Patent Office Shows Record Backlog 236
acroyear writes "WTOP, 1500am, a news radio station in the DC area, is reporting that the Patent Office Is Seeing Record Backlog, with 2 years for a patent now, and potentially 4 years to wait by decade's end, and the PTO is considering a 15% increase in filing fees. Personally, I think if they had set a trend of actually rejecting patents that don't belong, they'd have sent enough of a message to keep application numbers to a reasonable level; right now, everybody files because just about everything can get one."
Yeah... (Score:5, Insightful)
Career Advice (Score:2)
Become a Patent Attorney. With this kind of glut there's going to be a strong demand for those who can wade through it.
Excuse me while I get back to filling out my patent application for 'carrot and stick'
Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Insightful)
Patents are meant to protect actual entrepeneurs, not just people that sit around in their parents' basement and "invent things". Once upon a time, the Patent Office required an actual working prototype instead of just Powerpoint slides.
If you're one of those guys that likes to file a zillion applications for vague ideas and then hope to sue someone else that actually produces an independent product ten years later, I have no sympathy for you. You could at least look on your few grand as an investment in your extortion scheme.
And if you have a useful idea and can actually put it into production, you'll need to start a company. A few grand for a patent application is peanuts compared to the cost of actually making anything out of some idea. Very often, the idea itself isn't actually the important part; the execution is.
Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Interesting)
I have an idea I'm working on, hoping to get to the filing point within the end of the year. After building the prototype, I'll be out close to a grand. After filing, I'm looking at investing almost $8K on this idea. With only the hope that it will work.
It is a major setback for inventors and entrepeneurs, as it gets rather difficult to do this without some decent backing. Luckily, I have a few people who like my idea and will be helping out after I show the prototype.
It still is difficult to do, more so than it should. What I would like to see is that your first patent sets (for a specific project, limit to) should be provided free, then additional patents for a seperate project should be very expensive. You get a good, easy one shot for a good idea, and if it sucks, it's hard to do it the second time.
And if you have a useful idea and can actually put it into production, you'll need to start a company. A few grand for a patent application is peanuts compared to the cost of actually making anything out of some idea. Very often, the idea itself isn't actually the important part; the execution is.
To bring any idea to fruitation, you should look towards spending upwards of $10K. The sad part is, most of this is filing fees and seldom goes into building the actual device. After the prototype I can contract to a firm to make the devices for probably $100 a piece, and marketing will bring it to $150 (Or less, if I sell over ebay...) and I can easily make $50 profit on each item, assuming they sell.
So, I have to sell approximately 100 before I even cover the filing fees. Great fucking deal.
Stop Whining and Get Real (Score:2)
Reality is, the Patent Office does try to make this affordable for small inventors. Almost everyone can swing $500 for filing fees.
Now if you want to hire a patent attorney to write your application, well then you're looking at closer to $10,000. But, if you don't have the mone
Re:Stop Whining and Get Real (Score:2)
I know several people who have gone both ways, and they each say that patenting
Re:Yeah... (Score:2)
Did I say that was what I was forcasting? No. I said I had to sell that much just to pay for the filing fees.
No one is stoping you from producing the product without a patent.
If your so inclined, spend your money on the first 100, and let someone else build the next 1,000,000 that will actually benefit society. After you have sold your first one,
Re:Yeah... (Score:2, Interesting)
Don't let patents bog you down if you think you have a really good invention. It's reall
Re:Yeah... (Score:2)
Did I say that? You are the second person to respond with this. I said I have to sell 100 just to break even from the filing fees. These are fees that go to pay peoples salaries for not doing a damned thing. That's why it's jacked. That's $10K that could be better spent marketing, advertising, or any other expense.
I'm n
Re:Yeah... (Score:2)
There is no requirement to get a patent.
Re:Yeah... (Score:2)
Re:Yeah... (Score:2)
Assumptions (Score:5, Insightful)
Now we've all seen plenty of stories where stupid patents have been granted. But I don't think we're getting the entire picture. If they grant thousands of patents a year and we only see 20 stupid patent articles, then maybe they aren't doing the terrible job we're assuming they are. Maybe they are rejecting patents but we just don't hear about it because companies don't publicize their rejections.
