The U.S. Patent Backlog 195
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."
Examiners don't quite do anything anyway (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What they told me (Score:2, Insightful)
Really though, with the years you've invested in your engineering degree would you want to go straight to a paper shuffling job right out of school?
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.
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.
Re:Obvious Jobs Program (Score:3, Insightful)
Engineers are part of a service industry. They don't actually manufacture anything, they're info workers. Fresh engineers will come in greater numbers when their education budget is less risky from both scholarships and more jobs when they graduate.
Re:A giant rubber stamp is needed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A giant rubber stamp is needed (Score:4, Insightful)
Is that what it's going to come down too[sic]?
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.
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).
Re:Software patents (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Software patents (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:What they told me (Score:3, Insightful)
When the outsiders start to notice quality problems ( as has happened in the last few years)the response has been to increase "quality review" and orders to reject more and more, even if prior art references are crap, rather do anything to relax the production pressure wich might result in the finidng of better prior art and more thorough rejection of features tht might slip through. The result of this is that management has painted itself in a corner; if they relax goals, the backlog will increase even more, but if they are maintained or even increased the hemorrhage of new hires will similarly increase. There is just no quick fix out of this. Any substantive change will require a stark change in management culture. Good luck with that.
Re:Software patents (Score:2, Insightful)
Three step patenting process (Score:2, Insightful)
2. Process the patent applications.
3. Validate - check, verify, grant.
Re:What they told me (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:why check them at all? (Score:3, Insightful)
The net result being that I say screw this inventing stuff business, it doesn't pay and the supermarket never funds an individual with a brilliant idea ever again because they didn't make their investment back.
The patent process makes sense, it just doesn't work for software because ideas are cheap and easy, there's very little cost of entry to produce a product and changes happen much faster. There's no need for patent protection for ideas in software, it still economically a good idea to innovate without them.
Re:Software patents (Score:3, Insightful)
Not infallible, just very very wise compared to modern people. They had plenty of issues, not the least of which were moral perspectives that have been proven dead wrong (slavery for instance). However, even though they had their faults, they seem to have had a much better grasp on what makes as good government than those who are in/modifying our government(s) today. They understood basic things like the passive tyranny of religion and state being mixed together. They understood the evils of having too much power in one place (hence checks and balances). They understood the evils of large companies (corps now) manipulating things until laws became untenable. They understood all of this and so much more. Maybe it has to do with the focus that their time's conditions forced them into. Maybe the blatant tyranny of the King and *respectable* companies of the time made their conditions that much more obvious. I can not say why their vision was so much better than our vision is today. I only know from what I have read that it was. Maybe it was because they were fighting a common enemy and they had to work together. Maybe our individual greed is what is really tearing our country apart. I do not have the answer to why, I just tend see what.
As far as the topic of the thread, I refer back to this [slashdot.org] thread. I think this becomes a very good case for a property tax on IP. We have property tax in many if not most places to pay for things like Fire protection, Police, schools and much more. This becomes a matter of taxing property to help regulate, protect and serve the owners of that property. I would think there does not need to be a more conducive reason to tax IP than this. And, as in property taxes for land, if the property is abandoned, it becomes public domain or is auctioned off to recover back taxes. Seems reasonable, and places cost where cost is accrued.
InnerWeb
Re:Software patents (Score:3, Insightful)
Essentially, fitting the founding fathers' idea of America gets equated with legitimacy in the minds of most Americans. The part that makes it acceptable is that arguments that fall on the side of the founding fathers usually aren't wrong; it's just so much easier and (more importantly) much more successful to bring up the founding fathers than to try to persuade with truly logical and coherent arguments.
Re:Software patents (Score:4, Insightful)