Slashdot Mirror
Patent Reviews Via Wiki
unboring writes "Fortune reports on a pilot program where the patent approval process would be opened to outsiders for review. Reviewers can vote and discuss on different proposals, through say a wiki. Given the many (recent and past) patent approval fiascos, this seems like a good idea. It'll be interesting to see how they would deal with the issues faced by Wikipedia."
Wouldn't a good old-fashioned forum serve this purpose more effectively? I mean, it's not like the reviewers are going to be editing the actual patent submission, just discussing it.
Curiously, neither the submission nor the CNN article gave a link to the actual project page for the Peer to Patent Project. That page has more information and a blog giving updates on progress. There's also a Community Patent Proposal Wiki, but it seems to be down.
Interestingly, the lead sponsors for the project are HP, IBM, Microsoft, and Red Hat. Strange bedfellows, eh?
The chances of this happening are inversely proportional to the chances that it will be abused if it does happen. If a major company has a multimillion dollar product on the line, they will do ANYTHING to make sure it gets approved, even if it means sabotaging any method open to the public. It doesn't matter if it's a wiki, a forum or a voting system, they will abuse it because millions (or even billions) could be on the line.
Funnypics
It's laudable that they want people to have a say in whether patents should be approved, but why a wiki instead of a normal forum? The only reason I can think of is that in a forum people usually post multiple similar comments because they don't read what has already been written prior to posting (yes, I'm talking to you, Slashdot!*), and reading all those comments would turn into another burden for patent examiners. However, even with a wiki you have to read the history of the page, or you might just get the last person's opinion. So, again, why a wiki?
BTW, it will be mightily interesting to see if this has none, some, or a major impact on what patents are actually approved. I can imagine geeks with too much time on their hands will find some obscure prior art to almost everything that companies think of patenting, thus leaving only the things that really should be patentable to make it through the process. In short, how it should be. But it all remains to be seen.
* And yes, I'm aware that somebody has probably posted a comment similar to this one already, making it oh so ironic. Yawn.
by page 20, they would be arguing why pink ponies are pink and if [insert favorite politician] owns one.
Specifically, those who would ordinarily slip through the cracks because someone doesn't catch prior art.
A significant population with an [almost] unmeasurable body of knowledge and information would do a pretty thorough job of flagging someone which the patent examiners working under extremely high pressure to push things down the assembly line. This would make the examiner's job one of validation of claims posted via wiki.
One question remains: What's going to happen if we see a couple of companies who shall remain nameless and are granted patents by filling out a pre-approved form are faced with prior art (or silly art) claims and the company receives the approval anyway? That might prove there's some monkey business is afoot. (Donating a Playboy Bunny to their favorite charity? (Charity begins at home)
The content of a patent application isn't protected until the patent is approved. Submitting your patent application to a public site lets all your competition know details of what you're doing with absolutely no guarantee that you'll get patent protection of your idea(s).
I must be missing something, because this seems so obvious and insurmountable.
I can't find where I posted this, but I suggested this months ago. Its a great idea, use and open source methodology to bring the USPTO up to date with things like, oh, say... prior art, and maybe perhaps just what exactly is really a bad idea? If there were respected members from relevant industries, it would be even more appropriate, and work more effectively. Mind you, Mr Balmer should be permanently banned (sorry, couldn't help myself) The point is that the USPTO cannot continue to be experts on everything, they need help, and this is a very workable way to help them.
nuff said
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
I would love this, but you would need experts, men who know about engineering, software and such, people you allow to vote to do this through a portal like a wiki. That way they don't even need to be in the same room. Hell you could have one man create a list of people who would get one time logins to be able to go on an edit the wiki or something like that. I dont necessarily the public should be allowed but hell make it open, forty percent of americans go out to decide the next president, what are the chances more than those who are interested will go especially if you make some sort of sign up. That probably will discourage all the but the hardcore troublemakers.
Wikis are great at things which involve facts where no one gains anything from lies (See Guildwiki for example).