I'm not claiming to have first-hand knowledge of the USPO but it's food for thought.
thousands (Score:4, Interesting)
According to this http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/
Possibly one of the stupidest awards... (Score:2)
Re:Assumptions (Score:2)
Re:Assumptions (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Assumptions (Score:2)
Re:Assumptions (Score:2)
Imagine if you tested an additive on 10000 cars and found that 9980 cars get better gas milage,
.sig
but the remaining 20 cars exploded once they reached 55 MPH.
Patents don't cause cars to explode, but they can do plenty of damage to companies, even if they're eventually invalidated.
-- this is not a
Re:Assumptions (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Assumptions (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as the patent laws are being followed correctly, and the patent on those bags is not considered to be a patent on the entire concept of plastic bags, as software patents often are, there's nothing wrong. The idea of "plastic bags" is not patent worthy, but creating a bag that is cheap, strong, easy to manufacture, and generably usable is a challenge, and once someone puts in the effort to find a solution, they deserve the reward of first rights to market it.
You'd be surprised at how much engineering goes into even the simplest of physical objects nowadays. One of my canonical examples is the turn signal stick; conceptually quite simple, but to make a cost-effective turn signal stick that is reliable over the lifetime of the car, which may used literally hundreds of thousands or millions of times, in a huge array of environmental conditions, with several controls on the stick ('toggle', up, down, often cruise control controls are placed on there), and which needs to be reliable (it's borderline life-or-death if it malfunctions badly enough; I nearly got whacked just two days ago by a car with its right turn signal on that was slowing down when it didn't mean to turn right; if it was on because it failed to reset correctly after a right turn the failure of the turn signal stick could have put me in the hospital), is quite difficult. As long as the patent office is just protecting that exact stick, the patents are OK in my book. It's not until they start granting a "patent" on the whole idea of a toggling stick that we start having trouble.
Scope of patents (Score:3, Interesting)
However, I do know that patents vary in scope quite a bit. If you are the first one to patnet the turn signal stick, your patent might be on the entire concept. Others might have to use buttons, etc. I suspect that the concept of using lights as signals has not been patentable for a REALLY LONG time (prior art).
When a patent gets filed and even approved, it can be difficult to determine how wide the scope is without going to court (and having the scope narrowed by examples of prior art, etc). This
Any other Fortune 500 employees? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Any other Fortune 500 employees? (Score:3, Interesting)
I have 8 applications in my name, and two patents issued in my name (jointly - the whole project team in each instance)
Are the inventions worthwhile? Not in the slightest. But collectively, the sizeable (400ish?) portfo
DAMMIT *I* INVENTED THE RECORD BACKLOG!!! (Score:5, Funny)
INFRINGEMENT! (Score:2)
I demand half of whatever you win in your infringement case. If not I will sue; half a semester of high school business law should be enough for me to win without hiring real lawyers.
The converse? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe the frivolous patents are a result of everyone bum-rushing the Patent Office. There might not be enough time to scrutinize every patent that comes in. Of course this encourages more frivolous patents, making it even harder for the Patent Office to give each patent its due care.
It's an interesting tactic: flood the Patent Office with useless requests, making it impossible for individuals to get their life's work patented. The longer an invention remains unpatented, the better chance of duplicating and marketing someone's idea before they have the chance (because you have all the production capabilities already). Vague patents and lawyers can keep away those who decide to challenge, and most will probably accept a small settlement.
The government should create a "patent tax" (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The government should create a "patent tax" (Score:2)
Re:The government should create a "patent tax" (Score:2, Informative)
Re:The government should create a "patent tax" (Score:3)
Um... All taxes are penalizing someone for being successful. The more money you make the more the government takes.
Re:The government should create a "patent tax" (Score:2)
Re:The government should create a "patent tax" (Score:2)
Re:The government should create a "patent tax" (Score:2)
There aren't going to be any easy, simple answers to these problems.
Re:The government should create a "patent tax" (Score:2, Informative)
There already is a patent tax -- in reverse (Score:4, Interesting)
In other words, inventors are paying for our tax cuts already -- not the other way around. Want better examinations? Tell the government take its mitts off the fees. Right now, the fees are paying for our wars.
