
US Patent Office To Hire 500 New Examiners 144
ddillman writes to us with a story from EEtimes that is reporting that the US Government, specifically the PTO, is hiring up to 500 electrical engineers to help assess the validity of new patent claims on technical gadgets. Good - and with the downturn in the high tech industry you can get them cheap.
Open Source People : Apply! (Score:4, Interesting)
Cheap, eh? (Score:3, Funny)
Ummmm, are you talking about the patents, the gadgets....or the examiners?
I'm sorry but... (Score:1)
Re:Cheap, eh? (Score:3, Funny)
Ummmm, are you talking about the patents, the gadgets....or the examiners?
Yes.
Dammit (Score:1, Funny)
That's all fine and good, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That's all fine and good, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure the new hires will start out wanting to do the job well, but after filling out forms in triplicate for a few proposals to kill a illegitimate claims for reasons only engineers would understand, they'll end up as entrenched as everyone else. A waste of good talent.
Re:That's all fine and good, but... (Score:1)
One assumes this is the task for which they are employed, not some contigency occurence for which operating manuals would be referenced.
Re:That's all fine and good, but... (Score:2, Informative)
what can be hard is allowing an application. actually, this is what examiners want, because it lets them work on other applications, and you only get credit for the first (i.e. first rejection) and last (issue) actions. all the piddly arguing with the attorney is a waste of time that could be better used on another application. also, allowances are hella easy, it only takes about 15 minutes to whip one up.
as cheap as ever (Score:1)
Sorry -- government work is on a standard scale, which doesn't vary with the vissitudes of high tech.
There will, however, be more interested high tech workers, which should improve the quality of patent examinations.
Re:as cheap as ever (Score:1)
Re:as cheap as ever (Score:1)
Re:as cheap as ever (Score:3, Informative)
You can check it out at http://www.opm.gov/oca/01tables/SSR/index.htm [opm.gov].
Hiring People to Assess Patents (Score:2, Insightful)
Why only EEs? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Why only EEs? (Score:2)
Re:Why only EEs? (Score:1)
Depends on the country. In the US, that is the case. In France... it's arguable (Physics majors tend to have a very very hard math background). In the UK? It'd be closer to having someone with a mech eng. / Eeng degree, who knows a boatload about physics AND engineering.
*shrugs* why the disparity though? I have no idea.
Simon
Re:Why only EEs? (Score:3, Insightful)
My father is a physisist with a PHD and works as the prinicipal research scientist of a mass spectrometry company; while he holds several patents, I highly doubt he has the wide picture needed for assessing the validity of patents.
Also, engineers, and I'm just guessing here, are more used to dealing with reports in the vain of patent applications; with schematics, circuit diagrams, etc. I dunno, I think it just has to do with the broader knowledge base engineers are required to possesses, in light of the fact that they are the last layer of higher education before a product hits the market. R&D tell you what can be done; engineers do it.
Lets also not forget that they are doing this to deal with the new influx of technology related patents, as the western world increasingly becomes patent happy. In this respect, I'd bet that much of this influx relates to inventions stemming directly from the comp/ee world.
Re:Why only EEs? (Score:2, Interesting)
But during my undergrad days I interned for Lockheed Martin and they just didn't know what to do with a physics major. All the engineering majors had placements, but since I wasn't optical or mechanical or chemical or electrical, they didn't know what I could do, while I honestly think I could have been productive in any of the groups. I may not have memorized the "right" formulas for calculation at that point, but I did have a deeper understanding of the fundamentals, and from there the calculations are a small step away.
Seems that the label before the word engineer is what HR usually looks at.
Re:Why only EEs? (Score:2)
b) I think engineers would generally make better patent examiners (in their particular field) than physicists because engineers have a better grasp of the existing practice. When it comes to the worst patents the hard part evidently isn't understanding the application or searching the patent database, it is recognizing when the patent claims to cover an idea that is never-patented but already in use (and therefore public domain). E.g., to check out an application concerning communications between computers, familiarity with the rarefied mathematics of communications theory is less useful than the ability to recognize an attempt to patent the IP protocol...
