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"."
It's good to know the biggest corps best businessmen are going to decide on the next generation of patent law.
We're working towards a solution...Suprised that MS is on the list of supporters....
But note the end, which states -
"The last major changes to patent law were in 1952 and there is no legislation before Congress which means that ideas like a patented method for picking up a box by bending your knees may well continue for some time. "
So let's not hold our breath, eh?
My MythTV HowTo
In other words, patents owned by anyone you don't like, or agree with. That is what troll means around here, isn't it?
-
Inventor of the term 'pardon my French'.
..they'll have people that are 'experts' in given fields. Somebody who knows the difference between a PDA and a general computing device with limited resources. Heh.
I don't understand why the US legal system doesn't adopt one of our better ideas here in the UK: Make these "patent trolls" and other leeches pay the defendant's legal fees if they lose their cases in
court instead of slithering off to drag someone else in front of a Judge. This would kill an industry built around threatening people
with huge fees stone dead.
It would no longer matter if "Shithead inc."
with their newly acquired patent on "sitting the right way around on a toilet" threatened a shelter for blind puppies with legal action, since Fido and pals could count on a less than gallant army of equally unscrupulous lawfims would work on no-win no-fee no-payout basis to defend them.
Mom and Pop stump-jumper could simply ignore the SCO's of the World and go about their business as the legal vultures and patent maggots preyed upon each-other.
Why the hell should any company (even Microsoft) have to pay out to defend themselves against these parasites?
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
funny responses all used up (darn) so here's the informative one...
"patent troll (PAT.unt trohl) n. A company that purchases a patent, often from a bankrupt firm, and then sues another company by claiming that one of its products infringes on the purchased patent.. --adj."
Via The Word Spy http://www.wordspy.com/words/patenttroll.asp
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
But from the remainder of that paragraph
"... sometimes to prevent other products from getting to market, to prevent people from sharing ideas and to prevent the kind of innovation that the patent system is really trying to spur on"
What they're saying (and I agree with) is that although there isn't anything wrong with having a monopoly, you can't stop competing products from entering the market. In other words, patents are being used as a big stick to threaten those who would enter your (previously monopolized) market. Perhaps things like online shopping and online polls and the like can be seen in this like. So yes, I think it's possible to have a monopoly and STILL engage in anti-competitive practices. (How about Microsoft ? Convicted monopolist, but it's not like there weren't any lack of choices in the browser market)
nothing necessarily wrong with a monopoly. it's the artificial ones that are bad, particularly when the company holding the monopoly uses it's power to manipulate the free market.
if you're the first company in an industry, or are in one that simply has no other companies that wish to do business in that industry, you've got a monopoly, and it's legal. doesn't mean you're anticompetitive.
The notion that pointless patents are somehow new is simply false. It would be nice if we could screen these out better so that examiners weren't wasting valuable time doing work on swingset process applications when they should be working on important business patents.
It's nice to see some optimism that expanding the examiner force should alleviate some of the problem.
And here's a suggestion for eliminating trolls:
Currently a large percentage of patents that go to trial (I remember reading 40-50%) are declared invalid. Why not, in those cases where a patent is declared invalid, require that the plaintiff cover legal fees of the defendant? If that were the case you had really better be sure that your patent was valid. Kind of a specialized "loser pays."
...elminate patents all together...
Its an out dated concept, we no longer need to protect incomes due to invention. If you make a good product you will make money.
End of Story.
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
Laid off IT workers worked in computers. That doesn't make them qualified to examine most patents coming through the office.
Not all patents are software patents.
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
Hi,
> with an average of 17 to 25 hours to check on the validity of a patent application
Wow, this seems off. They have 2-3 business days per patent? With that, there wouldn't be a problem-- anyone who has done a research project knows you can become a mini-expert on anything in 2 days.
But 3000 workers, 360,000 patents/year, that's 116 patents/year per person... at 24 wks/year 5 working days/wk (note the 2 weeks off for vacation), that's about 1 patent a day.
1/day is a lot different than 3 days per. Plus they likely have meetings, interruptions, etc. Worse, that's an average.
Still, 1 day to a) check patent database for priors, b) google, c) encyclopedia, d) quick call to Encyclopedia Brown or the Baker Street Irregulars or Buckaroo Banzai, then write it up and *poof*
It should work. I suspect the numbers given aren't the full picture, as one patent/day is something a trained person should be able to do a better job.
I think the patent office culture (when it doubt, pass it and let the courts decide) is at fault. And funding won't help that.
A.
-truth
I had a steady B+ in my AI class until I failed the Turing test...
Then again, TRIPs and WIPO also forbid software patents and the US doesn't care about that either...
Donate free food here
I know you're joking, but the patent system is based on a "first post" methodology. That is, if you and I both work on an idea at the same time, yet independently and unaware of the other, then I run down to the patent office to get my patent while you are still in the lab, I get the patent and theoretically have the privilege of excluding you from using your own invention.
You ask me, that's problem number one that the patent system needs to solve. In the dot-com age it becomes especially important because the rapid pace of invention holds some real potential for destroying the prior art defense (i.e. if you and I both build a 15-click shopping tool for an online store within a very short time of one another, but one of us patents it first, how will the other successfully argue prior art?)
