USPTO to Use Peer to Patent Program

An anonymous reader writes "DailyTech is reporting that the US Patent and Trademark Office is going to start using the Peer to Patent program. From the article:' The US Patent and Trademark Office has been getting praise for officially launching the Peer to Patent program -- the purpose of Peer to Patent is to find patents that have been issued for already made products or items that don't properly qualify for a patent. Because the USPTO usually does not have the manpower and time to thoroughly check every patent that comes into the office, many are unjustly rubber stamped.' The program will utilize a Wiki, among other tools, to get the job done."

Two words:

'bout time.

Re:Two words:

I think that's the point.

...the purpose of Peer to Patent is to find patents that have been issued for already made products or items that don't properly qualify for a patent.

Re:Two words:

'bout time.

Indeed. Now they need to apply time penalties for stupid patents. Each time you troll them they wait longer before they examine your next patent and it grows exponentially.

No one would submit tons of patent applications at once and hope something (or everything pass).

And it doesn't disadvantage the small guy.

Why should this change anything at all?

What makes you think this will improve matters? Who exactly is going to go reading patents and reviewing them for the patent office?

Lawyers? No... they'd be much more interested in spending their time on similar work that they actually get paid for.
Developers/scientists/engineers? No... (AFAIK, IANAL) most legal advice suggests that you shouldn't go reading about patents in your field, and instead just read patents whenever they become relevant to you. (when you're being sued for infringement, for example)

I struggle to see how the patent office is going to get much out of this. I also struggle to see why people should contribute (without being paid) to such a broken system. Contributing in this way will not make the system any less broken. It will more likely just make it a bit easier to keep running it.

Re:Why should this change anything at all?

Come on. Please read the article before complaining. The peer review process is merely to submit prior art. Everyone on slashdot now has the chance to submit all the prior art that they always talk about whenever a patent story is posted. The art will be reviewed by the examiner ultimately. The goal is to discover and have the examiner review the most relevant prior art. Microsoft can use its 100 user ids to submit prior art against itself...but they already have a duty to submit any art they know about...so your comment really doesn't apply.

Re:Why should this change anything at all?

If I understand the concept I think slashdot readers would be one group that would help with this. How many times have people posted all the "prior art" examples for these lawsuit harvest patents on /.? Open source developers that have projects threatened by junk patents etc etc. I think this is a fantastic development.
my 2 cents, not one red cent more from me.

Re:Why should this change anything at all?

As you say most people become concerned about patents when it affects them. But with all the litigation going on these days, especially in the tech industry, I think the number of people affected, and therefore possibly willing to contribute to this, is quite large. And it's not just company X getting sued that affects people. Sure company X is going to go all out to use this tool to their advantage and even contribute some knowledge back to it. Things really snowball though when a) affected end users become concerned, b) affected side markets become concerned (e.g. makers of Blackberry cases and accessories) and c) developers of software/services around a disputed technology become concerned. As a peer post pointed out the number of people on /. (and I would add Groklaw) alone who are willing to debunk bogus patents is a formidable force.

Although it's becoming cliché and tired at this point there is some truth to the "many eyeballs" line of reasoning. And debunking patent applications scratches the same type of itch in some people that hunting for security vulnerabilities and bugs does. Security researchers come in many forms so I won't generalize too much but a number of them do it for the sheer satisfaction of finding and reporting a vulnerability and the "cool factor" that comes with it. IMHO a lot of pro researchers and laymen alike would love a chance to participate in a system like this for patents.

Infant Stage

I think that the Wiki is really in its infant stage as there's not much on it. A lot of times, don't they take a huge body of documents and then write an ingestor application to seed a serious Wiki?

The most interesting thing on the site is the research style paper [jot.com] entitled "Peer to Patent": Collective Intelligence and Intellectual Property Reform by Beth Simone Noveck. There's an insane amount of footnotes on the first opening pages and it is a PDF so I will repost the abstract:

The patent system is broken. The Constitution intended for patents to foster innovation and the promotion of progress in the useful arts. Instead, the Patent Office creates uncertainty and monopoly. Underpaid and overwhelmed examiners struggle under the burden of 350,000 applications per year and a mounting backlog of 600,000. Increasingly patents are approved for unmerited inventions. What if we could make it easier to ensure that only the most worthwhile inventions got twenty years of monopoly rights? What if we could offer a way to protect the inventor's investment while still safeguarding the marketplace of ideas from bad inventions? What if we could make informed decisions about scientifically complex problems before the fact, rather than trying to reform the system ex post? What if we could harness collective intelligence to replace bureaucracy?

