Slashdot Mirror
PTO Seeks Public Input on Patent Applications
KingAdrock writes to tell us Sciencemag is reporting that the US Patent and Trademark office (PTO) is floating the idea of an online pilot program to gather public input on patent applications. From the article: "Speaking last week at an open forum, officials said that tapping into the expertise of outside scientists, lawyers, and laypeople would improve the quality of patents -- and might also reduce a backlog that this month topped 1 million applications. "Instead of one examiner, what if you have thousands of examiners reading an application?" says Beth Simone Noveck of New York University Law School, who is an independent advocate of the idea."
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/09/12 28221
The new article is however a derivative, because the discussion seems further on now and a site has been setup.
liqbase
Whats going to stop opponents of said technology from sabotauging patents?
1. Improve process vastly
2. Bullshit applications discarded (99%+)
3. New applications drop 99%
4. Paychecks at the PTO all disappear
5. 10,000 lawyers out of work, but still alive to terrorize other parts of the economy
6. ???
7. PROFIT
Yea.. that will happen...
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
Ok so I anthropomorphized application... But I am just saying, by creating a system more capable of finding the correct examiners for a particular application (perhaps by further defining the details required to submit a patent application) the system would more efficiently utilize the knowledge of each examiner. Then perhaps we wouldn't need to throw "thousands" of examiners at a single application?
TLF
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
This would also help to rmeove and prevent patent trolls. That can NOT be a bad thing.
Purple, because ice cream has no bones.
With the possibility of pollution taken into consideration,
user(Lay people) input would be the best thing ever.
Prior art would be seen faster etc.
Something about barn doors and bolting horses springs to mind...
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
There are some who might argue that applications need to remain secret in order to prevent competitors from snatching the idea and using it in their products, because it's possible that the application will be denied, and then the patent submitter will lose his competitive advantage.
To those people, I say: applying for a 20-year monopoly on a method should carry significant risks. The decision to apply for a patent should not be one that is made lightly. Those who want such a monopoly should have to be exposed to the risk that what could have remained a trade secret is instead exposed to the world without any compensation being made to the originator.
If the patent is approved then suddenly the patent holder can arrange licensing with those who have already implemented products using the method. If a patent looks like it stands a really good chance of being approved, chances are others will stay away from it anyway. But woe to those who attempt to slide an obvious or previously-known method as a patent through such a system.
That's how it should be.
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
I mean, I could say there was prior art or that the submitted "invention" completely lacks novelty, but such assertions would be more likely to be heeded if I also provided concrete references, and that takes non-trivial work (no, pointing at a Wikipedia article doesn't count).
So, if I do this, apart from the feel-good karma of smacking down patent trolls, what's in it for me? Maybe a tax credit? Waiver of fees for my own patent/SIR application?
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
Maybe this will stop some stupid patents from becoming patents
The sooner the competition sees a company's patent application, the sooner they can create further innovations that build-on or work-around the proposed patent. That's one of the cool things about a patent - it forces the applicant to disclose the invention so that other can innovate further.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
I am f**king astounded!!
To PTO: Ya think?
Apply to be an examiner of patents.
Get a hold of the applications from the million patent backlog.
Outsource the work to Indian and Chinese work centers.
Profit!
All the input and discussion will just make everything much slower.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
That wouldn't be such a bad idea. Many Wikipedia articles actually have a lot of references, which takes a non-trivial amount of work, but it's not so bad when you have a non-trivial amount of people working on the project.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
in the past, also on previous slashdot posts when patents came up.
I would also think a bounty for disproving the application (showing prior art, that the application is too vague or obvious or whatnot), coming directly from a percentage of the applicant fee would be wise - $250 to $5000. Applicant fees should also be raised, individual applicants within a certain income bracket should have to pay the lowest, while mega-corps have to pay the highest fee (within reason) - and this fee would also be reflected in the bounty.
Let's face it: Altruism is great, but a little incentive goes a long way. Just as most Linux Kernel contributors are employed by a company directly benefitting from Linux, I think it's ridiculous for the government to try to unload the work they are doing poorly on us without some compensation (and who best than those providing the work, the applicants) - didn't the government do the same with the Iraqi documents now?
Double or triple the cost of the application and then offer up half of the money to anyone who can conclusively prove that a patent is invalid. Sort of a reverse user fee, someone proves that the government "should not do its job."
More people - for one thing, how many Slashdotters can read and understand a patent (or even tell the difference between the claims and the technology description, and what they are for)? Putting this in the hands of laypeople will be a disaster.
