Slashdot Mirror


Congress Asks Patent Office To Consider Secret Patents

Fluffeh writes "The USPTO is considering a rather interesting request straight from lobbyists via congress: that certain 'Economically Significant' patents should be kept secret during the process (PDF Warning) of being evaluated and granted. While this does occur at the moment on a very select few patents 'due to national security' for things like nuclear energy and the like — this would allow it to go much, much further. 'By statute, patent applications are published no earlier than 18 months after the filing date, but it takes an average of about three years for a patent application to be processed. This period of time between publication and patent award provides worldwide access to the information included in those applications. In some circumstances, this information allows competitors to design around U.S. technologies and seize markets before the U.S. inventor is able to raise financing and secure a market.'"

27 of 285 comments (clear)

  1. Blatant corruption as usual by David+Gerard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... nothing to see here. The success of the corruption program has reached far enough they can pull blatant shit like this and it's hard to stop them.

    So what are the likely consequences of this terrible, terrible idea?

    --
    http://rocknerd.co.uk
    1. Re:Blatant corruption as usual by ankhank · · Score: 4, Funny

      .A patent for Feudalism(TM) has been issued to [not disclosed]

      To preserve economic security (not yours, the patent owner's)
      your social status will of necessity be adjusted accordingly.

      Your new position is at the the top of the heap.
      The heap is downwind of the feedlot.

      Boots, shovels and pitchforks will be issued.
      Gas masks may be purchased at the company store.
      Credit against your and your children's future earnings is, of course, available.

    2. Re:Blatant corruption as usual by s73v3r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The cool part about Capitalism, is the elaborate parade that makes the people actually THINK they are a part of the system by allowing them to vote.

      Vote? Capitalism has nothing to do with Free Elections. You can have Socialism with Free Elections, hell, you can have Communism with Free Elections too.

  2. Trade secrets by bradley13 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you want to keep you sooper-seekrit advantage, it's called a "trade secret" and you don't patent it.

    If your technology is so non-useful that someone can easily design around it and capture the market in 18 months, it is either useless, or so trivial that it shouldn't be patented in the first place.

    Sound like the patent trolls are funding lobbiests.

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    1. Re:Trade secrets by mwvdlee · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yet these are exactly the kind of thing patents were invented for.
      Patents are meant to publically disclose specific solution in exchange for a short period of exclusivity.
      Ideas should not be patentable.
      Problems should not be patentable.
      Implementations of a solution should not be patentable (copyright applies in this case).
      Any protection stretching beyond the period of commercial viability of the solution should not be allowed (IMHO, it should be less).

      Patents were not meant to reward the act of inventing. They were meant to compensate for act of sharing.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    2. Re:Trade secrets by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 4, Informative

      I remember in the good o' days when companies rushed their products to market and marked certain parts of it "patent pending". Now days venture capitalists are using these patents as collateral betting that the inventor's lack of business experience will allow the portfolio to fall into the VC's hands. Afterwards the VC will be free to profit from selling or licensing the patent to others. It seems this new "requirement' to maintain secrecy for "competitive reasons" is really a ploy to give venture capitalist more time to market the patent to others.

      You'd think the patent itself would be protection enough and that this need for secrecy goes against the reasoning behind patents to begin with...

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    3. Re:Trade secrets by Moryath · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Hate to spoil a few things for you but:

      - Colonel's original recipe:chicken grease salt.
      - Coca Cola recipe: right here, most likely genuine.

      Now as to the USPTO, the problem is that they are no longer paid to DENY patents. In the late 1970s/early 1980s, republicans in key positions began playing games with the system, setting up metrics for the patent examiners that judged their performance not by the number of processed patents, but by the number of APPROVED patents. Examine several patents a week, deny most of them, and your "job performance" was not as good as the moron who just rubber-stamped stuff a few cubicles down.

      To top that, corporations came up with the idea of "patent slamming." The idea was to overload the patent system; every time the tiniest change to a system was made, it was filed as a new patent by the giant companies like IBM, Microsoft, Apple, GM, GE, etc. Particularly nauseating about it have been certain software houses, where it seems every new line of code ends up farted out by some shyster in the legal department as a new patent application.

      The result has been that for about the last 30 years, the USPTO has been pointless. Not to say that meaningful patents are denied, but so many meaningless patents are granted that any patent in the past 30 years is suspect.

      Patents like making a rectangle. Or turning a playing card sideways, a patent so fucking stupidly absurd it should have been laughed out of the office and shipped back to the fucking morons at WOTC/Hasborg along with a copy of Hoyle's Rules for Card Games as century-old prior art.

    4. Re:Trade secrets by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Implementations of a solution should not be patentable (copyright applies in this case).

      Yes they should, and no, it doesn't.

      A patent covers the mechanism of an implementation: Lever A pushes toggle B changing path C...

      Copyright covers the details: Lever A (which is built of steel truss and painted royal blue, whose fulcrum is an axle mounted between two oak panels) pushes toggle B (built of brushed aluminum, and attached to a platform holding so a little statue of a German holding a full beer stein, raised to chin level as in a toast) changing path C (which is a semicircular track made from copper mesh, which carries blue marbles made of recycled glass, at a 5% incline)...

      Or, to put it another absurd way, copyright covers Star Wars. A patent would cover the monomyth. You can write a different story using the same design by changing the characters and circumstances, but the underlying design is still the same.

      Copyright and patents have entirely different intents. Neither one solves the other's problem.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    5. Re:Trade secrets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      And you're a fucking moron. Because prior art is FUCKING EVERYWHERE.

      each player constructing their own library of a predetermined number of game components by examining and selecting game components from the reservoir of game components;

      Stratego.

      each player obtaining an initial hand of a predetermined number of game components by shuffling the library of game components and drawing at random game components from the player's library of game components; and

      Poker. Go Fish.

      each player executing turns in sequence with other players by drawing, playing, and discarding game components in accordance with the rules until the game ends, said step of executing a turn comprises:

      Go Fish. Or Steve Jackson's Car Wars. Or Robo Rally.

      In other words, you're a fucking moron. Go step in front of a bus and die before you breed and infect the next generation.

  3. Re:If USA cannot compete without artificial limits by busyqth · · Score: 5, Funny

    I always have fun time going out with friends and my girlfriend and we do so pretty much every night. USA is a country of artificial limits and non-social people.

    Look, you are not going to get any sympathy around here if you keep going on about nonsense like a "girlfriend" and a "fun time".
    We are not going to let you trick us into weirdo "socializing". We prefer to live our lives within reasonable, although perhaps somewhat artificial, self-imposed restraints.

  4. Playing into the hands of the patent trolls by loren · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sounds like they're playing right into the hands of the patent trolls... The whole point seems to be to hope someone accidentally infringes so they can go after them later. I thought the goal of the patent system was to foster innovation. How does this do anything but impede it?

    --

    Loren Osborn

    Software isn't software without source code. -- NASA
  5. Any 'Economically Significant' Patent by Wdi · · Score: 5, Informative

    will be filed simultaneously (*) in Europe, Japan, and increasingly in BRIC countries to protect world-wide market potential.

    So what is to be gained if the US text is kept secret, but the essentially identical application is in the open in three dozen other countries?

    (*) especially after the recent changes in the US patent system to use the same principles as the rest of the world

  6. Re:If USA cannot compete without artificial limits by apk1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    where there are laws forbidding child labor

    Just to take out this part out of the comment, what is wrong with "child labor"? I'm not talking about forcing kids to work in unsafe conditions or things they are not capable to do, but for example around here many family-owned businesses have their kids to do some work too. For example cleaning, or other simple things. It's good thing to teach your children about working, responsibility and how to take care of things, even at young age. This way those kids don't become lazy and losers later. Maybe this is one of the reasons USA is falling - the people have been taught to be lazy.

  7. Trap by glorybe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If secret patents are in the works how are others with similar product ideas protected? To not be able to discover that a patent or art work exists for an invention and then be forced to pay for violating the patent seems like an outrage to me.

  8. Wrong Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The answer is not 'Secret Patents'.

    It's to fully staff the US Patent Office with sufficient qualified researches that granting patents does not have an average three-year schedule.

    'Secret Patents' are one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. You thought the NPE problem was bad -before-?

    1. Re:Wrong Solution by Spy+Handler · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree that secret patents are a stupid idea. However,

      fully staff the US Patent Office with sufficient qualified researches that granting patents does not have an average three-year schedule

      This is also the wrong solution. We could do without yet even more federal employees.

      The correct solution is to not allow stupid shit like software patents and one-click business model patents in the first place. Then BAM, watch the number of patent applications plummet.

      AFAIK, all of the software patent insanity stemmed from *one* activist judge in the early 80's who interpreted existing patent laws to encompass software. Again AFAIK, patent laws do not (yet) explicitly state whether computer software is patentable or not... it was a court ruling that said it is.

  9. Patent office is the problem here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    My claims:
    1. The problem is the patent office takes 18 months to evaluate a patent,
    2. It takes that long because the patent office is swamped with spam patent requests from non-inventors.
    3. It's swamped with spam patent requests because it made patents so easy to get that every patent troll files patents on existing inventions.
    4. Thus real inventors are outnumbered by the spam competitors, who often clone their ideas knowing the patent office gives patents for everything.

    The fix therefore:
    1. Reject more patents for obviousness
    2. Reject patents if the inventor doesn't actually make the thing they claim to have invented, because if they haven't physically made it, they haven't physically solved the real world problems with their invention. Anyone can draw a flying car, but an inventor is the one who actually MAKES the car fly.
    3. Reapplication requires repeat fees, you want to waste the patent office time with an obvious idea, then pay and pay again.
    4. That will dissuade the trolls for swamping the patent office with spam patents for inventions they haven't made. Reducing the delay.
    5. Thus the patent will be approved before the publish date and the inventor will have had the chance to obtain financing to go into production.

    Whereas:
    1. Hiding patents makes it impossible for others to show prior art at an early stage.
    2. It makes the submarining problem worse. Where a troll files a vague patent, then watches as technology is developed, and tweaks the wording to be more like the devices the real inventors are inventing.
    3. It encourages trolls to set traps around genuinely inventive companies. e.g. flying car used for school trips, flying car with shopping trolly attached etc. etc.

  10. Catch 22 by roman_mir · · Score: 4, Insightful

    -Sir, you are being accused of violating a patent.
    -What patent?
    -We cannot tell you that, catch 22.
    -But don't you have to tell me what I am violating?
    -No, it's the law.

    1. Re:Catch 22 by vandon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      -Sir, you are being accused of violating a patent.
      -What patent?
      -We cannot tell you that, catch 22.
      -But don't you have to tell me what I am violating?
      -No, it's the law.

      I know this post was just /s, but you realize, there are already secret laws in place from Homeland security that we can be arrested, charged with, and found guilty all in secret without anything being disclosed to you or a jury.
      So, I wouldn't say it's far fetched to have this happen sometime soon.

    2. Re:Catch 22 by Zordak · · Score: 5, Informative

      This summary and the article it's based on are both dismal failures. They are rabid, uninformed rantings of anti-patent morons.

      The only thing you have to do to have a patent not get published until it issues is file a non-publication request, and not file in foreign countries. I do it for my clients all the time. And it's not quite what you're saying above. Until the patent issues, you can't sue somebody on it. The best you can do is inform them that they might possibly infringe your patent if and when it issues in the future. This is a regular practice, and depending on a lot of factors, may or may not accomplish something. Either way, you can't sue and your damages don't run until the day your patent issues.

      But if you publish your application, you actually have a legally stronger threat, because you may get provisional rights that will date back to your publication if your patent issues substantially unchanged from when it published. That means you can send your published application to somebody and tell them, "I think this patent will issue substantially unchanged. If it does, I will be seeking a reasonable royalty starting from the day I informed you of this publication." You still can't sue until the patent issues, but you might get some money for the period between when it was published and when it issues.

      That is not what the attached request is about. There are certain applications that are prevented from being published or issued until the government decrees that they no longer have to be classified. This is generally not a good thing for an inventor. It means there is very limited opportunity to exploit his invention. It means that his patent can sit in limbo for years. This request relates to whether similar "protection" should be extended to some patents that are "economically important."

