Slashdot Mirror
Congress Tackles Patent Reform
nadamsieee writes "Wired's Luke O'Brian recently reported about Congress' latest attempt to reform the patent system. In the article O'Brian tells of how 'witnesses at Thursday's hearing painted a bleak picture of that system. Adam Jaffe, a Brandeis University professor and author of a book on the subject, described the system as 'out of whack.' Instead of 'the engine of innovation,' the patent has become 'the sand in the gears,' he said, citing widespread fears of litigation. The House Oversight Committee website has more details. How would you fix the patent system?"
To what are you referring? If it is the opinion I suspect, it is plainly wrong.
The patent listings are not the sole source of prior art, and should also not be used to determine uniqueness and other reasons for granting a patent.
This is on the cutting edge of future-thinking, 1807 style. Look on the front of almost any US patent and you'll find a long list of non-patent literature that has been cited by either the patent application or the patent examiner. All of these have been considered by the patent examiner.
As it is, if they don't know of prior art they seem to just grant the patent.
Right, right. We SHOULD have a system where, when no evidence exists to support the denial of a patent application, we simply reject, reject, reject anyway. UTOPIA! Next let's you and I reform murder statutes! All of this tiresome investigation, questioning, and evidence gathering is pointless! What we need is people in jail! When you're done fixing the patent system, and patent applications are FINALLY rejected despite an absence of prior art, and murder is fixed, FINALLY putting people in jail when there is no evidence that they're guilty, I'll shoot myself in the face because you've turned two reasonable systems into jokes.
Peer review would help to bring sense to this situation, even if at first it brings confusion IMO.
Please stick to topics with which you are familiar. 1) "Peer review" has been in place for YEARS and it's called the PTO's Board of Appeals, where predominantly former patent examiners "peer review" the rejections of the current patent examiners (SECRET INFORMATION: The board of appeals often ISSUES patents that patent examiners were trying to reject, based on PEER REVIEW). 2) Your implication that patents should be rejected when there is no prior art is asinine, in case my sarcasm was too subtle. 3) Your opinions are wildly ignorant of the existing patent system ("Now if company B wants to innovate on [company A's patented] products, they will have to fight company A's patent or take their chances in court" is flagrantly ignorant of patent infringement and patent statutes).
Naturally Slashdot pats you on the back, hoists you on their shoulders, and moderates your post +5 Insightful. This is exactly why I consistently urge Slashdot to stop running stories about patents. This is precisely why nobody working in the patent system gives a rat's ass about the Slashdot groupthink. As a community, Slashdot is drastically uneducated about the CURRENT patent system, but won't shut up about how they're going to "fix" it. For anyone interested in actually improving the patent system, Slashdot forces itself to be a waste of time and space.
Quick, somebody moderate this as flamebait. Never, under any circumstances, consider this a challenge to reform the Slashdot community to be anything but laughably ignorant of the patent system it despises so deeply. This is the place for blind hatred, knee-jerk reactionism, and protecting the delicate groupthink; this is Slashdot.