Behind the USPTO's Working With Peer-To-Patent

Down-with-the-patents writes "As this community discussed earlier, the US Patent and Trademark Office is collaborating with the Peer-to-Patent program to stop bad patents from issuing. Brigid Quinn, spokesperson for the USPTO, explains the motivation of the USPTO to open up to the public what has been a behind-closed-doors process. Groklaw's Pamela Jones notes that 'when it comes to software, there is more knowledge outside of USPTO than inside it.' While some of Jones's readers are staying away from the pilot program, hoping that the patent system will just collapse of its own weight, Jones says that's a goal she understands but doesn't view as realistic. The project seems to be doing pretty well with over 1,000 active participants, and plans to replicate it in other patent offices starting with the UK next year." Slashdot and Linux.com toil for the same corporate overlord.

Comments

Oh, the humanity!

[Anonymous Coward]

Groklaw's Pamela Jones notes that 'when it comes to software, there is more knowledge outside of USPTO than inside it.' While some of Jones's readers are staying away from the pilot program, hoping that the patent system will just collapse of its own weight...

I think it's pretty safe to say that there's plenty more knowledge inside the USPTO than there is in the collective brains of Groklaw's readers. When the patent office runs low on nasty nicknames for obscure tech journalists, though, the screeching baboons at Groklaw will be missed.

Re:Oh, the humanity!

[jmcmillan757]

Laura Didio a journalist? Now that's funny!

Admitting the Problem

[moore.dustin]

Well regardless of the outcome of the program, at least the admitted the issue as being true. People know more about software that are not directly affiliated with the USPTO. Knowing and admitting that this is true is a significant step in the process of fixing the system. Seeing that the door is open, regardless of how wide, is a good sign that things may be able to worked out with technology and all other patents alike.

Re:Admitting the Problem

[Paul Pierce]

Well regardless of the outcome of the program, at least they admitted the issue as being true. Very true.

You think this would be simple, yet its amazing how many people wouldn't want to admit this and then move on.

Re:Admitting the Problem

[aurispector]

Heh. I know a few folks that work for the patent office. Wonderful, intelligent folks tasked with the impossible, who also have no control over the politics of policy.

Re:Admitting the Problem

[swright]

hehe, that description just says 'sysadmin' to me ;)

I love my sysadmin (hi Rob!), worth his weight in gold!

Re:Admitting the Problem

[e4g4]

Indeed - as oft as we slashdot folk tend to berate the USPTO's idiocy, you've got to remember the most famous employee of the USPTO - Albert Einstein. Admittedly, he didn't achieve worldwide renown until well after he'd left, but nevertheless even Einstein, as brilliant as he was, had no traceable impact on the way the USPTO functioned.

As I see it, a large part of the problem with the USPTO is the perception that "I can patent anything - even a perpetual motion machine!" - which in turn yields an enormous number of garbage patent applications. If we were (somehow) able to change that perception, the number of bogus patent applications would most certainly go down, and thereby decrease the number of bogus patents that are actually awarded. Essentially, there are two ways to proceed - reduce the number of patent applications, or increase the number of reviewers. Since almost everyone on the planet who is confronted with an absurdly large workload and an unreasonable quota will take whatever shortcut is necessary to guarantee that they get their paycheck, at the very least, we must reduce the load of applications that is layed on the examiners.

Admittedly, there's a bit of a chicken and the egg issue, but nevertheless - I think the solution to our horrible patent problem is to give the USPTO a better image. If we can create the perception that a patent is hard to get, and that one must create something that is truly unique in order to get a patent, the number of patent applications will undoubtedly decline, and with it, the number of stupid, trivial patents.

Re:Admitting the Problem

[MadUndergrad]

Albert Einstein didn't work at the United States Patent and Trademark Office. He wasn't in America at that time.

