Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FTC to Examine Patent Application Process

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the i-wanna-patent-russian-dressing-flavored-soda dept.

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"."

18 of 307 comments (clear)

  1. For a moment I thought this was good... by Neophytus · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Until I read this:
    Top tier executives from Cisco, Intel, Ebay, Symantec, Chiron, Microsoft and Genentech are taking part.


    It's good to know the biggest corps best businessmen are going to decide on the next generation of patent law.
    1. Re:For a moment I thought this was good... by ctr2sprt · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Who else should they ask? They're not just going to pull random people off the street. The mess we've got now is at least partially a result of computer-illiterate politicians setting the rules. At least they're picking execs who probably know more about computers than how to operate the on/off button.

      We sure won't get a great patent system out of these guys, but we may get a better one. After all, most companies don't bother enforcing patents violated by individuals - they enforce those violated by other companies. That means that while MS, eBay, et al. are some of the worst abusers of patent law, they're also the some of the hardest hit by the abuses of others.

      This is a limited case of enlightened self-interest, which is why I'm optimistic we'll see some improvement. Even reducing the number of bad patents by 5% or eliminating some of the worst classes of them would be a big step.

    2. Re:For a moment I thought this was good... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      500,000 unemployed engineers and the best we can do is the heads of several multimilion dollar corporations to decide patent law. It's enough to make me loose whatever faith I had left in representative democracy.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    3. Re:For a moment I thought this was good... by JungleBoy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > Who else should they ask?

      Maybe they should ask Academics who are less invested in and benifited from the current patent process. Find people who are technically savy, but at least a bit removed from the patent process. Granted, many Academics recieve patents and benifit from the patent system, but I'd put money on there being fewer patent trolls amongst academics than amoung corporate executives. At least academics have obligations other than making fat sacks of cash for stock holders.

      --
      "You never know when some crazed rodent with cold feet might be running loose in your pants."
      -Calvin
    4. Re:For a moment I thought this was good... by Cyris · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Can it be worse then it is? I hope not.. but it is possible. I do agree, however, that these execs know more about computers, but this does not mean that they know what is best for patents.

      After the Enron/Worldcom/etc issues, I have a hard time trusting execs from companies to make decisions that could possibly effect smaller businesses. Look at Walmarts business practices. Imagine if they had the ability (other then current political) to change the way the law looks at labor. I have a feeling they would not make any changes to benifit the masses.

      Cyris

    5. Re:For a moment I thought this was good... by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 3, Insightful

      People who are able to represent the overall public interest: the one that doesn't care what inventors think, so long as it is overall a good system for the public.

      Right now I see the equivalent of getting the movie, book, software, and record industries together to write copyright law. Which in fact, is what has been happening all through the 20th century, and it's consistently fucked over the public.

      No matter how enlightened their self interest is, it's THEIR self interest. The patent system is supposed to satisfy the self interest of the PUBLIC.

      --
      -- 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.
    6. Re:For a moment I thought this was good... by onion2k · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "A scientist looking at a non-science problem is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman.

      Same goes for engineers. The patent process is a business and legal issue, not an engineering problem.

      --
      http://twitter.com/onion2k
    7. Re:For a moment I thought this was good... by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The patent process is a business and legal issue, not an engineering problem.

      When they started handing out countless thousands of obvious and non-novel patents, it became an engineering problem. As in: A lot of engineers now have a problem getting their jobs done because they can no longer use the most straightforward and obvious approaches to implementing their projects.

    8. Re:For a moment I thought this was good... by Archibald+Buttle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Do you really think that the likes of Cisco, Intel and Microsoft really like having to fork out millions of dollars to lawyers for patents?

      Yes, these companies file patents that should not be granted. I would suggest that file them knowing that these patents shouldn't be granted. Having a large library of patents means that when they are challenged they have the option of cross-licensing patents they hold to make law-suits go away.

      Unfortunately we are in a situation where bogus patents get granted, and this creates a vicious cycle, meaning that more patents get filed that also should not be. The only way to rectify this situation is a complete review of the patent system, and a comprehensive review of patents issued. Obvioiusly in an ideal world only truely novel and original ideas should be patentable.

      As far as I can see fixing the problem does not require a change in patent law, it merely requires a complete review of the patent issuing process. That involves ensuring that patent offices are sufficiently funded to properly investigate patent applications, and also to review existing patents. Unfortunately the US patent office seems to have been underfunded for some time.

      It is in the interests of big business to fix the patent system in order to reduce their costs. I am sure that Cisco, Intel, Microsoft, et al. don't enjoy having to fork over millions of dollars to lawyers. Remember this doesn't just cost them money - engineers that are valuable for development work end up having to deal with lawyers for the purposes of defending patents when they could/should be doing other work.

  2. Finally- by thewldisntenuff · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  3. Slashspeak. by Oliver+Defacszio · · Score: 3, Insightful
    They may also address the issue of "patent trolls"."

    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'.
  4. hopefully... by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ..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.

  5. Stop rewarding the damned parasites! by FyRE666 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Stop rewarding the damned parasites! by stratjakt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Then only the rich companies who could afford to lose a patent fight would be allowed into the system.

      Say I invent something, an actual unique new device. A machine that makes super-fast transistors out of recycled chewing gum or something.

      Then sleaze-co starts using my invention, I try to sue. They bring a barrage of buzzword-spouting techies and slick lawyers to confuse the hell out of the judge and jury.

      Without a billion-dollar war chest, I'd be risking bankruptcy by patenting my invention.

      The legal system is an adversarial one. The best fighter wins, and that person is not necessarily in the right.

      Would you want to sue Microsoft, knowing you were right and they were wrong, but realizing if the judge doesnt see it that way you'd wind up millions of dollars (or pounds) in the hole?

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
  6. patent trolls by nanojath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  7. So many things to talk about by jkabbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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."

  8. Re:Patent trolls? by ichimunki · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  9. no overall.... by zogger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    .... 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.