Slashdot Mirror
Patent Office Ramps Up Patent Approvals
An anonymous reader writes "With the somewhat disappointing Bilski ruling behind us, people concerned about overly broad patents should be looking at what's going on at the US Patent Office. Due to various other Supreme Court decisions and lots of bad publicity, the USPTO had gone on a 'quality binge' for a few years, rejecting a lot more patents than usual. However, with new leadership, it appears that the USPTO is back to its old tricks and approving a ton of patents (at an unheard of rate) in a misguided attempt to get through the 'backlog.' Get ready for another round of patent lawsuits on patents that never should have been granted."
You don't have to pick up every rider ---- it's ok to say no, especially when it's in the broader interest to increase the quality and remove the backlog.
I really do hate this, 90% of politicians are lawyers.
They are an unchecked self-appointing cancer.
The remedy for this is simple enough. If a patent is found invalid by a court and also should never have been granted according to the USPTO's own rules at that time, then require the federal government to pay the victor all legal expenses incurred + any time off work for court + any travel expenses for court, times three, within 30 days of the official ruling.
I also believe that anyone found "not guilty" in a criminal case, or who has charges dropped, should be compensated the same way.
That introduces an element of apoptosis into the self-appointing cancer.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Scary guy. Not so much evil as purely misguided in his efforts. He thinks that all those 700000 odd patents on backlog represent American jobs that aren't being created, because the patent doesn't exist. At that point, all I can think about is the high-tech patent wars, and how the only people they keep employed are lawyers. I guess, technically he is right: more patents mean more jobs. But only for patent lawyers and patent appraisers. Unfortunately, he didn't seem to get the distinction, and was incredibly enthusiastic about his drive to get more patents approved.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Just pay the patent examiners a bonus based on how many patents they successfully manage to reject, including any appeals that might be raised against the rejection by the original submitter. It'll incentivize the patent examiners to get through the backlog, and, if the bonuses are funded by an extra "patent examination fee" that is only refundable in the event of a succesful application, it'll cut down on the frivolous patent submissions at no extra cost to the taxpaper as well.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
In particular, without knowing how many applications were rejected, we don't know whether the USPTO is approving a higher percentage of applications, or whether they have just increased up their processing rates.
And without knowing the number of patent examiners on staff over time, we don't know whether any increase in processing rates was caused by spending less time on each application (less scrutiny), whether they have hired more examiners, or whether they are using technology to process applications more efficiently.
Get all those facts, number of examiners, number of applications rejected, etc., and then you might be able to draw some conclusions.
Most patent stories on Slashdot are about silly patents, but raising standards will not solve our problem. Quality is just too hard to judge with something as abstract as software. A reduction of 50% wouldn't solve the fact that MPEG is covered by dozens of patents, and none of the people complaining about silly patents have proposed a way to raise the standards (not to reduce granting by 50%, and not even to reduce it by 1%). Now, we see that granting is still rising. We'll never get quality standards to catch up. The only way to win, and the only clean solution, is to simply cut software out of the list of things that can be patented.
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
Consumers and small innovators get burned badly already, but large corporations seeking government protection from competition have a "gentleman's" agreement (defensive portfolios and cross licensing) to not cause each other severe harm. Sometimes you see saber rattling like the Oracle/Google conflict, but that is just theater as they collude on how certain markets will be split between them.
I mean, by common standards a corporate lawyer of the largest software patents client who becomes head of the USPTO, that simply smells corruption.
In the United States no one seems to care.
The patent system is anti-free trade, it should be abolished altogether, it is merely about useless bureaucracy.
While it's true that the absolute number of allowances has increased, the number of rejections has also increased, according to Prof. Dennis Crouch of PatentlyO.com, who is a leading figure in empirical patent research. It's not as though examiners have simply started rubber stamping everything that comes through.
The increased issuance rate is probably the result of PTO's money crunch. Unlike most agencies, which supplement funds appropriate by Congress with collected fees, PTO is expected to be entirely self-supporting. Application fees. Continuation fees. Maintenance fees. Service fees. Everything that PTO does has a dollar sign attached to it (here's the fee schedule). Sometimes they don't even get to keep is all. Congress raided PTO's surplus several times during the boom to prop up the General Treasury. When rainy days came, companies started filing for fewer patents and some - gasp - even let patents lapse rather than paying their maintenance fees. As a result, PTO was forced to cut benefits dramatically. For awhile, overtime was off the table. The agency stopped paying tuition for examiners attending night law programs. Retention bonuses went away. Bad time to be an examiner.
