Slashdot Mirror
USPTO New Accelerated Review Process
Intron writes "Perhaps you have been lying awake worrying that your software patent on bubble sort might spend too much time being "examined" or "peer reviewed". You will be pleased to know that the US Patent and Trademark Office has launched their accelerated review process. "Applicants' submissions enjoy a presumption of patentability" says the patent office. Applicants are also responsible for disclosing any prior art."
Why take two years to produce incompetent results when you can be just as incompetent in a few months?
See, I made a post without resorting to the "let's patent... uh.. air!" posts that are about to flood this page.
Ah yes, now I can finally patent the array!
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C1 bottles of beer on the wall. Take one down, pass it round... Oh, umm...
(looks at calendar...) Nope, four more days until April 1st. Damn.
Nice thought, but that's not going to work. Prior art makes something less patentable, so it's not exactly in the applicant's best interest to report it. It's like expecting politicians to police their own ethics. Oh, wait, isn't that what Congress already does?
Good, inexpensive web hosting
The patent system is broken beyond repair. Throw the thing out.
I'd never start an engineering firm. Be it widgets or lines of code, I'm bound to be sued if I become successful. Patents now actively discourage innovation. Get rid of them!
Am I the only one who thinks such policy changes are ripe for abuse? Hell, I'll go patent breathing right now! That way, I can charge everybody a fee! Muahahahaha. Seriously now, this is just silly.
...the USPTO outsources reading the applications to outer Mongolia, on the grounds that if they're going to accept them all anyway, what does it matter?
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
nothing.
We all know that the USPTO aren't exactly fantastic at finding prior art and reviewing patent applications particularly well, especially in the software arena. Whatever the reason for this, passing it off onto the applicant isn't going to improve this situation much. Whilst the USPTO might not find any prior art in checking an application, the applicant has no real incentive to find prior art either.
The only way it will make any significant difference is if an applicant doesn't submit an obvious piece of prior art, the USPTO find it in the accelerated review process, and then reject the patent on lack of detail in the application.
This is going to create an incredable amount of work for the judicial system. Not that they aren't tasked enough with lame cases or anything.
Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
the original legislation was to require those seeking patents to PROVE UNIQUENESS. therefore, this silliness runs counter to law.
no patent for being able to write on a Big Chief tablet with a jumbo purple crayon, as the pinheads in washington seem to think is how it should work.
and they ought to search prior art. if they can't find it, then maybe the USPTO should just declare a moratorium on new applications until they scan and index all the old stuff, way back to patent #1. to intelligently "expedite" handling applications, they have to be able to intelligently find prior art.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
They're infringing on my patent for an accelerated patent review system. I filed it just a few minutes ago through their accelerated process!
I'm ready to apply for my new patent on the act of replying to a message or story, by clicking a button that says reply, then entering text, and then clicking a submit button.
This will be done after I apply for my patent on stress testing a remote web server by placing a link to said server on a highly trafficed web site and expecting all visitors to follow that link.
And stay tuned for my patent on taking an email that you receive, and sending it to someone who is NOT the person that originally sent it to you. I'm not sure what I'll call that yet. Maybe something like for-words.
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
Wow... I do my own prior art search and have the presumption of patentability!!!! I am filing to patent the "doubly linked list" this weekend. I think Microsoft patented the "linked list" last week, so I will embrace and extend their patent :)
It's all insanity. No wonder the US is no longer the Technology King. We spend all our time and money on lawyers and patent lawyers are NOT cheap.
It looks like America is trying to bolster its economy by trying to take IP to a whole new level. There must be a school of thought wholly alien to me, that thinks that if 1 patent is good, 10 must be even better!
It might be that the U.S. is trying to bolster its position in the world by trying to a mass land grab at IP in the light of its waning influence/superpower status with China's dominance in the horizon.
And the steps we are taking as a nation are the absolute worst ones - instead of fostering innovation by demanding science/math be emphasized in the classrooms and good research being funded - we are making it easy for large corporations and patent trolls to stifle us all.
We really need a comprehensive examination of the effect that patents have on the distribution of resources within large corporations. I suspect it may turn up some interesting results.
We need to keep in mind that every dollar that goes to the lawyers who handle patent-related matters is one less dollar going towards the scientist and engineers responsible for research and development. And as we all know, it's the R&D that really has an impact on the world. It's this R&D that brings us the new products, techniques, practices and knowledge that help improve our lives, as well as better our use of our current resources.
