Patent Chief Decries Continued Downward Spiral of Patent Quality

Techdirt is reporting that Jon Dudas, head of the US Patent Office, is lamenting the continuing quality drop in patent submissions. Unfortunately, while this problem is finally getting the attention it deserves, the changes being implemented don't seem to be offering the correct solution. "When you set up a system that rewards people for not actually innovating in the market (but just speculating on paper), then of course, you're going to get more of that activity. When you set up a system that rewards those people to massive levels, well out of proportion with their contribution to any product, then of course you're going to get more of that activity. When you set up a system that gives people a full monopoly right that can be used to set up a toll booth on the natural path of innovation, then of course you're going to get more of that activity. When the cost of getting a patent is so much smaller than the potential payoff of suing others with it, then of course you're going to get more of that activity. The fact that Dudas is just noticing this now, while still pushing for changes that will make the problem worse, is a real problem. Patents were only supposed to be used in special cases. The fact that they've become the norm, rather than the exception, is a problem, and it doesn't seem like anyone is seriously looking into fixing that."

Comments

Also, dudas, 'chinaman' is not the preferred ...

[eldavojohn]

from the dudas-just-wants-his-rug-back dept. He doesn't want it back, he wants it replaced. He still has the original but it has Asian-American urine all over it which is too bad because that rug really tied the room together.

Why allow corporations to own patents?

[MisterSquirrel]

Not only is innovation stifled, but it serves to further concentrate wealth, and the power over future wealth, into the hands of fewer and bigger corporations. How about we change it so that only an individual can hold the rights to a patent, without allowing the benefits to accrue to the employer of that individual? And that individual must be the actual creator of the patented idea in question?

Re:Why allow corporations to own patents?

[Anonymous Coward]

By limiting patents to individuals it doesn't necessarily follow that society benefits. Even with non-transferrable patents individuals could still file specious, absurd and obvious patents on things like software and mathematical formulas under that system.

It would also simply concentrate patents into the hands of wealthy individuals. As someone who's reasonably well educated and creative I have happened upon at least three or four ideas in my life that are worth a patent. Not silly stuff, I mean solid ideas with practical industrial benefit. Of course I cannot afford the $10,000+ to patent such ideas, and since publishing is no longer a protection against having these ideas misappropriated by persons in the USA I choose to keep them to myself. Those ideas will probably be thought of by someone else soon enough, I am nothing special, but for the time being they stay in my mind and may die with me. I have no desire to make money from them, but I cannot publish if I want the legitimate currency of recognition, nor can I patent them because it's not affordable. Does this sound like a system that is working to the benefit of mankind in promoting the arts and sciences?

After 10 or 15 years of following this subject I have reached the conclusion that patents are profoundly anti-science, beyond reform and there is no course of action left but their complete abolition. The same is possibly true of intellectual property generally, but there are certain aspects that might still be rescued and turned to the benefit of humanity.

If things carry on the way the are there will be a de facto abolition of patents anyway. WIPO will cease to be legitimately recognised as it loses credibility backing an unconsciable and broken process. The world will fragment (more than it is already) into camps which do not recognise one anothers intellectual property claims and trade agreements will collapse. We already have the situation where US and European companies cannot trade in each others respective territories. Like the RIAA/MPAA many IP organisations are unwilling to adapt, they are playing for broke and will ultimately lose the farm. Ultimately internet publication with verifiable timestamped accountability brought about by extensive traffic logging will replace all IP claims and the old institutions, but for those of us with ideas who are caught in this transition period it's not a happy state of affairs and I suspect many valuable ideas are simply being lost or held back.

Re:Why allow corporations to own patents?

[Anonymous Coward]

I like your idea. It seems as though engineers get zero to little for patenting an idea while their company accrues all of the benefits of the patent. (e.g., here is $200 dollars for the rights to your patent!) However, companies do take on the risk that the patent will be worthless and pay for the patent prosecution costs -- they also provide much of the resources for the engineers to be able to come up with the ideas. Also, patents are a form of property and it would not be good for individual inventors to not be able to sell patents to companies ... who would buy and in most cases enforce them? Perhaps the ultimate (but perhaps very rare) best solution would be a corporate policy that allows their engineers to negotiate a percentage of any future revenue generated with the patent ... although this may lead to issues with determining the value of the patent especially when placed in a massive portfolio (e.g., IBM -- is any single patent of theirs worth anything -- or is it the entire portfolio of patents that is worth something as a whole ...)

However, in the United States, the inventor must be listed on the patent as the inventor. If they are not, or if someone else is listed on the patent as an inventor (and they are not an inventor) then the patent is invalid.

[Aside: There is case law on what constitutes an inventor -- the basic concept is someone who actually came up with the patentable portions of the idea ... not someone who simply implemented the idea.]

really? what a surprise

[thermian]

it doesn't seem like anyone is seriously looking into fixing that

Well, when the benefits of owning dodgy patents can be into the tens of millions, it would be well worth sinking a few million into the right peoples pockets to make sure no change goes unchallanged.

All the while keeping any revision of the system on hold long enough for the rest of the world to overtake the US.

Yeah, there are places in the world where innovate is still a word with a real and exciting meaning, not just a tired and overused technology business buzzword. I do wish this would be realised by the people who are in a position to change this bizarre patent mess.

Re:Patent fees?

[Corpuscavernosa]

Perhaps we could implement a fee structure where small inventors pay less than large corporations that can afford more

Already done. Usually about half price for the little guys.

Overlooking Economic barriers

[Bombula]

It's fine to condemn frivolous patent trolling, but one important part of the reality is that it is often enormously expensive to implement a genuinely innovative idea. Innovation therefore only goes into production when huge sums of money support the organization behind it, and this is profoundly stifling of individual invention and creativity. Individuals with good ideas often cannot realize any rewards for their ideas except through patenting and litigation, since it is notoriously difficult for a individual inventor or innovator to secure a licensing agreement with a producer ahead of the fact. In absence of that option, post-facto licensing in the form of patent lawsuits is the only alternative. It sucks, but that's the way it is. If large companies were more willing to honestly license good ideas rather than attempt to circvumvent them or win wars of attrition against individuals through protracted litigation, there would be far less need of patent trolling.