Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Patent Legislation Makes Some Headway

Posted by simoniker on from the patently-positive dept.

dreamchaser writes "EETimes has an article discussing new legislation that will stop Congress from siphoning off money from the Patent Office. The hope is that increased money in the coffers will allow the hiring of more highly skilled engineers to look at technical patents, as well as speed up the sometimes ponderous process of securing a patent. The bill has passed the house with a resounding 379-28 vote, and now goes to the Senate. Given all the discussions about how so many bad patents are being granted, could this be a good thing?"

19 of 227 comments (clear)

  1. Problem Solving 101 by funny-jack · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The legislation would keep patent office revenue in-house and thus could expedite the patent-application process, which grows lengthier and more costly as technology gets more complex, sources said.

    Is it just me, or does this sound like it is just throwing more money at a problem and hoping it will solve itself? If the legislation doesn't have provisions to specify new procedures to actually get around to solving the problems, it is unlikely to solve much of anything.

    --
    You probably shouldn't click this.
    1. Re:Problem Solving 101 by WebMasterP · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ok, slashdotters complain all the time about ridiculous patens being accepted because the people in the patent office appear to be mentally incompetent. So, I ask, how can hiring better engineers be a step in any direction but the right one?

    2. Re:Problem Solving 101 by thogard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The 1st things government do when they see a hard problem that they have to solve is to throw money at it. This means that congress seems to have noticed.

    3. Re:Problem Solving 101 by dreamchaser · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's the main reason I'm on the fence as to whether this will be a good thing or not. Maybe it's just me, but I'm not sure I trust bureaucrats to do something constructive with the funding.

    4. Re:Problem Solving 101 by krlynch · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Um, actually, they are throwing our money at it, if only indirectly. The money that was formerly being diverted from the Patent Office into the General Fund was money that could be spent on programs without requiring a direct infusion of tax dollars or debt increases. That money has to be replaced with an identical chunk of money from somewhere else. That somewhere else has to be tax revenues flowing into the General Fund from tax payers.

      Which isn't to say that this is a bad way to spend our money. Just that it is our money that will pay for this.

    5. Re:Problem Solving 101 by Delphiki · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I can't tell if you're serious or going for funny, but a tariff is a type of tax. It's still collected from the tax payers, just not in a way as direct as deducting it from their pay checks.

      --

      Feel free to mod me "-1 - Angry Jerk".

    6. Re:Problem Solving 101 by Short+Circuit · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Definitly. Tariffs not only raise the prices of goods in the country, they also spark malevolence between nations, which can easily lead to more harm to consumers.

      --
      tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
    7. Re:Problem Solving 101 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This first step in solving any problem is to get as many pertinent facts as possible. I seriously doubt either you or I have them.

      What you've proposed is essentially the libertarian stereotype of an inefficient government. If true, throwing more money at the problem certainly won't solve it.

      But there are other possibilities. I can think of several government agencies that are ineffective BECAUSE they are underfunded. Perhaps the USPTO is one of them--I don't know. But as long as we're spouting off analyses based on broad stereotypes, I figured I could throw in a lefty sterotype to balance the right-wing one.

      Example: Like many agencies, the USPTO has its duties defined by legislation. It must perform those duties even if it does not have the funding to perform those duties properly. As a result, it performs all of its mandates very very poorly. If provided with more money, all things being equal, it could do a better job.

      This, of course, is nonsense. But so is the assertion that government is more inefficient than private companies, or that cutting budgets are all that's necessary to make an agency more efficient. Frankly the truth is somewhere in between. To badly misquote someone without giving proper credit: "For every problem, there is one solution that is simple, inexpensive, painless, permanent, and--most importantly--wrong." Throwing money at the problem won't fix it...but fixing the problem will involve a lot more money than they're currently throwing at it!

  2. Still flawed by Craig+Maloney · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If the patent office is still run the same way as it is now (with the quantity of approvals vs. quality), this will be worthless. Only with true reforms of the patent system (non-obvious patents, abolishment of software patents, protection of inventions, not algorithms) will the patent office really be reformed.

    1. Re:Still flawed by Nakito · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I perceive another flaw in the system that I do not believe is widely recognized: being a patent examiner is essentially an entry-level position. Patent examiners tend to be young law-school graduates with technical undergraduate degrees. Consequently, although they may be smart and have good intentions, they do not have sufficient practical experience in business or industry to dinstinguish what is truly "novel" from what would be "obvious" to an old hand. Being young and inexperienced, to them everything appears to be novel. There is nothing wrong with being a beginner, but the system really needs some kind of oversight by grayer heads who have sufficient familiarity with the field and are less easily impressed. And yes, this means money in the form of higher salaries to attract and keep such people.

