SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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
(Score: 2, Funny) by Pslytely Psycho on Friday December 29 2017, @09:26AM
How would those poor patent trolls feed their starving children? Do we not care about our fellow.......I can't go on.......too nauseous......to finish.....joke....gag...
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by gringer on Friday December 29 2017, @09:53AM (6 children)
I'll just copy over my comments from the /. story [slashdot.org]:
Another related comment (from someone else) which explains this better:
Ask me about Sequencing DNA in front of Linus Torvalds [youtube.com]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Friday December 29 2017, @03:30PM (2 children)
As with the problems with the FC and phone and cable companies, this is not democracy, it's regulatory capture, but by lawyers this time.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Friday December 29 2017, @03:50PM (1 child)
it's regulatory capture
And only the voters can free the government from that trap. If they don't don't it, nobody will. With a 95% reelection rate, where's the incentive to change anything?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Friday December 29 2017, @04:11PM
Very true.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday December 29 2017, @08:21PM (1 child)
This is already the case. The Applicant has to address prior art in their application.
The patent attorney is supposed to do this again, They are likely to do less of a job than the applicant.
The Patent office will so an even more cursory search. (Usually restricted to their own database).
For every applicant that skimps on a patent search there is a patent attorney that did the same.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by gringer on Saturday December 30 2017, @10:33AM
Not really. The applicant does a token search for prior art, but it's not a proper challenge, and it's in everyone's best interest to not put too much effort into searching for a reason to reject the patent.
Once the patent is awarded, the process would go something like this:
Company 2: Let's make this thing
Company 1: Hey, you can't do that, I've patented that thing you're trying to make
Company 2: Oh really? I don't believe the patent is valid because X
[Patent validity battle ensues, where Company 1 needs to demonstrate X is not sufficient grounds for invalidation]
Ask me about Sequencing DNA in front of Linus Torvalds [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Friday December 29 2017, @11:43PM
> or more accurately people who vote for Congressmen who don't push for patent reform.
Sorry, this is not a reasonable expectation. I'd love to vote for Pirate Party candidates, but I have never seen any on the ballot.
Have to fight this in other ways. For instance, asking that MAFIAA and patent troll lawyers be disbarred. Boycotting MAFIAA products and services. Showing artists that they can do just fine without copyright, and they and their children will not starve.
Unfortunately, the whole notion of intellectual property pushes our buttons in all the worst ways. People hate, hate, hate to suffer any kind of material loss. Dressing ideas up as "property" which can then be "lost" triggers all manner of furious defenses of property rights. People will rant and rave about theft being out of control and society collapsing, and never notice they've been massively suckered.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 29 2017, @01:44PM (4 children)
Ta Da! problem solved
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday December 29 2017, @05:42PM (3 children)
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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 29 2017, @07:47PM (1 child)
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
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
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.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by bradley13 on Friday December 29 2017, @01:45PM (1 child)
Really, it's obvious. TFA tells us nothing we didn't already know: people tend to do what pays off. The patent office get more fees by approving patents, so they approve lots of patents. If you want to improve the patent process, adjust the incentives accordingly.
You could realistically debate whether or not patents actually do contribute to innovation. Try eliminating them for 20 years, and see what happens. Certainly, in today's rapidly changing technology landscape, patents need to be shorter and completely nonrenewable.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday December 29 2017, @08:39PM
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 29 2017, @06:10PM
I thought this was obvious from the wrought iron sign erected above the gates to the USPTO which reads "GRANT THEM ALL AND LET THE COURTS SORT THEM OUT"