Re:Admitting the Problem

[Bigjeff5]

Sooo... do you actually know anything about Einstein? If you did, you'd know he was incredibly socially awkward, as many people with a mind like his were. He was pretty much the type of person I would never expect to see revolutionising any organization, particularly a government organization. Plus there's also the fact that I'm pretty sure Einstein never worked for the USPTO. Where the heck did that come from? If he did he'd probably get stuck in the mailroom or something. I don't know if you know this, but the USPTO deals with PATENTS and TRADEMARKS. Einstein was a theoretical physicist. Not really a whole lot to patent as a theoretical physicist. Only a device that employed someone's theoretical physics would be patented, and that's not what Einstein did. You know, the more I think about this, the more I'm stuck on where the crap this came from. That's just odd.

Re:Admitting the Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Learn some history, before he was so well known he worked as a patent clerk. In Switzerland I believe.

Re:Admitting the Problem

[MTocci]

He didn't work for the USPTO, but he did work for the Swiss Patent office before getting his landmark papers published in 1905. He didn't write patents, he was a patent examiner.

Re:Admitting the Problem

[TapeCutter]

"...do you actually know anything about Einstein? If you did, you'd know he was incredibly socially awkward, as many people with a mind like his were."

I have read two biographies on Albert, he was a tad eccentric but was far from "socially awkward" as demonstrated by this speech he gave before he left Germany.

"I'm pretty sure Einstein never worked for the USPTO"

Correct, he worked as a clerk for the Swiss patent office in 1904, roughly 30yrs before he came to the US. While at the Swiss patent office he reportedly had trouble understanding "double-entry" bookeeping but it's more likely the PHB who tried to explain it to him was the one having trouble.

Re:Admitting the Problem

[Daniel Phillips]

Heh. I know a few folks that work for the patent office. Wonderful, intelligent folks tasked with the impossible, who also have no control over the politics of policy. Do they feel the slightest bit guilty for the part they play in the cynical intellectual property land grab?

Re:Admitting the Problem

[Varun Soundararajan]

Someone should patent the way(process) of patents approval. (Patent the process of patenting an idea) and then sue USPTO (I know this is not possible, but take this like the latest fantasy movie).

  That day, hopefully, the people @ patents office will understand the pain of useless patents, where one guy patents Linked List and another patents FOR LOOPS. Atleast after that, there should be some step towards agreement as to what is patentable and what not.

--
if(comment_retard_quality > RETARD_LIMIT) return noSig;

I predict the patent system will collapse...

[Anonymous Coward]

...by the time Linux takes over the desktop.

I predict by the time Linux takes over the desktop

[Volante3192]

...Microsoft's lawyers will have magically found what those 235 patents actually are.

Not trying to be a grammar nazi (I promise)

[mooingyak]

From the summary:

The project seems to be doing pretty well with over 1,000 active participants, and plans to replicate it in other patent offices starting with the UK next year.

I'm having some trouble deciphering this. Should there be a "there are" between the words 'and' and 'plans'?

I'm not asking to be a PITA, I just want to make sure I understand it correctly.

Re:Not trying to be a grammar nazi (I promise)

[insanecarbonbasedlif]

From the summary:

The project seems to be doing pretty well with over 1,000 active participants, and plans to replicate it in other patent offices starting with the UK next year.

I'm having some trouble deciphering this. Should there be a "there are" between the words 'and' and 'plans'? No other words are needed. Read it more like this:

The project seems to be doing pretty well with over 1,000 active participants. and

The project seems to be doing pretty well with plans to replicate it in other patent offices starting with the UK next year. Hope that helps.

Re:Not trying to be a grammar nazi (I promise)

[Anonymous Coward]

Parse as so:

Subject: "the project" (an entity)
Predicate: "plans to replicate"

Re:Not trying to be a grammar nazi (I promise)

[smallfries]

More worryingly than that - why start a program designed to cut down on bad software patents in the UK. Software patents aren't legal over here...

Re:Admitting (part of) the Problem

[Biff Stu]

when it comes to software, there is more knowledge outside of USPTO than inside it.

I think that this problem extends beyond the realm of software.

