Patent Chief Decries Continued Downward Spiral of Patent Quality 179
Techdirt is reporting that Jon Dudas, head of the US Patent Office, is lamenting the continuing quality drop in patent submissions. Unfortunately, while this problem is finally getting the attention it deserves, the changes being implemented don't seem to be offering the correct solution. "When you set up a system that rewards people for not actually innovating in the market (but just speculating on paper), then of course, you're going to get more of that activity. When you set up a system that rewards those people to massive levels, well out of proportion with their contribution to any product, then of course you're going to get more of that activity. When you set up a system that gives people a full monopoly right that can be used to set up a toll booth on the natural path of innovation, then of course you're going to get more of that activity. When the cost of getting a patent is so much smaller than the potential payoff of suing others with it, then of course you're going to get more of that activity. The fact that Dudas is just noticing this now, while still pushing for changes that will make the problem worse, is a real problem. Patents were only supposed to be used in special cases. The fact that they've become the norm, rather than the exception, is a problem, and it doesn't seem like anyone is seriously looking into fixing that."
Re:Patent fees? (Score:5, Informative)
Already done. Usually about half price for the little guys.
Re:Isn't this easily solved (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Why allow corporations to own patents? (Score:4, Informative)
Not anti-science; anti-technology. You can't patent a scientific discovery, And as you say, it shouldn't be that way. If a patent was twenty bucks you would have published.
Re:Isn't this easily solved (Score:3, Informative)
Guess what? They usually get shafted.
The end result is that patent examiners are overworked due to understaffing and they are also vastly underpaid. There's a huge amount of churn at the USPTO (I know of two people that started there with a desire to become IP lawyers eventually and since then have gotten as far away from it as they can - in fact one completely left engineering and started a catering business!)
Without giving the USPTO more funding to retain employees (instead of driving them so far away they leave their area of expertise completely), the quality of the examination process will continue to suffer.
The USPTO would be vastly improved if licensing fees were reduced significantly but all income went back into the USPTO, but that'll never happen because the people who make the decisions are those who have pet programs leeching off of the USPTO's income.
Re:I have a simple solution (Score:2, Informative)
Patent applicants put up a larger fee that assumes that the patent will be rejected. If the patent is accepted, the applicant gets a refund. If the patent is rejected, the applicant gets no refund, but they do get a review of how the patent is deficient or unclear and needs to be revised.
Two of my friends who are examiners in the PTO. They tell me it takes almost 4-5x the time to reject a patent as to pass one. Job ratings are based on the number of patents processed. What would *you* do in that situation? Based upon the work involved, a rejected patent applications should cost 5x more than an accepted application. The PTO prizes itself for being the *only* agency in the government that makes money and runs in the black. The examiners are proud of that. You just have to make a small change in the incentive scheme for examiners so that the effort they spend on rejections are rewarded also; we'd get fewer, clearer, more relevant patents.