Re:The government should create a "patent tax" (Score:2)
a better solution (Score:2)
A stupid solution (Score:2)
Did you read the article? There are 2900 examiners right now and they want to raise fees so they can hire 3500 more. How can adding 50 people possibly help with the backlog?
Re:A stupid solution (Score:2)
Your right. But the question here is also about frivolous patents. When granting patents, there are many grey areas. The academics and industry people can help reduce the load in this case. I might have been wrong about the numbers
The fees should be raised but also note that in an article a few months earlier, it said that the USPTO is one of the few departments of the govt that is raking in huge profits compared to the spending required. There is pressure on the PTO to keep those margins.
related artic
Good and bad (Score:2, Interesting)
Bad - Delays all the great technical inventions that are obsolete in a month
Re:Good and bad (Score:2)
Frivolous? Maybe, since it's only force-sensing. Now, if it were force-feedback, think of the possibilities in the VR world...
how many (Score:4, Interesting)
Like this [wired.com] patent on linking...
or this [pcworld.com] patent on floating banners...
Re:how many (Score:2)
Re:how many (Score:2)
I suspect, though, that it won't fly for a different reason--nobody's selling links. I'm not carefully crafting a hyperlink, then selling it to you for use on your Web site. You're making links for your own use. Just because some damned corporation has a patent on musical condoms doesn't mean I can't make one to use next time I bend that corporation's CE
Fee Schedule (Score:5, Insightful)
$patentCost = (some constant);
while( patentIsRejected() )
{
$patentCost *= 2;
}
And then we need to reimplement patentIsRejected() to something like:
1) flat-out-reject anything that's already patented.
2) reject anything with prior art
3) Have a QUALIFIED examiner spend some time looking it over.
4) Have a certain public review periond (6 months?) that anyone can register complaints
5) Review complaints (possible reject)
6) Have another, different qualified examiner check it out for an extended period of time.
Re:Fee Schedule (Score:2)
Re:Fee Schedule (Score:5, Informative)
Good patents are already rewarded: they are enforceable and can be licensed. Bad patents can be challenged.
1) flat-out-reject anything that's already patented.
That is what the patent office does already.
2) reject anything with prior art
Already done.
3) Have a QUALIFIED examiner spend some time looking it over.
Examiners are assigned to the various units based on their qualifications. In other words, a chemist examines chemical patents, an electrical engineers examines circuit patents.
4) Have a certain public review periond (6 months?) that anyone can register complaints
That's the whole point of the publication process. Before 2000, patent applications remained secret until they were issued. Now, they are published 18 months after filing. The public can look at the applications and submit prior art references.
5) Review complaints (possible reject)
See above.
6) Have another, different qualified examiner check it out for an extended period of time.
All examiners have a supervisor.
Re:Fee Schedule (Score:5, Informative)
Already done.
NO IT'S NOT!
I'm sick of people with no clue spouting this shit in slashdot comments and getting modded up to propagate this incorrect information.
Repeat after me: You can patent things that have prior art.
In fact, it's completely allowed and the prior art is usually documented right in the application. A patent does NOT mean the holder has exclusive rights to everything in the patent. It only gives them exclusive rights on the claims that exceed the prior art. Half the time I see people bitching about some silly patent on here, they fail to take this into account.
Please people, before you go spouting off about prior art in patents, make sure you know what you're talking about and that you didn't get that information from a slashdot comment that was posted by somebody who could be a clueless toddler for all you know.
Re:Fee Schedule (Score:2)
Already done.
NO IT'S NOT!
I'm sick of people with no clue spouting this shit in slashdot comments and getting modded up to propagate this incorrect information. Repeat after me: You can patent things that have prior art.
You are talking about something different from what the original poster said. Two of the more important criteria to getting a patent are novelty [cornell.edu] and non-obviousness [cornell.edu].
