PTO Seeks Public Input on Patent Applications 106
KingAdrock writes to tell us Sciencemag is reporting that the US Patent and Trademark office (PTO) is floating the idea of an online pilot program to gather public input on patent applications. From the article: "Speaking last week at an open forum, officials said that tapping into the expertise of outside scientists, lawyers, and laypeople would improve the quality of patents -- and might also reduce a backlog that this month topped 1 million applications. "Instead of one examiner, what if you have thousands of examiners reading an application?" says Beth Simone Noveck of New York University Law School, who is an independent advocate of the idea."
Notification of Prior Art (Score:5, Informative)
The new article is however a derivative, because the discussion seems further on now and a site has been setup.
Well.. one drawback. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Well.. one drawback. (Score:4, Insightful)
Just because one troll tries to game the system doesn't mean his voice is heard.
There should be enough general lurkers around to spot the obvious gaming.
Re:Well.. one drawback. (Score:1)
Moderation and group communication.
...and multi-level moderation. Some moderators more special than others and others checking on them too. Like DMOZ (or Cambodia circa 1977, depending on your frame of reference).
Re:Well.. one drawback. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Well.. one drawback. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Well.. one drawback. (Score:2)
Re:Well.. one drawback. (Score:2)
Re:Well.. one drawback. (Score:2)
Re:Well.. one drawback. (Score:2)
Of course if the public is gonna help the PTO, the costs to apply should be GREATLY reduced, if not nullified. I mean it costs $30 or so to copyright a work but $10k or more to patent something!?!? The copyright will last your lifetime and it goes through almost zero scrutiny to check for pl
Re:Well.. one drawback. (Score:1)
Did that theory work with Democracy? (Score:3, Interesting)
He doesn't use those words, exactly. He puts it into terms of working vs. petitioning, then escalates it into lobbying and finally violence of different sorts, but that is essentially what he is saying.
Therefore, the powerful do game the system, and it will be gamed, and nobody will be able to stop them.
That's happening right now -- indeed, for
Discussion makes things slower (Score:2)
Re:Discussion makes things slower (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well.. one drawback. (Score:3, Interesting)
If you read the article it states that "The peer initiative focuses on so-called prior art, the scientific papers and previous patents that could render claims invalid." So there is not much room for sabotage as I'm sure the prior art would will require some verification.
It is already possible for anyone to submit prior art submissions to stop a patent but it is much more formal and expensive and slower than this
Re:Well.. one drawback. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Well.. one drawback. (Score:2)
Setting up a special patent court was supposed to help keep dubious patents from being approved, but that court quickly became populated by people with a vested interest in promoting more and broader patents.
I think this idea has a lot of merit, but it will have to be setup care
Thinking Ahead... (Score:5, Insightful)
2. Bullshit applications discarded (99%+)
3. New applications drop 99%
4. Paychecks at the PTO all disappear
5. 10,000 lawyers out of work, but still alive to terrorize other parts of the economy
6. ???
7. PROFIT
Yea.. that will happen...
Re:Thinking Ahead... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Thinking Ahead... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Thinking Ahead... (Score:1)
no, only 42% (Score:2)
Re:no, only 42% (Score:2)
The first thing they need to do.... (Score:1)
There's people out there writing patents for wheels and getting them past the examiners because of the language they use.
Re:Thinking Ahead... (Score:1)
Re:Thinking Ahead... (Score:2)
Fixed. (Score:2, Interesting)
Ok so I anthropomorphized application... But I am just saying, by creating a system more capable of finding the correct examiners for a particular application (perhaps by further defining the details required to submit a patent application) the system would more efficiently utilize the knowledge of each examiner. Then perhaps we wouldn't need to throw "thousands" of examiners at a single appl
Re:Fixed. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Patent Trolls? (Score:2)
Re:Patent Trolls? (Score:1)
This makes me wonder... did someone by any chance patent the idea of having an online news website for geeks where people can comment on news articles and scores can be given to the comments?
No. Clearly a Conflict of Interest. (Score:3, Interesting)
Then you have the conflict of interest. Let's say a large company wants to stomp a startup - they get their lawyers to wallop every part of the application, and they steal all the technology in the process. So much for the little guy.
Nope. I am not as optimistic as
Re:No. Clearly a Conflict of Interest. (Score:2)
Part 2 is a problem. My best guess at an answer would be requiring registration, and requiring you to register your past and present employers (you'd be eliminated from commenting on any of them, or their competitors).
Re:No. Clearly a Conflict of Interest. (Score:1)
What we reall
Re:No. Clearly a Conflict of Interest. (Score:2)
Then, GP's idea really does have merit. Have a panel of technical experts in the field read the patent, and if a certain percentage of them can't make heads or tails of it, reject it. It'll put a quick end to attempts to patent the wheel by describing it with 2 million words.
