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

Well.. one drawback.

[hussain]

Whats going to stop opponents of said technology from sabotauging patents?

Re:Well.. one drawback.

[DrMrLordX]

Is that really going to help? Large corporations could easily field thousands of paid moderator trolls working through proxies or what have you. It would be impossible to police the system unless pre-designated online moderators were used for patent review. And if they did that, the whole notion of community review would go out the window.

Re:Well.. one drawback.

[burnin1965]

Its only a drawback because you are assuming that competitors will be able to sabotage a patent.

If you read the article it states that "The peer initiative focuses on so-called prior art, the scientific papers and previous patents that could render claims invalid." So there is not much room for sabotage as I'm sure the prior art would will require some verification.

It is already possible for anyone to submit prior art submissions to stop a patent but it is much more formal and expensive and slower than this peer review system. If each patent is flooded with a bunch of nonsense prior art submissions I suppose it could create additional burden for the already burdened examiners, however, it also has the potential to speed things up if they can start denying patents faster because the peer review is faster at providing valid prior art.

I hope it proves to be a benefit and they expand the peer review to obviousness tests as I think between 60% and 80% of patents would be denied for either prior art or obviousness.

Re:Well.. one drawback.

[ehrichweiss]

What if the public is only allowed to declare if there is possibly prior art, not take part in the actual approval process itself? Are these corps gonna hire people SIMPLY to find prior art to invalidate patents? If so, we'll have a LOT fewer patents and that might not be such a bad thing. I mean that IS the goal, right. And yes, while it would enable the corps to attempt to lock-out private inventors, it is also a two way street.

Fixed.

[The Living Fractal]

Fixed from the submission:

Instead of one examiner, what if you have thousands of applications reading the examiners?

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

Not To Seem Mercenary, But...

[ewhac]

Would I be compensated for this work?

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

Re:Thinking Ahead...

[SimplyBen]

So how many patent applications have you filed? How many applications have you read? How can you be sure '99%' of them are 'bullshit'? I don't disagree that many are rediculous but your comment seems absurd.

No. Clearly a Conflict of Interest.

[kninja]

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. :(

Problem: People can't read patents

[edashofy]

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

Did that theory work with Democracy?

[MickLinux]

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.