A lot of people share your views, but my personal experience as a technology manager is that I want to know about any possibly threatening patents as soon as possible so that I can take effective measures before I invest a lot of money in development.
Thomas Edison did that. Before he started his light bulb development effort, he found and purchased an earlier light bulb patent. That made the patent a non issue and he could charge forward as fast as he could.
Exactly, patent applications are strengthened by prior art, but not in the sense that you mean. They are "strengthened" because they are narrowed. Good prior art helps cut away the crap and reveal the tiny nugget of gold that is the real invention. The applicant gets much less coverage, but he or she is on much firmer ground.
"The courts are a much harsher environment than the patent examiner for patents. "
Well I am a patent agent and you have it backwards. It's much harder to invalidate a patent in court than in the patent office. For one reason, there is a higher burden of proof. In the patent office all you need to do is show that a patent is invalid by "a preponderance of evidence". That is, it is more likely to be invalid that valid.
In the courts you have to show that a patent is invalid by "clear and convincing evidence".
The difficulty of invalidating a patent in court is reflected in the costs of a lawsuit. It typically takes $1 million in legal fees to invalidate a patent in court. Make that $10 MM+ for a pharma patent.
This patent took three years to get through the patent office. IBM had to narrow the claims three times before they were allowed. That doesn't sound like rubber stamping to me.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the biggest problem is getting applicants to volunteer their applications.
A lot of people share your views, but my personal experience as a technology manager is that I want to know about any possibly threatening patents as soon as possible so that I can take effective measures before I invest a lot of money in development. Thomas Edison did that. Before he started his light bulb development effort, he found and purchased an earlier light bulb patent. That made the patent a non issue and he could charge forward as fast as he could.
Exactly, patent applications are strengthened by prior art, but not in the sense that you mean. They are "strengthened" because they are narrowed. Good prior art helps cut away the crap and reveal the tiny nugget of gold that is the real invention. The applicant gets much less coverage, but he or she is on much firmer ground.
"The courts are a much harsher environment than the patent examiner for patents. " Well I am a patent agent and you have it backwards. It's much harder to invalidate a patent in court than in the patent office. For one reason, there is a higher burden of proof. In the patent office all you need to do is show that a patent is invalid by "a preponderance of evidence". That is, it is more likely to be invalid that valid. In the courts you have to show that a patent is invalid by "clear and convincing evidence". The difficulty of invalidating a patent in court is reflected in the costs of a lawsuit. It typically takes $1 million in legal fees to invalidate a patent in court. Make that $10 MM+ for a pharma patent.
This patent took three years to get through the patent office. IBM had to narrow the claims three times before they were allowed. That doesn't sound like rubber stamping to me.