New Patent Legislation Makes Some Headway

dreamchaser writes "EETimes has an article discussing new legislation that will stop Congress from siphoning off money from the Patent Office. The hope is that increased money in the coffers will allow the hiring of more highly skilled engineers to look at technical patents, as well as speed up the sometimes ponderous process of securing a patent. The bill has passed the house with a resounding 379-28 vote, and now goes to the Senate. Given all the discussions about how so many bad patents are being granted, could this be a good thing?"

Problem Solving 101

[funny-jack]

The legislation would keep patent office revenue in-house and thus could expedite the patent-application process, which grows lengthier and more costly as technology gets more complex, sources said.

Is it just me, or does this sound like it is just throwing more money at a problem and hoping it will solve itself? If the legislation doesn't have provisions to specify new procedures to actually get around to solving the problems, it is unlikely to solve much of anything.

Re:Problem Solving 101

[WebMasterP]

Ok, slashdotters complain all the time about ridiculous patens being accepted because the people in the patent office appear to be mentally incompetent. So, I ask, how can hiring better engineers be a step in any direction but the right one?

Re:Problem Solving 101

[darkonc]

There's a big difference between a step in the right direction and a completed journey. It does not negate the first step to encourage and describe the second, the third, the fourth, . . . . . .

Re:Problem Solving 101

[thogard]

The 1st things government do when they see a hard problem that they have to solve is to throw money at it. This means that congress seems to have noticed.

Re:Problem Solving 101

[the_mad_poster]

And at least this time they're not throwing OUR money at it...

Re:Problem Solving 101

[krlynch]

Um, actually, they are throwing our money at it, if only indirectly. The money that was formerly being diverted from the Patent Office into the General Fund was money that could be spent on programs without requiring a direct infusion of tax dollars or debt increases. That money has to be replaced with an identical chunk of money from somewhere else. That somewhere else has to be tax revenues flowing into the General Fund from tax payers.

Which isn't to say that this is a bad way to spend our money. Just that it is our money that will pay for this.

Re:Problem Solving 101

[Delphiki]

I can't tell if you're serious or going for funny, but a tariff is a type of tax. It's still collected from the tax payers, just not in a way as direct as deducting it from their pay checks.

Re:Problem Solving 101

[Short Circuit]

Definitly. Tariffs not only raise the prices of goods in the country, they also spark malevolence between nations, which can easily lead to more harm to consumers.

Re:Problem Solving 101

[dreamchaser]

That's the main reason I'm on the fence as to whether this will be a good thing or not. Maybe it's just me, but I'm not sure I trust bureaucrats to do something constructive with the funding.

Re:Problem Solving 101

[k98sven]

Is it just me, or does this sound like it is just throwing more money at a problem and hoping it will solve itself? If the legislation doesn't have provisions to specify new procedures to actually get around to solving the problems, it is unlikely to solve much of anything.

Well.. what would you do if you had the choice between

Hire more engineers
or

Hike your own salary, get a nice new office building with a pool, sauna and indoor shuffleboard facility?

No obligations.. :-)

Re:Problem Solving 101

[Anonymous Coward]

This first step in solving any problem is to get as many pertinent facts as possible. I seriously doubt either you or I have them.

What you've proposed is essentially the libertarian stereotype of an inefficient government. If true, throwing more money at the problem certainly won't solve it.

But there are other possibilities. I can think of several government agencies that are ineffective BECAUSE they are underfunded. Perhaps the USPTO is one of them--I don't know. But as long as we're spouting off an

Did you even read the Blurb?

[rsilvergun]

>>"new legislation that will stop Congress from siphoning off money from the Patent Office."

This isn't about throwing money at the problem, it's about removing some of the profit motive from recklessly granting patents. As things stand now, Congress is profiting off of the current patent madness. A Congressman can use that money to buy votes in his state with pork projects, which'll make him damn likely to support any patent that comes along.

Basically, no government agency (short of the IRS) sho

Still flawed

[Craig Maloney]

If the patent office is still run the same way as it is now (with the quantity of approvals vs. quality), this will be worthless. Only with true reforms of the patent system (non-obvious patents, abolishment of software patents, protection of inventions, not algorithms) will the patent office really be reformed.

