No, the PTO is self-funding. In fact, part---but by no means all---of the problem has been Congress raiding the PTO's income stream. See: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2010/01/director-kappos-on-the-usptos-lack-of-funding.html.

But most small companies are incorporated and require their inventors to assign the inventions to the incorporation. Making "small entity" available only to individuals would kill all patenting by small businesses. These companies don't have big pockets either. So much then for any pharmaceutical or biotech start ups as well as most software and electronics start up. I'm all for a page limit, but 10 pages/10 drawings is way too small for most inventions. Some areas, especially pharma and biotech requrie lengthy, detailed exposition to meet the teaching requirements of the patent law. And good examiners don't read every page anyway, but look to find what's relevant based on the claims.' Life's way more complex than individuals vs. big business. :-)

By "wait and see", I mean holding on to your patent and waiting to see if someone else's activity infringes and then seeking license fees or litigating. I think that after a suitable period patents should either be worked by their owners (i.e., make the invention your patent covers) or given up to the public, or if you want to sit on the patent then pay a large fee for the privilege.

I've spent about half my career managing patent departments. Even the big guys will take notice of fee increases for filing and maintenance, especially the latter. I believe that a fee structure that focuses on big fees for big filers and big maintenance fees for those who sit on their patents will be a help. Many large companies have patent departments that run on quota---the more you file, the bigger your bonus---and the result is just like the old days when IBM paid programmers by lines of code---lots of bloat and little quality. Simply dealing the problem by "disposing earlier", as if we can just waive our hands and make the pendency problem disappear, will only make the situation worse. First, we'll return to the days of the Compton's patent---when the most egregious allowances become litigation burdens on the market. Second, a liberal allowance policy will only encourage big companies to file more and build their portfolios. The patent system has always had a stated policy of encouraging the examiners to work directly with the applicants to find allowable claims. But the workload coupled with a very onerous and arbitrary "quality review" that was initiated by Bush appointee Dudas have crippled that route. So, yes, we indeed need better communication. But that will not fix things by itself.

The PTO already has a page charge for applications longer than 100 pages. While a more aggressive approach may help, the real problem is the number of applications, not the length of the applications. Indeed, for many inventions more description may be helpful from the standpoint of teaching---the ultimate purpose of the patent system---since some inventions do require a lot of description.

I think it's too early to panic. Having practiced before the USPTO for over 20 years, I've seen many times how the small inventor lobby works its magic to protect the small filers. In fact, I was disappointed that the article didn't even mention the two-tier fee system, providing smaller fees for small businesses, that's been in place for many years now. The PTO needs lots of fixes, but I agree that somethings need to change with the fee structure. Large companies can game the system by flooding the system with new applications, re-filing to wear down examiners, and taking frivolous appeals. Wise changes to the fee structures, which take into account these sorts of tactics, as well as increasing maintenance fees to discourage "wait and see" litigation, will be helpful to the small guy. Hopefully the PTO will show some wisdom.

I agree that reaching an understanding is not sophistry. But "framing" with the intention of winning an argument is sophistry, which was my point. Yes, we all come to any discussion or argument with our views, or "frameworks", or whatever other word you want to use to characterize the fact that we cannot share our minds with each other. But don't confuse theories about how our minds work with the actual work of discourse. Too often theoretical categories of knowledge only interfere with the real work needed to approach a "meeting of the minds" that is necessary to achieve effective discourse and understanding.

I'm not sure if you're serious; but if you are, then you're confusing sophistry with real debate and understanding. Winning an argument, i.e., getting someone to agree with your view, is not the same as reaching understanding. Supposedly that was Sanchez's point too, but I think he doesn't really understand the difference.

I like the quote on Slashdot, but reading his blog I get the sense that he actively practices what he preaches against. Reducing people and complex issues to simplistic (and usually undefined) categories is the heart of the oversimplification that Sanchez laments. We don't need more fights over how to name our problems; we need to understand them, which means we need to understand our selves.

There is a difference between "there but for grace of God go I", and calling out reckless behavior. Either the Quants are truly incompetent, or they looked the other way as they and their bosses made piles of money. I'm sure one day we'll have enough facts to get a clear idea of the answer. But having been married to a former investment banker, I doubt severely this was a case of good people felled by bad luck.