(Maybe I'm biased. I switched from physics to EE. But I remember one physics prof who might not have realized that a patent application for a "circular transportation facilitation device" [slashdot.org] had prior art called the "wheel". No decent engineer would ever make that mistake.)
Familiarity with "hard" science fiction might help too.
What I do worry about though, is:
1. Will they get good engineers with working knowledge in their fields, or just people with EE degrees? Starting pay of $50K isn't much for a good engineer, especially if the work is non-creative, involves excessive paperwork, and is located in the only city run by a congressional committee...
2. How will their engineers stay current in their fields when they aren't actually designing anything?
3. The bureaucratic motivations are still all wrong. Reject an application and the applicant can, and often will, sue the bureau. Rubberstamp the application, and there may be worse lawsuits, but the bureau isn't involved. Now, if the bureau got to pay the legal fees & court costs whenever a patent was successfully challenged...
Huh? (Score:1, Insightful)
Isn't this the basic problem with the USPTO these days? If they are simple ideas do they really deserve a patent?
Re:Huh? (Score:2, Insightful)
EEs? (Score:1)
(for all of you offended EEs, I actually do know a bit about circuit design)
Re:EEs? (Score:1)
RTFA
Verilog (Score:1)
500 EEs, who know about as much about software as I do about circuit design.
Most digital design nowadays is done in a programming language such as Verilog and compiled into netlists. Given that Verilog code can easily be interpreted on a computer [icarus.com], there isn't much difference between a computer program and a circuit description for describing a computation; EEs can easily adapt.
DeCSS in Verilog [cmu.edu], useful for building your own DVD decoderI actually start at the USPTO in January (Score:1)
Re:I actually start at the USPTO in January (Score:1)
So you'll give us a heads up when evil-company-X applies for inane-patent-Y and you can make some extra dough (karma points?) on the side taking bribes from the
Re:I actually start at the USPTO in January (Score:1)
Re:I actually start at the USPTO in January (Score:2)
Re:I actually start at the USPTO in January (Score:1)
Will this help with software patent issues? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Will this help with software patent issues? (Score:1)
Speak for yourself; as a computer engineer I had courses in everything from analog circuits up to and including Lisp, with a healthy exposure to CS algorigthms on the way. Just because some engineers' degrees are deficient doesn't mean they all are :)
Re:Will this help with software patent issues? (Score:1)
In fact, I find that EE types are far more productive than CS types when it comes to implementing software and are more likely to be making an effort to keep current with new stuff.
I think this bodes well for the patent office.
Re:Will this help with software patent issues? (Score:2)
It seems to me that the USPO desperately needs programmers (CS people) to look at the flood of incoming software patents to prevent cascades of lawsuits like the ones following the dot-com bust
They sure don't know that. Not only are they not actively hiring CS majors as patent agents, you can't even become a patent agent with a degree from most CS programs. Yep, spent four years at Rutgers, graduated at the top of my class, and I'm not even qualified to reject patent applications. OK, OK, Rutgers is a shitty school, but still...
Re:Will this help with software patent issues? (Score:1)
I completely agree that one should not hold the title of engineer for getting a certificate from some company; just because you can configure a Cisco router or install Unix on a Sparc workstation does not make you an engineer. It makes you a competent technician, but not an engineer.
Government getting better techies (Score:2, Insightful)
And sometimes, what's good for government is good for us all. This economic dry patch might be good for the industry in the long term, starting with a beefed-up US patent office.
dlek
Re:Government getting better techies (Score:1)
Great! Patent it!!!
It's not like they are going to reject it.
Gadgets not software (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Gadgets not software (Score:2)
Re:Gadgets not software (Score:1)
Re:Gadgets not software (Score:3, Funny)
USPTO: Look, we need 500 new engineers for the USPTO, and we need 'em now.
Grunt:Why?
USPTO:Because we have so many frivolous patent applications coming in for crap like clicking on web sites and ways to keep cats amused that our current examiners can barely keep up with the load. You got any idea how tired a guy's arm gets slamming down that damn rubber stamp for eight hours a day, five days a week, 52 weeks a year?
Grunt:Ah, I get it. You want a different process for the types of companies that might have actual innovations, but what you really want to do is make sure idiot dot-coms with obvious applications of prior art also have a fair shake at approval!