Re:Still flawed

[shaka999]

Personally I think the patent process is a house of cards. At some point it will tumble. This bill will hopefully just make it happen faster

Re:Still flawed

[Gherald]

Oh? What makes you think the situation is fragile?

I do not see the patent process being reformed any time soon. Corporations (the chief source of frivolous patents) are greedy, and can afford many lobbyists.

How's that?

[jtheory]

The patent system is at its weakest when the examiners make obvious mistakes, like granting patents for technological advances that have significant prior art or are blazingly obvious extensions of existing tech.

People question the system, with reason, each time it is obviously serving to stifle innovation, like when a company with a questionable patent uses it purely to bring lawsuits against "violators" instead of even trying to develop a product.

More resources for the patent office will probably result in more and better examiners who will be able to avoid these kinds of extreme abuses... which in turn will reduce press coverage and public awareness of the continuing (but more subtle) problems -- which will in turn serve perpetuate the patent system in spite of its fundamental flaws that remain unresolved.

Making a wheel less squeaky doesn't get it greased.

Personally, I think it's a good move, simply because I don't see the patent system as a "house of cards" type of thing. There will be changes eventually (probably later rather than sooner), but it's not the kind of system that will collapse -- after all, it does serve a purpose in spite of its weaknesses and loopholes.

Re:Still flawed

[Nakito]

I perceive another flaw in the system that I do not believe is widely recognized: being a patent examiner is essentially an entry-level position. Patent examiners tend to be young law-school graduates with technical undergraduate degrees. Consequently, although they may be smart and have good intentions, they do not have sufficient practical experience in business or industry to dinstinguish what is truly "novel" from what would be "obvious" to an old hand. Being young and inexperienced, to them everything appears to be novel. There is nothing wrong with being a beginner, but the system really needs some kind of oversight by grayer heads who have sufficient familiarity with the field and are less easily impressed. And yes, this means money in the form of higher salaries to attract and keep such people.

Patent System Flawed

[solprovider]

being a patent examiner is essentially an entry-level position. Patent examiners tend to be young law-school graduates with technical undergraduate degrees.

I agree with the statements, but the emphasis may be wrong. Patent Examiner may not be the final goal of someone's career, but it should not be entry level. Patents have too much effect to be controlled by people with no experience.

Patent examiners need to:
1. Check if prior art exists.
2. Decide if it is obvious.
3. Make certain the patent is specifi

Re:Still flawed

[Mysteray]

The hope in this is that once Congress ceases to view the USPTO as a revenue source, they will be more receptive to the argument that overly-broad patents (and trademarks) hurt the economy overall.

Re:Still flawed

[iminplaya]

You can't reform a system that encourages a person to "sit on" their ideas until some millionaire offers to buy it from them. There are many inventions out there that could save lives, money, whatever, that won't get to market beacuse the greedy inventer won't release it without a million dollar buyout. The drug companies are a prime example of this. They will watch millions of people suffer and die rather than give up even a penny to make a possibly life saving drug available. This is what all IP gives us. It's turning the creative process into a poorly run lottery. Doing away with IP can only help weed out the chaff. (Aw, jeez. No more "Pet Rocks"). Doing away with IP can insure that good inventions will be available to all, instead of rotting on the shelf waiting for those mythical millions to appear. Doing away with IP will insure that old works won't be sold again and again as new. All the creative geniuses(sp) can work for hire, like the rest of us, instead reaping millions from great grandpa's 75 year old cartoons.

Re:Still flawed

[gcaseye6677]

If you're ideas were implemented, instead of people sitting on ideas until that million dollar buyout, they would just not come up with them in the first place. Sure, people would still have ideas, but they wouldn't put a lot of time and money into researching something truely unique and revolutionary, if there were no possibility of a big payout. Its not that they are too lazy or greedy, its that it takes a lot of cash to research something like cancer drugs and if nobody can make money off of it, nobody will invest in the research, and no new drugs will be produced. Are you still convinced this is a good idea?

Re:Still flawed

[iminplaya]

If money is going to be THE motivating force behind everything that we do then we deserve whatever happens to us. Yeah, the guy inventing the cancer drug might do it to save the life of someone he cares about. Some people might invent something because it might improve their own lives. Do you think they would feel better to suppress it simply because there's not a million dollars waiting for him? They might even cooperate with with each other to get the invention out. (That would be a first now, wouldn't it

Re:Still flawed

[datababe72]

So what are all of the scientists employed by pharma companies doing? Playing tiddlywinks?