This Article argues that we should reform the patent system by re-designing the institution of patent examination. Our existing legal mechanisms for awarding the patent monopoly are constructed around the outdated assumption that only expert bureaucrats can produce dispassionate decisions in the public interest. Building upon what we have learned from online and off-line systems of collaboration, we can now use the tools available to combine the wisdom of expert scientific communities of practice with the legal determinations of a trained Patent Office staff.

This Article proposes the creation of a peer review online system to help the Patent Examiner find the right prior art and access those experts who can advise on how to apply it. This new mechanism for collaborative expertise provides an avenue for reform that requires minimal statutory change while improving the quality of patents. We have arrived at a unique moment in history when four factors converge to make this reform possible: first, the state of patenting has become so problematic as to meet with almost universal opprobrium; second, patent applications are published after eighteen months independent of grant, making it possible to consider open peer review; third, we now have the technology to make peer review on this scale possible; and fourth, we have experience both with offline peer review and with online systems for collaborative decision making that provide the empirical understanding of how to re-construct our intellectual property institutions. This Article not only argues for such an institutional re-design, it provides a blueprint for the pilot that the United States Patent Office has agreed to implement. This proposal has implications beyond the patent process. It may enable us to contribute to the design of other social systems that depend upon the collaboration of experts across a distance, providing ways to improve policymaking, deepen democracy and rethink our fundamental assumptions about governance.

As you can see, it's a pretty far-reaching and very hopeful aim at fixing something that the vast majority of our community, Slashdot, view as a broken system.

So there you have it. Something is broken, here's the proposed solution now let's see if it works. The only possible show stopper I see here is that I'm not so sure it would benefit anyone to join this proposed community of "patent clerks." They are hoping for an army of people to read over patents and notice similarities or infringements for proposed patents. The Wiki's answer to my concer

Re:Infant Stage

I think that the Wiki is really in its infant stage as there's not much on it. A lot of times, don't they take a huge body of documents and then write an ingestor application to seed a serious Wiki?

It officially opens on May 12. They still have a few days to load it up beforehand.

There doesn't seem to be much incentive for the reviewer though I said the same thing about Wikipedia and been proven wrong. In my opinion, patent law is one of the dirtiest of trades and I don't have much desire to become involved in it at all.

That's exactly why many people will want to help out with this. Slashdot alone has enough people disgusted enough with the patent system to clean things up substantially and help fix it. People can always complain about things, but it's when they're willing to do something about it that things get done.

I'm on the verge of tears

It is astonishing to me that USPTO might be getting a bit of a clue after decades of sucking. They deserve our applause and our help; remember, we're the ones who have been so pissed at them for screwing up the software industry. They look sincere, so bury the hatchet and edit that wiki!

I hope

I do hope that someone has patented this wonderful new technology!

(sorry, couldn't resist).

Why don't they use Slashdot?

Competition will drive more information into the process. So long as people make valid arguments as rated by their peers, their personal agenda is irrelevant. Having many participants in the process dilutes the effect of any bad apples or unconstructive participants. Within any social reputation system, norms evolve to safeguard the quality of participation and we can expect something similar here.

Sounds like we already have that here on Slashdot; let us review patent applications. I am sure we can fair and unbiased, especially when it comes to software patents.

April Fools?

I had to check the document date to make sure this wasnt a joke. How do we expect that the patent office will be able to take these peer patent reviews seriously? How will this stand up in a court of law?

Seems a bit shaky.

Re:April Fools?

Doesn't matter where the data comes from, as long as it's verifiable, it's still valid data.

Slashdot falls silent...

...as thousands of nerds choke on their breakfast upon realizing that the USPTO finally read their comments on Slashdot.

Moderating patents?

If they use a moderation system similar to slashdot's, there's no way it can fail!

Finally, a fair, completely unbiased way to moderate things...just like on Wikipedia ;)

Rewards?

Couldn't spot any reference to payment for reviewers on the site. What would be good to see (if it doesn't already exist) is a fine for anyone submitting a dodgy patent, which could go towards a reward for the reviewer(s) that spot the problems with it.

A step in the right direction.

This will no doubt help matters, but still the burden of this work is being put on the wrong people. It should be on those who want the patent in the first place.

If an existing patent grant is subsequently overturned for reasons that the applicant could reasonably discovered themselves then they should be penalised. It should be expected that the applicant has searched exhaustively (or at least as much as can be reasonably expected) before applying in the first place. Why should anyone else have to bear that burden?

Re:A step in the right direction.

"This will no doubt help matters, but still the burden of this work is being put on the wrong people. It should be on those who want the patent in the first place."

