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."

Comments

Thinking Ahead...

[Duncan3]

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...

Re:Well.. one drawback.

[LiquidCoooled]

Moderation and group communication.

Just because one troll tries to game the system doesn't mean his voice is heard.
There should be enough general lurkers around to spot the obvious gaming.

Public peer review of applications...

[kcbrown]

...is how the system should have been set up to begin with.

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.

Re:Public peer review of applications...

[Ohreally_factor]

Well, the benefit of not patenting is that you have a trade secret, and until 1) someone creates a similar invention independently, or 2) reverse engineers your invention, you have an effective monopoly on your invention.

If you can control your secret, you have a competitive advantage.

Note that not all trade secrets are inventions, nor would it be easy to keep some inventions a secret, especially if you intend to make it into a product and sell it to the public.

Re:Not To Seem Mercenary, But...

[Isomer]

There's a massive incentive for your compeditors to review your applications. They don't want you to get that patent that you could use to prevent them from making money. If I was IBM I'd have a team of people reviewing all of Microsoft's patents, it gives IBM an insight into what Microsoft is doing, and if you can block Microsoft from getting patents then it stops you having to deal with the issue later. Of course Microsoft would be reviewing all of IBM's patents too...

Re:Discussion makes things slower

[iminplaya]

I'll trade fast for accurate. Right now we have neither.

... by sinking submarine patents.

[rewinn]

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!

Nee indirect peer review of patent's obviousness.

[EarthlingN]

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.

Re:Well.. one drawback.

[NihilEst]

If a patent can be sabotaged, it should ... particularly a software patent.