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."
One more step on he road to workers power. Capitalism is only producing its own gravediggers. The more giant, centralized the corporate monopolies become, the easier it will be for the Soviets to expropriate them and integrate them into a planned socialist economy. Forward to a workers state!
UNITE with the Campaign for a Free Internet because today, our future begins with tomorrow!
It isn't "could kill small business", rather, the whole thing has turned into "Designed to kill all innovators that don't have big backers".
It's the system, man.
The elites want total control. The patent system is but a small part of their game plan.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Small entity inventors already get 50% off most USPTO fees, and USPTO Director Kappos has suggested creating a "micro-entity" inventor class for whom the fees would have an even smaller impact relative to that for large entities.
What's more, the backlog hurts small entity inventors much more than it does large entities. Small entity inventors are much more likely to rely on venture capital funding, and many VC outfits are unwilling to put money down without some patent protection on the table. If a small entity inventor has to wait for 3+ years to get that protection, they may end up folding before the patent issues. On the other hand, a large entity inventor has lots of stuff going on, and relies on its other business to keep things moving while they wait for their patents to issue, so the backlog has a much smaller impact on them.
Solving the backlog problem is ultimately going to require hiring more examiners, and that costs money. For an agency that is entirely fee-funded, being able to set those fees at appropriate levels is necessary to ensure that patents are issued in a timely fashion.
I think it's too early to panic. Having practiced before the USPTO for over 20 years, I've seen many times how the small inventor lobby works its magic to protect the small filers. In fact, I was disappointed that the article didn't even mention the two-tier fee system, providing smaller fees for small businesses, that's been in place for many years now. The PTO needs lots of fixes, but I agree that somethings need to change with the fee structure. Large companies can game the system by flooding the system with new applications, re-filing to wear down examiners, and taking frivolous appeals. Wise changes to the fee structures, which take into account these sorts of tactics, as well as increasing maintenance fees to discourage "wait and see" litigation, will be helpful to the small guy. Hopefully the PTO will show some wisdom.
... as it is designed so that the not-so-wealthy don't get to patent anything.
That poor guy may end up having to sell his invention to the wealthy elites, and the elites can then patent the thing and rake in much much much more $$$ with it.
And btw, it is happening.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Easier fix - get rid of software and business method patents. "Oh, but we can't do that - we'd have so little work to do that we'd have to lay off people!"
In other words, you're suggesting the complete elimination of patents.
Which would not be a bad idea at all, mind you...
Circumcision is child abuse.
Make it dangerous to collect bad patents, and you'll see a big drop-off in patent applications.
[1] Assuming, of course, that you think patents are a good way of encouraging innovation. If you don't, then use abolish the patent office and be done with it.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Unfortunately, the # of patents idea wouldn;t necessarily work. Big companies have lots of accountants who would just start up a subsidiary company and let them file their first patent. So Microsoft would still have millions of patents, but they'd be held by a thousand sub companies. They'd probably end up paying less than mom n pop innovators inc.
Still, charging for crap patent applications is a good idea - that'd shift the cost burden to 3rd party lawyers who'd charge you to ensure your application wasn't crappy. The patent office could then start to give such pre-verified applications a less rigourous overview (like they do currently with all patents :)
Yes, that's dangerous... Microsoft lawyers inc would pre-verify a patent on glass panes used to provide visibility of operating system function for human interaction.
The only way to proplerly solve the issue is to better define what a patent is. Say "software or software algorithms of any kind are not patentable items" would rip that backlog to shreds. And save business innovation as well, which would be nice.
Sorry for being ambiguous. I didn't mean "known to the applicant", but "publicly known".
Bert
Here's what we do:
1. Create a new class of patent examiners who work from home. Vet and enlist a huge number of available experts to examine patents and be paid per examination. The USPTO could send an application right out to ten people conversant with any exotic field and get quick decisions.
2. Make patent applications free. Make renewal of granted patents increasingly more expensive with each passing year, so profitable patents are maintained and unprofitable ones are abandoned.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine