Slashdot Mirror
Empirical Research Reveals Three Big Problems With How Patents Are Vetted (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: If you've read our coverage of the Electronic Frontier Foundation's "Stupid Patent of the Month" series, you know America has a patent quality problem. People apply for patents on ideas that are obvious, vague, or were invented years earlier. Too often, applications get approved and low-quality patents fall into the hands of patent trolls, creating headaches for real innovators. Why don't more low-quality patents get rejected? A recent paper published by the Brookings Institution offers fascinating insights into this question. Written by legal scholars Michael Frakes and Melissa Wasserman, the paper identifies three ways the patent process encourages approval of low-quality patents:
-The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is funded by fees -- and the agency gets more fees if it approves an application.
-Unlimited opportunities to refile rejected applications means sometimes granting a patent is the only way to get rid of a persistent applicant.
-Patent examiners are given less time to review patent applications as they gain seniority, leading to less thorough reviews.
None of these observations is entirely new. But what sets Frakes and Wasserman's work apart is that they have convincing empirical evidence for all three theories. They have data showing that these features of the patent system systematically bias it in the direction of granting more patents. Which means that if we reformed the patent process in the ways they advocate, we'd likely wind up with fewer bogus patents floating around.
-The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is funded by fees -- and the agency gets more fees if it approves an application.
-Unlimited opportunities to refile rejected applications means sometimes granting a patent is the only way to get rid of a persistent applicant.
-Patent examiners are given less time to review patent applications as they gain seniority, leading to less thorough reviews.
None of these observations is entirely new. But what sets Frakes and Wasserman's work apart is that they have convincing empirical evidence for all three theories. They have data showing that these features of the patent system systematically bias it in the direction of granting more patents. Which means that if we reformed the patent process in the ways they advocate, we'd likely wind up with fewer bogus patents floating around.
Eliminate patents and copyrights. Get rid of them altogether. This also has the benefit that IBM can no longer bully open source opponents with patent litigation, plus onerous licenses like the GPL are invalidated. No more low quality patents, plus many other issues get fixed.
Wasn't that obvious?
I remember in the 1990's (I think) the patent office changed its policies so that examiners were rewarded based on the number of patents they granted. This led to them granting marginal patents.
The legal theory at the time was "if there's a problem, let the courts work it out". This, of course, is highly inefficient because it puts an enormous burden and expense on everyone who disputes the patent, loads down the court system, and generally halts innovation.
It was obvious then and it's obvious now. There's a great deal of social expense surrounding bogus patents, infringement, and patent trolls.
It's too bad the lawmakers, on both sides of the aisle, don't have the best interests of the people at heart.
They might otherwise be moved to fix the problems.
99% of all software patents are obvious solutions to trivial problems that have already been invented. I'd call that a problem.
Obviousness is a fundamentally subjective measure which can only be judged by domain experts.
That is why patent lawyers always try to redefine the English language and create really convoluted ways to redefine obviousness in terms of prior art.
I...wait.
Only THREE??
Software was not patentable until about 2000. But there was huge innovation before that.
Bill Gates said something like " If software was patented when the fundamental priniciples of computer science were developed, the industry would be at a standstill today".
Software patents reduce innovation. They add unknowable technical risk to any innvovative project.