You are correct that a patent "only gives . . . exclusive rights on the claims that ex
Re:Fee Schedule (Score:2)
Re:Fee Schedule (Score:2)
Wrong. An applicant is not required to do any search at all. If an applicant has done a search, they are required to submit the results to the patent office (37 C.F.R. 1.56. Sorry, no direct link available). But there is no requirement for an inventor or applicant to perform a search.
but the patent office doesn't do its own search and reject applicati
Qualified examiners? Not exactly... (Score:2, Informative)
First this http://www3.uspto.gov/go/jars/sgs.html [uspto.gov]
then this http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ahrpa/ohr/jobs
So if I've got a degree in Chemica
The only thing I'd add... (Score:2, Interesting)
First is that the examiners at the USPTO primarily use the applications and granted patents in their collection to search for prior art, so in these fields (which were only recently, in patent terms, patentable) there isn't a lot of history.
Second, while the number of applications is way up, the number of examiners hasn't changed much. The amount of time available for each examin
Clarification (Score:2)
First, I was mainly commenting on how I think it should get more and more expensive the more times the patent needs to be submitted. This will put a financial burden on bad patents that try to get pushed through, and give a reward for ones that make it on the first try.
The silly method for rejecting patents was just that, silly. I didn't really mean for people to focus on that!
Third. That being said, I think the function to determine patentability should be a boolean one-time shot. So if it doesn't pa
Re:Clarification (Score:2)
In a sense, the costs do increase when a patent application is rejected. If rejected, a patent attorney will have to correct it, spen
What kind of ads to they use (Score:5, Funny)
Abolish? (Score:2, Insightful)
How about fining companies for abuse (Score:5, Interesting)
So let me see if I have this straight... (Score:5, Insightful)
Last year the office issued an average of more than 3,000 patents a week. It is one of the few federal agencies that brings in more money than it spends.
Some of that money is siphoned off to other agencies _ more than $630 million since 1992.
The Patent Office has a positive cash flow. They actually take in more in fees than they consume, with the excess being diverted to non-productive (from a patent standpoint, anyway) agencies.
So, *of course* the only way for them to process more patents per time unit is to raise the fees.
Yes, I do realize that there are most likely mitigating factors (dealing with problems of expansion, etc.) that come in to play, here, which would make a noticable jump in speed more expensive. But, initial inspection of the problem does tend to make me think "plow the profits back in to the organization. Make *more* profits that way. Remember: The more we process, the more we *generate* here..."
Or could it possibly be an idea of "raise the fee enough to drive off all of these pesky little inventors...thus reducing our workload."
Nah...they wouldn't think that way...would they?
Please Remember this PTO Budget Reality (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Please Remember this PTO Budget Reality (Score:2)
damn tag processing...
Record Patents (Score:3, Insightful)
Patent #45560986 (Score:4, Funny)
For their sake I hope they don't let it get to the 4year mark...
Patent #45560986 Granted to Guy F. Ottawa on April 1, 1999.
Description:
The process of providing a service to individuals (or businesses) who's end result is not conveyed for 4 years (1460 Days).
That patent is too narrowly written. (Score:2)
Should have hired a better patent lawyer to draft that one.
Re:Patent #45560986 (Score:2)
Boy, this guy's a genius. 4 years = 1460 days? I assume that most of us know that there's one leap year (almost) every 4 years.
Increasing fees is the anti-solution (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah that's the solution... let's make it even harder for the average joe to submit a patent... that's the problem. Those damn garage hobbyists doing nothing but submitting applications. The nerve. It couldn't be the corporations who don't care how much you charge and submit hundreds of applications a month...
Most Patents are Useful (Score:5, Insightful)
99% of them patent something useful in the industry. Maybe the USPTO drops the ball more often when it comes to software, but there's still a lot of patenting that goes on out there for just regular old "stuff"; genuine, true inventions. Even if you DID manage to find a way to prevent the frivolous patents from getting there in the first place, they're probably less than 5% of the total workload. Maybe 1 or 2%. Because patents are freaking expensive.
Just keep in mind that the way Slashdot "News" articles can make the world look (Many events happen twice!
Leave it up to the courts (Score:2)
Of course we need provisions to stop companies with patents forcing individuals to stop something, and using their size and finances to win the court case.
65-70 percent business method patents rejected (Score:5, Interesting)
USPTO is a cash cow (Score:5, Interesting)
People need to understand that the USPTO is a cash cow for the Feds. It made somewhere along the lines of 400 million dollars for the Feds in 2002.