On the other hand, the legal departments of most corporations generates little, if anything, in tangible wealth. They're mostly just a shield against the legal departments of other competing corporations. IP-based lawsuits tend to be nothing more than a cycle of nonproductivity. The engineers and scientists develop practical knowledge, only to have the lawyers fight endlessly over who "owns" this knowledge, all while consuming huge amounts of resources.
If the money that went to fight these pointless IP battles instead went to the R&D department, we'd likely see a great increase in the development of new technology. In the biomedical field, for instance, this could potentially lead to the creation of treatments for a wide variety of ailments. Now compare the benefit of such development to that offered by the lawyers. What we'll find is that the medical developments will offer a real benefit, while the legal developments will be little more than useless boxes full of paper.
Economists often claim that patents are necessary to ensure innovation. But I think these same economists are overlooking the extensive benefit that could arise were resources not wasted on petty legal battles over these patents, but instead directed towards more productive uses.
"Applicants' submissions enjoy a presumption of patentability" says the patent office.
From what I've been reading in the news these days, it seems like that's how they've operating all along.
Applicants are also responsible for disclosing any prior art."
Oh, that's rich. Another lead balloon that one is. Maybe if a perjury charge goes along the revocation of the patent if they get caught failing to do so.
What?
A lot of posters are scoffing at the notion that applicants would do a very good job of finding prior art to submit along with their accelerated application. This is not actually the case, however, and the reason it isn't is why the accelerated patent program hasn't gotten much use yet.
See, imagine that the putative lazy (or evil) attorney doesn't do a very good job of finding prior art and submits an application to patent something otherwise well known in the art. Sure, the PTO may grant the patent on the presumption that the attorney did a thorough search. But if the case gets litigated (which it likely will if the patent is really all that bad), then the other side will easily be able to point out the prior art that the attorney didn't submit. When the patent is invalidated as a result, that attorney is going to get sued into oblivion for malpractice. If the attorney omitted the prior art on purpose in order to get the patent issued, it's even possible that he or she could be censured or disbarred.
That brings us to why the new program isn't getting much use. Because the patent will issue only a few months after filing the application, the attorney only has a very short amount of time to search for and find any relevant prior art the PTO needs in order to determine which claims to allow and which ones not to. Most attorneys don't feel like they can search the many millions of US and overseas patents in that amount of time (to say nothing of the countless other 'printed publications' that may be prior art as well). So the program isn't getting used very much.
<rant>
What would be a good change? Eliminating the presumption of patent validity and making the PTO into a simple time stamping/registration body like the Library of Congress. As it stands now, virtually all patents with any value end up at least being inspected by opposing lawyers if not litigated outright, and a great many of them are found to be worthless or of substantially less worth than they appear at first glance. Eliminating the presumption of validity would get rid of the massive delay and cost of being granted a patent while also pushing the initial burden of proof on to the plaintiff/patentee to show that his or her patent is valid. The loss of this presumption would make a patent less inherently valuable and the number of issued patents would likely actually decrease. Because the cost of initiating patent litigation would go up, the number of suits would go down as well.
</rant>
This disclosure teaches a novel day on which to spring those jokes. By using March 29, a whole new dimension is added to joking.
Add drawing here.
Claims...
Engineering is the art of compromise.
... on the "Accelerated Review Process"; so back off USPTO!
One ring to bind them - should probably have more fiber and less rings in their diet.
If anything, they need to find ways to SLOW DOWN the process of issuing patents. I mean, seriously, there should be *maybe* 3-4 patents
granted, per year, worldwide, if we actually went by any realistic definitions of novel, innovative, and non-obvious. The world needs
fewer patents being granted, not more.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
At this point, the patent process has become completely trivial, with the only hurdles and scrutiny occurring during litigation. So, this is essentially a huge gift to large corporations with deep pockets. The patent system will now completely become a game of intimidation and a dead weight on the economy. Amazing how the good parts of central government tend wither away with corruption until they become useless, whereas the bad parts of central government grow and grow.
I fully expect (like most Slashdotters) that this will be abused. But there is a germ of a *useful* idea in this - do the "accelerated" processing, then post the patent on a publicly accessible web site for 90 days afterwards. Allow people to comment, noting prior art that the applicant missed (or deliberately left out). After the 90 days, the examiners look at it again, taking into account any of the info from the public review.
