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

For a moment I thought this was good...

[Neophytus]

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.

Re:For a moment I thought this was good...

[ctr2sprt]

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.

Re:For a moment I thought this was good...

[Marxist Hacker 42]

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.

Re:For a moment I thought this was good...

[JungleBoy]

> 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.

Re:For a moment I thought this was good...

[Waffle Iron]

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.

Finally-

[thewldisntenuff]

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?

hopefully...

[Anonvmous Coward]

..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.

Stop rewarding the damned parasites!

[FyRE666]

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?

Re:Stop rewarding the damned parasites!

[stratjakt]

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?

patent trolls

[nanojath]

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

So many things to talk about

[jkabbe]

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."

Re:Patent trolls?

[ichimunki]

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?)

no overall....

[zogger]

.... 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.