But then there is a problem with motivation and bias. Maker of XYZ patent is of course going to say his patent is different than or a vast improvement over patent YXZ, even if the two are virtually identical. The patent submitter has a monetary stake at getting their patent approved, so of course they will do sufficient "research" to "prove" that their patent is unique and appropriate.

Thus the need for independent reviewers. Which is what frightens me somewhat about opening the process to peers. If MS submits a patent request for a new form of technology, Apple, Sun, IBM and who ever else wants to can flood the review panel with peers with a bias. Preventing MS from acquiring a patent (even a valid one) can prove to be financially beneficial to MS's competitors.

I think this system will help the process, but there still needs to be significant over-site to ensure that people are not buying the ability to block competitors' patents.

-Rick

"underpaid and overwhelmed"

Also since the patent workers are "underpaid and overwhelmed" they could hire more and pay them more. Then they'd get better results.

Also they should team up with the EU. There's no need to have two patent offices both looking at the same things.

Re:"underpaid and overwhelmed"

This is so true. The USPTO often recruits near where I live and work. In college, they had a booth at the college career fair and were the only people with NO line whatsoever. They literally had to walk around and ask people to come talk to them. It was pretty sad.

It wasn't hard to figure out why, they were offering salaries nearly $15k lower than the competition. A CS/EE Master's degree and a 3.9-4.0 GPA would earn you something like $56k. In the DC area that's roughly $35k if you live somewhere with an average cost-of-living. Needless to say, most weren't too interested in the USPTO.

To make matters worse, the job is awful. You are given x number of patents a week, period. Whether or not you finish them you're still getting them piled on you. It's just one after the other, like sorting mail your whole life. They tried to make it sound exciting, but it just wasn't.

I spoke with some people who worked at the USPTO. They hated their lives. Their technical skills went completely to waste and they quickly learned you either become a patent lawyer or you flounder and die.

This grim picture is all the USPTO has to offer to incoming recruits, and no wonder they are understaffed. Lousy patents making it through the system makes sense when you're reduced to hiring the desperate and underqualified. That's why I'm excited about this program. It allows others to help make decisions and provide insight rather than placing the entire burden on an underpaid, understaffed government office. A much needed change.

Not as good as it seems....

I think the program is a great idea, but it is ***optional*** even if it loses its pilot status and becomes a permanent program. I dont think you will see many patentees rushing to sign their applications up for the program, unless the patent applications are likely to cover valuable inventions (having peer review allows the best references to be considered by the USPTO, thereby strengthening any patent that issues).

Even if the peer review program became mandatory for all applications, who in the public is going to take the time to review 1,000 patent applications a week, search for prior art, and send the relevant art to the USPTO? Patent examiners are paid to perform this task (read patent applications and search for prior art), and their work product is usually half-assed (which results in bad patents being issued).

A better solution would be to allow more effective post-grant oppositions (as in Europe) and to allow the public to submit relevant art to the patent office at any time regarding any patent application (current rules only allow the public to submit prior art regarding pending applications during certain limited periods).

Re:Not as good as it seems....

who in the public is going to take the time to review 1,000 patent applications a week, search for prior art, and send the relevant art to the USPTO

Yeah, that's like expecting thousands of people to write a complete OS and all the applications for it. It'll never happen.

USPTO .... looking for developers?

How is Ethel suposed to research that for() loop patent? I think they stamp software patents based on a drinking game...

Thank God!

My first response was: THANK FUCKING GOD!!! (that got me into a bit of trouble in the university's copmuter lab, but at least my students can't fail me.

My second response was that, like WalMart's Wikipedia page, this will be taken over by the evil masses of paid-for goons.

Andy Out!

Headline should include the word "Proposal"

I'd yell at people to RTFA, but the article gets it wrong, too. The reality isn't "USPTO to Use Peer to Patent Program" but "Some random article from a law school proposes USPTO should Use Peer to Patent Program".

This is an interesting idea, but nothing more than that; an idea.

Poor SCO

I'm wondering how long it'll be before IBM hunts down prior art for all of SCO's patents.

You know what would be cool?

This is the one time I wish "utilizing a Wiki as a means for collaboration" would be patented by someone. Then that someone would sue the USPTO for infringing a patent they granted in the first place! Talk about COOL!!! :))) OK, I'm VERY aware that this didn't make any sense. Nothing to flame here, please move along.

This will work....

for patents issued by Microsoft and other "evil" companies since there is plenty of haters out there to peer review those applications. The "less important companies and individuals will still get by though.

