US Patent Office Fast Tracks Green Patents

eldavojohn writes "A new initiative is being piloted where 'green' patents are given special priority over other patents in the backlogged system. David Kappos (Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO) said, 'Every day an important green tech innovation is hindered from coming to market is another day we harm our planet and another day lost in creating green businesses and green jobs. Applications in this pilot program will see a significant savings in pendency, which will help bring green innovations to market more quickly.' The details of how you qualify for a green patent (PDF) are available with patent blogs offering opinions on this initiative."

Comments

Hmm, seems a little weird.

[FooAtWFU]

Seems a trifle off. Something about "equal protection under the law" and not having the institution too subject to the whims of the ruling party and the lobbyists of the week.

Re:Hmm, seems a little weird.

[MakinBacon]

What are you talking about?. This is perfectly normal. The Patent Office is just fulfilling its duties of stifling innovation by granting patents for the most obvious of technologies. They know they've gotten a little behind on green technology because companies are starting to make serious advancements, so they're giving green patents a higher priority to make up for lost time.

So, if it's like software/internet patents --

[weston]

-- you know, the ones where you can say "a method for conveying stateful customer information ON THE INTERNET -- then pretty much all I'll need to contribute to the progress of the useful arts and sciences and, more to the point, amass a formidable patent portfolio, is add USING SOLAR POWER.

I've already applied for the business method patent, but reasonable licensing is available!

Re:So, if it's like software/internet patents --

[Interoperable]

Every patent will point out that it consumes less energy than it theoretically could have if it had been poorly engineered. It's...greener than the alternative...I guess.

Faster algorithms will qualify. Just tabulate the total energy saved in data centers that will use your green algorithm. New, large hats might reflect more visible sunlight back to space. New oil extraction methods will more efficiently deliver fossil fuels to gas tanks (thereby lowering the price point and generating more emissions), a new method of writing patents can will green-wash them so they generate less paper work in the streamlined process. All will qualify! (Except that the meta-green patent is a methods patent and wouldn't qualify anyway.)

There's going to be difficulty...

[Interoperable]

sorting out truly green patent applications from ones that have green-washed the terminology. I suspect it will do more to promote the, already abused, usage of the term green than actual environmentally friendly initiatives. Still, promoting less wasteful technology is by no means a bad thing, whatever the motive. Even if the initiative fails to promote green inventions (not that I'm saying it will, just that it will be ambiguous to determine), the ideal of efficiency and conservation will be promoted in the public eye.

Re:There's going to be difficulty...

[phantomfive]

It doesn't matter. It is merely a political move by this guy to make his boss (or boss's boss) happy.

The fact is, this move will do nothing to increase the speed of technology, because technology in no way depends on the patent system. You don't have to wait for a patent to be processed before you can actually build and market your product. You don't even have to wait to charge royalties until the patent is approved. This new policy will accomplish nothing.

Re:There's going to be difficulty...

[chaboud]

What it does do is solidify the positions of green IP holders looking to screw companies in less advanced nations by taking their cut of (or limiting production of) the "green" products that will be required to play in the newly-legally-mandated global green economy.

I know it sounds all tin-foil-hat-y, but the prospect that CO2 policy could be used to keep richer nations dominant via IP has been haunting me for some time. If US/Euro companies get their cut of the green economy mandated by their own governments without actually having to produce anything, it could artificially screw with otherwise normal factor-price equalization.

Re:There's going to be difficulty...

[Znork]

Ah, don't worry, IP is mostly used to screw richer nations, and is one of the reasons that western industry is so incapable of competing these days. From a macroeconomic point of view it's the equivalent of a heavy taxation scheme, and a very inefficient one at that, leading to higher costs in industry and workforce and rendering it uncompetitive. It'd be almost amusing to see complaints about high taxes and inefficient government while getting reamed by IP if it just wasn't so sad.

The less advanced nations aren't likely to get screwed as badly as they're simply not the low hanging fruit for extortion, especially as long as they don't agree to any significant expansions of IP schemes. Still, for the less savoury parts of some economies, branching out from 419 scams to the nearby patent field might not be a bad idea.

Uhhh

[moosesocks]

"Every day an important green tech innovation is hindered from coming to market is another day we harm our planet and another day lost in creating green businesses and green jobs. Applications in this pilot program will see a significant savings in pendency, which will help bring green innovations to market more quickly."

I'd consider myself a reasonably strong environmentalist, but cannot for the life of me comprehend that quote. Aren't products released to market all the time with a "Patent Pending" status? Wouldn't environmentalism benefit from weaker patents surrounding green tech?

The same logic has been applied to drug patents, which only last 7-12 years in the US, purportedly to widen availability of generic drugs, as well as to keep the industry on its toes. (As the law of unintended consequences goes, this makes non-generics outlandishly expensive, and makes pharma a very high-risk industry, given the incredibly high R&D costs of developing/testing new drugs)

Re:Uhhh

[moosesocks]

That is the biggest question, and the answer is a resounding yes.

Then it's not much of a question, is it?

Even though I agree with you on a basic level, I'm not sure I agree with the principle. Without patents, what drives innovation to produce the newest and greatest green FOO? The R&D expenses for some of this stuff can be quite high.

(Also, how many lights do you have that CFLs are a cost-prohibitive option? I replace them one by one as they burn out. A 3-pack of good-quality CFLs costs about $6 at Wal-Mart. Still about 3x the cost of the same number of incandescents, although the CFLs last a lot longer, and use sufficiently less energy to pay for themselves over their lifetime)

Re:Uhhh

[scdeimos]

A 3-pack of good-quality CFLs costs about $6 at Wal-Mart. Still about 3x the cost of the same number of incandescents, although the CFLs last a lot longer, and use sufficiently less energy to pay for themselves over their lifetime

As good little consumers I know that's what we're supposed to think, but:

1. my experience has shown that CCFL's need replacing much more frequently than incandescents ever did.

2. they only consume less energy if they're left on for long periods (> 30 mins or so) as they have quite high start-up currents until they come up to operating temperature (1-5 minutes).

3. they output much higher levels of UV than incandescents, aggravating some skin conditions and causing retinal damage with some people.

4. they also contain hazardous chemicals such as mercury, complicating their disposal - our local city council has no *legal* means of CFL disposal yet, with most people just throwing them in with the regular refuse.

I think that our (Australian) federal government having "phased out" incandescent bulbs is a premature action. I'd rather see LED lighting get traction but, again, hazardous chemicals.

Re:Uhhh

[Shakrai]

A 3-pack of good-quality CFLs costs about $6 at Wal-Mart.

I'm going to rant here....

The delay in reaching full brightness irks me to no end with CFLs. It's not a big deal when you are talking about a room where you turn the light on and leave it on for several hours (my living room) but it drives me up the fucking wall when you consider rooms that you breeze in and out of (the bathroom, closets, etc.). By the time the damn things reach a decent level of light output you've already moved on to the next household chore.

Then there's the Hg content. I wonder how much mercury is going to enter the environment as a result of improperly disposed-of and/or broken CFLs? It also bothers me that I can't find a single CFL made in America. They all come from China. I can still buy incandescent bulbs made in America. In a few years I won't even be able to do that -- Congress can't find the political will to balance the budget but they can tell me what kind of light bulbs I can buy? WTF?

Re:The Law of Un-Intended Consquences

[moosesocks]

The patent process for pharmaceuticals is (very) different from the regular process. In the US, drug patents are usually applied for and granted 8-12 years before the drug is brought to market, and even a few years before human trials begin.

Purported "HIV wonder drugs" sadly seem to be about as commonplace as perpetual motion devices these days.

Re:The Law of Un-Intended Consquences

[DustyShadow]

Saving lives is far from "green."

Overkill

[ShakaUVM]

Looking around my hotel room here, there's no less than:
Green shampoo and conditioner
Green shampoo bottles (made from corn!)
Green soap (no soap in the middle of the bar - less waste!)
Green soap box (it's brown! it must be good for the enviroment!)
Save the environment sign with a panda bear, telling me to reuse my towels. (If you don't, the panda will eat you?)
Another sign explaining just how green the green soap is (and the green soap is actually branded "Green Natura"), including the use of soy products for the ink.
Green facial soap.
Sign telling me not to smoke unless I can breathe backwards.
Sign by my bed, telling me I need to place it on the bed if I want my sheets changed.

My fucking lord - you want MORE green products? Where will they go?

Re:Overkill

[Shakrai]

you've ot to admit that at some point we're going to grow beyond what fossil fuels in of themselves are capable of providing.

We've had the technology to displace fossil fuels since the 50s. We just moved away from it because of a handful of loud NIMBYists/greenpeace'ers and a whole lot of FUD.

Amazon

[Anonymous Coward]

Patents "Green One-Click Checkout"

Politicizing the patent office

[doug141]

More suggestions:
*fastrack patents that "help the poor"
*fastrack patents that will "create jobs"

This is just to broaden options for repaying campaign contributions.

Bubble

[Citizen of Earth]

Green-tech: the next big stock-market bubble. Just remember to bail out when the feeding frenzy starts to feed on itself.

Re:The Law of Un-Intended Consquences

[baboo_jackal]

*That* however, is very green.

Patents do NOT on balance encourage innovation

[Mostly a lurker]

Say, you have an idea for improving the efficiency of solar panels. Commercializing it will cost many millions of dollars, but there is a healthy expanding market. Why not? Well, if there are several patents held by other organizations on inferior solar panels, but including necessary aspects of your better design, this severely restricts future profits from sale of the improved panels, and the viability of development.

Unfortunately, this is not just theoretical. It is the what happens time and time again. Often, the obvious aspects of some technology get patented early which makes it uneconomic to do the necessary optimization of the process for a decade or more.