Come on... its not a perfect industry, but its not populated by evil people who want to watch people die, either.

If a drug company has developed a drug that actually works, they're not going to sit on it. If its not cost-effective for them to take it to market, chances are they'll out-license it. The problem is, developing a drug that actually works is hard and expensive. Once you have a drug that seems to work, actually proving that it is safe and effective (i.e., getting FDA approval) is also hard and expensive.

In my opinion, without IP protection, no one would ever do it. The primary output of a pharma company isn't the little pill you swallow: its the knowledge that making a pill with those ingredients produces a good medicine. Getting that knowledge is expensive... producing the pill is not. This is why generics are so much cheaper. If you don't let the people who spent the money to get the knowledge benefit from it... well, you aren't going to get many new medicines.

I'm NOT saying drug companies are paragons of virtue. But really, villifying them isn't going to solve the problem. There are real market forces at work here. Any solutions you present must take these forces into account, or its no solution at all.

Re:Still flawed

[iminplaya]

Without IP people WILL do it. They aren't going to let their loved ones die off without a fight. They will produce the medicine. The drug companies are letting millions die from malaria and AIDS, because they won't allow generic drugs on the market. Making things scarce in order to make a buck is a pretty evil way of doing business. The fact that goods are easier to produce with less makes it very important that we find another way of interacting with each other. It's only going to get harder to "sell refri

Re:Still flawed

[RAMMS+EIN]

``You can't reform a system that encourages a person to "sit on" their ideas until some millionaire offers to buy it from them.''

Well, patents are there exactly to get people to publish their inventions. If you're in it for the money (and I think you should be free to be), you can keep your idea to yourself and try to make money applying it. The risk you run is that someone else comes up with the same idea, after which you are no longer the only one who knows the trick, which means you have to compete and

Re:Still flawed

[bladernr]

Doing away with IP can insure that good inventions will be available to all, instead of rotting on the shelf waiting for those mythical millions to appear.

Without Intellectual Property protection perhaps those good inventions would never have been invented at all.

Without IP, drug companies could not poor the billions they do into drug research, because the cost reduction caused by generics would mean they could never recoup their R&D. IP allows drug companies to invest heavily, and make their money

Re:Still flawed

[iminplaya]

One of my contentions against IP is that it wouldn't cost billions to do drug research. That's a whole nother bloated industry created by IP. I contend that without IP the drugs would probably be found in a naturally growing plant or something. The IP might make R&D very profitable, but it doesn't necessarily make it more productive.

Re:Still flawed

[bodrell]

If the patent office is still run the same way as it is now (with the quantity of approvals vs. quality), this will be worthless. Only with true reforms of the patent system (non-obvious patents, abolishment of software patents, protection of inventions, not algorithms) will the patent office really be reformed.

(emphasis mine)

I get your gist, but have to disagree on a slight technicality: you mean software algorithms, I assume, because the word "algorithm" can constitute all sorts of processes that I believe should be protected by patents. If I come up with a process to cheaply digest organic matter into hydrocarbon chains (i.e., oil), and the temperature, pressure, composition etc. are all crucial to this process, how are those parameters and that sequence of reactions different from an algorithm? But when the algorithms involve manipulating numbers, rather than molecules, I certainly agree with you.

Re:Still flawed

[rhysweatherley]

because the word "algorithm" can constitute all sorts of processes that I believe should be protected by patents. If I come up with a process to cheaply digest organic matter into hydrocarbon chains (i.e., oil), and the temperature, pressure, composition etc. are all crucial to this process, how are those parameters and that sequence of reactions different from an algorithm?

This is similar to the argument that the EU tried recently. The argument was: "well a mobile phone is mostly just a bunch of softw

Re:Still flawed

[bodrell]

This is similar to the argument that the EU tried recently . . .

That argument is pure rubbish. If a device is mostly software, then Copyright already provides more than enough protection for your "invention". Your competitors must either license from you or do the hard work themselves from scratch.

So do you think what I said is rubbish, too? I'm not arguing for software patents--just process patents for stuff not protected by copyright (or copyleft). Should a process be copyrighted, when it's the algo

Re:Still flawed

[rhysweatherley]

If the process can be purely represented in software, with no physical component, then Copyright is the most appropriate protection. If there is a physical component, then that component may be patentable, but only that, with Copyright protecting the software.

Since any automatable process can theoretically be done manually, allowing the combination to be patentable is equivalent to saying "well, the physical lever itself is not patentable, but if a human operator pulls it, then the process is patentable"

machine vs. process

[bodrell]

I don't see a clear distinction between the process and the machine, as stated by you. If the "machine" is actually an entire chemical plant, then is it patentable? If every step of the way uses parts that have been around forever (heat exchangers, pumps, stirrers, flash drums, etc.) then is it patentable? What if the sequence of several well-known steps, is the crucial element, because an intermediate material is destoyed/never produced when the sequence is different?

I agree, the line is shady, but pe

hyperbole

[bodrell]

You are completely right, in some cases. Like DNA/genes. Should a sequence be patentable? People have already patented a breast cancer gene, which has prevented valuable research due to someone's greed. But what if someone mutated a naturally-occurring gene to produce a protein with extraordinary properties? Do the "rules" apply here? What if it's a completely invented DNA sequence that encodes the protein? Should the work done to create that protein be unrewarded? Or would it be better for the disc

Re:Still flawed

[Citizen of Earth]

Only with true reforms of the patent system (non-obvious patents, abolishment of software patents, protection of inventions, not algorithms) will the patent office really be reformed.

The process needs to be reformed. The only serious solution is to publish patent applications upon receipt. My spiel:

The USPTO and by infliction and extension most of the patent offices of the world are massively corrupt by virtue of overwhelming incompetence. Perpetual copyrights are bad enough, but bad patents are poiso

Not it just means more bad patents faster

[Anonymous Coward]

Subject pretty much says it all.

Re:Not it just means more bad patents faster

[Short Circuit]

Depending on how you look at it, more "bad" patents could be better for the consumer.

If developers still want to produce a product after one of its underlying technologies has been patented, then they can come up with a different, possibly better, way to produce the same overall functionality of their product.

Unfortunately, it can lock out small developers unless they can get some VC, or maybe a spouse who wins the bread in the meantime. (I suspect that second method would be less stressful. ;) )

What is the HB ID?

[ObviousGuy]

How do we know that this wasn't just some insignificant rider on some more important "terrorist fighting legislation"?

What is the House Bill number?

Re:What is the HB ID?

[sheemwaza]

Smith, who chairs of the House Judiciary Committee's IP panel, said his bill, H.R. 1561, could result in 140,000 more patents being issued in the next five years. "That's 140,000 more economic opportunities for the American people," Smith said.

from the article

Re:What is the HB ID?

[asyky]

"That's 140,000 more economic opportunities for the American people,"

what american people? not the average guy on the street that's for sure.

Re:What is the HB ID?

[dreamchaser]

If the patent creates a marketable product, who do you think fills the jobs to make said product? Elves?

Re:What is the HB ID?

[Bombcar]

Chinese. :)

Re:What is the HB ID?

[dreamchaser]

Foreign companies employ roughly 6 million US workers *in* the States as well.

Re:What is the HB ID?

[privaria]

The House bill is H.R. 1561.

I'm a registered patent agent, so this bill is obviously important to me. (Before I get modded into oblivion for having that occupation, please note that I am also an open-source software author. You can see something I wrote about that topic [eepatents.com] on one of my project pages. I watched the bill being enacted on C-SPAN. It stands alone, and is not any sort of a rider.

It is also a Good Thing (sorry, Martha) because the USPTO is desparately in need of funding to keep up with the flood of applications. The only thing I don't like about it (other than the fee increases it includes) is that it opens the door to outsourcing (not offshoring) searches to private contractors, something I think really is the patent examiner's job.

Re:What is the HB ID?

[k98sven]

You can see something I wrote about that topic on one of my project pages.

I did. It doesn't really tell me much more than "yeah, I'm a patent guy, and I wrote this software and made it free for these reasons."