(patent + Wiki) != picky

The proven level of quality of Wikipedia.org suggests this is an interesting, but not inherently good, idea. Rather than "peer review", a Wiki would be better suited for a "Public Comment" area. It's a matter of setting the proper expectations: public comment is what is really happening here in the general case, and hopefully it's "informed public comment". Formal peer review tends to be picky; public comment can be icky.

It's a a neat experiment, but having only quickly skimmed some of the wiki at jot.com, I wonder if the proponents have looked carefully at the prior art, e.g.: en.wikipedia.org. And the jot.com site seems to be holding up so far.

Wrong Name

"Peer to Patent" is a pretty lame euphemism. Sounds more like "Patent Invalidation Program" would be a better name. Or perhaps, "Finally Getting Around to Cleaning Up The FUD."

Great! Just in time for Smiley!

Just in time for Wal-Mart's patent claim on the smiley face [slashdot.org].
I bet the first entry will be made by Forrest Gump.

Good Start

Next step: Close up shop, turn off lights.

Easy to write

Python code of a perfect peer to patent program:
def filterPatents (patents):
        return []

Well, maybe we aren't that lucky, but it is always a beginning to get rid of the most stupid patents.

Ok guys, start preening.

TFA:

There is no doubt that, unlike other volunteer, peer review projects in academia or on-line projects such as Slashdot, a peer review system for patents implicates large fortunes and vicious competition.

This is Good News!

From the article:

The program will officially begin on May 12.

I wonder if this will apply to pending patents or just patents submitted after May 12th? Will we see a *bad* patent application rush to avoid the peer review?

Karma

I hope they emply some sort of karma system to weed out the valdals submitting false reports of prior art and to elevate the opinions of individuals who consistently provide useful information.

Where do I sign up?

So, other people do their work for them? I realize they're understaffed and could use some help, but really, this is the best they could come up with? I have an idea: I'll outsource all of you guys to do my job. Between school and work, I'm understaffed, and this way, things get done better. I'll even implement a peer-review moderation system. It's win-win!

software patents

Okay, can someone type in all of Knuth's "Art of Computer Programming" into the wiki? That'll pre-empt any further software patents.

I suppose someone could mass-load the project description for every SourceForge project that actually released a file, just to be safe.

There, no more software patents. Prior art is established.

Free help

So the Patent Office is basically saying they can't do their job, and they want free help.

won't work, USPTO will lose $ with this program

The USPTO is underfunded because the government TAKES money from the patent application fees. If this is remotely sucessful, the government will just take more money out of the USPTO.

two-edged sword

It's good that they are thinking in this direction, but I think this is a two-edged sword. In the end, identifying patents is a lot of work; who is going to sit in front of the Wiki every day and weed out one bad patent after another? Maybe companies will do it for their own products, maybe not.

Also, if the site gets used a lot, there are going to be many comments on approvable patents, and many valid comments questioning the validity of a patent application will require quite a bit of work to understand and verify. So, this still means a lot of effort for the USPTO; in fact, it probably means more work to do right than they are willing to invest right now.

If a bad patent isn't caught at that stage for whatever reason, then the people obtaining the patent will have an even stronger case: "look, not only did the patent examiners look at it, the public had a chance to review it, too, and there were no objections back then".

If the geeks of this world get together some kind of organization (informal or formal) to review these patents and ensure that the USPTO at least gets a lot of good comments. Furthermore, the comments should become part of the record of the patent application so that they can be reviewed later by a judge, who might then have more support to decide that a patent never should have been granted in the first place.

Huh?

Maybe as some fellow slashdotters out there say, it is about time. But, my problem is that they are asking people to do what the patent office is paid to do. As the article says, Because the USPTO usually does not have the manpower and time to thoroughly check every patent that comes into the office, many are unjustly rubber stamped. So maybe they should hire more people to research and issue patents. Or failing that, stop rubber stamping whatever comes across their desk. If they can't do their jobs properly, the entire lot of them should be fired and people that can do the work be hired.

They are asking you to do their jobs. Jobs they are paid to do. Am I the only one that sees something wrong with that?

What if one day all the garbagemen, sorry sanitation engineers, across the country said "Sorry, we don't have enough time to stop at everyone's house and collect the trash. So we are setting up a Peer-to-dump service. You haul your own trash, and your neighbor's trash too if you wouldn't mind, to the dump and tell us how much you took there. We'd really appreciate it, thanks."

Re:Patent pending?

[Peer Review] Patents?
[ ] %patent% on the internet.
[ ] %patent% on a wireless network.
[ ] %patent% on a donkey.
[ ] %patent% on a wiki.

maybe they're safe.

Re:Patent pending?

It probably does violate some obscure software patent, you know... I'd like to see the USPTO get sued for patent infringement over this.