The issuance boost means more continuations, re-applications, etc. along the way to approval = more revenue immediately. More importantly, PTO's got to issue nearly five patents to receive as much by way of maintenance fees in 3-4 years as they WOULD have received from an 11 year old patent that's been allowed to lapse.
Issuance rate won't (and from PTO's perspective, can't) go down unless or until Congress changes PTO's funding model or the economy turns around. Even if the economy gets better, it's going to take a few years for revenues to start increasing as the patents from the current glut start bringing in large maintenance fees and the issuance rate can go down without forcing staff cuts.
--- "DNA helicase kicks more ass than a barrel of highly trained ninja monkeys. Never forget that." - N. Howard
I have a feeling that the millions spent professional argument will help society neither monetarily nor in technological advancement.
The faster patents are approved, the faster their ridiculous nature will be exposed. Let there be so many patents that it becomes impossible for anyone to do anything. On that day corporations themselves will probably want an end to all the bullshit.
The patent office should do it like the insurance companies do it. Reject every single application on first submission. Find some detail that is just cause for rejecting it, and stamp a big red X through it.
The ones that come back modified with more details are the ones that get a serious review.
The patent office should do it like the insurance companies do it. Reject every single application on first submission. Find some detail that is just cause for rejecting it, and stamp a big red X through it.
They already do. It's termed a "non-final rejection" and occurs at least once for many applications. Sometimes the rejection is merely for non-compliance with some formality. However, it is often because the examiner found prior art which appears relevant. The applicant is thus required to provide a response, pointing out how it differs from the prior art, and possibly with amendments to the claims to delimit them appropriately.
Of my 15 granted US patents, I think only 3 or 4 went through without at least one non-final rejection. In a few cases, the examiner turned up quite relevant art and there was a significant revision needed for the claims. In a few others, the examiner had conflated different meanings of a particular word, and it was merely necessary to point out that my application used it in a very different sense to the art cited by the examiner (example: spectrum meaning a set of colors or wavelengths simultaneously present in a beam of radiance vs spectrum meaning frequency content over a finite time interval of a time series or signal). FWIW, my patents all involve hardware.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Excuse me while I go patent some random future tech... flying cars, teleporters, food replicators, AI.. yanno.
This is the stuff that's actually pretty easy to reject. We're not going to find prior art on it, but we can generally make rejections for the application lacking an enabling disclosure (if the invention is ostensibly possible, as with flying cars), or we can reject it for a lack of credible utility (as with teleporters).
As for do-overs, yes, applicants can keep paying us to continue examining their applications. They get two bites at the apple each time (with some caveats attached if the examiner makes a bad rejection), and then they are stuck filing an RCE (which costs money but buys them another two bites), appealing to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (which costs a lot of money, mostly to the attorney), or they can give up and let the application go abandoned.
There was a recent change in docketing procedure to examiners that prevents RCEs from "burying us in paperwork". It used to be that RCEs were docketed right along with regular amendments, and we had to work on every one of those within four biweeks of the date it was forwarded to the examiner. Now, it gets docketed on a separate queue, and we only have to pick up one RCE every month. When it comes to doing more work than that, we get to choose whether we'd rather do more first actions (new cases) or more RCEs. The Office is focusing on getting new applications in the pipeline, so we're being encouraged to do more first actions and let the RCEs sit there for a little while longer.
No, the PTO is self-funding. In fact, part---but by no means all---of the problem has been Congress raiding the PTO's income stream. See: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2010/01/director-kappos-on-the-usptos-lack-of-funding.html.
The original intent of the patent was to give the lone inventor a monopoly over his invention in order to spur innovation. And it may have served that purpose once. But today, patents have taken on a completely different use -- the leverage for big deep-pocket corporations to beat up on other corporations and obliterate any possible competition from "the little guy", who could not possibly afford patent litigation.
So, it is my view that patents no longer serve it original intended purpose, and thus should be eliminated. Monsanto patents organisms and genes and uses that to force small farmers to buy their GMO seeds; Microsoft may use patents to beat down startups they deem as a threat, and so on.
Today, people will innovate whether or not patents exist. And most innovations don't ever see a patent, I think. It's just too expensive to procure a patent -- $5,000 to $10,000 -- and if ever someone -- even another little guy -- violated your patent "rights", you could not afford the litigation, anyway.
So let's abolish all patents and close down the USPTO!
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies