Patent Review via Community Not Wiki-based 40
Moe Napoli writes "Articles have recently surfaced (CNET/ZDnet, Fortune and a mention here at Slashdot) incorrectly identifying the recent USPTO pilot Community Patent Review program to be Wiki-based. While a number of Slashdotters have identified why such an approach would create more problems than solve, the program's architect, NYLS Prof. Beth Noveck, continues the discussion and further clarifies why the program is not Wiki-based, yet 'conveys the appropriate sense of openness, transparency and collaboration.'"
Uh Oh! Tax dollar Sinkhole? (Score:5, Insightful)
The outline of the goals:
- Goal 1 Optimize Patent Quality and Timeliness
- Goal 2 Optimize Trademark Quality and Timeliness
- Goal 3 Improve Intellectual Property Protection and Enforcement Domestically and Abroad
- Management Goal Achieve Organizational Excellence
I recognize phrases and words that alarm me in that this document really doesn't say much or provide a 'plan' at all. For instance, its first goal is to "Optimize Patent Quality and Timeliness" which sounds like a great idea. But if you dig through the document to figure out how they will achieve this, there is naught to be found but: Which worries me because the only quantifiable thing listed there is 'streamlined procedures' and I would prefer you aim for an intuitive & rigorous control process instead of using a bland word like streamlined. I mean, how can you determine if something really is streamlined?Also confusing: So there's not really going to be any new tools or procedures but instead it's the 'mythical man month' approach where you just throw more people at the problem until it goes away? How do you determine a 'capable employee' and shouldn't those be the only kind you hire anyway?
Indeed the primary goal of this paper is to convince the reader that patent/trademark applications are one the rise. Unfortunately the one solution they have for that is hiring more examiners and creating focus groups. Is this really the solution?
They list search technology as an increasingly useful tool but why not data mining? I mean, you would think that the primary concern is to make this as simple as possible for the patent examiners and give them cutting edge technology to cross-reference patents. I think the most useful tool would be a thesaurus and/or a taxonomy that could allow them to link key words and identify possible prior art that a traditional search would have missed.
You know, the alternative to hiring more patent examiners is to make the grounds for a patent more stringent. Then a lot of the 'maybes' could be thrown out. In the end, I'm afraid this is just another government office or agency that's going to balloon out of control and consume tax payer dollars.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well since Einstein worked at the swiss patent office, perhaps they should ask about the potential employee's theory of relativity (or even their unified field theory). That will sort the wheat from the chaff!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Uh Oh! Tax dollar Sinkhole? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just a quick comment, based on what a friend and ex-colleague who keeps me up to date with what's going on in the PTO.... a lot of the "quality" initiatives involve lots and lots of "review" by others, other examiners, quality review, etc. The problem with this boils down to whether the reviewer has the same or better working knowlege of the art (i. e. technology) of the application under review. How does one expect such a reviewer to be able to generate better prior art than the examiner who works daily in art? Also, one not knowledgable about the art can misinterpret/misunderstand terminology, and often will think they have a great reference that superficially is great prior art, but really is is irrelevant, wasting time in arguments back and forth. This is like quickly hacking out code and then trying to get it working by bug fixing, a very inefficient process.
The streamlining aspects are just management code-speak for speeding up the assembly line, reducing the amount of time an examiner spends on an application, etc, which has been the real focus of management efforts over the past 30 or more years; it's a hard culture for management to abandon.
So you end up with the worst of all worlds: A system with strict production controls with an add-on review system that just harasses examiners without actually enhancing quality.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I think you have nailed it here. The problem is the huge number of *suspect* patents. And the primary cause of these patents is the tremendous number of filings, compounded with their increasing complexity.
Personally, I think we need a fundamental change in the patent system. It is simply too difficult to provide a gate-keeping function. The quality of the screening inevitably becomes less and less accurate and effective over time. Instead, what if compan
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, this is not really any different that what we have today. The "screening" is already terribly ineffective, so in the end both sides "lawyer up" and hash it out, first lawyer-to-lawyer, and then if that fails, in court. The fact that the patent was granted is not all that meaningful, since prior art very often is unearthed, retroactively rendering the patent invalid. Another common result of patent disputes is to argue the interpretati
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe even more fundamentally, maybe we can do away with the patent system altogether?
The rhetoric is that in exchange for divulging a novel invention to the world, one is granted a temporary monopoly on that invention. Others can see the published patents, build off them and thereby speed the rate of industrial progress.
Leaving aside the many patents that are prior art, there is another issue. Patent submitters routinely attempt to game the patent system by having the claims be as broad as possible whi
Re:Uh Oh! Tax dollar Sinkhole? (Score:5, Interesting)
So do not worry. Your money does not currently and probably never will fund the US Patent and Trademark Office. (As for my credentials, I was a patent examiner. So I think I can provide some insight in this matter.)
Re: (Score:2)
our tax dollars (Score:1)
You objected to the grandparent believing "our tax dollars" fund the USPTO. I agree that the common usage of "our tax dollars" usually refers to the income tax, which does not fund the USPTO. On the other hand, the patent process ultimately represents a tax, a "competitive monopoly tax". The tax is payed by corporations, who will then pass on the cost to the general public. So in the end, the public ends up funding the USPTO. The fact that income from the USPTO is diverted to other government programs more
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
That's not likely. The U.S. Patent Office charges fees for all of the work it does. It's required to charge enough to meet all of its expected expenses, including the cost of additional examiners and improvements it thinks it needs. However, Congress also limits what it's allowed to spend and keeps the difference, so the Patent Office can't make the improvements th
Blogs are the New Media (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyway, about the topic. It seems like a lot more trouble than it's worth to ask the general public to review patents. Especially when patents are in their review stages, they are especially vulnerable to getting ripped off. Opening up the process to outsiders only makes this vulnerability more obvious and dangerous.
Like what has happened in the music industry, once the cat is out of the bag, it's impossible to put that genie back in the bottle.
More likely than not, this experiment will wither on the vine and we won't hear much more about it until Slashdot posts a link to the blog that explains why the "community patent review process" failed miserably.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Blogs are the New Media (Score:4, Insightful)
Am I missing the subtle logic here?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sincerely not trolling, I'm just trying to figure out how you are coming to your conclusions.
Re: (Score:2)
You can either let the patent office continue in its current form, which is essentially to grant each and every patent that comes across their desk.
Or you can let the public comment on the patent having some hope this comment will inform the patent examiner of prior art.
Sure there are problems to the system, but if you receive your patent you will still get protection if you didn't either you didn't deserve it or the patent examiner made a mistake. Currently the mis
Expecting any replies along the lines of...? (Score:2)
Questions... (Score:1, Interesting)
Not a wiki? (Score:2)
PR is just modern-day propaganda (Score:3, Insightful)
So is it actually open, transparent and collaborative, or does it just convey the appropriate sense?
Re: (Score:1)
Is this a situation were large corporations AND the little guy win? I don't think so!
Not really (Score:2)
Wiki (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Red flag phrases (Score:2)
Yeah, but it's the WRONG goal! (Score:2)
Patents are a fraud, by giving an inventor a 'protective' monopol
weasel word alert (Score:1)
"Appropriate" is one of the top weasel words. For example, in this context, it could easily mean "it is appropriate for the patent process to be closed, non-transparent, and uncollaborative, so hell will freeze over before we'll do anything to change that".
Everybody but Open Source (Score:1)
After further reflection I have a more complicated view of the proposed patent reforms. I think that the reforms are good across all patentable fields but that they will do the least good with the software patent problems faced