The patent system *does* need to be speeded up - the time required to obtain a patent is absurd given the pace of current technology. But this approach, by itself, will simply shorten the time in the patent office by offloading the work onto the court system. Standard bureaucratic procedure - pass the buck.
Don't tell me to get a life. I had one once. It sucked.
... how do you know the calendar isn't fooling you? ;)
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
If everything that walks in the door is presumed to be patentable and the applicant is the only one responsible for a prior art search, couldn't we handle the patent office more cheaply by installing a vending machine in every post office?
The results would be the same, except we could avoid all the wait time and salery expense.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Just post your ideas on Slashdot, if slashdotters start screaming up and down about prior arts, you should not proceed.
Maybe USPTO will start doing that?
Virtual Betting on Facebook for non-geeks.
Someone should patent the idea for an accelerated patent approval process. ('Why no, I'm not aware of any prior art!)
Then we could force them to stop using the process! (Or at least, demand royalties!)
I found a rare photo of the new accelerated review processing machine!
No elected official is going to support a move to just invalidate every patent ever granted unless their campaign platform is How Much They Hate America(TM)
No one's going to spend the time/effort reviewing existing patents for validity under new guidelines.
The only way to fix the system is to let anyone patent everything and have the system collapse in on itself. A decade of courts being clogged in patent-litigation carnage ought to let a more reasonable standard emerge.
Here
Personally, I would like to see the patent office move from being an evaluator of applications to being an arbiter between plaintiff and defendant in patent infringement claims. If they accepted every patent application and only evaluated the claims when disputed, that would be a fundamentally easier job. Then the defendant would be responsible for discovering the prior art rather than the patent office. This is a stronger model, because the defendant is also the own who would suffer damages (and is presumably someone who has knowledge in the field). One of the weaknesses of the current model is that the patent office is not the one that suffers when weak or overly broad patents get through.
Applicants have a duty to disclose to the USPTO relevant prior art of which they are aware. However, applicants are not required to search for prior art. Under the USPTO's accelerated examination procedure, applicants are required to conduct a search of the prior art, to submit all prior art that is closest to their invention, and explain what the prior art teaches and how their invention is different.
So, if you try to patent bubble sort this way, and get caught not disclosing prior art which you as someone "skilled in the art" (by default, you're applying), you're basically guilty of perjury, or whatever the lawyers would call lying to the goverment.
The feds tend to lock you up for that sort of shit.
No, I think the type of bullshit patents we hate are better filed the old way.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20070027706.html
All replies should be links or pointers to prior art for the above patent. It's not overly-obvious, but I think the exercise will prove the point that patents are far too easy to obtain.
-BA
Getting sued and losing sometimes.
Do you have any idea how much defense of a patent lawsuite costs!!?!
That's why this is such bullshit. Because even if the patent is frivilous you loose simply by being sued.
Say your a software company with 60-200 employees. Anual income of 3 million dollars, costs and wages run about 2-2.5 million, your in debt to the bank still for the loan you got to start the business. You make free software that is popular and charge for customizations and support services.
Now Microsoft sues you for 'bubble sort'.
WAM. Bancrupt instantly!
Your FUCKED. Your business is fucked. Your employees are fucked. All the people who depend on your software are fucked.
Sure you win, then you counter sue Microsoft and get court costs. IF you last that long, which you probably won't.
But still the damage has been done. It's years later and Microsoft or other companies has taken over your market since all the time and money you would of spent on improving the software was all spent on the lawsuit.
And you think that Microsoft or some other company is going to sue a lawyer for this service? Fuck no.
They might as well make a Rubber Stamping machine for patents, you just feed the files through it like a coin sorter.
Doesn't anyone else see this as a simple way to generate more income for the USPTO? It sure looks like it to me. More patents, more fees. "Prior art? We ain't got no prior art. We don't need no prior art. I don't have to show you any stinking prior arts!" (Apologies to Alfonso Bedoya, AKA "Gold Hat" in The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948))
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
You don't think anyone would be untruthful do you?
In short, you think that the way things are right now should be sufficient penalty (hint: if prior art is found and accepted by either the patent office or the courts, the patent is invalidated). Sorry, but reality has already proven you wrong on that.
The problem right now is that even with a weak patent, a company can strongarm others into paying up because the costs of defending a patent infringement suit are high and the probability of doing so successfully is low, thanks to the idiotic assumption of the courts that a patent is automatically valid if approved by the USPTO. In other words, the courts assume that the USPTO is actually doing its job, when the fact of that matter is that it's not.
