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."
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.
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.
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 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!!!!
Yup. Just what a patent system overburdened with patent applications of dubious quality needs -- an express lane.
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.