>Re:No. Clearly a Conflict of Interest. (Score:2)
Frist ZPtanet!
Re:No. Clearly a Conflict of Interest. (Score:1)
I say we need more applications to get walloped. This whole "little guy" thing is mostly a myth anyway; the va
Timely? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Timely? (Score:1)
Re:Timely? (Score:1)
Public peer review of applications... (Score:5, Insightful)
There are some who might argue that applications need to remain secret in order to prevent competitors from snatching the idea and using it in their products, because it's possible that the application will be denied, and then the patent submitter will lose his competitive advantage.
To those people, I say: applying for a 20-year monopoly on a method should carry significant risks. The decision to apply for a patent should not be one that is made lightly. Those who want such a monopoly should have to be exposed to the risk that what could have remained a trade secret is instead exposed to the world without any compensation being made to the originator.
If the patent is approved then suddenly the patent holder can arrange licensing with those who have already implemented products using the method. If a patent looks like it stands a really good chance of being approved, chances are others will stay away from it anyway. But woe to those who attempt to slide an obvious or previously-known method as a patent through such a system.
That's how it should be.
Re:Public peer review of applications... (Score:2)
Re:Public peer review of applications... (Score:2)
In due time (way too long, IMHO) your patent is approved. Great! Now you can get royalties or some other reciprocation from the large, well-funded company, right?
Wrong. They'll overwhelm you with lawsuits and counter litigation to ensure that not only do they
Re:Public peer review of applications... (Score:4, Insightful)
If you can control your secret, you have a competitive advantage.
Note that not all trade secrets are inventions, nor would it be easy to keep some inventions a secret, especially if you intend to make it into a product and sell it to the public.
Re:Public peer review of applications... (Score:2)
Nee indirect peer review of patent's obviousness. (Score:2, Insightful)
Having peers review the actual patent, then asking them to honestly estimate it's obviousness is a tall order. Besides the fact that they now have been given your ideas (and may wish to see the patent thrown out), they must also ask themselves how easy it would be to solve a problem for which they already have the answer.
Instead, we should measure the patent's obviousness indirectly, by asking those "sch
Re:Nee indirect peer review of patent's obviousnes (Score:1)
1)if the solution is obvious but satisfies a long-felt but unmet need
2)if the invention is highly commercially sucessful.
Think Obvious but overlooked.
Not To Seem Mercenary, But... (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean, I could say there was prior art or that the submitted "invention" completely lacks novelty, but such assertions would be more likely to be heeded if I also provided concrete references, and that takes non-trivial work (no, pointing at a Wikipedia article doesn't count).
So, if I do this, apart from the feel-good karma of smacking down patent trolls, what's in it for me? Maybe a tax credit? Waiver of fees for my own patent/SIR application?
Schwab
Wikipedia? (Score:2)
Re:Not To Seem Mercenary, But... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not To Seem Mercenary, But... (Score:1)
This seems reasonable on its face, but it fails to consider the problem of collusion, which is most probable amongst the largest players.
IBM and Microsoft already cross-license an enormous number of pat
Re:Not To Seem Mercenary, But... (Score:2)
It really works like that: reading patents to try and make sure you're not infringing anything, *increases* your vulnerability to patent-trolls. Coders should avoid even looking at patents as far
Re:Not To Seem Mercenary, But... (Score:2)
This strictly focuses on Novelty & Obviousness. It is Obvious to sort music in a hierarchal structure by Genre, Artist, Album, Song - but not nescesarilly done previously on a handheld device. The real advantage is if you can get those people 'reasonably skilled in the art' to agree if it is obvious or not. Auto starting a flash/active X component of a web page is Obvious to program
Nice (Score:1)
Accelerates innovation (Score:2)
... by sinking submarine patents. (Score:3, Insightful)
A "submarine patent" remains unpublished after it is granted. By running silent, running deep, the submarine patent's owners let other people develop and implement inadvertantly infringing products. Then *BLAMMO* the Patent surfaces and holds the inadvertant infringers at gunpoint (er, torpedo point. What-ever).
Publishing applications as soon as they are filed stops this tactic. Potential infringers have the ability to check whether their product infringes BEFORE they invest. That's a good thing!
Re:... by sinking submarine patents. (Score:2)
Also, what many people refer (incorrectly) to as Submarine Patents are earlier patents that were not researched by the victim for a variety of reasons. These reasons might be 1) Lack of time or money to perform the s
Re:... by sinking submarine patents. (Score:2)
In-In-correct.
