Slashdot Log In
The U.S. Patent Backlog
Posted by
samzenpus
on Wed Feb 27, 2008 11:01 PM
from the we-will-be-with-you-shortly dept.
from the we-will-be-with-you-shortly dept.
coondoggie writes "Even with its increased hiring estimates of 1,200 patent examiners each year for the next 5 years, the US Patent and Trademark Office patent application backlog is expected to increase to over 1.3 million at the end of fiscal year 2011 the Government Accounting Office reported today. The USPTO has also estimated that if it were able to hire 2,000 patent examiners per year in fiscal year 2007 and each of the next 5 years, the backlog would continue to increase by about 260,000 applications, to 953,643 at the end of fiscal year 2011, the GAO said. Despite its recent increases in hiring, the agency has acknowledged that it cannot hire its way out of the backlog and is now focused on slowing the growth of the backlog instead of reducing it. This too is but one of the goals of the Patent Reform Act currently making the rounds in the US Senate."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Therefore (Score:5, Funny)
Pay me, bitches.
Re:Therefore (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Software patents (Score:1)
Re:Software patents (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Software patents (Score:4, Insightful)
In principle, not evil at all. The idea is that the government will grant you a limited time monopoly on your invention, provided you document everything so that once your time is up, anyone can create and improve on the idea. This is in contrast to trade secrets, where you get to keep your invention for as long as you can keep it a secret.
(As a side note, the NSA has cheated this system, where some of their algorithms are currently a trade secret, and will suddenly become a patent if they're ever revealed).
The system today has severe implementation flaws, but the idea behind it is brilliant.
Parent
Re:Software patents (Score:5, Interesting)
(1) business method patents
(2) software patents
(3) genome patents
(4) the patenting process (including the difficulty and cost of overturning a patent, compared to getting an obvious patent through)
(5) patent trolls abusing (4).
Patents on physical inventions which are clearly new, innovative, and unique are fine.
Parent
Re:Software patents (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Software patents (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Software patents (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
What they told me (Score:5, Interesting)
They are currently backlogged 5 years.
With their hiring surge of engineers, they want to bring the backlog to 2 years within 4 years IIRC
And apparently they crap money, with a starting salary of 63k with a 10k starting bonus for the first 4 years, plus a 10% bonus if a 130% efficiency rating is maintained for the 4 quarters.
The ones they are particularly hiring are EEs, CSs, and Comp Engs.
Now you know, and remember- Knowledge is power!
Re:What they told me (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:What they told me (Score:5, Informative)
Enjoy.
Parent
Re:What they told me (Score:4, Informative)
And as for that, it's not my main choice, but it's better than no job.
Parent
Re:What they told me (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a built in incentive for bad patents to get through. Patents get rubber stamped simply because of the need of efficiency to get out of the whole backlog mess. Instead of actually diligently checking and rechecking for prior art conflicting patents, the employee stamps it as good, as fast as possible, and walks away with their 10% bonus. This seems to be the same problem that tech support has with call tracking. The faster a person gets you off the phone, the more money they make, and the faster they get promoted.
Parent
Re:What they told me (Score:5, Insightful)
Looking at this job I am almost tempted to apply. The money is good even without the bonus. It would be interesting and varied work. And one would be in fine company, as Mr Einstein himself was once a patent clerk.
But I would last all of 5 minutes before getting fired. The problem is as computer scientist and inventor and someone who knows the difference between an abstract idea and well thought out and unique implementation that solves original problems I would have to apply ethical standards to my work.
Got a business patent? In the bin it goes.
Got an existing idea you want to add the words "web browser" or "computer" to? In the bin.
Only got mathematical algorithm? No language specific implementation? In the bin.
You want to add a tiny specific modification to an existing idea? Sorry, in the the bin.
Something that I can find published on Google with trivial searching? In the bin.
Well, you might think my manager would be happy as a pig in shit, praising a wonderful worker who is clearing the backlog by rigorously applying the rules. Wouldn't you?
Oh, but wait... Where does the patent office make its money? Approving patents.
Which is why the rules were changed to allow all this crap through in the first place. There aren't suddenly more ideas in the world, the bar for patentability has been drastically lowered and the system is broken because of it.
So, how about this for an idea. If he approves a patent that is subsequently challenged and voided the clerk loses twice their bonus and the patent office has to refund the application fee in full. And to make sure the applicant doesn't benefit from specious claims, they must pay a fine of 10 times the application fee to the government.