Gaming public review

[mjr1007]

Wouldn't clever devils who want to use the technology in a particular patent application just say it's not patent worthy. This seems like a really bad idea. It's just changed where the fighting takes place, it fixes nothing.

Re:Gaming public review

[e4g4]

A cursory examination of the site (peertopatent.org) gives me the impression that in order to give objections to a given patent any credence, one must in fact provide proof (i.e. a link to a previous patent, or to a peer-reviewed article). Admittedly, this has its own limitations, but nevertheless, my (admittedly brief) examination of the site gave me the impression that even in the free-for-all discussion section, the contributions are well thought out and well supported.

This can certainly be explained by the (very) small population of contributors, but at the same time I think trolls would be easily identifiable and just as easily disregarded. Since the prior art that is actually evaluated by the USPTO is determined by the community (I believe they submit the top 10 highest rated prior art examples to the patent office), I believe that there is a sufficient corrective force in the community based system to prevent people with profit-driven agendas from significantly changing the judgement of a patent.

Re:Gaming public review

[PPH]

I think those 'clever devils' would have to justify their position quite rigorously. Prior art would have to be cited with proper references to existing documentation. Claims that some solution was obvious to a practitioner would have to be demonstrated.

Re:Gaming public review

[mjr1007]

It's interesting that you opinion from a cursory examination of the site and the opinion of a participant are diametrically opposed. His complaint was about automatically not liking the proposal.

Both of you raise good points though on how to avoid the problem. It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out.

The valid patents are worst

[BlueParrot]

Of course this doesn't help at all because the patents that can cause the most trouble are the valid ones. Under current law you could easily get a valid patent on a media encoding format as an example, and suddenly the free software community is banned from implementing it. This is why mp3s cause problems. Prior art can't fix this problem, only a change in legislation can.

Re:The valid patents are worst

[mikera]

This is exactly the reason that I think the peer-to-patent project does more harm than good.

It is effectively strengthening and legitimising the (extremely bad) current legislation.

A far better use of the volunteer effort would be in political campaigning to scrap the whole concept of patents for software.

First off..

[Anonymous Coward]

How exactly does Groklaw work, and why would I want to grow claws? Also, are those Zoidberg's claws on the website banner?

Any Truth Microsoft Update Caused SKYPE failure?

[NYCPaul]

Heard a comment while walking the streets here in NYC that people who downloaded a Microsoft update today cannot log on to SKYPE.

Build and Generate Revenue to get a full patent.

[Runesabre]

White paper design proposals should only be given limited patent protection with the requirement of a fully functional, revenuing generating implementation completed within a limited time frame before being granted full patent rights, protection and legal authority to sue for infringement. That would eliminate the patent trolls.

Trivial/obvious patents are a bit more difficult since many things seem obvious or trivial after the fact.

Some ideas to avoid patent misuse

[thePig]

I mentioned some in my earlier post http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=267689&cid=202 12953.
Just some thoughts.

1. Cost of patenting based on the wealth of the patentee. This should help the small garage inventor + actual real good innovations. Patent trolling will be less effective.
2. Patent to be supported by product within a period of 3 years. It is the responsibility of the patent holder to provide proof that a product that was created by his patent has been made after 3 years. This product has to be a) made by the patent holder or b) the patent holder has given license to the company which creates it. Otherwise the patent lapses. This would again take care of the patent trolls + help actual good inventions
3. The cost of patent to be borne across the years. Every 5 years the patent has be re-issued with quite a high fee (again based on the wealth of patentee). This means that only good useful products are under patent for the complete duration of the patent. This again will support the basic idea of patenting, i.e. really good useful ideas not to be kept under wraps, and not the small ideas.

I guess these ideas should help modify the patent system so that
a) Patent office gets more money which means more people, which means better results
b) Small guy inventor is supported
c) Real good ideas can be patented for the whole duration
d) Company still can work freely without struggling with frivolous patents, while producing real good products under patents themselves.

