Slashdot Mirror
Inside Look at Patent Examination
KingFatty writes "This article written by a former patent examiner describes patent application as a matter of luck when it comes to the competency of the examiner. "Every examiner starts with his or her first patent application after receiving just two weeks of training at the USPTO Patent Academy, where he or she learns the basics of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. Will your patent application be examined by that newly recruited examiner? If so, will the examiner's supervisor (supervisory patent examiner or SPE)[be] sufficiently skilled in the art in which the patent application is classified?" Gives insights as to the problems with the US Patent and Trademark System."
Why aren't patents exposed to peer review, like academic articles are? The invention (if it is) will be protected by the patent pending laws while it's reviewed.
I feel the largest problem with the patent system is allowing people to patent "ideas" without a working prototype. I think this can and will lead to intuitive innovations being passed over because the manufacturer would have to pay patent fees to the "inventor". Total BS.
If the "inventor" didn't have the balls to put his/her money where their mouth is, then they don't deserve shit! Let's not punish companies willing to put forth money into a great idea by making them pay some lazy ass moron who payed a small patent fee to patent his idea of clapping to turn on a light.
Then why the hell do companies have to write 'Patents Pending' on their products for decades? You'd think that incompetency of this sort would speed up the process.
"Did a search on Google for some of the keywords in their description, but only a few thousand webpages came up... Patent Granted, next!"
Sorry to disagree with the article, but the best way to get an inside look at a patent examener is with a blunt object.
Yeah, I know its a hard job.. but even the worst fuck-up gets it right once in a while.
The solution is simple. Pay the experts what they are worth to do the job. Just like they should with teachers. Its never going to happen.
There is way too much money to be made in having IP control over an uneducated populace.
Norman Cook's Ode to Sl
No. That way the chances of getting a patent approved are proportional to the number you submit, so big companies would file more, and smaller companies and sole inventors would be essentially unable to get patents.
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"
- US Constitution, Article I, Section 8.
Good luck getting that changed anytime soon.
What?
Or perhaps it's because it's in DC. Or perhaps it's because the vast majority of people don't get $71k starting off.
So if I come up with some great idea, what is my motivation to share it with someone who can make it into something? Since I can't patent my idea, I have nothing to gain, and therefore short of some great sense of obligation to humanity why should I share my idea?
The point of patents is that they give an incentive to invent by giving the inventor a time-limited monopoly on their idea. If there is no incentive to invent, why bother?
What?
As best as I can tell the examiners are limited to prior patent applications and official publications in searching for prior art. Little room seems to be reserved for common sense.
I dunno... "Official publications" could cover a heck of a lot of ground...
And besides, it's probably awfully hard to place a reliable date on unofficial publications... whatever that would mean. They have to guard against fraud.
What do you mean by "common sense?"
Accountability on the heads of the powerful.
Power in the hands of the accountable.
To get the 70k you most likely have to be an experienced worker in a technology field with a PhD who is already making 70K or better.
I believe, the idea is that if the claim is very short, the resulting patent will probably be too broad, and/or generic. They want you to be specific enough that the patent is specific.
The Patent Bar is the hardest fucking test I've ever taken (and I passed 1st time, BTW). I'd rather take 5 state bar exams than take the USPTO exam again.
Example question (paraphrased):
Below are 5 obscure sentences taken from somewhere in this New York Yellow Pages sized book (the MPEP). We have inserted the word "not," or changed the word "or" to "and" in 1 sentence. You have 2 minutes to figure out which sentence we altered.
It is a sadistic test that tests nothing about your knowledge of patent law. It merely tests your ability to find a needle in the haystack known as the M.P.E.P.
That should at least give them some incentive to not pass questionable patents or even opaque ones.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
The parent post is total garbage. Like it's bad to ensure that someone who will be able to represent anyone before the Patent Office knows something about their process?
I can believe state bar exams don't matter when you've got a shingle out and will work on anyone's will, custody case, criminal defense, whatever, but to suggest that knowing the front and back of the source of 90% of the junk you need to know to get the application through is too hard on you, that's just laziness.
I mean, I certainly wouldn't want to hear 'oops, we got a notice of abandonment, I guess it's over.' I'd rather hear, 'well, I'm quite familiar with the CFR sections on reviving abandoned applications, as well as the MPEP sections where the standards for evaluating those submissions are discussed, I think we might be able to do something.'
"why should I share my idea?"
Why not? If you aren't going to implement it, why not share it? Right now, it costs thousands of dollars to put through a patent application. If you think you might get a patent, you have a strong incentive not to tell anyone (hard to prove that they didn't have the idea first if they file first). Thus, the current system provides a strong incentive for people who do not have the resources to get a patent to keep quiet.
How many patents are actually sold that way? How many individuals pay thousands to get a patent, find a manufacturer, get the item made, and sell enough to recoup their investment? Don't forget to include the opportunity cost (you could have been flipping burgers at McDonalds) of all the man hours of finding a manufacturer and distribution channel.
If this was a valid path to riches, then all those invention submission companies would pay to get the patents for you and split the proceeds. Instead, they want you to pay $6000 to them to patent the idea and "try" to find a buyer. Instead of making money off licensing, they plan on making money off gullible "inventors." Even with the ability to cherry pick the good ideas, apparently patents can't even provide a reasonable return with any consistency.
Note how IBM and other big companies use patents. To protect their research? No, to keep other companies from patenting things and holding them up for ransom. They invent things to use them and patent to keep others from keeping them from using their invention. The guy who ran IBM's patent licensing division was considered innovative for coming up with the idea of licensing some of these defensive patents for some extra cash. Even so, IBM still does not make enough from licensing to cover the research costs.
The point of invention is not to license the patent. The point is to improve your own product. Most inventions will occur in engineering on existing products.
Look at the 1-Click Shopping patent. Would Amazon have implemented 1-Click Shopping without the patent? Of course they would have. It enhances their business by improving their customers' experience. Even if they knew for certain that it would lead to all their competitors adopting it, they still would have (i.e. no competitive advantage).
The only area in which patents are a requirement for distribution is pharmaceuticals. The expensive trials required to get FDA certification cannot be funded without patent protection (or equivalent).
My cousin's wife has an idea that she would like see implemented. In the current system, she keeps quiet in the hope that someday she'll be able to patent it. Without patents, she would have no incentive to keep it quiet and would talk it over or send an email to the appropriate manufacturer in the hope of getting a few free samples (it's a disposable product, so individual items are very cheap).