Then let's see who is so quick with the rubber stamp.
What is needed is incentive to find _good_ patents. To add this incentive, how about a royalty type bonus system. A clerk who approves a patent that runs its full term gets a small bonus at the end of its life, related to how much money it has actually made through the sale of real products (litigation payments would be excluded).
Parent
Re:What they told me (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
old news (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/07/AR2007100701199_pf.html [washingtonpost.com]
There is no real issue. Problem solved. (Score:1)
Re:There is no real issue. Problem solved. (Score:4, Informative)
Even with all the cash they have, they can't hire enough to get them back to even.
Parent
Examiners don't quite do anything anyway (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, I know. (Score:2, Informative)
I have an application 12 months into a 30 month queue. In a fast-moving field, this is a huge headache. My previous patents only took about a year to get to first office action.
There's a new express program, though. If you file no more than three claims, file online, and do a more diligent search, the USPTO promises to process the patent in less than a year. That was just starting when I filed, and I didn't take that option.
A giant rubber stamp is needed (Score:4, Interesting)
Is that what it's going to come down too?
Re:A giant rubber stamp is needed (Score:4, Insightful)
Is that what it's going to come down too[sic]?
Parent
Obvious Jobs Program (Score:5, Interesting)
In fact, the growth in patents and their revenue should even stimulate the production of American engineers. Offer full scholarships to engineers, funded by those fees, in exchange for them becoming paid examiners for a couple-few years at least, and returning for at least 6 months every 5-10 years for a couple-few decades. If they break that deal, they owe 2x their scholarship immediately, which can pay for more scholarships and paid examiners.
The patent system has many problems. Primary is that the American people subsidize the creation of intellectual property by paying for the expensive examination and challenge system, which we can ill afford with our current budget problems (and which was never fair to the public, anyway). Also too few examiners of too little quality and commitment. Calibrating a fee to hire examiners and create them by scholarship to the volume of applications should make the system more self-regulating. And good for engineers: Albert Einstein had most of his good ideas working in the Swiss patent office, which no doubt benefited from his talent and imagination. Let's see America protect both itself and its inventors with a simple device that balances both.
You may consider this design to be placed in the public domain
Solutions? (Score:2, Interesting)
A possible solution (Score:5, Funny)
DELETE WHERE ToLower(body) LIKE '%on the internet% (Score:5, Insightful)
Knock out software patents, and patents on processes, and blamo! problem solved.
-Rick
Re:DELETE WHERE ToLower(body) LIKE '%on the intern (Score:4, Insightful)
Deny any patent with the words, "A method to..."
Problem solved. I bet the backlog drops by at least 3/4 what it is today.
Parent
God I want this problem (Score:1)
Wow (Score:2, Funny)
God I want this Problem (Score:2, Interesting)
What we basically have here is a governmental cash cow.
I want this sort of problem with my side business. Too many customers to deal with!?
If they start outsourcing to india, this kind of surplus could generate more revenue than oil.
If anything I think they should be trying to INCREASE the growth of patent submissions, to better provide for the future generation of america.
If you think of the children, it becomes obvious that there is a lot to gain here.
( repost for readibility =/ )
Re:God I want this Problem (Score:4, Funny)
If they start outsourcing to India, we'd probably see a lot of new inventions coming out of India
Parent
You'd think... (Score:1)
You'd think that if we have patents [slashdot.org] like [slashdot.org] this [slashdot.org] out there, the patent office must not be spending that much time on patents...and yet, somehow we still have a growing backlog. Go figure.
Either they're spending a lot of time doing nothing and breezing through patents, are granting ridiculous patents after spending a lot of time reviewing them, or they're doing their job properly (or trying to, though how some of these patents ever get awarded is beyond me) and are grossly understaffed.
Hmmmmm..... (Score:1)
Thats because they are allowing.... (Score:2)
they are probably underestimating the backlog
It's just the math... (Score:2)
why check them at all? (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's an idea... (Score:2)
Only option (Score:1)
Simple solution -- working prototypes (Score:5, Interesting)
So Arthur C. Clarke would not have been able to patent the idea of geostationary satellites. He didn't so nothing was lost. Were current patent procedures in place in the late 40s, most certainly a patent troll would have patented it. But what harm is there in forcing comeone to actually get a satellite to geostationary orbit before allowing a patent? It would certainly encourage research and development rather than litigation and argument. Forcing Edison to actually get a filament that worked before granting him a patent on the light bulb worked out for the better, rather than allowing him to patent the "idea" of using an electrically heated filament to generate light. If he had gotten the patent without the working model he could have sat back and just sued anyone implementing electic lights for the next 17 years. It would have set back progress tremendously.
