Slashdot Mirror
Patent Office Admits Truth — Things Are a Disaster
An anonymous reader writes "For years the US Patent and Trademark Office has published data to show how well it and the patent system were running. Under new leadership, the USPTO has begun to publish a dashboard of information, including a new look at questions like how long does it really take to get a final answer on whether you will receive a patent or not? The pat answer was, on the average, about 3 years. But with the new figures, it's obvious that the real number, when you don't play games with how you define a patent application, is six years. The backlog of patents is almost 730K. And the Commerce Department under the Obama administration wants the average down to 20 months. How does this happen? Only if everyone closes their eyes and pretends. It's time to take drastic action, like ending software patents. As it is, by the time companies get a software patent, there's little value to them because, after six years, the industry has already moved on."
I haven't heard any allegations of this before. What leads you to think this problem exists at the USPTO?
They're under-resourced, but increasing their resources won't solve the social and economic problem caused by the patents they grant on software. A lot of big patent holders are saying that the solution is to increase review standards, but how would that happen? How do you put clear limits on whether something described is sufficiently innovative, or sufficiently useful?
The only simple way to reduce the workload of the patent office is to cut certain fields right out of consideration. Start with software. Making the USPTO more efficient isn't our goal, but it's a happy coincidence that there's a solution to our problem that just so happens to solve a major USPTO problem.
And it's not just the USPTO. The European Patent Office has the same problems.
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
We do actually build products that use the software process we have patented - but there are several other companies that also use techniques that could be considered infringement. I suspect that some day if it was tactically advantageous my company could seek licensing fees - The software patents that I am named on are incredibly well written and there are some big companies that we could take to task -
That's in Germany. There are no software patents in Europe, and Germans are (traditionally) much less interested in lawsuits than US citizens and corporations. I'd also expect German patent grants to actually be valid, rather than relying on lengthy court processes to refute patents that never should have been granted due to prior art or attempting to patent laws of nature.
None of these conditions apply in the USA. It is actually to the advantage of some large companies and their lobbying organizations to keep the patent office overwhelmed and confused: they can assemble portolios of defensive patents to protect their interests, and apply those portfolios at whim against smaller, more creative, developers or businesses that haven't already invested in manufacturing or development or sales of an older product line.
The only applications which will skip forwards are accellerated cases and continuations/divisonals. There has been a big push within the office to have each examiner work on their OLDEST cases to reduce pendency figures, in fact examiner's ratings depend on it.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
Here's why the patent system is broken.
Apple has a patent application for arranging music information (read: any information) into different shapes. http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2010/09/apple-provides-us-with-a-peek-at-spirals-a-new-itunes-ui-feature.html. They describe spirals, squares, rectangles, a helix from the side. Even a map of the USA. But why stop there? You might as well just patent information and pictures arranged into any pleasing geometric or recognizable form! Abstract goastee arrangment? Sure! Lady Gaga's face? Why not! Patented granted!
People can take things that are completely abstract and patent the whole net of ideas. Not only are patents too abstract, they usually aren't novel. Like this Apple one. It's sick.
Here's an idea. Cut the patents and rely on copyright after the fact. Or would that require that people actually do work before getting a reward?
You don't really "invent" something either, you merely discover a way to do something.
The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
Actually the value is in the fact that the patent becomes an asset that can be valued and is transferrable independent of the inventors. Getting investment in a small company with IP, but without some 'anchor' for that IP such as a patent is very difficult.
Seriously. Start hiring, teachers and "readers" alike. Set an appropriate threshold for level of English language proficiency, both written and spoken. Train. Nothing stimulates the economy like jobs, and this could help speed things upa bit and bring down the backlog.
That and knocking it off with the filing/approval of ridiculous patents.
You only think you could take them to task. If you actually tried they would point out the hundreds of _their_ patents that you were violating, by the end you'd likely be happy if they didn't shut you down.
This is how the current patent system fails in the software realm, patents have become a kind of offensive/defensive resource in a twisted RTS.
