Slashdot Mirror
USPTO Asking For Ideas To Enhance Patent Quality
dtmos writes "Tired of seeing poor-quality patents issued? Have a great way to solve the problem? Well, here's your chance to be part of the solution. The USPTO has issued a Request for Comments on Enhancement in the Quality of Patents (PDF), seeking public comment on ways to improve 'the process for obtaining the best prior art, preparation of the initial application, and examination and prosecution of the application.' Comments should be sent to patent_quality_comments@uspto.gov by February 8, 2010."
Farenheit 451 is what patents need by now. Or the civilization, because one will end burning the other to the roots, you choose.
...on issuing low-quality patents. The USPTO owes me millions.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
What if they borrow a practice from academia, and require that a literature review be submitted with each patent application.
If the review contains prior art the patent is rejected (or perhaps never filed to begin with),
if the examiner finds the review incomplete the patent is rejected,
if the examiner finds misrepresentations in the review the patent is rejected and the submitter may be prosecuted for fraud.
I think Innovation and Its Discontents: How Our Broken Patent System is Endangering Innovation and Progress, and What to Do About It is a good book on the patent system and its problems.
Hold on, I've got a perfect solution but I need to patent it first.
Next time you complain that something is bad in the world remember that :P Most problems are caused by people wanting quick money without consideration for long term value.
I am just this was a joke post, but just pointing the obvious out :D
1. Allow patents only physical products and or software binaries providing create defined interfaces.
2. Ask proof of a working prototype within 12 months of filling
3. Submit application to public scrutiny
- Reward individuals that debunk innovationless patents
- Penalize applicants that submit innovationless patents
That would be a step in the right direction
...patent your idea on improving patents.
Place all patent applications on the web and ask for comments.
But first, I wish to patent the spam/bullshit/troll/sandbag filter, which you will need to weed the valid comments from the noise.
I did a project on this awhile ago (such that I'm probably forgetting much), but one of the big problem points with patents that I remember is the shift from 'product' patents vs. 'process' patents. A product patent is a patent on the final end result: a physical thing, a product. A 'process' patent on the other hand is a patent on how you made that thing, all the steps that went into it. The great thing about process patents is that anybody can make the thing itself, it's only the process that you took to getting there that are patented. So if you're making a thingamabob using some costly, inefficient method and I come along with a cheaper, more efficient method then I'm in the clear because you only have a patent on your specific process. The idea behind this is that this spurs innovation and brings down costs because there's competition. With product patents however, you get no such competition because the thing itself is owned and patented by a single entity. So no matter what kinds of methods you come up with, the original patenter still owns the thing and you can't make it.
Where this comes in to play nowadays is with drugs and medicines. Mostly it hurts poor African countries in desperate need of these medicines, but who can't afford to pay out the ass for it and they can't get it from anywhere else because, surprise, pharma companies have patents on the drugs themselves and nobody else can produce them (even if they could make them cheaper).
Also, there's something wrong with patent laws when you can start patenting genetic code. I'm just sayin'.
I think it would help a lot if the USPTO would contact authors of the patents and papers listed in the "prior art" section and ask for their input. The problem the patent officers seem to have is that they are clueless as to what is obvious to a practitioner of a specific domain. Well, those prior art links usually give you a set of pointers to some people who are specialists in the area. They're precisely the ones you might want to consult and who might have an interest in patents in that area. Unfortunately, with the broken legal system around patents, no inventor will want to look at patent filings because it would open 'em up to treble damages down the road if the patents go through. Sigh.
Here is something that I have learned from 3 years of being involved as one of inventors on a pending patent:
Usefulness or even realism of the invention is not taken into account when granting a patent. The most important aspect is how your work relates to any "prior art." Now this would be half bad if the patent inspectors actually had a clue about the science/engineering they were evaluating (I've spent the last year filing multiple petitions trying to prove that locally evaporating material by an electron beam is not the same as e-beam lithography). What happens rightnow, is the examiner googles every word in the title of your patent, and sends every article that's returned demanding that you explain why this "prior art" does not invalidate your claim to originality. Keep in mind that every time you file a response, you have to pay around $300-$600 for the pleasure - regardless of the nature of correspondence. Since the patent office has no other sources of income, for them its most beneficial to argue about maximum number of patents for the longest possible time.