Karma (Score:2)
well, what did you expect ? (Score:2)
Good! (Score:1)
Like copyright, patents hold back innovation. Those protections need to be abolished. It's impossible for an intelligent person to create anything new anymore without unwittingly re-inventing the things covered by existing patents.
I wish someone would create software to generate arbitrary, valid patents -- millions at a time -- and pay to submit them all. I think society should essentially wage a "Denial Of Service" attack on the US Patent Office. The "protection" of patents has cost society enough.
If patents are allowed to continue, then make it like insurance: The patent holder pays a premium that is equal to 10% of the desired protection amount, EVERY YEAR, for a maximum of 10 years. The patent holder can change the protection amount each year. However, after the patent holder pays a premium for the year, ANYBODY can pay that same premium amount directly to the patent holder to use the patent. Also, ANYBODY can pay 10X the premium amount to forcefully acquire the patent. So, a patent holder is forced to pay to keep a patent alive. If they want to protect themselves from having the patent bought out from under them, they'll make sure they're actually making money from the patent before paying for patent protection. The ongoing payments make it painful to hang on to a patent, while still making confident and profitable ventures continue to be protected for up to 10 years. The ability to buy out a patent based on 10X the patent-holder's desired protection level, combined with the fact the the patent-holder is forced to pay an annual premium that is 10% of the desired protection level, keeps the pressure on the patent-holder to set a protection level that actually reflects their commitment to the patent. There is an annual auction-like quality, but by forcing the patent holder to sacrifice 10% of that auction price to keep the patent we prevent the patent-holder from blocking others from using the patent. If another company has the ability to make significantly more profit on the patent, they can buy the patent outright for a known amount (10X what the current patent holder is willing to pay out each year).
The exponential fee schedule is another promising idea, but the dynamic range of patent values might make it impossible to choose an exponent that is fair for both ends of the dynamic range. Assessing the value of a patent is too likely to lead to corruption.
As far as protecting the "little guy" inventor, I think they should simply keep their idea secret until they can find a buyer. If the buyer is able to clone the idea merely by looking at a prototype, then the idea wasn't worth protecting. If a person can replicate the idea simply by hearing a general description, then the idea was not worth protecting. The little guy inventor should only be protected if the idea cannot be replicated after observing a demonstration of the idea -- and, therefore, the inventor should be able to safely negotiate payment from someone who CAN pay the patent protection money each year. The currently infinite protection, and zero barrier to entry, afforded by today's patent system -- to protect the little guy -- is needlessly costing society a lot.
I don't think society needs patents or copyrights to ensure the continuation of innovation. I think entrepreneurs should shift their focus to producing physical objects and services. It seems like a step backwards from the information age to the industrial age, but information production and transfer is becoming easier. Real manufacturing and services (communication, distributed storage, banking, etc) are immune to copying.
I don't think the inventors and creators of our society feel protected by patents and copyrights. I think the current generation of would-be inventors and creators feel *threatened* and *stif
It's not the number of lawyers its the database(s) (Score:1, Interesting)
How to clear the backlog (Score:4, Insightful)
Step 1: Hire more patent officers.
Step 2: Raise the price of applying to meet costs of #1.
Step 3: Once backlog is clear create stricter application process.
Step 4: Based on number of man hours required for new process introduced in 3, raise prices again.
Step 5: Review demand now that it costs more and is less likely to success; adust staffing to meet new demand.
How many Patent examiners does it take to screw... (Score:2)
Hmmmm, I don't think they know how to do that, no matter how many.
They seems to persist with in the darkness of believing software and business methods are of patent-able subject matter.
Three step patenting process (Score:2, Insightful)
2. Process the patent applications.
3. Validate - check, verify, grant.
Whoa... most of you don't understand business! (Score:2)
Broken system, but I have an idea. (Score:3, Interesting)
I never managed to wrap my head around the fact that I can own the rights to almost anything - as long as nobody else did it first - by just having to file for an application to verify this and pay for the process.