:(
Then you have the conflict of interest. Let's say a large company wants to stomp a startup - they get their lawyers to wallop every part of the application, and they steal all the technology in the process. So much for the little guy.
Nope. I am not as optimistic as you are.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
http://threeseas.net/abstraction_physics.html
About time they started listening.
3158577593@vtext.com
I've recently thought of an idea for how to deal with patents. Something similar to Slashdot should be used. Imagine if there was a website running slashdot software would allow everyone to comment on the validity of patents before making a determination to grant or deny the patent. If that had been around at the time the hyperlink patent came up for review, you can count on a large number of posts saying that's just silly. The public has many informed people on all subjects. It's just a matter of letting the best opinions be heard. This is exactly what Slashdot's moderation system does.
No Sigs!
It's a very good idea in theory, but might not work so well in the real world. There would have to be a way to verify that "outside scientists" really are scientists. Also, how would training (presuming at least some training is needed...) be provided for the outside examiners?
You mean something like PatentDot ??? which I suggested on Feb. 12, 2006:
"The patent office is weighing an online pilot project to solicit public input on patent applications. [...] The idea is for volunteers to be alerted about new patent applications--applications become public after 18 months--and invited to submit prior art."
If the idea is already patented... Oh the irony!!!
"Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
A "submarine patent" remains unpublished after it is granted. By running silent, running deep, the submarine patent's owners let other people develop and implement inadvertantly infringing products. Then *BLAMMO* the Patent surfaces and holds the inadvertant infringers at gunpoint (er, torpedo point. What-ever).
Publishing applications as soon as they are filed stops this tactic. Potential infringers have the ability to check whether their product infringes BEFORE they invest. That's a good thing!
--- Attorneys Assisting Citizen-Soldiers & Families -
One problem with measuring obviousness is that most things seem obvious after you've heard the solution.
Having peers review the actual patent, then asking them to honestly estimate it's obviousness is a tall order. Besides the fact that they now have been given your ideas (and may wish to see the patent thrown out), they must also ask themselves how easy it would be to solve a problem for which they already have the answer.
Instead, we should measure the patent's obviousness indirectly, by asking those "schooled in the art" to solve the same problem that the patent solves, without actually giving them the patent's solution.
If the patent is re-invented by the peers, it is non-obvious. If the solution isn't re-invented, then the peers either didn't care, didn't want to invest time in a solution, or the solution really is non-obvious-enough, that it's inventor deserves a brief monopoly.
Examples:
To EE/Computer/Radio peers: Somebody wants to patent a method to send and receive e-mail from a portable, wireless device. How would you do it?
To EE/AutoIndustry: Somebody wants to patent a method of sending an electric signal when the brake pedal is pressed. Give us some obvious solutions.
...where each ticket costs $10,000.
Here's the main problem with this idea: the vast, vast majority of people, even smart Slashdot readers, have no idea how to read a patent. Sure, they read the abstract and that might bring to mind some other invention that's sort-of-like the one described in the patent, and that is helpful to a small extent. However, did you know that the abstract has little to no bearing on what the patent actually covers?
Patent claim language (the actual property rights granted by the patent) is byzantine and ugly. Besides that, there are all kinds of nuances. Do you know the difference between an apparatus and a method patent? The terms used in the claims may (nay, probably) don't mean what you think they mean. The applicant doesn't even know what they mean, since the legal claim construction process only occurs when the patent is challenged. Then, if the applicant (as many do) uses USC 30 S112P6 "means-plus-function" language, you're in a whole other world of indirection and confusion.
Patents need reform, but having a million uneducated people looking at the applications is only part of the solution. Reforms to patent law itself, such as:
- Making applicants provide a binding glossary of terms
- Making applicants identify corresponding structure for means-plus-function elements
- Reforming the byzantine nature of claim language
would go miles and miles to easing the process and squeezing out inefficiency
eventually this will make the open source concept leaner. companies/organization have some deluded concept that if you let them, the public will do your work for free. most patent clerks do not go on to becomne einstein, so i dont see why anybody would volunteer time to get experience to later apply for such a job. if you end up in the patent office, you are unlucky.
opening up patent examination to the public will do something that right now seems impossible, it will make patents even more worthless. there will be an even bigger mess, and the need to monitor joe six pack's work.
as it stands patents are generally rubber stamped as is, their true test comes in court, and how much money/lawyers someone can sic on their enemies. anyone remeber multimedia?
patents are a joke, and always will be, if they worked then there would be no trade secret / industrial espionage laws...