USPTO:For great justice, approve every patent!
they've been hiring for a while now (Score:4, Insightful)
the job is not at all difficult. but don't think you can change the system somehow, i spend most of my time trying to untangle myself from the beaurocracy that is the patent office.
pays well tho.
Re:they've been hiring for a while now (Score:2)
Yes, I suppose it's quite relaxing, as long as you don't get your finger caught in the 220-volt rubber-stamping machine that you guys must have down in the basement.
Re:they've been hiring for a while now (Score:1)
but say whatever you want, cause we're all a bunch of drooling idiots anyways, i mean, this *is* /.
This appears to be a Good Thing (tm) (Score:1)
Another question is will the soon-to-be-confirmed REAL head of PTO continue this plan or will he decide to cost cut and eliminate the hiring of engineers in favor of less expensive choices?
dunno about you, but. . . (Score:2, Funny)
Re:dunno about you, but. . . (Score:1)
They need to change the revenue model. (Score:5, Interesting)
(+5, Insightful) [mod up parent] (Score:3, Interesting)
It reminds me of something Joel Spolsky [editthispage.com] wrote, about how Microsoft programmers get paid per line of code written, not by the quality of the code. Furthermore, they get paid more for every bugfix. This means that their personal 'revenue models' encourage flawed code.
Just something to chew on...
Re:(+5, Insightful) [mod up parent] (Score:1, Funny)
About Joel's site (Score:1)
And he keeps ranting about software. His main gripe? "Man there's so much buggy canned software out there, including Microsoft's, it's like I spend my life as a developper working around bugs!"
Use the source, Luke. Really, read the site and appreciate how much free/OS software makes our life easier.
Re:About Joel's site (Score:1)
Yes, that means they have to pay first.
Re:They need to change the revenue model. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They need to change the revenue model. (Score:5, Informative)
If there is a problem at the PTO it is too few examiners and a production quota system that values speed over quality.
Re:They need to change the revenue model. (Score:2)
If I understand this motivation, investing in an approval now yields future returns in renewals
Re:They need to change the revenue model. (Score:1)
Re:They need to change the revenue model. (Score:3, Interesting)
we make money from everything, from the filing to the issue. in fact, i've made the PTO more money in fees from NOT allowing cases, since the attorney has to pay evertime he amends the application.
the real problem is people who don't know what the hell they're talking about.
Re:They need to change the revenue model. (Score:2, Insightful)
If the USPTO (and, in the same way, the EPO) was stricter on patent applications, and rejected all the bogus shit we see derided here on slashdot,
... the con artists would stop submitting those bogus patents.
And
Re:They need to change the revenue model. (Score:2)
Re:They need to change the revenue model. (Score:1)
i have only seen a scant few applications that i would consider 'shady' as if done up by someone trying to get a patent on the wheel or what-not.
i enjoy being one the more rejection-happy examiners, but i know that even if everyone at the office were like me, it still wouldn't stop the tide of applications we get every year.
further, at least in my area, the latency of applications is staggering- i'm working on applications filed in 1999. so even if people practically stopped sending in aplications today, certain areas in the PTO wouldn't even feel the effect for yeaers to come.
Re:They need to change the revenue model. (Score:1)
Re:They need to change the revenue model. (Score:2)
It probably helped that he was suitibly skeptical of the applications he saw.
Whereas is modern counterpart appears to almost take the view "I don't undrstand it so it must be an innovation"...
Circuit patents == software patents? (Score:4, Insightful)
Is there a problem with patenting of electronic circuit designs that's similar to the familiar problems of patenting algorithms, processes, and genetic materials?
Namely, are there too many patents for devices that don't have proven, unique, new, and specific utility, and that don't necessarily require inventive insight?
Are we giving "same as the last design, just add this component" electrical device patents?
Is this how IBM, Motorola, and Intel compile such impressive numbers of patents granted?
It certainly seems like this could be the case. Seriously, I'm curious about info/opinions on this.