So even if we get rid of idiotic patents for things that we've been using for ages, we (in USA) still have a patent system that does not take into account whether the invention can actually do anything useful, or anything at all.
Or a Slashdot forum with less than 50 postings. That's what you get when you ask such a question.
And while we are at it. We also welcome
* suggestions on how to improve support for proprietary software
* input for the banks on how to increase capital gains
* proposals for improving the safety mechanisms of guided missiles
Make the patent examiner personally liable for the mistakes he/she makes.
If someone passes a patent that is overturned, then that person is directly responsible for the damage that invalid patent has caused to society.
Its probably difficult to sue government employees so maybe subcontract it all out under a contract with high penalties and reward for quality.
How about you leave the patents to things that are actually patentable, and not processes, or ways of doing things?
in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
I tried emailing a suggestion and got: Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the recipient domain. We recommend contacting the other email provider for further information about the cause of this error. The error that the other server returned was: 550 550 5.1.1 : Recipient address rejected: User unknown in relay recipient table (state 14).
Post an ordered queue of all of the pending patents sorted by what the patent office perceives to be the best to worst patents. Pick the top three patents from the queue and only issue three patents a day. Allow everyone to fight over their place in the queue.
This provides a giant incentive for everyone to find prior art that invalidates or damages all of the patents in the queue in front of them. It also creates a giant incentive to provide perfect applications for truly outstanding ideas in order to convince the patent office to move you closer to the front of the queue.
No one is denied the opportunity to file a patent, but it has to be a really good idea in order to get to the front of the queue. If not your patent may sit in the queue indefinitely.
Limiting us to three patents a day would make patents truly valuable again.
Sigh. Your tax dollars hard at work.
Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:
patent_quality_comments@uspto.gov
Technical details of permanent failure:
Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the recipient domain. We recommend contacting the other email provider for further information about the cause of this error. The error that the other server returned was: 550 550 5.1.1 : Recipient address rejected: User unknown in relay recipient table (state 14).
stuff |
So I downloaded the paper. It gives as the address:
patent_quality_comments@uspto.gov
So I fired up, sent them 6 ideas
A second or so later I get the dreaded:
Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently.
Sigh.
If any others care, this is what I suggested:
0. Establish a web site forum where this whole idea can be discussed.
1. Public Search for prior art.
When an application comes it, the claims and abstract are published and are publicly available. Further, there is an automated email system that users can set up with keyword searches using Google syntax to get weekly notifications in areas of interest.
Each patent is the start of a forum thread where people can point out prior art. An apprentice patent examiner acts as a moderator of the forum. The patent applicant also is a participant.
The moderator awards 'karma' points to participants based on the clarity and insight of their commentary. Writers with higher karma are given greater attention.
In some cases the questions brought up on the forum will cause the applicant to modify the language of his patent.
2. All patents must be backed up with working examples. It is no longer sufficient to patent an idea. However an application can start before the completion of the working example. Initially this is for a year, but perhaps should be extendible on payment of a reasonable fee.
Because of the public review process, however, a person who takes too long after making application may find that someone else beats them to it.
3. There are occasions when there is an idea whose time has come. There may be multiple submissions for what amounts to the same thing. In this case the patent office has the choice of:
* Granting the patent to the best implementation of the idea.
* Granting the patent to the first completed application.
* Granting a joint patent in multiple names.
* Grant a patent to one individual, encumbered with a fee sharing agreement to the other.
This may result in situations where A proposes a patent. During the review period B sees it, and writes an application for the same idea, but demonstrates a better application of that idea. B gets the patent.
4. Elimination of overly broad claims.
If a patent claims results "using a catalyst from the Palladium group of elements" he has to demonstrate that several different elements from that group are effective as catalysts. It's not sufficient just to show that Palladium works. If somone clones a sheep, they can't claim that the method works for all mammals. Once they have demonstrated that the method works for several different mammals, they can broaden their claims.
5. Clarity of application.
The application should be clear enough that a third party equipped only with capability in the prior art can duplicate the results.
6. Pre-licensing
Someone who wishes to license a prospective patent may enter into an agreement with the applicant. License fees are held in excrow until the application is accepted. In the event that an application is turned down, license fees revert. This needs to be carefully thought out to deal with multiple overlapping applications.
Third Career: Tree Farmer Second Career: Computer Geek First Career: Teacher, Outdoor Instructor, Photographer.