US Patent Office Fast Tracks Green Patents 136
eldavojohn writes "A new initiative is being piloted where 'green' patents are given special priority over other patents in the backlogged system. David Kappos (Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO) said, 'Every day an important green tech innovation is hindered from coming to market is another day we harm our planet and another day lost in creating green businesses and green jobs. Applications in this pilot program will see a significant savings in pendency, which will help bring green innovations to market more quickly.' The details of how you qualify for a green patent (PDF) are available with patent blogs offering opinions on this initiative."
Re:The Law of Un-Intended Consquences (Score:5, Interesting)
The patent process for pharmaceuticals is (very) different from the regular process. In the US, drug patents are usually applied for and granted 8-12 years before the drug is brought to market, and even a few years before human trials begin.
Purported "HIV wonder drugs" sadly seem to be about as commonplace as perpetual motion devices these days.
Re:So, if it's like software/internet patents -- (Score:5, Interesting)
Every patent will point out that it consumes less energy than it theoretically could have if it had been poorly engineered. It's...greener than the alternative...I guess.
Faster algorithms will qualify. Just tabulate the total energy saved in data centers that will use your green algorithm. New, large hats might reflect more visible sunlight back to space. New oil extraction methods will more efficiently deliver fossil fuels to gas tanks (thereby lowering the price point and generating more emissions), a new method of writing patents can will green-wash them so they generate less paper work in the streamlined process. All will qualify! (Except that the meta-green patent is a methods patent and wouldn't qualify anyway.)
Re:There's going to be difficulty... (Score:5, Interesting)
The fact is, this move will do nothing to increase the speed of technology, because technology in no way depends on the patent system. You don't have to wait for a patent to be processed before you can actually build and market your product. You don't even have to wait to charge royalties until the patent is approved. This new policy will accomplish nothing.
Re:Uhhh (Score:3, Interesting)
A 3-pack of good-quality CFLs costs about $6 at Wal-Mart.
I'm going to rant here....
The delay in reaching full brightness irks me to no end with CFLs. It's not a big deal when you are talking about a room where you turn the light on and leave it on for several hours (my living room) but it drives me up the fucking wall when you consider rooms that you breeze in and out of (the bathroom, closets, etc.). By the time the damn things reach a decent level of light output you've already moved on to the next household chore.
Then there's the Hg content. I wonder how much mercury is going to enter the environment as a result of improperly disposed-of and/or broken CFLs? It also bothers me that I can't find a single CFL made in America. They all come from China. I can still buy incandescent bulbs made in America. In a few years I won't even be able to do that -- Congress can't find the political will to balance the budget but they can tell me what kind of light bulbs I can buy? WTF?
Patents do NOT on balance encourage innovation (Score:4, Interesting)
Unfortunately, this is not just theoretical. It is the what happens time and time again. Often, the obvious aspects of some technology get patented early which makes it uneconomic to do the necessary optimization of the process for a decade or more.
Re:There's going to be difficulty... (Score:3, Interesting)
Ah, don't worry, IP is mostly used to screw richer nations, and is one of the reasons that western industry is so incapable of competing these days. From a macroeconomic point of view it's the equivalent of a heavy taxation scheme, and a very inefficient one at that, leading to higher costs in industry and workforce and rendering it uncompetitive. It'd be almost amusing to see complaints about high taxes and inefficient government while getting reamed by IP if it just wasn't so sad.
The less advanced nations aren't likely to get screwed as badly as they're simply not the low hanging fruit for extortion, especially as long as they don't agree to any significant expansions of IP schemes. Still, for the less savoury parts of some economies, branching out from 419 scams to the nearby patent field might not be a bad idea.