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?"

28 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 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.

    4. 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)
  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.

    2. Re:Still flawed by Mysteray · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The hope in this is that once Congress ceases to view the USPTO as a revenue source, they will be more receptive to the argument that overly-broad patents (and trademarks) hurt the economy overall.

    3. Re:Still flawed by bodrell · · Score: 4, Interesting
      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.

      (emphasis mine)

      I get your gist, but have to disagree on a slight technicality: you mean software algorithms, I assume, because the word "algorithm" can constitute all sorts of processes that I believe should be protected by patents. If I come up with a process to cheaply digest organic matter into hydrocarbon chains (i.e., oil), and the temperature, pressure, composition etc. are all crucial to this process, how are those parameters and that sequence of reactions different from an algorithm? But when the algorithms involve manipulating numbers, rather than molecules, I certainly agree with you.

      --
      Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a soportar Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a espabilar
    4. Re:Still flawed by gcaseye6677 · · Score: 4, Funny

      If you're ideas were implemented, instead of people sitting on ideas until that million dollar buyout, they would just not come up with them in the first place. Sure, people would still have ideas, but they wouldn't put a lot of time and money into researching something truely unique and revolutionary, if there were no possibility of a big payout. Its not that they are too lazy or greedy, its that it takes a lot of cash to research something like cancer drugs and if nobody can make money off of it, nobody will invest in the research, and no new drugs will be produced. Are you still convinced this is a good idea?

    5. Re:Still flawed by datababe72 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So what are all of the scientists employed by pharma companies doing? Playing tiddlywinks?

      Come on... its not a perfect industry, but its not populated by evil people who want to watch people die, either.

      If a drug company has developed a drug that actually works, they're not going to sit on it. If its not cost-effective for them to take it to market, chances are they'll out-license it. The problem is, developing a drug that actually works is hard and expensive. Once you have a drug that seems to work, actually proving that it is safe and effective (i.e., getting FDA approval) is also hard and expensive.

      In my opinion, without IP protection, no one would ever do it. The primary output of a pharma company isn't the little pill you swallow: its the knowledge that making a pill with those ingredients produces a good medicine. Getting that knowledge is expensive... producing the pill is not. This is why generics are so much cheaper. If you don't let the people who spent the money to get the knowledge benefit from it... well, you aren't going to get many new medicines.

      I'm NOT saying drug companies are paragons of virtue. But really, villifying them isn't going to solve the problem. There are real market forces at work here. Any solutions you present must take these forces into account, or its no solution at all.

  3. Not it just means more bad patents faster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Subject pretty much says it all.

  4. What is the HB ID? by ObviousGuy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How do we know that this wasn't just some insignificant rider on some more important "terrorist fighting legislation"?

    What is the House Bill number?

    --
    I have been pwned because my /. password was too easy to guess.
    1. Re:What is the HB ID? by sheemwaza · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      from the article

    2. Re:What is the HB ID? by privaria · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The House bill is H.R. 1561.

      I'm a registered patent agent, so this bill is obviously important to me. (Before I get modded into oblivion for having that occupation, please note that I am also an open-source software author. You can see something I wrote about that topic on one of my project pages. I watched the bill being enacted on C-SPAN. It stands alone, and is not any sort of a rider.

      It is also a Good Thing (sorry, Martha) because the USPTO is desparately in need of funding to keep up with the flood of applications. The only thing I don't like about it (other than the fee increases it includes) is that it opens the door to outsourcing (not offshoring) searches to private contractors, something I think really is the patent examiner's job.

    3. Re:What is the HB ID? by TygerFish · · Score: 4, Interesting
      "The only thing I don't like about it (other than the fee increases it includes) is that it opens the door to outsourcing (not offshoring) searches to private contractors, something I think really is the patent examiner's job."


      That strikes me as a big uh-oh.

      A patent office staffed with public servants whose job it is to keep things secure while under consideration is one thing. Outside firms, staffed by you-know-not-whom brings people into the loop you might not want there--like the guy who stole *half* of a Japanese process for new electrolytic capacitors and caused a product recall when the stolen and only partly-understood technology burst on motherboards.

      You've got to love those free-market solutions.

      --
      To mail me, remove the 'mailno' from my email addy.
      "Yeah. It smells, too..."
    4. Re:What is the HB ID? by Bombcar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Chinese. :)

      --
      Fellowship 9/11
  5. Patents in General by Un0r1g1nal · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I am not particularly a big fan of patents in general because of the amount of abuse that the system receives, this 'extra' cash in the coffers could either go one of two ways. Patents will be forced to become more realistic and used properly, or people will be able to 'specialise' patents to an even greater degree and so create more crap than before.