I don't think most people understand how evil patnets really are. While we have all herd the theory of how patents supossedly help small inventors, and how pharma R&D would supposedly never happen without patents, what we never hear are things like how African nations were sued in the world court for trying to make generic AIDS medications - locking out millions who were dying. We never see story about the millions of inventors who are locked out of using inventions cause of legal and royality costs, we never hear about how most of these inventions were natural progressions that were likely to be invented anyhow, what about RIM vs blackberry, what about one click. People keep eating the rotten fruit, but refuse to admit that the tree is rotten.
We can see all the evil that happened when the industrial revolution forced the commoditisation of the labor force and the violent death of the US plantation system. Patents are also a false property right, and when they become commoditized - breaking free will likely cost the lives of billions!
The UPO needs public/free/open/... peeps to do the job? Where do Canadians sign up? [Numbers: ~1400 PTO,s, and 1,000,000 applications in in pipe? No wonder it takes 17 years]
Or 43, if you wish for just that bit more out of life the universe and everything...
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
Ok, that one's got me stumped. Maybe if there were some way to use one of the wireless networking protocols to set up a link, then you could use it to send email to such a device. But it seems like a long shot; almost like something out of Sci-Fi. (I know that the French military was sending wireless messages in the 18th century, but that was with optical links. This is email we're talking about. How could we do this with electricity? It's not clear that it's even within the realm of possibility.)
Man, if someone could figure out how to transfer email without wires, I say that they would richly deserve hundreds of millions of dollars in payments from anyone else who also figured out how to do it.
Could the answer lie in a lot of what people have already said here?
We have already identified ways people can screw the system. As in, get their people to review their applications. To solve this all you would need is that whomever is reviewing... (I suggest listing credentials) is an independant party.
To ensure a high quality amount of people you will definitely need compensation. There are a slew of science and math (and others e.g. biochemistry) graduates and especially post-docs that may be willing to lend a hand if they can earn a small amount of ££ in the process.
Ultimately, the final decision to reward a patent needs to be left with the patent clerks, to ensure neutrality and fairness. The same can be said for rejecting a patent, however, independant peer reviewers will offer a much stronger case for dismissal or acceptance.
They will need perhaps an online course (Free!) you can take to get up to speed with the patent system, this will need to be examined so you will have a qualified bank of examiners who only look at patents based on their area of expertise.
The money issue is a tough one. Everyone complains that the patent system sucks and something needs to be done. But no-one is willing to fix it without being paid... wasn't that the problem in the first place? Perhaps if we could cure human greed first we wouldn't need this measure in the first place, but this point is more rhetorical. Unless you set this system up in a socialist country, perhaps.
Point-by-point:
--- Jason Olshefsky
Karma: Poser (mostly affected by adding this line long after everyone else did)
hello, we want to open our system up, to get you helping us closing things down
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
Now tiny "think tanks" can pretend to be thousands of users by using different email address' and phone numbers to manipulate who receives patents.
I've been so appreciative of them deciding what I get to not watch on TV or listen on the radio. It is about time they are given the power to do extra stuff for us.
Ah, the moralists minority. Gotta love'em!
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
If you'd read Frederick Hayak's "Road to Serfdom", essentially when a government's control overwhelms a society, then gaming the system is the only thing that pays.
He doesn't use those words, exactly. He puts it into terms of working vs. petitioning, then escalates it into lobbying and finally violence of different sorts, but that is essentially what he is saying.
Therefore, the powerful do game the system, and it will be gamed, and nobody will be able to stop them.
That's happening right now -- indeed, for as long as I have lived it's been happening -- in our Senate, House, and judiciary. Now it's also happening in the presidency.
I'm sure it will also happen in the PTO if they do this, just as it's already happening there now. I'm just not sure it will matter.
As the system starts to get more and more gamed, things swing wild. They get unpredictable, and in the end, you find that you can't take care of yourself in the way that you thought you could.
If that does become the case, it's not going to matter if you gamed the patent system. Nor will it matter if you fought changes, or fought for changes that seemed to make sense to you.
If you're a engineer or a medical doctor, what will most likely matter, is whether or not you know how to dig ditches. Or repair shoes. I've seen it happen in Lithuania (the former USSR), and I don't doubt it can happen here.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
There's people out there writing patents for wheels and getting them past the examiners because of the language they use.
No sig today...
Awwww, the wittle bartender does not have enough mod points for his silly little "Jihad". Boo hoo, it makes your life so sad.
The PTO also specifies that a patent may be issued
1)if the solution is obvious but satisfies a long-felt but unmet need
2)if the invention is highly commercially sucessful.
Think Obvious but overlooked.