Patent Reviews Via Wiki 84
unboring writes "Fortune reports on a pilot program where the patent approval process would be opened to outsiders for review. Reviewers can vote and discuss on different proposals, through say a wiki. Given the many (recent and past) patent approval fiascos, this seems like a good idea. It'll be interesting to see how they would deal with the issues faced by Wikipedia."
Why a wiki? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why a wiki? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you build it, they will abuse it. (Score:5, Insightful)
A wiki seems a strange choice (Score:1, Insightful)
BTW, it will be mightily interesting to see if this has none, some, or a major impact on what patents are actually approved. I can imagine geeks with too much time on their hands will find some obscure prior art to almost everything that companies think of patenting, thus leaving only the things that really should be patentable to make it through the process. In short, how it should be. But it all remains to be seen.
* And yes, I'm aware that somebody has probably posted a comment similar to this one already, making it oh so ironic. Yawn.
Re:Why a wiki? (Score:4, Insightful)
The bottom line is that the process will be more transparent and more open to correction than the current system.
Re:Obvious problem (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Obvious problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, any inventor who wants to seek protection outside the US has to make a public application anyways. The US is basically the only country left with a closed review process. You can opt for a closed review, but then your patent is only enforceable inside the USA (and possibly a couple other places - but not Europe, and some other large markets).
Second, the fact that the site is "public" is ot the relevant fact for patent validity. What matters is if the inventor makes one of a few categories of "disclosure". That includes most avenues of publishing, sales, etc. But if the USPTO does something that resembles disclosure (like posting it in a review wiki), they are still free to give it whatever legal definition they deem appropriate. And there's no way that they would define any part of their review process as a disclosure.
Re:Why a wiki? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wikis are better at presenting a single summary of discussions. In a forum, minor mistakes don't get fixed easily (eg. if one person corrects another person, you have to read through the whole conversation to get an accurate glimpse of the conslusions drawn).
That doesn't mean wikis present only one view... a page can note that disagreement exists, and the page can present different views of a situation by different groups of people. But when there's longer amounts of discussion, having a single-page summary is far far better for newcomers, and for decision-makers to scan the arguments more quickly.
Re:If you build it, they will abuse it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Conversely, if a company's competitor has a multimillion dollar product on the line, it could be very beneficial to help dig up prior art to prevent/negate a patent and then cash in by selling (or not withdrawing) a similar product. That might sound bad, but it would allow for actual innovations to get protected (no prior art) and allow the public (as well as other companies) to pay less for derivative items because of increased competition. If the idea catches on, the grassroots/astroturf community could get used to help ensure keep sabotage successes to a minimum.
I think it's a great idea. I just wish I could see how it'd apply to biotech items. Patenting genes and chemicals found in nature still bugs me.
Bills into Laws (Score:3, Insightful)
Simon Phipps (Sun):"the social contract is broken" (Score:3, Insightful)
Moreover, the articles also linked there [webmink.net] indicate that in the field of software at least, quite probably there never even really was such a time when the "industry's know-how was only being advanced by corporations" (rather than e.g. academics and individual inventors).
Re:Some real flaws (Score:3, Insightful)
Which "next guy" would that be? Jeff Bezos?
Nosey parkers ought to mind thier own business! I mean it's not as if the patent system was set up to spread this sort of information or anything...
Always assuming that that patent is valid, which it may not be; that review community is fundamentally crooked; that the patent office rubber stamp the wiki recommendation, (which I suppose is plausible); and that the flimsy electronic "evidence" survives even the most superficial legal review.
That's quite a lot to take for granted. Luckily, the patent office are not making assumptions either way, which is why this is being conducted as a trial. To see if it works.
What, after such carefully considered analysis? You reckon?
Improve patents (Score:2, Insightful)
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?HowToImprovePatents [c2.com]
# The evaluation of patents should be based on objective methods, not subjective rules.
# A business secret rule. To get a patent on an idea it most be a business secret. an idea is a business secret if it can be used in a business without giving it away. An contra example is amazons one click patent which can't be used in business without reveling it. This rule insure that the community get something in exchange for the patent monopoly.
# A bounty system. The patent systems should be a public bounty system. Every patent application should have a bounty on it. The initial bounty is payed by the patent seeker but it should be possible for others to add to a bounty.
# Internet system: The patents examination should be made public on the Internet where it should be accessible to all without cost.
# Non-obvious tests: First the technical problem should be posted and the should be a period for the public to post solutions to the problem, if the solution is posted. Then the poster get the bounty and the patent is rejected as obvious. But the posted solution remains available to the public.
# Novelty test: Then the patent solutions is posted and the should be a period to find prior art. If prior art is found the patent fails the novelty test and the finder get the bounty.
Project Red Herring (Score:5, Insightful)
The patent problem has to be solved and the patent problem is NO problem of prior art, novelty assessment, "triviality" or "obviousness", patent examiner laziness or mistakes etc. However patent institutions and patent professionals like to let you enter the toyground. There you can think up solutions, but they will not solve the problems, and the institutions are safe.
Patent reform of Congress went into the same trap. They discussed the issue for the