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"."

Comments

Not Everyone Understands the Patent Situation

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's an editorial discussing and explaining exactly the patent issuing problem in US.

Re:A tautology

[proj_2501]

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.

Re:The problem

[Halo1]

Taken from another post of mine in a previous story:

• Study by the Federal Trade Commission from October 2003 (extracts with the software patent related stuff from that report). Conclusions: many indications that software patents hamper innovation because of, among others, patent thickets.
• Empirical study by Bessen&Hunt on the effects of software patents in the US. Conclusion: software patents have resulted in a transfer of R&D money to patent departments and has not resulted in increased R&D. Because of the incremental nature of software development, patents hinder instead of encourage innovation.
• Study ordered by the European Commission in preparation of the European software patents directive. It did not suit their goals however, so they avoid referring to it. Quote: "Unless this fundamental lack of knowledge is addressed in a more structured manner, any proposal to optimise the patent system in respect of software-related inventions is based on nothing more than wild guesses or wishful thinking."

Re:95% accepted sounds wrong

[Smallpond]

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?