  3. Could... by gid13 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Could this be a good thing?"

    Well, it COULD... It doesn't seem likely to me, though. As far as I can tell, the people who grant patents tend to be missing the point entirely. How is one-click shopping really an innovation that should be protected???

    No, if you ask me, it needs a complete overhaul, not just more money. And disregarding the practical considerations, I still think it's ethically ridiculous to lay claim to an idea.

  4. Salaries for examiners by zuikaku · · Score: 4, Insightful
    "work and have risen through the ranks, and young examiners, either fresh out of law school or still working on their degrees, who stay perhaps five years before moving on to the more lucrative private sector."

    While I would hope that higher salaries would attract better employees, I seriously doubt that the government ever could (or should) compete with the range of salaries that these lawyers can earn in the private sector, especially if you factor in the occasional large jury award.

    I think it's more important to attract more of the people who enjoy that kind of work and less of those who are using this as a stepping-stone. Increasing the salary is not very likely to accomplish this, unless the increase is for those who work there more than just five years.

  5. I think it's time.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    to privatize the patent office. Contract out the work of reviewing patents, and renew the contracts of the best workers when the contracts expire.

  6. Huh? by extra+the+woos · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A good thing? LoL. All the article talks about is this making patents go through the system faster. "the company has been frustrated by the long wait for several key patents that, if granted, could strengthen its intellectual-property position in its target digital audio, infrared and MP3 chip markets" YAY! Maybe congress was siphoning off funds because the patent office is worthless? Congress isn't usually as dumb as you think :) What it sounds like to me is tons of intellectual property companies lobied congress hard for this change, they just want their patents to fly through the system faster.

    --
    replacing it with NEW Folger's Crystals! (lets see if they notice the difference)
  7. Balance of Interests & Preexisting Bad Patents by amplt1337 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The question isn't whether more money for the USPTO will result in better engineers being hired, the question is whether it will remove the income incentive for approving as many patents as possible. Well, that and whether that change will shift the balance of interests enough to influence PTO behaviour.
    Will there still be pressure from large corporations to get lots of patents approved? We've seen patent disputes cut both ways, so that may be a wash.

    Anyway, don't hold your breath for this little change to result in massive review of the bad patents already issued. Patent law won't be in order until it's been thoroughly scoured by Congress with the express purpose of fixing it, and changing the status quo is the hardest thing for a legislative body of wealthy elites to decide to do...

    --
    Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
  8. More, or less? by EzInKy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Smith, who chairs of the House Judiciary Committee's IP panel, said his bill, H.R. 1561, could result in 140,000 more patents being issued in the next five years. "That's 140,000 more economic opportunities for the American people," Smith said.

    Maybe, but chances are for every one of those 140,000 monopolies there will be ten potential competitors who won't have any economic opportunities at all.

    --
    Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
  9. This is NOT a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The fundamental breakage in the patent system today is that the patent office has only incentives from people getting patents. They get money per patent issued. They have every incentive to issue patents. They have no real incentives to be careful. That diffused cost is borne through society, but isn't an issue that is ever raised with the patent office.

    This kind of feedback loop is well-known to economists. It goes under the name, "regulatory capture". And the patent office which was meant to regulate the patent system has indeed been completely captured by the interests of people who want patents issued.

    Increasing how efficiently people get rewarded for existing behaviour doesn't help. Attempting to speed the process up while leaving the incentive system in its current broken state will make things worse.

    Fix the incentives. First.

  10. Re:What is the HB ID? by Bombcar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Chinese. :)

    --
    Fellowship 9/11
  11. How's that? by jtheory · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The patent system is at its weakest when the examiners make obvious mistakes, like granting patents for technological advances that have significant prior art or are blazingly obvious extensions of existing tech.

    People question the system, with reason, each time it is obviously serving to stifle innovation, like when a company with a questionable patent uses it purely to bring lawsuits against "violators" instead of even trying to develop a product.

    More resources for the patent office will probably result in more and better examiners who will be able to avoid these kinds of extreme abuses... which in turn will reduce press coverage and public awareness of the continuing (but more subtle) problems -- which will in turn serve perpetuate the patent system in spite of its fundamental flaws that remain unresolved.

    Making a wheel less squeaky doesn't get it greased.

    Personally, I think it's a good move, simply because I don't see the patent system as a "house of cards" type of thing. There will be changes eventually (probably later rather than sooner), but it's not the kind of system that will collapse -- after all, it does serve a purpose in spite of its weaknesses and loopholes.

    --
    There are only 10 types of people: those who understand decimal, those who don't, and, uh, 8 other types I forget.