What I (and presumably others) would be interested in knowing, is how you feel on the specific concerns raised by free-software authors on software patents. Since you (I assume) feel software patents are a good idea: How would you adress these concerns?

Most software-patent advocates out there have

Re:What is the HB ID?

[privaria]

Article I, Section 8

"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries..."

There have been many people in groups interested in limiting what types of "discoveries" for which inventors can obtain the exclusive right via the constitutional provision of a patent. Many who are concerned about the high cost of medicine would like to see limitations on the availability of patents for pharmac

Re:What is the HB ID?

[TygerFish]

"The only thing I don't like about it (other than the fee increases it includes) is that it opens the door to outsourcing (not offshoring) searches to private contractors, something I think really is the patent examiner's job."

That strikes me as a big uh-oh.

A patent office staffed with public servants whose job it is to keep things secure while under consideration is one thing. Outside firms, staffed by you-know-not-whom brings people into the loop you might not want there--like the guy who stole *half* of a Japanese process for new electrolytic capacitors and caused a product recall when the stolen and only partly-understood technology burst on motherboards.

You've got to love those free-market solutions.

Patents in General

[Un0r1g1nal]

I am not particularly a big fan of patents in general because of the amount of abuse that the system receives, this 'extra' cash in the coffers could either go one of two ways. Patents will be forced to become more realistic and used properly, or people will be able to 'specialise' patents to an even greater degree and so create more crap than before.

Patents in general are still a bad thing IMHO.

Could...

[gid13]

"Could this be a good thing?"

Well, it COULD... It doesn't seem likely to me, though. As far as I can tell, the people who grant patents tend to be missing the point entirely. How is one-click shopping really an innovation that should be protected???

No, if you ask me, it needs a complete overhaul, not just more money. And disregarding the practical considerations, I still think it's ethically ridiculous to lay claim to an idea.

Yeah, it's a good thing

[cybermace5]

Anything that could result in more engineers being hired is automatically good, from my point of view.

Re:Yeah, it's a good thing

[shaka999]

Wonder if they'll consider outsourcing to India :).

Re:Yeah, it's a good thing

[cybermace5]

We really need to hurry up and get all the developing countries up to speed. Gotta get 'em rich and snooty enough so that they won't work for peanuts.

"could this be a good thing?"

[Capt'n Hector]

Yes. More money = more time for officials to look at patent applications = less bad patents.

But of course, do you know anybody to work harder when they're paid more?

Bad Patents?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm posting anonymously for obvious reasons. I'm a Teaching Fellow (TF) at Harvard, and as part of my work I have to mark assignments. I'd say most of the assignments I mark contain unfounded statements like the following one found in the body of this very story:

Given all the discussions about how so many bad patents are being granted, could this be a good thing?

There simply has not been any study of the quantity of 'bad' patents versus 'good' patents. Whenever I see such baseless statements in essays, I make a point to tell them a community college might be better suited to their future.

The facts are:

1. There are bad patents. No one disputes that - like the amazon patent on one-click shopping and the transmeta patent on code-morphing.
2. There are good patents. Patents on compression are a good example of such patents. They involve some serious work by one or two geniuses who deserve some monetary reward on their work.

I'm surprised the patent office is undergoing such a wild goose chase with no data to back the project up. We expect more from services funded by tax payers.

Re:Bad Patents?

[PCM2]

And I thank God you never graded any of my papers, because I don't see a single word in the quote you cited that says anything about the number of good patents vs. the number of bad ones -- just that there is a lot of discussion about how many bad patents are being passed (and there is).

Maybe you'd be better off marking papers at a community college.

Re:Bad Patents?

[Anonymous Crowhead]

I don't see a single word in the quote you cited that says anything about the number of good patents vs. the number of bad ones

Ah Slashdot:
Defend patents without stating evidence: Get flamed.
Be against patents without stating evidence: +5 insightful.
Seeing this post get modded -1 flamebait (and I'll even post logged in w/karma bonus for max effect): Priceless.

Re:Bad Patents?

[Nakito]

I'm surprised the patent office is undergoing such a wild goose chase with no data to back the project up.

True, I am not aware of any metrics to support or refute conclusively the proposition that things today are worse than they were prior to the era of software patents. But certainly, since the era of software patents began a few years ago, there is a wealth of anecdotal evidence that is very disturbing to people with long-term experience in the patent field. Many of the worst examples of "obvious" pate

Re:Bad Patents?

