Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Friday December 29 2017, @08:08AM   Printer-friendly
from the follow-the-money dept.

Why don't more low-quality patents get rejected? A recent paper published by the Brookings Institution offers fascinating insights into this question. Written by legal scholars Michael Frakes and Melissa Wasserman, the paper identifies three ways the patent process encourages approval of low-quality patents:

  • The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is funded by fees—and the agency gets more fees if it approves an application.
  • Unlimited opportunities to refile rejected applications means sometimes granting a patent is the only way to get rid of a persistent applicant.
  • Patent examiners are given less time to review patent applications as they gain seniority, leading to less thorough reviews.

None of these observations is entirely new. For example, we have covered the problems created by unlimited re-applications in the past. But what sets Frakes and Wasserman's work apart is that they have convincing empirical evidence for all three theories.

They have data showing that these features of the patent system systematically bias it in the direction of granting more patents. Which means that if we reformed the patent process in the ways they advocate, we'd likely wind up with fewer bogus patents floating around.

Source : These experts figured out why so many bogus patents get approved


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday December 29 2017, @05:42PM (3 children)

    by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Friday December 29 2017, @05:42PM (#615573) Journal

    And then tomorrow the corporate entities will pay someone in their employee to "hold" the patent so the lawsuit may be issued in that person's name.

    Then you make penalties for individuals to file frivolous patent suits (similar to SLAPP).

    Then you have legitimate-but-borderline patents which are rejected as part of the process.

    You have given us a wonderful idea, but one that has just as many complications, if not more, as any other solution.

    --
    This sig for rent.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 29 2017, @07:47PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 29 2017, @07:47PM (#615628)

    Not really you just don't allow anyone but the actual inventor to hold the patent. no exceptions, it can be licensed but never transferred when the inventor isn't around to hold it anymore it reverts to public domain

    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Friday December 29 2017, @08:34PM

      by frojack (1554) on Friday December 29 2017, @08:34PM (#615649) Journal

      Patents are valid for a specific period of time - regardless of who holds them.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
  • (Score: 2) by frojack on Friday December 29 2017, @08:33PM

    by frojack (1554) on Friday December 29 2017, @08:33PM (#615647) Journal

    Exactly.

    Corporations are not the problem here.

    In fact their patents are likely to be of better quality than Joe Garage Shop's patents.
    They usually have people that can at least do a patent search and cost benefit analysis.

    In the modern world, Corporations are the only structures that can realistically practice most patents.
    (Congratulations Joe, you've been granted a patent for your new Dump Truck Defrakulator. Now lets see you build trucks before your patent expires. Good Luck.)

      There is simply nothing to be gained by preventing corporate ownership.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.