So the consequences of undisclosed prior art need to be much more severe.
In my opinion, a finding of prior art against a patent should not only invalidate that patent, but should prevent all those who were involved in filing the patent from filing further patents for a relatively long period of time (say, 5 years), just like the grandparent suggests.
Without such strong disincentives, the free-for-all that we've been seeing will continue unabated.
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
Except that once again, people would be worried about going to court against a big corporation for a patent they own, even if they had the upper hand.
Because even if you had a good enough patent, without a good lawyer there isn't much use defending it. And corporations can spend enormous amounts of money and time until you buckle under.
Which is precisely the reason why your idea is a horrible one. If anything, it places even more power in the hands of lawyers.
At least right now, there is some degree of protection.
air! ; )
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Hey, moderators, where are you? This deserves +5 Funny for sure....
"Applicants' submissions enjoy a presumption of patentability"
And that's different from the normal process somehow?
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
> (hint: if prior art is found and accepted by either the patent office or the courts, the patent is invalidated).
My understanding (TGIANAL) of the current situation is that the individual claims for which there is prior art are invalidated. My impression is that the GP wants to change this so that the whole patent is invalidated if any prior art is found for any claim in it.
That's a big difference, and on the surface looks like a positive change. Unfortunately, without additional limitations, it probably would just lead to rich corporations filing even more patents, each with one narrow claim. But the Patent Office might go for it, since it would multiply the fees paid by these corporations by a factor of 10 or more.
One of the big problems with the "software" or "computerized business process" patents granted at USPTO is that many of them are very obvious to "a skilled practitioner in the field". This is the major factor that brings the whole area of law into disrepute.
You know, maybe I couldn't have thought up the RSA algorithm on the spur of the moment after a moment's pondering of the topic,
but for many of the US software or biz process patents these days, the inherent structure of the problem domain, analyzed with
standard requirements analysis techniques, suggests to any competent analyst the form of the computerized solution, and
standardized design principles and patterns supply the rest of the solution. But lo and behold, it's still patented at USPTO.
You see, clicking on a link to purchase something, or downloading and running a software program in a browser,
or tracking who is clicking on hyperlinks by including a personal code in the url... or making a doubly linked list...
I could go on and on... These are all "moment's thought" obvious to a computer science graduate, or else were the
subject of second-year lectures on algorithms, thus known widely in computer science for decades.
Here's an idea. Why doesn't the USPTO have the software tech community and the computer science academic community
elect a board of 20 truly leading innovators (software engineering gods) and truly leading academics in the field, who
are willing to serve as a software or computerized business process review board. If ninety percent of this board finds
a given patent application non-obvious by their standards, then heck, maybe there's a (still weak) case for patentability.
But otherwise, leave us the hell alone to think and design and code as we see fit and are more than capable of doing easily
for the vast majority of these ridiculous patents, without bothering to look at how the patenter did it.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
What might fix this is requiring all initial patents suits go through a court similar to "small claims court", where the initial decision is made if the (large corporation's) suit seems largely without merit. A typical example might be that the defendent exhibits the existence of clear prior art. In that case, the corporation from that point on has to disclose all expenditure on its legal council, etc., and pay matching funds to the defendent (e.g., small inventor) to enable him to have a fair trial.
The weak link here is the (possibly bribable) judge of this initial court, who seems to have too much power. Anyone got ideas how to fix that?
Applicants' submissions enjoy a presumption of patentability
This is stupid on so many levels. You want to fix a broken patent system which lets through hundreds of stupid patent by making them easier to slip through ? For heaven's sake, this issue shouldn't be treated like cream with sugar, it should be treated like the worst dictatorship, every and each submission should be presumed to be junk and only if validity could be proved, should it be allowed to be passed.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
this should end well.
Nothing is inexplicable; only unexplained -Tom Baker, Doctor Who
My company Dolcera (http://www.dolcera.com) participated in the pilot process for this USPTO service. We believe that we did a very thorough prior art search for each patent that was submitted - at least as good a search as the patent examiner would conduct. We believe that it's an excellent program and companies like ours can really help the patent system improve and improve quickly.
The patent office makes more than its operating costs from patent fees. Instead of lowering fees or hiring new examiners, the excess goes into the general fund. This announcement amplifies their existing position of taking no responsibility for the results of their examination. It is also an artifice to justify raising fees for accelerated processing, where "accelerated" is a euphemism for "more hasty and slipshod".
