Slashdot Mirror


USPTO Plans Could Kill Small Business Innovation

bizwriter writes "If protecting inventions is at the heart of high tech competitiveness, plans afoot at the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will critically wound small companies. The agency's notorious 750,000 patent application backlog has long been the subject of heavy criticism. One of the key tools the USPTO wants to use is to raise fees so high as to directly reduce 40 percent of the backlog. That would mean setting filing and maintenance rates so high as to make it economically difficult, if not impossible, for many small companies to adequately protect their innovations, leaving large corporations even more in control of technology than they are now."

6 of 175 comments (clear)

  1. Re:-1 Troll by The+Hatchet · · Score: 2, Informative

    Great, even worse news for the poor little guy. You think it is bad for small businesses, it is terrible for an independent inventor. Patents are becoming more expensive and harder to get every day, better for big companies that apply for ten thousand-a hundred thousand patents a year, meanwhile I have to construct elaborate contracts with a company before I can even show them what I have, at fear of losing everything. One hell of a messed up system.

    --
    Where is the mod rating for "scary"? Also, ...
  2. Re:Proportional Fees by Xuranova · · Score: 2, Informative

    Can you say "wholly owned subsidiary"?

    --
    "There is no real right or wrong, just what the majority accepts at the time."
  3. Re:"Could" is too soft a word by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 3, Informative

    The submission clearly states that it wants to raise fees so high as to actually discourage patent applications.

    So we're not talking just triple, or quadruple. It could be 10x or even higher.

    --
    "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
  4. Re:Stupid system by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 2, Informative

    Where did you get your definition of prior art? Just like you don't have to know about a patent to be in violation of it, you don't have to know about prior art for it to be prior art. Prior art just has to be proven to exist during a lawsuit, not known to exist when filing the patent.

    --
    "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
  5. Re:Or fix it-get rid of software and business pate by aurispector · · Score: 3, Informative

    Considering that small business is the engine of job growth and innovation, this is the dumbest idea to come out of USPTO ever. Imagine the world today if Apple, HP, and Microsoft were all prevented from flourishing. The internet would not exist, mainframes would still be king, silicon valley would not exist. Real innovation almost never comes from existing large companies.

    --
    I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
  6. Re:Why not charge per year by sir_eccles · · Score: 2, Informative

    You should really look at what the current maintenance fees are before making stupid statements as there appears to be prior art on a sliding scale that increases as time progresses.

    http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee2009september15.htm#maintain