    Patents in general are still a bad thing IMHO.

    --
    If at first you DON'T succeed, Skydiving is NOT for YOU!!
  6. 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.

  7. Bad Patents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I'm posting anonymously for obvious reasons. I'm a Teaching Fellow (TF) at Harvard, and as part of my work I have to mark assignments. I'd say most of the assignments I mark contain unfounded statements like the following one found in the body of this very story:
    Given all the discussions about how so many bad patents are being granted, could this be a good thing?
    There simply has not been any study of the quantity of 'bad' patents versus 'good' patents. Whenever I see such baseless statements in essays, I make a point to tell them a community college might be better suited to their future.

    The facts are:

    1. There are bad patents. No one disputes that - like the amazon patent on one-click shopping and the transmeta patent on code-morphing.
    2. There are good patents. Patents on compression are a good example of such patents. They involve some serious work by one or two geniuses who deserve some monetary reward on their work.

    I'm surprised the patent office is undergoing such a wild goose chase with no data to back the project up. We expect more from services funded by tax payers.

    1. Re:Bad Patents? by PCM2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And I thank God you never graded any of my papers, because I don't see a single word in the quote you cited that says anything about the number of good patents vs. the number of bad ones -- just that there is a lot of discussion about how many bad patents are being passed (and there is).

      Maybe you'd be better off marking papers at a community college.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    2. Re:Bad Patents? by k98sven · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There are good patents. Patents on compression are a good example of such patents. They involve some serious work by one or two geniuses who deserve some monetary reward on their work.

      Others would disagree. What is a compression method? It's an algorithm for altering the representation of data from one form to another, smaller one.

      You see, an algorithm is math. It's pure thought-- an idea of how to do something, not a method.

      Math results aren't patentable even though a lot of work goes into them. They are ideas, or discoveries.

      Patents were never intended to protect ideas or discoveries. They were created to protect methods and designs.

      Combustion is a discovery.
      The combustion engine -- that's an idea.
      A design for a combustion engine - that's a method.

      This is why patents work well. People are still free to use the original idea, but with a different method, or implementation. You can still build a combustion engine, it just can't work the exact same way. The distinction is simple.

      With software, that distinction is not there. What's the difference between binary code, C++ code, pseudocode or just a plain description of the algorithm?
      The idea is not distinct from the implementation.

      The other question is why patents are required? The software industry is hugely successful as it is.
      Why encumber it with patents? Competition disadvantages are a far greater problem than code theft in the software industry. Patents are state-given, time-limited monopolies.

      I don't see any evidence that creating further disadvantages will work to eradicate those that already exist.
      I'm worried they will work to increase them.

  8. 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.

  9. public forum for patents by garns · · Score: 5, Interesting


    Wouldn't it be grand if when a patent was applied for it was sent out to a number of people who had signed up to review patents of a certain type. These people would provide feedback to the patent auditor and there would then be the possibility of a quick rejection.

    Otherwise the auditor would have to do the same leg work as before, but this should reduce the amount of time a paid employee would have to review a patent, and allow more time for them to evaulate the "tricky" ones.

    --
    "My father once told me that respect for the truth comes close to being the basis for all morality." - Muad'Dib
  10. More lawyers (yeah, believe it!) might help... by cenonce · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I used to work in the Trademark Division at the USPTO. One of the criticisms my friends on the Patent side had was that there were too many patent examiners who were engineers and not lawyers as well. They would issue patents even though there was caselaw to support not granting a patent in a particular case. My friends felt the Patet side needed more lawyers, who understand the legal theory behind the patent system and less engineers, who appeared to issue patents based purely on scientific theory.

    I don't know if there are right or not. And I am certain there are some lousy lawyers as well as some lousy engineers issuing patents in the Patent Office. The question is, why should the Patent office be any different than any other Federal agency that requires an attorney to represent the interests of the public good?

  11. 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.
  12. 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.

  13. Reward examiners for obvious/prior art findings by Anomalyst · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Take this new appropriation and use it to reward diligence by examiners to correctly declare a patent obvious and/or covered by prior art. This should reduce the frivolous filings and motivate the examiners to perform the job to the best of their ability. Findings by the initial examiner should be anonymously verified by a more senior examiner. Take it a step further, REQUIRE that a minimum number of possible "prior art" candidates be attached to the patent by the initial examiner. Points off their bounty for those that do not pass muster and bonuses for those that do.

    --
    There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.