Re:Circuit patents == software patents? (Score:2)
Re:Circuit patents == software patents? (Score:3, Insightful)
Patents become counter-productive (block progress) when they are too broad and claim to cover all ways of accomplishing something. This can only occur if either someone is remarkably innovative, or if they are claiming more than they actually originated. I suspect it is almost always the latter case, because when "great inventions" are placed in their historical context, nearly always the inventor was either pulling together existing ideas (Edison, the Wright Brothers), or was unable to make his idea work well enough in practice and had to leave it to a later generation with better materials (Da Vinci, Babbage).
The problem is, when it comes to software and high-tech "business methods", the patent office is often so confused as to grant ridiculously overbroad patents. Sometimes it allows very wide-ranging claims on an idea that is at best a slight improvement upon existing practice -- because the existing practice was never thought patentable, so searching their database doesn't turn it up, and the examiners are insufficiently familiar with the ideas that are in the public domain. An extreme example of this is the recently granted Aussie patent for the wheel; since patent databases don't stretch back to 5,000BC you aren't going to find the prior art there, but you think someone _should_ have noticed. Or in many cases, there is some small idea that may actually be innovative, but the patent claims far more than that -- analogous to claiming to have invented the wheel when actually you just invented a better kind of cotter pin to hold the wheel on the axle... You'll get clobbered if you go to trial against anyone who isn't using your new cotter pin, but often they'll pay modest royalties instead of bearing the expense of going to trial.
The most damaging patents of all are extremely broad ones filed by people who never created a successful product, but who simply guessed which way technology was headed, filed a vague patent application, and kept amending it for many years. About 1960 someone filed a patent on a block of silicon containing six transistors, interconnected by soldered wires; a long series of amendments and legal arguments kept this from being either issued or rejected until the 1980's, when it finally issued as a patent on integrated circuits! An IC of the period (say an 80286 CPU) resembled the original device like an aircraft carrier resembles a dugout canoe. The "inventor" hadn't done the 20-some years of work that advanced IC manufacture from six disconnected transistors to about a million connected transistors, but he wanted to cash in on it.
Re:Circuit patents == software patents? (Score:3, Interesting)
If a company has enough resources and enough of a stake in an area of technology, they can pepper the patent office with enough variations and guesses and might-work-somedays to leave others with the choices of: do the same, stay out of the field, or take your chances.
Sometimes, they'll take a shot at a big home run, which gives the overbroad patent, and sometimes they'll look at someone else's home run attempt and find a little room for improvement. The fact is that neither patent is worth as much to the public as the applicant hopes to get out of it.
I agree that your IC patent example is silly, and is a counterincentive to those who would put capital behind technology development. Isn't a patent that adds that millionth transistor just as silly, and a counterincentive to someone who would like to establish a new venture in the field?
Anyone still reading wants to know what the answer is, and I'm not sure, but I think the only way out is for the PTO to treat a patent grant as a damn special thing that occurs to the rare, deserving breakthrough. Maybe there should be a limited number of patent grants?
The PTO also needs to avoid punishing those who don't apply for patents (boy I bet that farmer from Ur is rolling in his grave over the wheel patent!), since that seems to just encourage the defensive-patent peppering.
As it stands, I'm having a hard time seeing how patents really serve to protect inventors or reward capitalists much.
New Hires vs. Policy (Score:4, Interesting)
I may misunderstand this, but my understanding is that the funding for the patent office is somewhat dependant on the number of patents granted. Possibly that was the performance evaluation of the patent examiner. I'm sure that many of the people there try to do the best job feasible under the circumstances. But with those circumstances...
Re:New Hires vs. Policy (Score:4, Insightful)
The real question, however... (Score:2, Funny)
Damn the evil corporations!
Re:The real question, however... (Score:3, Interesting)
Name ONE case where Microsoft has used their patents aggressively, rather than to defend themselves from lawsuits against others.
Just ONE. That's all I ask.
Simon
Re:The real question, however... (Score:1)
http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/
http://slashdot.org/articles/99/02/04/169219.sh
http://www.advogato.org/article/101.html
http://www.theonion.com/onion3311/microsoftpate
Re:The real question, however... (Score:1)
You obviously have a differing view of what constitutes using patents to attack people than
Simon
Re:The real question, however... (Score:1)
Great! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Great! (Score:2)
a perpetual motion machine would be powered under the energy that is released by the out put of the system....I.E. you start the car, and all the revolutions of the tires after that initial start would be powered by the energy given off by the car moving. a solar powerd machine is anything but perpetual, it still falls under the laws of thermodynamics.
