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.
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.
In the current patent process patent applications are already published 18 months after filing. If there were to be a patent wiki it would probably only be used for published applications.
Also, any inventor who wants to seek protection outside the US has to make a public application anyways. The US is basically the only country left with a closed review process. You can opt for a closed review, but then your patent is only enforceable inside the USA (and possibly a couple other places - but not Europe, and some other large markets).
Second, the fact that the site is "public" is ot the relevant fact for patent validity. What matters is if the inventor makes one of a few categories of "disclosure". That includes most avenues of publishing, sales, etc. But if the USPTO does something that resembles disclosure (like posting it in a review wiki), they are still free to give it whatever legal definition they deem appropriate. And there's no way that they would define any part of their review process as a disclosure.
argumentum ad fallacium: Fallacy of defining a fallacy which allows one to dismiss the argument in question.
Or one could use a wiki system to write bills for congress. Citizen generated laws.
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).
Which "next guy" would that be? Jeff Bezos?
Nosey parkers ought to mind thier own business! I mean it's not as if the patent system was set up to spread this sort of information or anything...
Always assuming that that patent is valid, which it may not be; that review community is fundamentally crooked; that the patent office rubber stamp the wiki recommendation, (which I suppose is plausible); and that the flimsy electronic "evidence" survives even the most superficial legal review.
That's quite a lot to take for granted. Luckily, the patent office are not making assumptions either way, which is why this is being conducted as a trial. To see if it works.
What, after such carefully considered analysis? You reckon?
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
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.
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