I do not have a signature
It's really nowhere near enough time. Patents are extremely complex, and are often written in a somewhat obfuscated manner to the degree that that's possible.
Plus, of course, the examiner has to be qualified in the field the patent is being applied for; you don't put civil engineer examiners in charge of applications for biotechnology inventions. So there are likely some even more overburdened examiners, since the load cannot be evenly distributed.
You also don't realize that this isn't a matter of looking at one patent all day. Examiners also have to hold meetings to discuss any remediable defects with the applicant, read through revisions of the application, etc. So it's less than you'd think; prosecution of a patent takes on average 18 months to 3 years, IIRC, in part because there is a back and forth with the applicant. It's hard to know an invention thoroughly that you've only looked at for a few hours over a couple years.
AND you cannot blame the PTO for allowing some of the patents we've seen in recent years. They're obligated by law to grant patents unless there's a good reason not to. And worse yet, once granted, it's actually really hard to find inventions unpatentable.
What's needed is more money for the PTO so they can hire more examiners, increased publication requirements, permanent best mode disclosures by damn near everyone, and reduced burdens for challenges to patents (such as using the preponderance of the evidence standard, and being able to reexamine PTO prior art).
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
That's related to the 'loser pays' ideas floating around. The problem is that patents are intended to protect small individual inventors, as the big companies are already able to defend themselves. Loser pays systems tend to discourage small inventors.
.. with whatever legal word means "an earlier claim takes precedence."
The solution is really simple:
1. Make it easier to get patents. Right now, patents are reviewed and issued as if the US PTO was the final arbiter of all truth in the universe. This is of course absurd. A patent should be nothing more than a claim that an idea was developed at a certain date.
2. Make it easier to cancel patents. Patent office arbitration and the legal system are fine for determining the legitimacy of a claim.
If a patent is invalidated by an earlier claim, then the patent is stamped
When a patent expires, it's stamped "public property."
All patents (current and expired) are held forever in an absurdly large database that helps inventors and investigators determine the value of future patents.
Patent officers would no longer be pressed for time; they'd simply comb through the database looking for bad patents, and through their favorite field of study looking for ideas that should not be patentable.
Not that this wasn't entirely predictable.
.... IT union = zero political power. Always voting for a democrat or republican = zero political power.
No political power = zero economic power.
Zero economic power = modern technofeudalistic serfdom for the producers,and getting worse daily.
I am constantly amazed how so many really *quite smart* people haven't bingoed to this yet.
Did anyone notice this little sidebar?
Did anyone notice that it was never clarified, not even in the article?
Patents have nothing to do with keeping anything secret. That's what Trade Secrets are for. What patents are about is the exact opposite of keeping innovations secret. They are about publishing innovation so that the whole world (or at least country) may benefit. Patents are an insentive to publish the details of newly developed technology. In exchange you get a temporary exclusive rights to the technology that you developed.
This is basic information for anyone that knows anything about Intelectual Property laws. However, it seems that a few people at the BBC either don't have a clear grasp of this, or maybe forgot to clarify this. Consider that the BBC is a lot more thorough than most of the mainstream media here in the states, and how few Americans are likely to pay attention to our own mainstream let alone foreign media like the BBC. It's no wonder that most people are clueless as to how out of control things are getting with to abuses in Intelectual Property Law, and therefore, why so many people are getting away with it.
Heck, a lot of people doing the abusing don't even realize that what they are doing is an abuse of the system, or at least they act like it.
Howdy Doodly Doo!
Anybody want some Toast?
Or...
1. Get a bunch of your attorney buddies to make a pseudo-corporation for holding IP.
2. Convince a large group of penniless patent holders that their IP is worthless, buy patents at bargain prices.
3. Wait until 11th hour of patent term.
4. Sue the hell out of everyone directly or indirectly related to the patent.
(even people that the original patent holder merely said "hello" to).
5. If you scare up enough out-of-court settlements for a fraction of those cases: Profit!
Fred
"A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
-RMS
I work for one of the biggest Intelectual property publisher ( patent infromation basically) and in the last 3 years i have seen patents for pretty wacky stuff. Different countries have different rules ( the canadians grant truly wacky stuff) and different attitudes to patents ( the Japanease patent anything thier R&D comes up with ). The main critera is it has to be a novel invention. Now if its earth shattering stuff thats pretty obvious but most inventions are gradual improvments on existing inventions and this is where the arguements start. After the lawyers have filled the patent with as much garbage as possible it becomes very hard to tell a marginal innovation from an existing patent.
The patent examiners do their best but once its been granted its up to the patent owner to defend it, so you have to find anyone who is on your turf then sue them.... remember these are technical documents that have been rewritten by non technical lawyers to be as hard to understand and as broad coverage as possible. Then you have to convince a judge and jury who are also not specialists in this field that you have a claim for damages. Result ? you end up spending millions of dollars and years in court instead of working on new inventions.
Who wins ? the lawyers of course
Who looses ? everyone due to the delay in R&D , The waste of the inventers time and more often of not the bankrupting of the inventor.
Solution - Shoot all lawyers !!!!