Re:Some ideas to avoid patent misuse

[mjr1007]

No discussion of U.S. patents should start without first looking at the constitution, Article I Section 8 Clause 8

"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"

It's interesting to note that initially Jefferson thought it was a really bad idea to give out a monopoly. He should have gone with his first thought.

There are other ways of promoting the progress of science and the useful arts then granting a monopoly. The most obvious being granting ownership of the idea but requiring the owner license it to any and all.

A simple 10% fee on all goods which can then be split between all IP holder for the item would eliminate the risk to those producing goods. An arbitration board could decide the value of each patent but it would not effect those producing the goods. Once the patent runs out the government would get the money.

Only goods with patents are protected. So if a company comes up with a new protocol and tries to keep it a trade secret by the license it would have no protection and could be reverse engineered for free, no matter what the license may say. The law always trumps private contracts.

Valid patent applications should be free. On the other hand invalid ones should cost. The scale should be sliding so the more obvious, the more overly broad or just plain ridiculous the application the higher the fee. Also there should be higher fees for repeat offenders.

It is believed that this will encourage progress without getting in the way of competition. The point here is that progress and production are not the same thing and should not be conflated.

The problems with Peer-To-Patent

[RegularFry]

I say this as someone who's actually signed up and participated in a patent discussion, so this isn't just uninformed waffle.

There are two problems that I've identified with the process so far. The first is that the examiner who's assigned to the patent doesn't seem to take part in the discussions around the patent. That would be extremely valuable to keep discussions on track, so that we as a community can help find more relevant material. A lot of discussion that I've seen starts off with "I've read the abstract, I don't like the idea, here's why" without actually producing anything of value in terms of admissible prior art, or evidence of non-obviousness. That starting point is almost completely useless - it's just noise, especially if the points raised are easily countered simply by reading the first couple of claims. If there were more dialogue visible (especially with an examiner at the wheel), I believe that would happen less. This brings me to the second problem.

There just aren't enough people taking part. We need more people. The range of the patents being discussed is really quite broad. A population of 1000+ just doesn't have enough people in it to guarantee that someone with a deep understanding of the area of each patent is going to be present. However, I think that this is caused by how few patents are actually in the system. People arrive, hearing about the project from articles such as this, see that none of the patents particularly interest them, and leave. It doesn't help that the sign-up process is tricky to navigate. I hope that this will change over time as more patents are added into the system, but the risk is that in the intervening period the project will be seen as not being effective and will be canned. That would be a crying shame - it has the potential to make a real difference.

Re:Any Truth Microsoft Update Caused SKYPE failure

[Shag]

Although there are some Microsoft updates out for stuff I've got on my MacBook, I haven't downloaded them, and my Mac Skype has been acting up. I think I'll trust Skype's own statements to the effect that there's a glitch in some algorithm on their back-end.

double, double, toil and trouble

[Speare]

Slashdot and Linux.com toil for the same corporate overlord.

I read that first as Slashdot and Linux.com troll for the same corporate overlord. Whups.

Not either/or

[stites]

"A far better use of the volunteer effort would be in political campaigning to scrap the whole concept of patents for software."

I agree and I have been putting my efforts into lobbying to abolish software patents. However, I do not see this as an all or nothing issue. Solutions which only partially solve the software patent problem are also useful and it is not illogical to participate in more than one. One example of a person working on multiple solutions simultaneously is Richard Stallman. Richard Stallman advocates abolishing software patents. He also has worked on putting anti-software patent clauses into GPLv3 even though these clauses would not be necessary if software patents were abolished. So I see nothing inconsistant with Pamela Jones both supporting abolishing software patents and promoting the peer-to-patent project.

---------------
Steve Stites

Re:Any Truth Microsoft Update Caused SKYPE failure

[NYCPaul]

Looks like Microsoft's Update did cause the SKYPE failure. The question is whether Microsoft knew that it's update would effect peer to peer. Was Microsoft flexing its muscle as my contact said they were.