It has done that, in part, by actively encouraging the general public to file for both patent and trademark applications. It has implied to the public that it is easy to go through the application process. It also has a lopsided bonus structure for examiners that encourages quantity, not quality. While I was a trademark examiner, I could have made up to $20,000 per year in bonuses for the quantity of my work, but only about $3,000 dollars for the quality of my work. Does that make any sense if you do not want stupid patents and trademarks being issued!?!
The USPTO has implemented a new strategic plan that will restructure how the PTO handles both patent and trademark applications. Most people in the field believe that this restructuring will increase pendency and decrease quality. You can read the PTO's annual reports [uspto.gov] and the 21st Century Strategic Plan" [uspto.gov]
So it should be no surprise that filings are going way up and pendency is going way up along with it... and that more mistakes are made and more garbage gets through. It also should come as no surprise that the PTO has a vested interest in making sure people believe that they can file applications on their own. So it offers "online filing", "online searching" and other tools that are really a poor substitute for having a complete search done by an attorney (or a patent agent). There is no question that some people don't want to put out the money for a professional search, and are willing to chance the money they lose in filing fees. That's fine. There are also those who earnestly get the impression that all they have to do is "file an application" and they will get a registration. Like most things in life (and especially with the government), it rarely works that way.
-A
Re:USPTO is a cash cow (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:USPTO is a cash cow (Score:2)
Beuracracts can't determine novelty (Score:4, Informative)
03.02.26.we | Non-Novel Patents [goatee.net]
In addition to the alarm about the unruly expansion of copyright [goatee.net], an outcry over an offensive software or method patent is surfacing nearly every week now. But the storm is not yet upon us, these are merely the first chunky hail stones: it can, and probably will, get much worse.
Patents are supposed to be novel, useful, and non-obvious. However, these are rather subjective criteria that require the discretion of knowledge, experience, and good judgment. Such attributes belong to those skilled in an art, not to bureaucratic institutions. (Witness how those administrative functions formerly administered by John Postel, a skillful and respected Internet elder [harvard.edu], are now bungled [thestandard.com] by ICANN, the bureaucracy now responsible.) However, we have no great patent arbiter, only a governmental process and this has led to a focus on, and misunderstanding of, prior art by computer professionals.
The question of novelty and non-obviousness is proxied by a mechanistic process of push and pull between a patent applicant and patent examiner. An examiner, on his own judgment, can not easily dismiss the application of a proprietary interest worth, potentially, millions of dollars. He can only ask, "how is your claim different than this prior art." Once this dance is done, a court is not likely to disregard the patent's novelty as documented in its file wrapper (the exchange between the applicant and examiner) and the resulting claims.
In the narrowest construction, this process of emulating good judgment with respect to novelty and non-obviousness works: the resulting patent claims are more narrow than the initial application with respect to some existing works. But in the sense of promoting innovation and the "useful arts and sciences" of computer software and networking, it is a huge failure.
As I've mentioned before [goatee.net], "Good technology, often created through simple processes, lends itself to applications unforeseen by its designers." As Lessig, in The Future of Ideas [stanford.edu], amply demonstrates this principle is what makes the Internet and Web such an innovative force when as expressed as layered end-to-end architecture. To adopt his metaphor, our common roads permit arbitrary journeys; our private cars permit us to traverse our chosen paths. Much like the Internet and Web, there are no patents or controls on the roads that determine where you must go. (There are rules such as which side of the street to drive on, much like networking protocols [harvard.edu], but these don't affect your destination.) It would be a shame to loose this flexibility, and this is just what the patent system encourages: claims that combine our common infrastructure and abilities in "novel" ways.
It's as if roads and driving themselves are recognized as an important infrastructure and ability, but someone could patent using a car on a road to drive to my house. Is using a car on a road to drive to my house really that novel? The Patent and Trademark Office can not make this judgment well, it will only look for prior art of someone previously, explicitly, specifying this exact method in the past. Perhaps they will find the method of driving to my house that I've provided [reagle.org] on the Web. The applicant might then amend their application such that they have a claim for a car, on the road, driven to my house using a stick shift, and a new claim for the same using automatic transmission. The claims have been narrowed and there is no previous exact d
Associated Press, not WTOP (Score:2)
Raising fees is ridiculous (Score:2)
In contrast, the average citizen with a great idea and not a lot of cash lying around will be the one harmed by higher fees. In that case, I wonder, who are patents for?