In the U.S. system, patent applications need not be publicized for a year-and-a-half after filing ... and that time can be extended with the applicant makes certain declarations. That's a vast improvement over our old system (where submarines could stay under the surface for decades) but still a long way from being "good". If your 18 months of effort got holed amidship and sank into the frigid North Atlantic, you would not say "well, at least it's not decades" you would say "that is bad" (or
Re:... by sinking submarine patents. (Score:2)
Re:... by sinking submarine patents. (Score:2)
Your analysis would be more pursuasive if you could point to examples.
You do not dispute that the law as written is I have stated; you merely say courts will cite principles of equity ("laches") in refusing to uphold the law as it is written. That may be the case, but it
(a) presumes that the holder of the submarine patent acted in bad faith, which is not always easy to prove even when it is true;
(b) is a poor business practice & legal strategy to depend on activist courts.
As I initially stated and y
Re:... by sinking submarine patents. (Score:2)
Re:... by sinking submarine patents. (Score:2)
Dang! you got fine manners .... let us break for a beer and sing sodden songs of fellowship!
Re:Accelerates innovation (Score:2)
Re:My method for taking advantage of this system. (Score:2)
http://www.justjournal.com/users/raven/entry/1361 [justjournal.com]
I suggested much the same (Score:2)
I would also think a bounty for disproving the application (showing prior art, that the application is too vague or obvious or whatnot), coming directly from a percentage of the applicant fee would be wise - $250 to $5000. Applicant fees should also be raised, individual applicants within a certain income bracket should have to pay the lowest, while mega-corps have to pay the highest fee (within reason) - and this fee would also be reflected
Re:I suggested much the same (Score:2)
I agree that altruism works faster with a material incentive booster ...
... but when it comes to finding prior art, the incentive is simple:
1. Find hot patent application
2. Find prior art sure to sink patent
3. Setup production of competing product using information disclosed in application
4. When you're ready to go to market: reveal prior art and blow away patent
5. PROFIT!!!
Re:I suggested much the same (Score:1)
Individual inventors claim 'small entity status' and get a reduction in filing fees.
Re: (Score:2)
1,000,000 x wrong filter = wrong filter. (Score:2)
Hmmm, and about the specific field of software... (Score:2)
solution for patents (Score:2)
Patentdot, part deux (Score:2)
You mean something like PatentDot ??? [slashdot.org] which I suggested on Feb. 12, 2006:
Re:Patentdot, part deux (Score:2)
Re:Patentdot, part deux (Score:2)
Now that there's tagging, I think that's a supperior method of categorization.
In theory... (Score:2)
It would be funny, ironic and sad "if"... (Score:3, Funny)
If the idea is already patented... Oh the irony!!!
Problem: People can't read patents (Score:3, Interesting)
Patent claim language (the actual property rights granted by the patent) is byzantine and ugly. Besides that, there are all kinds of nuances. Do you know the difference between an apparatus and a method patent? The terms used in the claims may (nay, probably) don't mean what you think they mean. The applicant doesn't even know what they mean, since the legal claim construction process only occurs when the patent is challenged. Then, if the applicant (as many do) uses USC 30 S112P6 "means-plus-function" language, you're in a whole other world of indirection and confusion.
Patents need reform, but having a million uneducated people looking at the applications is only part of the solution. Reforms to patent law itself, such as:
- Making applicants provide a binding glossary of terms
- Making applicants identify corresponding structure for means-plus-function elements
- Reforming the byzantine nature of claim language
would go miles and miles to easing the process and squeezing out inefficiency
My input: kill *all* patents (Score:2)
Re:My input: kill *all* patents (Score:2)
The illusion that patents helps the small man is just that -- an illusion, if not an outright lie. In reality, you have to be a company or independently wealthy to be able to obtain a patent. If you work for a company, your contract will say that any inventions belong to them, so that won't benefit the inventor. The CTO might get a bigger bonus, but that's about it. And even if you're wealthy enough to be independent, chances are high that you'll not publicise many of your inventions, due to
Colour me purple (Score:1)
Solution? (Score:1)
We have already identified ways people can screw the system. As in, get their people to review their applications. To solve this all you would need is that whomever is reviewing... (I suggest listing credentials) is an independant party.
To ensure a high quality amount of people you will definitely need compensation. There are a slew of science and math (and others e.g. biochemistry) graduates and especially post-docs that may be wi
Prioritize the criteria (Score:2)
Point-by-point:
Re:Prioritize the criteria (Score:1)
Most patents are a waste of time and money unless the inventor is willing to defend the patent...and that takes lawyers and $money$.
On the other hand, you can invent a nice new system for solving some sticky problem and not even care about patenting/defending. As a possible scenario, maybe all you want to do is use your invention to feed yourself and your family. Then someone comes along, swipes your idea, patents your invention and sends you
translation (Score:1)
cool (Score:1)
I've been so appreciative of them deciding what I get to not watch on TV or listen on the radio. It is about time they are given the power to do extra stuff for us.
Ah, the moralists minority. Gotta love'em!