That's exactly what would happen. And that still wouldn't improve the current situation, either, because the burden of proof in a patent infringement suit would still remain with the defense. The root of the problem is that the courts think the USPTO is properly screening patent applications when it's really just a patent rubber-stamping machine.
And that's why invalidating the patent isn't enough.
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
"The feds tend to lock you up for that sort of shit"
I would like you to list one person ever put in jail for lying on a patent application. I mean, in the entire 230 year of the United States, name one person.
On the other hand, you said it very well, and with conviction, so I guess that's worth something.
...we patent nothing.
/. users !
At last, a system that achieves the dreams and desires of many
I, for one, welcome our new express patenting overlords.
They're no big deal if you're Joe Corporate with a school of sharks on retainer.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
#73401293458323 for a system of representing sounds using glpyhs, which we call an Alphabet(tm) has been granted. By my calculations, the posters in this thread owe a total of $87,043.51 in licensing fees. Please pay by check to: General Patent Enterprises, Inc. Attn: Patent Licensing Dept. 6123 West Covina Blvd, #3432, Newport Beach CA, 90232-1233. If payment is not received prior to June 1st, 2007, you can expect to hear from our legal team.
"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself - nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance."
Progress is often a process of creative destruction. When President Lincoln called the US "a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal," he meant a new kind of nation based on new principles that replaced the cherished principles of the past. The US founders included radical thinkers, such as Jefferson, but also conservatives, such as John Adams. But even the conservatives were conservative in a forward looking way. Adams didn't want to return to the days of the Stuarts, nor to the days of Cromwell, but hoped to create a new perfection of the English constitution.
The surest way to ensure national decline is to long sentimentally for some mythical past and obsess about how to stop the tides of change. All of us, conservative or liberal, are being dragged into a future that is neither precisely like the past nor remotely like we imagined it would be. We serve our values and principles better by recognizing we're brining them into a new arena.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
If you have a big enough patent portfolio and lots of patents people need then licensing brings in loads of cash year after year. And for absolutely no new work.
Now, I don't necessarily think this is a good thing, but hell, it's a major revenue stream for some companies.
that shouldn't have been issued in the first place?
This makes it way too easy to get a patent. Now you don't even have to search for prior art? That places an even greater burden on the patent office. Why should any examiner reject a patent now, if it means a great deal more work for him/her? If examiners are evaluated by number of patents they process, there will be a strong incentive to rubber stamp each and every application that comes in through this new system.
It's foolish to set up a system that is so badly skewed. It will result in more bad patents that are used to extort money from small businesses that can't afford to defend against bogus infringement claims. And since software patents seem to have become law without any bill authorizing them, it will mean it is even easier for companies like Microsoft to attack Open Source.
I don't oppose patents, but I believe that we need to be rigorous in how they are given out. Our government needs to remember that it's duty is not only to the multi-billion dollar corporations in this country, but to the individual citizens who will be affected financially by the cost of bad patent office decisions.
I'll support a fast track patent service once the USPTO can demonstrate that it's not giving out patents for glaringly obvious inventions simply because the patent was filed by a large corporation.
-All that is gold does not glitter - Tolkien
www.ra
Is a "loser-pay" court system. Just let the loser pay all the legal fees of both parties. I'm sure it'll have an impact on behavior when large corporations apply for patents.
This is a little off-topic, but it must be almost impossible for any patent office to attract enough people who are both intelligent enough and educated enough to wade through complex patent applications, particularly related to technology, and have any hope of understanding them to a sufficient degree to make intelligent decisions about them. Given that an organization like the patent office isn't exactly the top priority for a government that is sinking in debt while funding a war and tax cuts, they can't possibly be paying enough to attract a large number of highly skilled professionals with the breadth and depth of knowledge to address these patents. I guess this is why they are leaning towards peer review, but the person at the patent office still has to be sufficiently skilled to know if the "peer" review is accurate or BS. I don't envy the folks at the patent office.
Life needs more saving throws.
The posters in this thread can use the patent all they want because the damages calculations on each post would amount to 5 cents maybe and the filing fee plus attorney fees would exceed any practical reason for filing suit.
Find all related patents, find the best friggin 'embodiment' of sounds usings glyphs in the field. Rip the code out of the specification. Tell the patentee to send out the US marshalls to collect your 5 cent default judgement.