Wikis are bad when millions of dollars are involved and anyone can edit them. It only takes some "unknown person" who "doesn't have anything to do with the company" to goto the wiki and repeatedly edit it so it seems the patent is invalid or worthless and it may just seem that way (yes I know theres checks). Look at viral marketing and Sony's "lets graffiti shit to look cool" idea, notice how companies don't care how much money they spend just so they can look cool? Well what if they could pay some kid a couple of bucks a week to edit a wiki which could influence major things down the line... Yep you guessed it, they'll eat it up.
People need to register "Use the right tool for the right job" rather than "Wow it's open source! I bet I can use this system to fix everything in the world! Cancer/World hunger/Wars I've got your number bitch!"
I like muppets.
I hate patent abuse as much as the next guy, but this seems like it's just begging for abuse.
How's this for a (new) patent abuse business model:
- Watch patent review wiki for interesting stuff
- Steal good ideas that other people have
- Instantly work on creating pre-dated "prior art" on websites, blog postings, etc
- Use shill accounts to point out the "prior art"
- Make some good cash off of other peoples' R&D
Or how's this for a "fuck with a much-hated company" mob mentality:
- Watch for patent applications from the hated company
- Instanlty work on creating pre-dated "prior art" on websits, blog postings, etc
- Post to slashdot, digg, etc, linking to the manufactured "prior art"
- Watch while thousands of tech zealots slam the patent on the wiki, citing your dishonest "prior art"
There are plenty more ways to abuse this, of course, those two just came to mind quickly and are kind of amusing.
The patent system is broken, that's for sure. But this isn't the answer. Or at least, if this is the answer, we might as well do away with patents altogether, since they will be very, very easy to dishonestly undermine. I know I'll get jumped on here, so let me ask that if you favor simply removing patents (or software patents, or whatever) from the law, please just say that and don't defend this terrible idea because it gets the outcome that you want while still pretending to support the idea of patents.
-b
If I wanted a sig I would have filled in that stupid box.
That will work... until someone patents the Wiki.
"Trademarks are the heraldry of the new feudalism."
In this case, however, they seem to be expecting tghousands of 'volunteers' to go hunting through an exponentially expanding list of stupid applications and doing the reviewer's jobs for free. I expect that this is really only going to happen to the most agregious of the 'bad' patents.
Other than that, you might be able to hope that some of the big companies will start assigning people to look at these things on an ongoing basis in the hops of slamming just about anything that moves before it get legs. Of course, if they start making agreements as to what they'll 'miss', then we'll have the worst of both worlds -- with the big companies setting up truces against each others' "volunteer" examiners, while the little guys get lambasted.
Yep. Lots of room for abuse.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Good points, some other more really big flaws on patent quality. 1. Novices don't have the experience to judge patent claims (sorry /. but this is part of why the CAFC was createdhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_of_Paten t_Appeals_and_Interferences , for this to work it should be for experts to provide limited by relevant counter claims)
2. Exminers can't desk reject patents - so while the wiki might be identify flaws, bs patents will still issue and will still need to be proved out in negotiation/litigation (that said the wiki would help valuation of patents)
3. I think the f-with much hated company could easily happen, but it probably won't nix a deal between for example two big semi-cos --> they'll still drift to license/litigation if they have a beleif in their IP . However, it will screw the small inventor who won't have the resources to overcome a barrage of novice opinions nixing the technology.
I'm all for better prior art but in patents, but we need A HIGHER DENSITY OF EXPERTISE IN THE PATENT SYSTEM NOT LESS as enabled by this wiki design.
An important fact about patents is that the damages for knowingly using a patent are much larger than those for doing it un-knowingly. It's going to be very interesting when people who review the patents in the wiki get sued and have difficulty denying their knowledge. Or, more interestingly, when the patent trolls start demanding IP addresses behind user names to help in their lawsuit campaigns.
I'm really not sure it will be wise to contribute to this if you have anything to do with software production or ever plan to have anything to do with software production.
How will astroturfing be prevented? Or minimized?
Or one could use a wiki system to write bills for congress. Citizen generated laws.
Seriously, that's pretty much what's happening anyway. The only way to find out if a patent is valid is through a court-case. I never understood why the patent office works the way it does. Why not just have people register whatever they want. If they find an infringer, they are going to have to prove that they really are infringing, and the infringer is going to have to prove that they are not in front of a judge and jury. Why try to (very ineffectively) do some of this in advance?
