on a quota, and there is a quality system. Attrition is very high at the patent office, most people can not cope with production. However, most patent applications are processed by experienced examiners, that is, the higher your gs grade, the more patent applications one must process. Examiners are overworked compared to our counterparts at the EPO and JPO(they are given signifigantly more examination time), and this is an ongoing process being rectified. Additionally a large portion of the fee's recieved by the patent office is diverted to the general treasury (despite a large fee increase), if the USPTO received all of that ammount, more examiners could be highered, and more time could be alloted per application.

most slashdot whiners have no clue at all how the examination process works (we have to determine if the invention was ovbious at the time of invention, to do otherwise is hindsight and is legally impermissiable), or the prior art that they do find, really does not meet the claim limitations. Remember, patent examiners act as both engineers as well as a judical function to determine the meetes and bounds of an invention.

primarily, we search our existing database of patents and patent applications, but IEEE databases, google, usenet, etc may be searched, pretty much anything out there which is published (i personally have used video game screenshots). It is exceptionally rare to grant a patent application the first time it crosses ones desk, but usually it takes 2-6 ammendments, or continuations before it is granted.

read popa (the patent examiners union) to get a better insight as to how the examination process works.

as for striking, examiners are prohibited from doing so. I remember signing paperwork to that effect.

Re:wow you totally dont have a clue

[Anonymous Coward]

www.popa.gov

I think you mean www.popa.org .

Re:wow you totally dont have a clue

[Azure Khan]

So, what you're saying is that you're not given NEARLY enough time to fully evaluate the legitimacy of every patent that crosses your desk, and your pay and job depend on rushing through as many hastily read patents as possible?

How could I have ever doubted the system.

Re:wow you totally dont have a clue

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a patent examiner... And you're damn skippy. :)

Nice to find somebody else in that 10%...

you cant

[Anonymous Coward]

privately funded searches have been proposed by director rogan. however, that would be a conflict of interest.

as for the examination process, to be a patent examiner you must be a us citizen, in fact you get sworn in.

Re:200 Ph.D.s in the biochemical and pharma sectio

[Anonymous Coward]

examiners aren't paid by the tax payers, the patent office is fully fee funded (by the patent applications and patent extensions).

They are most certainly productive, there would be even more lawsuits if patent protection was not granted.

it won't work

[Anonymous Coward]

most slash dot readers don't have the legal training to even understand the legal language of the claims. For example, what is in the claim preamble actually is not given patent protection. The differences of and/or (legally) etc.

Even if they provide great prior art (which requires understanding what the claims actually mean and cover), they still have to provide a valid reason to combine, that will stand up in a court of law and a judge would understand. That is far more difficult to do.

Applicants are legally bound to present any prior art they do, in fact look at any patent and look for an * next to a reference, that means that that reference was cited by the examiner, any other reference was cited by the applicant.

forget that....

[trifster]

if they applied 1 unit of logic we wouldn't have major undeserable and crappy patents.

It's patently clear there's no Einsteins there

[Anonymous Coward]

ditto

9am - discover relativity , 11am - gravity

[Anonymous Coward]

That is a day in the life of a patent examiner we all know, or should! The ones we don't know goes like this

9am "use of a tachion beam to play with a torranium pet" - hmm, never seen this one before. looks good to me, why not.
10am "one click web page jumping" - wow, I mean WOW, who are these geniuses, this is revolutionary.
11am "use of farting to relieve gas" - can't let this one go, can't afford to pay the royalties, let me see, 250 uses a day times 365 days a year,hmm, let's see....
3pm, hours later, head hurts, multiplication table too small, take mental note to patent a large multiplication table that goes to 250, no wait, 365, better yet 366 for a leap year......

My Experiences with the PTO

[Anonymous Coward]

Regardless of what the article says ...

Article says: 2 years between submission & issuance of the patent
My experience: 4 years for Architecture & Software claims, assuming you don't appeal (that adds 3 yrs).

Artcile says: $2,000 per applicaiton filing + atttorney fees
My Experience: $12,000 per application filing (w/ attorney fees) plus $5,000 for each response to a PTO action. Assume $25,000 for each application, and then you pay maintance fees to the PTO.