Its not a crime its a civil matter.
Don't wig out over patented code that Joe Blow uses for his Mom and Pop shop. Enforcement is statistically irrelevant.
Why don't you COMMIES go out and create something instead of BITCHING all the time.
Its probably because you are hesitant to do any real work in order to truly INNOVATE (drive economic growth) because you are compelled by doctrine to relinquish your work to the great cause, the all knowing FSF (AKA gobbledygook contract authors).
blog.uspto.gov
wiki.uspto.gov
uspto.slashdot.org
Outsource the process to Verisign.
A pity this isn't a big enough issue for the general public, or else you'd see this political cartoon for it:
A desk stands in an otherwise bare office. The desk is labeled USPTO. No one sits behind the desk. On the desk, a sign reads "SELF-SERVICE". Also present is a rubber stamp and pad. The bottom of the stamp is visible and reads (in mirror-image of course) "APPROVED".
A nearby wastebasket is labeled "Prior-Art File". A stone wheel is in it.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
There isn't really any motivation for the applicant to want fast action on a patent. The patent duration runs from the grant date, so that it is usually in the applicants interest to delay the issuance. There are a lot of rules to try to prevent that, to little effect. In some cases rivals may start selling infringing product before a patent is granted, but that isn't the usual case.
From the applicants point of view, this new procedure is valuable if there is prior art, and the applicant is afraid the examiner might locate it. Of course the applicant has to swear not to be aware of the prior art, but that is a subjective matter, and unlikely to be enforced rigorously. If the applicant is worried, he can have the patent attorney do the search, and not communicate specifics of the findings, only the recommendation.
The USPTO should be using an expert system to file patents instead of free-form write it out in obscure terms system that exists today.
This would allow for much easier searching, simplify the patent application process and make auditing a breeze. Do it like a branching survey. Pick your category and go from there. Sure allow some free-form explanation of why your patent doesn't quite fit into one of the available categories, after you have supplied a new category name that then becomes available to everyone else as an option. Some parts will still be unstructured but will be categorized first with a couple of good data points.
So USPTO rep? I know you're reading this (you're obviously not reviewing patent applications)... why not?
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
And if there is undisclosed prior art that you knew about, you go to jail for perjury.
"Hi. I'm here to apply for a patent.
The scope of the invention is using the computational power of many inexpensive computers to create a system capable of high-performance computation via distribution of a task amongst the individual computers.
We call this technology Beowulf.
There is no prior art."
So the consequences of undisclosed prior art need to be much more severe.
I'd suggest penalties such as a fine at least as large as any profits made on this invalid patent, plus punitive damages if the courts find that the prior art was willfully withheld. I'd like to see that kind of balancing penalty on any 'white collar crime' that currently has penalties smaller than the profit made through misdeeds.
Please pay by check to: General Patent Enterprises, Inc. Attn: Patent Licensing Dept. 6123 West Covina Blvd, #3432, Newport Beach CA, 90232-1233. If payment is not received prior to June 1st, 2007, you can expect to hear from our legal team.
How would they address the envelope without violating your patent?
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.
Your patent only applies if I sound out the letters. You'll have to tap my webcam to see if my lips are moving as I type.
"Applicants are also responsible for disclosing any prior art". Hmm. If you enclose prior art, it wouldn't be eligible for a patent now, would it? And the lawyer-candy patent mine field grows and grows. Aren't there any "honest" lawyers that could tell the PTO that the system is flawed? Oh wait, that's pretty stupid question. We all need to put bread on the table... How does one sleep at night?
Methinks you've not been paying attention. Not only is the court system backlogged, it starts right at the top with time limits and all manner of restrictions on what it will hear, regardless of applicability. The court system has been broken for years. Just like the rest of the system, only a bit worse. You can see it in decisions (pot grown in California for use in California is an "interstate commerce" matter, "make no law" means "make some law", "shall not be infringed" means "we can infringe this way", "no ex post facto law" means "unless we want to", etc.) You can see it in the war on personal choice (misnamed the war on drugs by the mommy-police); you can see it in the blithe ignorance of the president's violation of his oath, you can see it in the fact that judges are allowed to fall asleep at the bench and get away with it without it even having any effect on the decisions made that session. And of course, with regard to patents, the fact that software patents have not been thrown out en masse is one of the most telling measure of judicial incompetence of all.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.