You could even add fines for entities registering patents which have unmentioned prior art (they obviously didn't do their research).
It would perhaps also keep investors from only investing in companies that _appear_ to have some interesting patents, but no real technology/knowledge/expertise to back it up. It would be nice to see more investment into companies that actually know how to make something and actually advance technology.
I'm not a patent guy (I'm not nearly technically minded enough), but I asked this when this was first floated: Why exactly should we be doing their job for them? I know, I know, the patent system is broken. But this is the best they can come up with?
Moreover, the articles also linked there indicate that in the field of software at least, quite probably there never even really was such a time when the "industry's know-how was only being advanced by corporations" (rather than e.g. academics and individual inventors).
Take a look at my site:g =en
g =en
http://prevalent.de/index.pl?site=1&subsite=3&lan
Ok, it's for german and european patents only, but it should fit to give you an idea on how I imagined this. On the left side there is always a patent application, and on the right side you can vote the patent, submit prior art, use a forum to discuss or enter a wiki side for each patent.
The difference is, that I don't review patents before they are published. (That's not possible of course). But there are new patents that are granted, but are still within the german or european objection time.
Until today I filed four objections at the german patent office against granted patents. The cases are still running and not yet decided.
Take a look at it: http://prevalent.de/index.pl?site=1&subsite=3&lan
cu,
Jan
...while some good points about how this scheme can be sabotaged by entities for or against a given application there is one aspect that is critical as to how successful this concept will be, namely, how the PTO will implement this. The key aspect that signals this is hinted at in TFA: examiners, on average, have about 20 hours to spend on an application so that they will be rated "fully successful"; to meet this critical requirment in their Performance Appraisal plan they must average out, over any one year period, at least 95% of their assigned "expectancy" Now the "hot button" technologies have been rated at the highest level, so the software, business methods, biotech areas get roughly twice the time (i. e. about 40 hours).
These time figures have been in place since about the latter 1960s (although the "hot buttons" areas are more recent).
Congress has generally critcized the PTO for the excessive application pendency, so a PTO management culture developed dedicated to controlling pendency, and the productivity requirement is, along with some time limits to respond to activity once the first action has been issued, the primary driver used to effect this control.
Over the years, because additional requirements have been added to the examination process, along with the courts increasing the showings needed to legally establish non-obviousness, it has been harder to examine an application. Because the time allotted is constant the quality of issued patents has declined (yes in infringement cases the Courts apply the same, increased burden, but then the parties can devote hundreds of hours, not, at best, 40 hours or so as in the PTO during examination).
As to this current wiki proposal: if PTO management implements this as it has other examination process "enhancements" in the past, it will be "bolted onto" the existing process; just one more "thing" that has to be "checked off" in the prosecution of the application with no more time give to accomodate it. The result will be, if the examiner knows that it will be "wikied" is that less time will be spent during the pre-wiki initial exaamination, betting that the post wiki part of examination will likely develop the best prior art; after all why waste a lot of time with the prior art that will be developed pre wiki when, later, new, better prior art is developed that will just stretch out the prosecution, leading to a lower production figure (remember, it's a constant).
It's possible that PTO management will actually develop a reasonable program that is actually effective, but given their past, deeply ingrained "production line" mentality, I rather doubt it.
Some time ago i posted the following on a wiki
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?HowToImprovePatents
# The evaluation of patents should be based on objective methods, not subjective rules.
# A business secret rule. To get a patent on an idea it most be a business secret. an idea is a business secret if it can be used in a business without giving it away. An contra example is amazons one click patent which can't be used in business without reveling it. This rule insure that the community get something in exchange for the patent monopoly.
# A bounty system. The patent systems should be a public bounty system. Every patent application should have a bounty on it. The initial bounty is payed by the patent seeker but it should be possible for others to add to a bounty.
# Internet system: The patents examination should be made public on the Internet where it should be accessible to all without cost.
# Non-obvious tests: First the technical problem should be posted and the should be a period for the public to post solutions to the problem, if the solution is posted. Then the poster get the bounty and the patent is rejected as obvious. But the posted solution remains available to the public.
# Novelty test: Then the patent solutions is posted and the should be a period to find prior art. If prior art is found the patent fails the novelty test and the finder get the bounty.
