USPTO's 1-Click Indecisiveness Enters 5th Year 36
theodp writes "When it comes to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos' 1-Click patent, the USPTO is an agency that just can't say no. Or yes. It's now been 4+ years since actor Peter Calveley submitted prior art that triggered a USPTO reexamination of the 1-Click patent. Still no 'final answer' from the USPTO, although an Examiner recently issued yet another Final Rejection of 1-Click related claims (pdf), admonishing Amazon for making him 'sift through hundreds of submitted references to identify what applicant allegedly has already submitted,' which he complained is 'adding an undue burden' to his workload. Looks like Bezos' 2000 pledge of 'less work for the overworked Patent and Trademark Office' isn't working out so well in practice. Not too surprising — after all, Amazon did inform Congress that it 'has modified its specific [patent] reform proposals from the year 2000.'"
Simple solution ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Gee, do I have to do ALL your thinking for you?
Bureaucracies... (Score:5, Insightful)
The safest thing for any bureaucracy to do is nothing at all. You can't get blamed for making a bad decision, and you get to claim that you don't have enough resources to do the job, thus vying for an increased budget next year.
Re:Bureaucracies... (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow, that's insightful and explains 90% of our entire government in two sentence... You just need to add one more line to explain why they pass absurd laws and your training will be complete...
and thus you will be promptly shot...
Re:Bureaucracies... (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, that's easy. You pass laws so that decisions don't ever have to be made. The "perfect" law is one which exactly embodies the intent and leaves no room for interpretation. In doing so, you relieve the bureaucracy of any responsibility or culpability. Mission accomplished.
(the fact that one cannot successfully legislate without unintentional - or intentional - loopholes provides the ongoing necessity of further legislation)
Re:applicants should pay the USPTO for expenses (Score:5, Insightful)
That's only an incentive for examiners to drag their heels to rake in more in fees.
It would also ensure yet another gateway open only to the rich.
I'd prefer a merit system, where both companies and examiners who are involved in either requesting or granting a patent that is later invalidated lose brownie points.
And I think that companies submitting frivolous patent applications should get spanked.