Re:Great! (Score:1)
Re:Great! (Score:2)
500 patent examiners... (Score:2, Funny)
Something like this could result in a lawyer singularity!!!
Not even rational thinking can escape a lawyer singularity!!!
A good thing? (Score:1)
Yeah, but when are they going to hire SW engineers (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Yeah, but when are they going to hire SW engine (Score:1)
Given that the 'Open Source trend' started largely around the time that the Internet started to get really popular worldwide -- such that the average joe could access it without paying through the nose -- it's perhaps not surprising that the two events correlate somewhat. You don't start hearing complaints until you start hearing from other people
Simon
Speeding up the Output (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem we face is not that we do not have enough examiner staff to properly consider submissions. Rather, the fundamental problem is that we give monopoly rights to software at all.
Money drowns out common sense any day.
darn (Score:1, Troll)
Contradictory?!? (Score:1)
Am I the only one that sees a contradiction with that last part? If the downturn in the high-tech industry were having that much of an affect on EE's, why would they need 500 new hires to assess technical patents? Doesn't that mean that more technical patents are being submitted? Someone is being paid to develop these products and submit them for patent...
My view is of course somewhat biased though, being that I'm a securely employed EE, and I certainly ain't cheap
Two possibilities it seems... (Score:3, Insightful)
But if it's, "Dangit, we don't have enough people to rubberstamp corporate patents FAST enough! GWB needs us to Do Our Part for the economy by letting every patent through, find more rubberstamps!", then it'll only make things worse.
-Kasreyn
EE's are not cheap. (Score:3, Insightful)
You moron. EE's are not now and never have been cheap. The dot-com bust and downturn of computer sales have not left them wandering the streets with hopes of getting any job they can find. That's what happened to the hordes of IS geeks who thought they could make good money fast without actually learning a useful skill. EE's spend gruelling years in college earning their degrees because they know that once they get out, they are entering a market where they are constantly in demand. It's great that the USPTO is hiring some EE's, but that doesn't mean they're going to get them at minimum wage.
Re:EE's are not cheap. (Score:1)
Better Late Than Never (Score:2)
mmbrflglkmm...barn doors...horse.
How many examiners do they havee now ? (Score:1)
Is this new hiring of 700 (in total) examiners is a significant percentage of their current staff levels.
If it is significant, then they are practically confessing to prior mismanagment (as if that is in question) due to staff levels.
I am available :) (Score:1)
The writing on the wall.(tm) (Score:1, Informative)
Almost all the people they hire quit in the first year. This is extremely high turnover for a government job. So this would be a good overall indication of the quality of this job. People overwhelmingly prefer unemployment to working there.
New hires are generally expected to fail. Therefore noone invests anything in them. And they fail, in many cases where they probably woundn't. Just as expected.
Their employees steal computers, printers, and anything else that is not nailed down.
Having USPTO on the resume makes people think you are lazy/inferior because you had a "government" job. Examining patents is probably the toughest job you would find anywhere. Working at the USPTO may help qualify you for work later on as a patent lawyer, but is actually a huge negative for a technical career.
In addition you get these computer industry idiots who think you are responsible for the single dumbest things the patent office has ever one.
Not So Fast on buying the Cheap EE's (Score:1)
Microsoft NOT pure Evil? But definitly dangerous. (Score:1)
Before you start to feel too safe, take a look here [zdnet.com] where they discuss microsoft's "range of software patents that the company can potentially use down the line to attack and try to restrict the development and distribution of open-source software". It mentions at least one known patent Microsoft can use to attack Linux. Bruce Perens, Hewlett-Packard Co.'s open-source and Linux strategist theorizes that "They are going to hold onto these patents until they see what happens with the antitrust case against them. Once that is resolved, they will then use them against the open-source industry."
Patent this: (Score:1)
Oh dear (Score:1)
Re:please close this section (Score:1)
I would like you to note the fact that they are hiring eletrical technicians, to help with patents gadgets. I don't know a single nerd that doesn't love a new toy.
Re:LINUX is good (Score:1)