The return on investment in lawyers isn't as high as it should be. Being unprofitable anything which reduces the numbers of lawyers is a good thing.
Deleted
For me the whole approach looks amaterurish. It's like some persons who are clueless about patent reality thought of a new solution at the round table. It sounds nice and that is why Slashdot reported it, but in fact it is toyground action.
..hmm ... third time(?) in 2006. It makes no sense to follow the red herrings. Red herrings serve the purpose that you don't get the fish.
The patent problem has to be solved and the patent problem is NO problem of prior art, novelty assessment, "triviality" or "obviousness", patent examiner laziness or mistakes etc. However patent institutions and patent professionals like to let you enter the toyground. There you can think up solutions, but they will not solve the problems, and the institutions are safe.
Patent reform of Congress went into the same trap. They discussed the issue for the
If so then I'm against it (until I get my patent submitted, that is, after that I'm all for it.)
This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
I believe that this system would/will suffer similar problems to the current process: It will be dominated by players with deep pockets. If you can just pay a sufficient number of people to log on and work for your patent, odds are you will win it with a forum/wiki/discussion group/whatever. Just as you can now persuade the USPTO by throwing money into lobbying them.
I dunno...
"Patentality" doesn't have the same ring as "Wikiality".
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
If we put the entire patent process into a wiki (hell, even official approval) then there would be a very strong incentive to counter the flaws of the wiki.
Just talking out my ass. No real proof this work. Like everything else, it would probably just cause more spam and Nigeria scams.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
Yes, please, wisdom of the masses is exactly what we need when patenting is in question.
On the internet, with its anonymity, the so called "wisdom of the experts" is nothing but a meaning. This meaning could belong to Generic Ted, or Bill Gates. Certainly Generic Ted won't unleash his meanings to every patent, but to a subjective share. Bill only registered because he wanted to say that Microsoft should be allowed to patent the
right-mouse-click.
If the answer to that problem is moderating, then why bother ask for the masses wisdom in the first place?
You can't let anyone, but a democratic selected group of people (preferebly wizards) have the right to change the outcome of these important issues.
Software patents are bad, unless, in a patent application you specificaly lay out the code that you are patenting. Not the idea, not the "process" but the actual code. I don't really know the ramifications of this, but it wouls stop things like the NTP/RIM problem, when some fool claims they have a patent that is really nothing more then a concept rather than and actualy working device.
I can see RIM patenting the RIM handheld, or Palm with the Treo, Seagate with their newest Hard drive read/write heads that give them higher density on a drive platter.
I can see company X patenting their particular implementation of an IP stack, but not the idea of an IP stack.
Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
One problem with the current system is that there is no accountability on the part of the patent examiner. Any mistakes made by the patent office are cleaned up, at great expense, by the judicial system. Or the mistakes are never dealt with because the expense to one or more of the parties would be too great.
I wish my job was like that. At my job, the more dumb things I do, the more likely I am to get fired. The same should hold true for patent examiners. They should be held accountable in some fashion for their decisions. As it stands, they can readily afford to be among the laziest most uninformed people in any occupation. And they are.
So they shouldn't be able to obtain a patent for mathematical concepts and rules: Neither do they need them, nor does society (as long as there isn't any useful disclosure it could get in return).
In case such "inventors" (rather don't call them that!) do get software patents nonetheless, scholars have convincingly argued that something much closer to actual source code than a mere abstract idea ought to be required of them, see e.g. http://ijlit.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstra ct/eai031v1.
The problem is, if a system goes down the path (though the literature points out good reasons not to) of granting software patents in the first place, it will have to recognise the potential case of an idea that is ingenious but incredibly difficult and costly to implement - so you couldn't just ask for a commented source "that GNU make can compile without warnings" for every application - and each "software inventor" would argue that their's is one of these, "exceptionally" not requiring disclosure of a prototype.
You could replace stupid patents with a picture of goatse or similar :-)
..."
Imagine when they lawyers for some patent troll went to file *that* with the court...
Then again:
"So, you say you're suing Mr. Hawking because you've patented the black hole?"
"Yes, Your Honor, if I could direct your attention to Fig. A