Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

PTO Seeks Public Input on Patent Applications

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the changing-the-definition-of-patent-troll dept.

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."

9 of 106 comments (clear)

  1. Notification of Prior Art by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 5, Informative

    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 :: faster than paper
  2. Thinking Ahead... by Duncan3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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/
  3. Re:Well.. one drawback. by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
  4. Public peer review of applications... by kcbrown · · Score: 5, Insightful
    ...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.

    --
    Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
    1. Re:Public peer review of applications... by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
  5. Re:Discussion makes things slower by iminplaya · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --
    What?
  6. Re:Well.. one drawback. by DrMrLordX · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  7. Re:Well.. one drawback. by ehrichweiss · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
  8. Re:Well.. one drawback. by NihilEst · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    --
    Founding member: He-Man Windoze Hater Club