Just do it my way

[paiute]

What we need are more examiners who read fewer applications in a narrower field of expertise with which they are conversant. Obtain 10,000 or more citizens who have demonstrable mastery of various fields. Send them electronic applications so they may search the relevant electronic databases and sources that they will already be using as part of their day job. Pay them per piece. Network them so if the application goes beyond the bound of their skills, they can call in help as needed.

I know that if I were to sit down and read applications that were narrowly tailored to be within the field I work in, I could quickly tell which were novel and where prior art if any might be found.

Why can't this be done?

Software patents

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's not physical, why patent it?

Deny software patents. If someone has an idea for a revolutionary new algorithm or code process, they can write a program that uses it and be first to market. If they're any good, they'll be the best in the market and will make money. If the algorithm or the program is not better than the alternatives, they won't.

Physical patents only, please. A floppy disk or a printed snippet of code is not a revolution. And no-one's saying you have to release your source code.

All good points, MOD PARENT UP!!

[pardonne]

All good points, mod it up please.

stupidity, and patent clerks

[themusicgod1]

didn't einstein work as one for awhile?

Patent application process spurs space travel

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, there are no patents in space... So, if your idea is really good (read absolute money maker), all you have to do is go into orbit, set up a manufacturing plant and jettison the product down to earth. What could be simpler than that?

Of course, this ranks up there with the communist plan to counterfit US currency in space and flood US currency circulation with "bills from space".

This doesn't justify software patents

[HiThere]

This explains why patents outside the area of expertise of the examiner tend to be done poorly. It doesn't justify the doing of them.

Considering the social costs of poorly done patents, and actually of even properly done patents...though that's less significant (there's a genuine up side), I don't see the justification for doing them at all. Of course, if I look and see who generally benefits, I see why they are kept in place. Patent pools allow companies that currently dominate in an area to maintain dominance. (Look what happened to Xerox when the patents on xerography ran out.)

OTOH, patents are a governmentally sanctioned monopoly, and all monopolies are socially expensive, because they tend to result in wealth concentrating into fewer hands, and they to power being less evenly distributed. Some inequality in the distribution is good, if it's properly mobile. But excessive imbalence tends to destabilize the democratic nature of the government. (In fact I would argue that we [the US] already only live in a republic, and that we are transitioning towards an oligarchy in a rapid fashion.)

That worked well for the air traffic controllers..

[alispguru]

For those of you who weren't around in the early 1980's, search for PATCO, which was the air traffic controllers' union until it tried to strike in 1981.

PATCO had a union in place and had some legitimate grievances that included potential public safety hazards. When their contract talks with the FAA broke down, they tried to strike (illegally, it must be added). The Government swooped down on them and basically fired them all.

The parallel to USPTO is clearer in accounts like this one, which makes the point that what the ATC workers were really fighting for was not money, but control of their workplace - they wanted it to be possible to do their jobs without needing things like big bowls of antacid tabs in the control towers.

Re:200 Ph.D.s in the biochemical and pharma sectio

[danila]

examiners aren't paid by the tax payers, the patent office is fully fee funded (by the patent applications and patent extensions).
Stupid mistake, sorry. Indeed they are paid by the applicants and even manage to give some money to the government. But the point is still valid - they are paid by the society to do work of questionable merit. There won't be lawsuits if patent protection was not granted, because if there are not patents, you can't infringe on them.

It was all decided in secret.

[Futurepower(R)]

Several. There have been representatives from the other companies complaining that they normally do the same work for less.

But, also, a big issue is that the contracts were all decided in secret.

Likely, NO!

[cr0sh]

IANAL - so keep that in mind...

I would say "no" - you can do this. That is the purpose of patents - they exist to help "further the arts" of invention. Regardless of whether the patented invention is in production or not.

The idea is this: say you build the invention from the patent in question - and while building it, you notice a way to increase the efficiency of the device by oh, 50% - by some method or process the original inventor nor others recognized prior to you. Perhaps you needed to build it in order to see this! You would then be able to patent this new addition (and/or maybe the entire thing), referencing the original patent.

Patents were created as the exchange an inventor could have - a monopoly on the production, sale, and/or licensing of the item in the patent, in exchange for showing how to build the device in a clear reproducible manner, so that others could build it after the patent monopoly expired, or in order to make the device better (and thus create new inventions).

Now, you couldn't sell the creation you had made, but I don't believe it is illegal to do so - consult a lawyer specializing in patent law if you are serious about this...