Look at it this way: they are proposing to raise filing fees
Re:Raising fees is ridiculous (Score:3, Interesting)
That will teach me for not reading the article (Score:2)
Getting up to speed. (Score:2)
I have the answer (Score:2, Funny)
I feel like I'm helping.
Patent Office Woes (Score:2, Insightful)
A novel idea (Score:2)
IP law (Score:2)
The Reason Why (Score:2)
Re:Alternative (Score:3, Insightful)
because thats what they were CHARTERED to do. you want randomly hired patent lawyers deciding for themselves that their clients deserve government granted monopolies?
> Another way to filter patents (and lower taxpayer burden) is to leave it up to the courts.
you think trials are free? using the courts to invalidate patents costs much MORE than only granting valid patents in the first place. for everyone, the taxpayer AND the two c
Re:Alternative (Score:2)
Nope they aren't. But at least with this method, you can assign cost to those who are abusing the system. Lawyers don't make the decisions, judges/jurys do. The government still makes decisions on patents.
Of course, there is the possibility of abuse by large corporations. But if the penalties are sufficiently high for losing, the small company may benefit richly from the mistake of the bully (who would have to pay for the process).
-Sean
Re:Alternative (Score:2)
Re:Alternative (Score:2)
-Sean
Re:Alternative (Score:2)
The answer is NOT more government involvement (granted, I'm not sure exactly what the answer IS, but I know when something stinks)
Re:Alternative (Score:2)
Whether or not there is an answer to this statement, it doesn't make the idea less plausible.
Although I'm usually not inclined to support letting the market decide anything, in this case there are some advantages. In my opinion, the idea here involves much *less* government involvement, not more. BTW - many of the arguments in this thread could be applied to the copyright office as well, which fi
Better yet... (Score:2)
Small Entities already have a discount (Score:5, Informative)
Small entities already pay less than large entities. For example, the filing fee for a small entity is only $375, compared to $750 for large entities. The definition of Small Entity is long, but, as a starting point, individuals and companies with fewer than 500 employees is considered a small entity.
Re:Small Entities already have a discount (Score:2, Informative)
Not to act all prissy, but actually it isn't that long:
1) Independent inventors (someone who has not assigned and is not under obligation to assign the invention)
2) Nonprofit organizations
3) Small business concerns
See here [uspto.gov]. What's long is the document [sba.gov] that defines what a small business concern is by the industry it is in. You might note that a "Electron
Throwing money at me WILL solve the problem (Score:2)
Indeed, the obvious problem here... (Score:2)
Re:Does anyone know if this will hold up... (Score:2)
Wouldn't hold up in court, since there are too many ways to open and reseal an envelope. The best solutions for this that I've heard is to give a copy to a credible lawyer, and have them lock it in a safe or safety deposit box until needed. But even then you may have problems (is the lawyer credible?)
Re:Does anyone know if this will hold up... (Score:4, Informative)
One other possibility is to file something called a Provisional Patent Application. These applications are not examined and will never become patents unless you file a Utility Patent Application. But the date you filed it is an official record then.
Re:It's all Amazon's fault.... (Score:2)
I think it would be too hard to define the "inventor" with such a system,
or rather, too easy to game the system and always be under the limit.
"Every employee at our company has 10 patents
-- this is not a
Re:Slow down of progress (Score:2, Interesting)
This is not what he's suggesting. The fact is that nowadays a patent can be obtained for just about any idea at all, without any real consderation for prior art, etc. The patent office should spend their time considering those that have real merit, inste
Re:ya, because we all know... (Score:3, Informative)
Then why are you acting like you do?
only USPTO workers educated in that field(computer science, for example) would be able to accept patents
Patents are already grouped into different technology centers. See this page [uspto.gov] for a broad overview of the different technology centers. After an application is filed, it is categorized (see here for the different categories [uspto.gov]) and an examiner in the appropriate technology center is assigned to the application.