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"."
Are you telling me Microsoft didn't really invent the double click?
Did they patent the first post?
It's good to know the biggest corps best businessmen are going to decide on the next generation of patent law.
Here's an editorial discussing and explaining exactly the patent issuing problem in US.
Can it be that somebody at the FTC actually reads slashdot?
"Outlook Positive"!]
Online Starcraft RPG? At
Dietary fiber is like asynchronous IO-- Non-blocking!
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
And did anyone else read the last part as "parent" troll instead of "patent" troll? Or is that just me?
Hmmm.
I just took out a patent on running articles that suggest that the FTC is looking into the ways that patents are reviewed and issued.
1. Make a Patent.
2. Enforce the Patent.
3. Profit!!
Check out the best P2P sharing website: MEDIACHEST.COM
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.
... slashdot, check...
... patent office, check...
... FCC, check...
... TV? Well, we have foxnews and soon-to-be AlGores Democratic-fest channel.... check
So... who's left to troll?
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
From the article:
"But we have seen instances where companies use that monopoly in an anti-competitive way"
Doesn't a monopoly imply a lack of competition? This would seem to go without saying.
Unknown host pong.
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.
Any chance this could render some of the more idiotic patents worthless.
Case in point
Microsoft and their double click of death
and
The guy who patented swinging in a swing?
ITS ABOUT TIME THIS WAS REVIEWED
***I GOT NUTHIN***
How about a Slashdot-style modding system on patents? Could we prevent gaming the system?
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
Well.. logically the next patent in line is the Ctrl-Alt-Del one. It was probably used more than their double-click.
Hmmm.
At least until the lobby gets built to make EVERYTHING patentable.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
The problem is that the USPTO cannot thoroughly review all applications. Thus too many fall through the cracks.
Belgium has solved this problem. They issue patents as easily as we can register copyrights. Got a dispute? Take it to the courts.
I like that system. Take the power out of the examiners hands altogether and let courts decide these issues. Yes I know courts already decide issues, but with the way courts invalidate patents, what is the point of the USPTO?
Sure someone will say that might favor big companies as they can afford patent litigation, but we know that getting rid of IP legal protection is not going to work.
We are not going to simply eliminate the patent process (although you can, by Congressional action, or by amending the Constitution). Any of you geeks who think this will happen are in fantasy-land. We simply need to take power out of the hands of the USPTO.
Another good effect of this would be that all those patent prosecution attorneys (aka patent scribes) would lose their jobs, quit the practice of law (since they only went to make more money than an engineer), and flood the engineering/ computer programming market. All the while the demand for patent litigators (more of a REAL lawyer than a patent scribe) would skyrocket.
That would at least stop the outsourcing of patent prosecution to India...
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
If trolls are a problem with the patent office, the solution seems simple: start giving citizens patent moderator points.
The National Academy of Sciences is calling for more funding for the patent office where 3,000 examiners handle 350,000 applications a year with an average of 17 to 25 hours to check on the validity of a patent application.
Businesses claim a lack of due diligence at this stage often results in patents being granted that should not see the light of day.
There you have it, the entire problem in a nutshell. Too much work, and not enough people.
And I have a solution.
Public review for patents. Open source meets patent reform.
Here's how the new system might work. Someone applies for a patent, and it gets posted to a website for public review.
That gives the public the ability to search for prior art. If prior art is found, even after the patent is granted...zap. The patent is invalid. And if the prior art is more than...say 5 years old, the idea is now public domain and no longer patentable.
Also, widen the definition of prior art. Best example of that I can think of off the top of my head is Intel patenting a method to detect overclockers. Measure the cpu clock versus an internal clock. Compare. If they differ by more than a small percentage, shut down. In other words, they managed to patent a binary counter. Bogus. Simply using an established widget in a new way shouldn't be patentable. No more Bezos "with a computer" patents.
And no patent should be granted for more than 5 years or so. This is important, otherwise we could wind up in a technological backwater. Small countries (with no extradition treaties with the US) would be the next Silicon Valley. You think you're being outsourced now? Just wait until you can't program at all in the US due to fear of litigation.
I think that it should be possible to have an idea, patent it, and make your million. But not at the expense of the entire tech sector.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to go double click something. ;^)
Weaselmancer
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
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."
Tell them that the system needs to be fixed, not thrown out. Mine is Goodlatte (R-VA, 6th) and my suggestion to him is to use funds from the axed TSA to hire qualified laid off IT workers to act as screeners since they, unlike typical patent screeners, worked in the industry.
The push should be to limit software patents to 2-3 years so that we don't sound like anti-business commies. Follow it up with hiring good patent examiners and you're suggesting a good solution that moderate congressmen can safely support.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
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.
Does the patent process currently have a public comment phase? That is, are patent applications publicly available, and do (or should) assessors take those comments into account?
"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand
Here's a comment I posted earlier today where I mention the patent reexamination process and suggest a modification. I'll re-print a summary of the data here
It is currently possible to request that a patent be reviewed by the USPTO. This does not require a lawsuit (or technically even a lawyer, though there is a need for a properly-formatted request).
There are two types of re-examination. They differ in several respects. One, inter partes, allows you to basically provide rebuttals to the filer's explanations, and the other ex parte, does not.
My thanks to Thalia for locating the associated fees on the USPTO website: inter partes costs $8800 and ex parte $2500. Both of these costs do not include legal fees, which Thalia estimated (for inter partes) at about $12,000.
The problem is that getting a patent runs about $1,000 (again, not including any legal fees). This tends to slant things towards people acquiring patents, as it is still more expensive to get a patent revoked.
The modification that I'd like to see made would involve *patent owners* having to pay ex parte or inter partes fees if it is determined that their patent was improperly approved. This means that groups like the EFF (and, with some work to make the process particularly easy, perhaps anyone) can initate re-examination requests while supplying prior art examples.
Such a change would encourage patent filers to ensure that their patents really are legitimate when filing (reducing the number of bogus patents), and would not financially penalize someone who knows of prior art and wants to fix the USPTO database (if anything, I'd like to see someone who successfully brings up an example of prior art and gets a patent revoked *paid* a small fee by the patent filer for their time).
This change would involve minimal changes to the system, and not much cost. There might be the issue of collecting from the patent owner, who might be unwilling to pay. I think that an eight-thousand dollar deposit per patent would probably be too weighty, so I'm not sure how to approach that detail yet. However, even if the USPTO needs additional funding to help cover costs of employees needing to review patents where the USPTO cannot collect from the patent filer, I think that we woudl be better off (furthermore, that individual could be barred from being issued future patents until they have paid off their existing dues).
Problem: this change would *have* to grandfather old patents, as companies and individuals would otherwise be liable for masses of money for bogus patents. Irritating as it is that those people were able to get away with such behavior, the system permitted bogus patents, and charging them fees for said patents now is not reasonable (nor would it be acceptable to many people).
I think that this is the only feasible approach to the problem. Trying to ensure that the USPTO never grants invalid patents would require that they maintain a huge staff of PhDs that are up on the bleeding edge in every area of research (and honestly, woudl be better off doing research instead of reviewing patents).
Thoughts?
May we never see th
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?
.... 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.