I agree. Patents are of no value to the small-time inventor. They are, however, invaluable to incumbent companies who wish to lock the up-and-comers out of the market, and of course patent trolls.
In other words, patents are a pure deficit for the public who have to pay for the bureaucracy, the unnecessary litigation and the lack of competition that results from this system. The empirical evidence is piling up against patents (like this article says), and unless someone steps up and shows some proof that this system resulted in more innovation, the whole thing will have to be thrown out the window.
And honestly, I don't expect patent supporters have any proof to show, so the question is -- how long will it take for the patent system to be taken down? There is no question that the patent supporters are rich and powerful (that includes Microsoft, btw, who say they just wuv patents), and those people can be very "persuasive"...
So, extending this distrust to all government agencies is a natural thing to do, whether it is true or not. Try bribing a policeman - a large percentage of the time, you'll end up in jail. Try bribing a politician... oh, wait.
The patent system is made up of scientists and engineers, and the attorneys all have these backgrounds as well.
If that is the case, then why do they mess some patents up by not seeing prior art? Yes, mistakes happen and I suppose there is a process to work it all out. But while that process is rolling, the patent holder is out there drying up the coffers in attorneys fees of all potentially infringing users.
oh please. I was a police reporter in a 100K city for several years and got to know cops. I once sat around in the station and heard these guys trading stories about getting sexual favors from females to get out of speeding tickets (they didn't know I was in the next room, obviously). I guarantee you, policemen are bribed every day around the country with no repercussions.
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
The infamous One-Click patent tells you everything you need to know in the name, for example. Everything beyond that core idea are just implementation details that any PHOSITA can manage.
While I disagree that One-Click is a proper example, even if it were, your follow up only agrees with what I'm saying. You feel software patents are acting to our detriment because of examples like these where any PHOSITA ("person having ordinary skill in the art," for those of you just joining us) could come up with the details. That anyone faced with the problem of constructing a system to quickly place an order would have the solution just smack them upside the head.
If that really is the case, then the flaw is again not with software patents per se, but with the obviousness standard used to evaluate them. Maybe patent examiners in this area just don't know how to think like a PHOSITA.
I agree, however, that the purpose of a patent system is to foster innovation. If it should ever work against us, it should be eliminated. I said as much in my prior point, noting that it's not that innovators "deserve" patent protection, but simply that it's determined to be useful to grant them this protection. However, keep in mind that you're measuring the detriment of the current system, warts and all, rather than one that rewards only true innovation. For every evil villain company who files for a software patent on a completely obvious widget, there's a start up that can only secure funding for his clearly inventive software product if the investors have any confidence at all that the idea won't be stolen as soon as it goes to market. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Yeah, and I heard the same stories in my high school gym locker room. And they're probably just as accurate. Wishful thinking does not get you laid.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
The question is also if the pay is enough to get good engineers or they only can get fresh engineers from education.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
``the flaw is again not with software patents per se, but with the obviousness standard used to evaluate them''
I can accept that. If the standard of obviousness is such that the bright minds in the industry can read the patent and go "Wow! Brilliant! I would never have come up with that!", then it would seem the patent system is serving its purpose of furthering innovation. On the other hand, perhaps that makes it a losing preposition to the patent holder: they paid for a patent on something that nobody else was going to come up with. On the gripping hand, lower the obviousness standard too much and you end up hurting progress by disallowing people to use methods that they invented, but someone else happens to hold a patent on.
I am not sure that the obviousness standard can be set at a level where it will be advantageous for innovators to seek patents, without causing more harm than it does good.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
If you aren't bothering to defend your original idea (give the man a cookie!) then what was the point of applying for the protection in the first place? Just in case someone else stumbled onto the same obvious idea? Sorry, but I do think your idea was pretty obvious. Actually implementing it would certainly represent progress, but trying to prevent others from doing so? For some reason your company hasn't done that. What if patents were like trademarks, where you lose them if you don't defend them?
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.