In the next step somebody writes the application as vaguely as possible to give away as little information as possible while trying to grab as much as possible. Then someone will stare incredulously at my application with a stamp twitching in the hand, while tics cause their cheek to spasm. One second and an exaperated curse at the incomprehensible text later, WHAM, I am awarded a billion dollar paper that says I own something I may have never conceived, touched or even spent many minutes pondering about.
Show me an invention that isn't obvious to the expert! They exist, of course - in abundance - yet probably make up for a microscopic fraction of all the patents. But most of the time evolution and developemnt stand on the shoulders of giants and your expert peers will say "Yeah, I thought about that years ago, I just never made anything about it" about your inventions.
Thus, just procuring an idea on paper should not be enough to get a patent. You should also be able to demonstrate that you are actually UTILIZING the concept!
Disincentives for business (Score:1)
Abolish Software and Business Method Patents (Score:2)
Also, require a prototype within a reasonable amount of time, or no patent. It takes no real resources to draw a picture and write a description. The patent itself should not be the product that you profit from. If you have no intention of creating anything with your patent (or helping others to create with it), then you have no business having the damned thing.
Training (Score:1)
1200 patent examiners a year means that they also need to train 1200 people a year...
Teacher: "Welcome to Patent Examination Training. Please open your folders. You each have a patent application in your hands. Start looking through it and hand it in to me by the end of the day as a Pass/Fail patent grade. This is your first assignment."
Student: "But we don't know how to pass a patent."
Teacher: "Nonsense, you do the homework, I'll grade your work, poof! Patent system at its best!"
bot^H^H^Hlawyernet? (Score:1)
How about this simple solution (Score:1)
Hooray for tagging (Score:1, Offtopic)
From a Patent Examiner's Perspective (Score:2, Informative)
Add in the fact that the software we use is a Frankenstein mess of stuff cobbled together from other places and squeezed to work the way we need. We kill more time waiting for and trying to get our tools to work than we often do examining. So what are they doing about it? Hiring top programmers, even pulling examiners who know our system and are great software developers as well to do the work? Maybe hiring a top company who already has their know how in it like Google? No, they keep using the same block headed people as always to produce half baked software that is beta tested live on us trying to do our job. Oops, software doesn't work? Can't produce? Well, you better figure out how to make production. Mind you if the managers don't do their job they don't get reprimanded and often get a bonus on top of things at the end of the year anyway. Examiner who can't keep up get reprimanded and fired.
So the reality is that there is a lot of lip service by the top administrators here about doing the best job, being the best IP org in the world, etc... but the bottom line is that examiners are pushed to their limits trying to do a good job but see little reward or true respect for it in house. Quality of examination goes out the window over production, and at a certain level that is what starts to happen the higher the grade you are since your production ramps up as well.
If you don't believe me... go ask an examiner at the PTO. Ask several and see how far their answers differ. Not much I feel.
Get rid of the "information ownership" system. (Score:2, Interesting)
When it was needed, the world was (mostly) governed by aristocracy. The aristocrats basically cared about one thing: power. So they needed an incentive to create something which they could monopolize (so they have absolute power over it). Enter the patent system. All of a sudden those aristocrats had reason to innovate (or to foster innovation THEY could control).
Over time the aristocrats were replaced with large companies (sad, but true), but the system under which large companies work is exactly the reverse of that of the aristocrats (an aristocrat needs money to get more power, a company needs power to get more money).
Now, how is power gained? Exactly, through knowledge. Now, the patent system allows you control over who gets to apply your knowledge. This control over information obstructs further development, thus obstructing competition... thus obstructing economic growth.
Copyrights, another such flawed system. It allows control over distribution of information. Where it was relevant up to 15 years ago, it's currently completely irrelevant. And it again only serves to obstruct economic growth.
If you replace copyrights with author's rights (as to ensure that the author is able to extract income from his works), I'm perfectly happy with it. Although this still obstructs the distribution of information, it doesn't obstruct the growth of information.
But alas, these completely counterintuitive ideas (patents and copyrights) won't go away, unless it's absolutely needed. In the meanwhile the bureaucracy will get worse and worse, to the point that the world economy is completely crippled and courts are clogged with patent and copyright infringement cases.
Look on the bright side (Score:2)
Simple Fix 1, 2, 3 (Score:3, Interesting)
2. Specify that neither business methods nor software can be patented.
3. Invalidate ALL standing patents that were issued under the previous rule.
That simple.