Slashdot Log In
USPTO to Use Peer to Patent Program
Posted by
Zonk
on Tue May 09, 2006 10:29 AM
from the just-wish-they'd-started-it-sooner dept.
from the just-wish-they'd-started-it-sooner dept.
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."
Related Stories
[+]
PTO Seeks Public Input on Patent Applications 106 comments
KingAdrock writes to tell us Sciencemag is reporting that the US Patent and Trademark office (PTO) is floating the idea of an online pilot program to gather public input on patent applications. From the article: "Speaking last week at an open forum, officials said that tapping into the expertise of outside scientists, lawyers, and laypeople would improve the quality of patents -- and might also reduce a backlog that this month topped 1 million applications. "Instead of one examiner, what if you have thousands of examiners reading an application?" says Beth Simone Noveck of New York University Law School, who is an independent advocate of the idea."
[+]
News: USPTO Peer Review Process To Begin Soon 116 comments
An anonymous reader writes "As we've discussed several times before on Slashdot, the US patent office is looking to employ a Wiki-like process for reviewing patents. It's nowhere near as open as Wikipedia, but there are still numerous comparisons drawn to the well-known project in this Washington Post story. Patent office officials site the huge workload their case officers must deal with in order to handle the modern cycle of product development. Last year some 332,000 applications were handled by only 4,000 employees. 'The tremendous workload has often left examiners with little time to conduct thorough reviews, according to sympathetic critics. Under the pilot project, some companies submitting patent applications will agree to have them reviewed via the Internet. The list of volunteers already contains some of the most prominent names in computing, including Microsoft, Intel, Hewlett-Packard and Oracle, as well as IBM, though other applicants are welcome.'"
[+]
Behind the USPTO's Working With Peer-To-Patent 39 comments
Down-with-the-patents writes "As this community discussed earlier, the US Patent and Trademark Office is collaborating with the Peer-to-Patent program to stop bad patents from issuing. Brigid Quinn, spokesperson for the USPTO, explains the motivation of the USPTO to open up to the public what has been a behind-closed-doors process. Groklaw's Pamela Jones notes that 'when it comes to software, there is more knowledge outside of USPTO than inside it.' While some of Jones's readers are staying away from the pilot program, hoping that the patent system will just collapse of its own weight, Jones says that's a goal she understands but doesn't view as realistic. The project seems to be doing pretty well with over 1,000 active participants, and plans to replicate it in other patent offices starting with the UK next year." Slashdot and Linux.com toil for the same corporate overlord.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Two words: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Two words: (Score:4, Interesting)
No one would submit tons of patent applications at once and hope something (or everything pass).
And it doesn't disadvantage the small guy.
Parent
Why should this change anything at all? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Why should this change anything at all? (Score:5, Interesting)
my 2 cents, not one red cent more from me.
Parent
Re:Why should this change anything at all? (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if only 1 bad patent is prevented from passage and/or enforcement it will be an improvement.
Who exactly is going to go reading patents and reviewing them for the patent office?
Mike over at Tech Dirt of course.
Lawyers? No... they'd be much more interested in spending their time on similar work that they actually get paid for.
sure
Developers/scientists/engineers? No... (AFAIK, IANAL) most legal advice suggests that you shouldn't go reading a
Re:Why should this change anything at all? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Why should this change anything at all? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Two words: (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Infant Stage (Score:5, Informative)
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:
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
I'm on the verge of tears (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Infant Stage (Score:3, Interesting)
In fact, chances are you'd be punished for joining as it'd leave you exposed to willful infringement claims.
The patent systems problems cant be solved within the current framework; the system itself isnt founded on a self-balancing financial structure, making it impossible to analyze, optimize and budget for.
I hope (Score:3, Funny)
(sorry, couldn't resist).
Why don't they use Slashdot? (Score:4, Funny)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
Seems a bit shaky.
Re:April Fools? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Slashdot falls silent... (Score:5, Funny)
Moderating patents? (Score:3, Funny)
Finally, a fair, completely unbiased way to moderate things...just like on Wikipedia
A step in the right direction. (Score:5, Interesting)
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. (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Parent
Headline should include the word "Proposal" (Score:3, Informative)
This is an interesting idea, but nothing more than that; an idea.
Re:Headline should NOT include the word "Proposal" (Score:3, Informative)
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will hold a briefing on May 12, 2006, from 9:00 a.m. to noon in the agency's Madison building, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA. The USPTO has created a partnership with academia and the private sector to launch an online, peer review pilot project that seeks to ensure that patent examiners will have improved access to all available prior art during the patent examination process.
Re:Not as good as it seems.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, that's like expecting thousands of people to write a complete OS and all the applications for it. It'll never happen.
Parent
Re:"underpaid and overwhelmed" (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:"underpaid and overwhelmed" (Score:3, Interesting)