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

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.