Slashdot Mirror
FTC to Examine Patent Application Process
Armchair Dissident writes "The BBC is running an article that suggests that the FTC is to look into the way that patents are reviewed and issued. If this article is correct it seems that many guesses as to how patents are issued were correct; with 95% of patent applications being approved. They may also address the issue of "patent trolls"."
Here's an editorial discussing and explaining exactly the patent issuing problem in US.
It doesn't go without saying.
It is not illegal to have a monopoly. It is illegal to use your monopoly in certain ways to squeeze more money out of your customers or to stop competitors from appearing.
guess what, after 18 months patents applications are published and are used as prior art.
See the american inventors protection act of 1999
Thank you AC! Didn't know such a thing existed.
But after a quick read, I found this:
All utility patent applications filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office after November 29, 2000 will be published if an applicant does not expressly request on filing that the application not be published. An applicant may make a request for non-publication if (1) the applicant has not filed the application in any other country that publishes applications; and, (2) the applicant does not intend to file the application in any country that publishes applications.
So, it's a little bit better, but not by a whole lot. You can still hide your applications, and it doesn't take into account things already "in the system."
I still say that serious reform needs to take place. But it's nice to know that the law already sees it, AC.
Weaselmancer
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Donate free food here
"Then sleaze-co starts using my invention, I try to sue."
You have to patent something *before it's disclosed to other people*. That's the point. It gives you protection. The way the patent system is *supposed* to work you're also supposed to provide evidence that you've developed said invention, notebooks, diagrams with dates, times etc.
In this case, you patent invention, Sleaze-Co steals it, you sue and win because you have the patent and Sleaze Co pays your legal bill as well as the damages.
Deleted
Old news too.
FTC already looked into this.
FTC spent months last year looking at patents and innovation.
Their final report came out in Oct 2003.
FTC will probably make recomendations to congress which may or may not make changes to law.
If you read some of the reports, you will notice that the recomendations are not anti-patent as a whole but most are merely concerned with patent quality.
Old news, misquoted into another typical slashdot misleading headline.
You are correct. Most US patents get an initial rejection - a list of prior patents with similar-sounding words in the titles. Then your high-priced patent attorney answers each objection with why your patent is bigger, faster and cleaner. Then it gets accepted. The PTO makes no search of the literature in the field, trade magazines, or current practice, only prior patents.
How could this be fixed? Only hire experts in the field as examiners? Search google for each patent and trust the information that you get off the internet? Keep a big pile of old Scientific Americans, and Popular Science lying around at the PTO?
Of course, you could make the process less costly - just eliminate the FDA and liability law. Who cares about the next thalidomide, as long as it's cheap?
synergistic mixtures of drugs
If you thought clearing one drug through the FDA was difficult and costly, try clearing a mixture. Even if it passes that phase, then you still get nailed in the courts if you've accidently whipped up Fen-Phen 2.
I can't think of any industry in the world with an entry barrier as high as in pharmaceuticals, and it's not all due to greedy "capitalist fascists". Some things are inherently expensive. If you remove the profit motive from them, people will stop doing them.
I for one like modern medicine, and I want it to continue to improve. If you don't, more power to ya.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Amazingly someone has already has. It's a patent relating to controlling the rate of photosynthesis in tuber plants. They even include the DNA sequence of the genes responsible - it's hard to believe the patent actually includes 10 pages of CTAGGGTAGGCCAC... Is the patent invalidated if one of these sequences misspelled?
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Actually the last major change to patent law was the 1999 American Inventors Protection Act.
FTC cannot change the current patent system. It has to be enacted in the congress. What FTC is doing is cosponsoring a Patent Reform Conference along with National Academy of Sciences.(sponsored to be precise). It is quite possible that the congress can substantially adopt its recommendations. However, FTC cannot directly act on it. BBC report says "Mad cap patents ranging from protecting a method of painting by dipping a baby's bottom into paint or a system for keeping track of people queuing for the bathroom may soon be a thing of the past if the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has its way."
Didn't they already kill a scientist and made several resign over wrong reporting?
When do they learn to report news as it is!