      It may or may not be a good idea. But it is not the doom and gloom scenario that the stupid article makes it sound like. This is the equivalent to some rube on the street hearing that Linus Torvalds is a famous "hacker" and demanding that Linus be jailed immediately for his heinous crimes.

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
  11. Blatant ignorance as usual by Sarten-X · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... nothing to see here. Period.

    Likely consequences are absolutely nothing, in the grand scheme of information freedom. Patent protection remains the same, but there's less risk in patenting technologies that are likely to be copied outright by other companies.

    Currently, if you file a major patent for a Widget that will change the world, it'll take three years for that patent to be approved. During those three years, a smart businessman will be gathering funding to produce Widgets (or license them off to someone who can) to recoup the research investment. In 18 months, an evil company will likely see the patent application, and start preparing legal battles to screw with the inventor while producing their own FooBarBaz. If the inventor is financially weaker than the aggressor, there's a good chance FooBarBaz will be able to enter production faster and penetrate the market better, defeating the whole point of the patent process in the first place.

    By allowing patents to be secret until they're protected, the inventor doesn't need to rush into license and production negotiations, because the cloning company can't sprint past them. When they do start negotiations, the inventor has a bit more leverage, because their technology is patented, rather than just pending.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    1. Re:Blatant ignorance as usual by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      By allowing secret patents people could be infringing and have no way of knowing. A applies for a patent, B produces the item not knowing of A's pending patent has good sales for two years and then is sued into the ground.

    2. Re:Blatant ignorance as usual by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Then company B walks into a courtroom, says "the patent was secret. We had no way of knowing the patented technology. Unless A can prove espionage, the patent should be re-examined and thrown out as being obvious, since our researchers were clearly able to produce the same technology from simply the current state of the art."

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    3. Re:Blatant ignorance as usual by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I want cloning companies to sprint past "inventors", so that they can keep single players from holding back progress.

      So you're saying you don't want patents at all. Okay. "Survival of the most-connected" is a valid theory, though I personally don't think it's best for most people.

      If sprinting past them is even possible, then the "inventor" has no business getting a patent.

      "I've spent 5 years inventing this Widget, but I'm not a shrewd businessman who's well-connected to suppliers and fabricators. I guess I shouldn't be inventing."

      What you want is further empowerment of trolls. This is downright evil, and I have no choice but assuming that you work for a patent troll or are one yourself.

      I want empowerment of people who invest their time and money inventing things. I'm one myself, and so's my uncle, my father, great-grandfather, and more of my inlaws than I can recall. Not one of our patents have ever been trollish, or done anything but contribute to their field (though the portable chiropractic table is debatable). You must be right though... since I disagree with you, I'm clearly a paid shill working for a patent troll. Funny how it looks like the IT department of a financial service company...

      As it stands, it is possible to corner huge markets with pretty minor contributions by just being shrewd in ways that have nothing to do with the technology itself

      Congratulations, you've discovered marketing. Welcome to the last millennium.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  12. Design vs. utility patents by dtmos · · Score: 4, Informative

    Are we confusing design patents and utility patents? From the link, "A design consists of the visual ornamental characteristics embodied in, or applied to, an article of manufacture. Since a design is manifested in appearance, the subject matter of a design patent application may relate to the configuration or shape of an article, to the surface ornamentation applied to an article, or to the combination of configuration and surface ornamentation."

    "In general terms, a “utility patent” protects the way an article is used and works (35 U.S.C. 101), while a “design patent” protects the way an article looks (35 U.S.C. 171)."

  13. Easy question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    What mechanism do you think allowed those feudal lords to accrue the power and wealth to get to their positions?

    The sword.

    1. Re:Easy question by Creepy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Feudalism started mainly because the Carolingan (Frankish Empire associated with Charlemagne) bureaucracy couldn't afford cavalry, so manors started to foot the bill on taxes they collected on their land and made the cavalry hereditary (which is how we got knights). Peasants would voluntarily subject themselves to serfdom in exchange for protection and a plot of land and maybe a cottage, so in a way the sword is correct (they offered military protection), but it was really more about cavalry.