Slashdot Mirror
Patent Review via Community Not Wiki-based
Moe Napoli writes "Articles have recently surfaced (CNET/ZDnet, Fortune and a mention here at Slashdot) incorrectly identifying the recent USPTO pilot Community Patent Review program to be Wiki-based. While a number of Slashdotters have identified why such an approach would create more problems than solve, the program's architect, NYLS Prof. Beth Noveck, continues the discussion and further clarifies why the program is not Wiki-based, yet 'conveys the appropriate sense of openness, transparency and collaboration.'"
The outline of the goals:
- Goal 1 Optimize Patent Quality and Timeliness
- Goal 2 Optimize Trademark Quality and Timeliness
- Goal 3 Improve Intellectual Property Protection and Enforcement Domestically and Abroad
- Management Goal Achieve Organizational Excellence
I recognize phrases and words that alarm me in that this document really doesn't say much or provide a 'plan' at all. For instance, its first goal is to "Optimize Patent Quality and Timeliness" which sounds like a great idea. But if you dig through the document to figure out how they will achieve this, there is naught to be found but: Which worries me because the only quantifiable thing listed there is 'streamlined procedures' and I would prefer you aim for an intuitive & rigorous control process instead of using a bland word like streamlined. I mean, how can you determine if something really is streamlined?Also confusing: So there's not really going to be any new tools or procedures but instead it's the 'mythical man month' approach where you just throw more people at the problem until it goes away? How do you determine a 'capable employee' and shouldn't those be the only kind you hire anyway?
Indeed the primary goal of this paper is to convince the reader that patent/trademark applications are one the rise. Unfortunately the one solution they have for that is hiring more examiners and creating focus groups. Is this really the solution?
They list search technology as an increasingly useful tool but why not data mining? I mean, you would think that the primary concern is to make this as simple as possible for the patent examiners and give them cutting edge technology to cross-reference patents. I think the most useful tool would be a thesaurus and/or a taxonomy that could allow them to link key words and identify possible prior art that a traditional search would have missed.
You know, the alternative to hiring more patent examiners is to make the grounds for a patent more stringent. Then a lot of the 'maybes' could be thrown out. In the end, I'm afraid this is just another government office or agency that's going to balloon out of control and consume tax payer dollars.
My work here is dung.
Not a single non-blog link in the writeup! I get the feeling sometimes that "Old Media" is getting pushed aside and this sort of "individual-driven" New Media is taking its place.
Anyway, about the topic. It seems like a lot more trouble than it's worth to ask the general public to review patents. Especially when patents are in their review stages, they are especially vulnerable to getting ripped off. Opening up the process to outsiders only makes this vulnerability more obvious and dangerous.
Like what has happened in the music industry, once the cat is out of the bag, it's impossible to put that genie back in the bottle.
More likely than not, this experiment will wither on the vine and we won't hear much more about it until Slashdot posts a link to the blog that explains why the "community patent review process" failed miserably.
Ehhh, another /. patent article just as I step out for most of the day.
Just a quick comment, based on what a friend and ex-colleague who keeps me up to date with what's going on in the PTO.... a lot of the "quality" initiatives involve lots and lots of "review" by others, other examiners, quality review, etc. The problem with this boils down to whether the reviewer has the same or better working knowlege of the art (i. e. technology) of the application under review. How does one expect such a reviewer to be able to generate better prior art than the examiner who works daily in art? Also, one not knowledgable about the art can misinterpret/misunderstand terminology, and often will think they have a great reference that superficially is great prior art, but really is is irrelevant, wasting time in arguments back and forth. This is like quickly hacking out code and then trying to get it working by bug fixing, a very inefficient process.
The streamlining aspects are just management code-speak for speeding up the assembly line, reducing the amount of time an examiner spends on an application, etc, which has been the real focus of management efforts over the past 30 or more years; it's a hard culture for management to abandon.
So you end up with the worst of all worlds: A system with strict production controls with an add-on review system that just harasses examiners without actually enhancing quality.
It 'conveys the appropriate sense of openness, transparency and collaboration.'?
So is it actually open, transparent and collaborative, or does it just convey the appropriate sense?
catch (HumourFailureException e) { e.user.send("You, sir, are a humourless idiot."); }
Psst. The USPTO is one of the few, if not only, government office that, get this, MAKE MONEY. All the money funding the PTO comes from fees collected by the PTO. Actually, Congress doles out only part of those fees back to the PTO and spends the money for other agencies. The freeing of this fund solely to the PTO has been a point of contention in the past, since the PTO obviously needs more money.
So do not worry. Your money does not currently and probably never will fund the US Patent and Trademark Office. (As for my credentials, I was a patent examiner. So I think I can provide some insight in this matter.)
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."