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."
Why allow corporations to own patents? (Score:5, Interesting)
Patent fees? (Score:2, Interesting)
increase the fees dramatically (Score:4, Interesting)
Even more radical would be to place limits on the collectible licensing fees based on the original filing fee. This would encourage some companies to pay more for their patents, in order to create a greater enforcement cap, but would cause them to do so only because they believed the patents to be defensible.
Overlooking Economic barriers (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:No Silver Bullet (Score:5, Interesting)
You've got kids dealing with really high-level stuff in a lot of cases. Optics, physics, biotech. No wonder it's easier for companies to push shitty applications through.
Re:increase the fees dramatically (Score:3, Interesting)
The issued patents aren't the whole problem (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Why allow corporations to own patents? (Score:5, Interesting)
It would also simply concentrate patents into the hands of wealthy individuals. As someone who's reasonably well educated and creative I have happened upon at least three or four ideas in my life that are worth a patent. Not silly stuff, I mean solid ideas with practical industrial benefit. Of course I cannot afford the $10,000+ to patent such ideas, and since publishing is no longer a protection against having these ideas misappropriated by persons in the USA I choose to keep them to myself. Those ideas will probably be thought of by someone else soon enough, I am nothing special, but for the time being they stay in my mind and may die with me. I have no desire to make money from them, but I cannot publish if I want the legitimate currency of recognition, nor can I patent them because it's not affordable. Does this sound like a system that is working to the benefit of mankind in promoting the arts and sciences?
After 10 or 15 years of following this subject I have reached the conclusion that patents are profoundly anti-science, beyond reform and there is no course of action left but their complete abolition. The same is possibly true of intellectual property generally, but there are certain aspects that might still be rescued and turned to the benefit of humanity.
If things carry on the way the are there will be a de facto abolition of patents anyway. WIPO will cease to be legitimately recognised as it loses credibility backing an unconsciable and broken process. The world will fragment (more than it is already) into camps which do not recognise one anothers intellectual property claims and trade agreements will collapse. We already have the situation where US and European companies cannot trade in each others respective territories. Like the RIAA/MPAA many IP organisations are unwilling to adapt, they are playing for broke and will ultimately lose the farm. Ultimately internet publication with verifiable timestamped accountability brought about by extensive traffic logging will replace all IP claims and the old institutions, but for those of us with ideas who are caught in this transition period it's not a happy state of affairs and I suspect many valuable ideas are simply being lost or held back.
Re:Why allow corporations to own patents? (Score:5, Interesting)
However, in the United States, the inventor must be listed on the patent as the inventor. If they are not, or if someone else is listed on the patent as an inventor (and they are not an inventor) then the patent is invalid.
[Aside: There is case law on what constitutes an inventor -- the basic concept is someone who actually came up with the patentable portions of the idea
Re:increase the fees dramatically (Score:3, Interesting)
DMCA, brought to you by: Jon Dudas! (Score:4, Interesting)
"He guided enactment of major patent, trademark, and copyright policy, including the 1999 American Inventors Protection Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act."
Most patent attorneys consider him unqualified because he had no previous patent experience prior to becoming head of the USPTO.
Re:No Silver Bullet (Score:2, Interesting)
I've experienced a similar phenomenon in contracting relationships where documentation is dumped in large quantities at the last minute with the intent of overwhelming the reviewing system. Apparently it works at the USPTO as well.
Re:increase the fees dramatically (Score:3, Interesting)
thing up for the typical case. It's thinking like this that creates such f*cked up
laws and policies in general. People fixate on some "important" boundary condition,
rush off to mutilate policies in order to address that and then end up hit in the
face with heinous unintended consequences.
It's probably well worth the risk and the likely consquences of ignoring the oddball
possibility like this to ensure that the system in general isn't tragically broken.
Re:increase the fees dramatically (Score:3, Interesting)
possibility like this to ensure that the system in general isn't tragically broken.
Re:Screws the little guy (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Screws the little guy (Score:3, Interesting)
Should we even care about small time dreamers anymore? Should the entire process of patent reform have to grind to a halt in order to allow "Joe Inventor", if he exists or indeed ever existed, to still play the patent lottery game? $300,000 dollars per patent seems just fine by me.
Better yet, simply implement a patent tax. It's intellectual "property" after all, so why not tax it?
Re:increase the fees dramatically (Score:3, Interesting)
That is what the guy is saying. Make the cost of a patent really high, because if people were able enough to come up with a patentable idea, they should already be successful enough to be ale to afford the cost.
Brilliant...
Re:The issued patents aren't the whole problem (Score:3, Interesting)
In principle, yes (Score:3, Interesting)
I think patents are far too easy to get, for far too little technical contribution in return. Some prerequisites that need to be (re-)introduced:
-Patent must significantly improve the state of the art. Must also be non-obvious (on the latter, the US Supreme court shows some encouraging tendencies - more of that please))
-Patent applications must contain instructions on how to build the item, at a level where an average engineer can do it.
-No patents for things that lack a technical contribution. In particular, no patents on business methods.
Now if Congress fails to fix the above items, I think the USA would be better off completely without a patent system.
Re:Why allow corporations to own patents? (Score:3, Interesting)
I understand that you're trying to be bitterly dark and sarcastic, maybe even a little but humorous, but the "express" purpose of our government is spelled out in that little Constitution thing we like to bandy about during election years.
You can argue that for the purpose of practical discussion we've fallen to a plutocracy; however, it is unfair to say that "fewer and bigger corporation own" the government - corporate lobbyists are a minority on K street. You're forgetting unions (AFL-CIO), old people (AARP), minorities (NAACP), bored lawyers (ACLU), etc.
Money greases the cogs of governance, to be sure. But, more people than ever have money nowadays. Maybe political scientists can recognize the new breed of "democracy" we've formed in the Washingtonian super collider of... bad metaphors. You get my point.
Re:Why allow corporations to own patents? (Score:3, Interesting)
That is a problem for sure. Can't have too many people owning too much money or everything gets screwed up. But there is a solution. The solution is to have the Federal Reserve print off a whole bunch more, then dole it out through the old boys network. Inside a couple of years, you have something like what happened to Russia, where the plutocrats own everything and the cash a person slaved their life away for goes into a wheelbarrow to buy bread with. So, don't fret. The solution is being implemented this very moment.
Re:Patent fees? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Why allow corporations to own patents? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:increase the fees dramatically (Score:3, Interesting)
An interesting market solution (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm sure there's holes in that simple proposal, but I'd be interested to see if that idea can be made workable.