[CrankyFool]

Of course, "since the era of software patents began" one of the things that changed OTHER than the advent of software patents is also our ability to quickly (and verbosely, so verbosely) discuss every case of bad patent, leading to a perception of increased incidents of bad patents. It's like child abduction -- it's always happened, of course, but now with the advent of Amber Alerts, flashing freeway signs, and immediate media saturation when a child is abducted, there's an increase in perception that abd

Re:Bad Patents?

[Nakito]

It's a good point, especially regarding the "worst case" examples which make such good online headlines and attract so much online buzz.

But there is a counter-argument. In the field of law (and particularly in specialties like patent law), weekly and monthly newletters have been published by companies like CCH and West for many decades. So even before there was a Slashdot, there were communities of experts keeping abreast of the latest decisions. And even in that long-term context, some of the recent paten

Re:Bad Patents?

[mark-t]

There are good patents. Patents on compression are a good example of such patents

But you are advocating the patentability of _algorithms_, which is what so many people here are opposed to (present company included).

Not denying the fact that it took work to come up with some of these brilliant algorithms, but why should it be permitted that a process which can be _COMPLETELY_ replicated with pencil, paper, and a little bit of thought should be patentable?

If the process describes a physical process,

ALL patents are bad

[argoff]

The facts are:

1. There are bad patents. No one disputes that - like the amazon patent on one-click shopping and the transmeta patent on code-morphing.
2. There are good patents. Patents on compression are a good example of such patents. They involve some serious work by one or two geniuses who deserve some monetary reward on their work.


This is the whole problem, too many people don't see patents for what they are. They are not a form of "protection", they are a form of controll. Sort of like saying "well the King disallows bad religions, and the King disallows good religions - so we should do a study of which religions are good and which religions are bad" . NO, Pull your head out!!! Annytime you restrict how people can use any type of innovation you are going to have negative and unpredictable consequences. Some are worse than others, but lets get real - as long as patents exist you are not going to have a fair patent system any more then we could expect a King to fairly choose which religions people can worship. (eg. how do you know that 50 other people wouldn't have independently invented similar compression routines within the next year or so anyhow patents or not, is their work and effort worthless)

The end in itself is to get rid of Patents, anything that goes in that direction is inherently good, anything that pulls away from it is inherehtly bad.

Re:Bad Patents?

[k98sven]

There are good patents. Patents on compression are a good example of such patents. They involve some serious work by one or two geniuses who deserve some monetary reward on their work.

Others would disagree. What is a compression method? It's an algorithm for altering the representation of data from one form to another, smaller one.

You see, an algorithm is math. It's pure thought-- an idea of how to do something, not a method.

Math results aren't patentable even though a lot of work goes into them. They are ideas, or discoveries.

Patents were never intended to protect ideas or discoveries. They were created to protect methods and designs.

Combustion is a discovery.
The combustion engine -- that's an idea.
A design for a combustion engine - that's a method.

This is why patents work well. People are still free to use the original idea, but with a different method, or implementation. You can still build a combustion engine, it just can't work the exact same way. The distinction is simple.

With software, that distinction is not there. What's the difference between binary code, C++ code, pseudocode or just a plain description of the algorithm?
The idea is not distinct from the implementation.

The other question is why patents are required? The software industry is hugely successful as it is.
Why encumber it with patents? Competition disadvantages are a far greater problem than code theft in the software industry. Patents are state-given, time-limited monopolies.

I don't see any evidence that creating further disadvantages will work to eradicate those that already exist.
I'm worried they will work to increase them.

Re:Bad Patents?

[dreamchaser]

You should really try to improve your reading skills if as you claim you work at Harvard. All I reference is the amount of discussion about bad patents, then ask a question. Nowhere do I ascribe a quantity to either good or bad patents. I never claim that there has been any sort of study, just that there has been a lot of discussion on the matter.

Then again...those who can do, do...etc. ;)

Re:Interesting example of a good patent...

[bladernr]

Several years ago from a random sample it was estimated that about 70% of software patents would not actually hold up in court.

Ok, I've seen this sort of thing on /. for a while, and thought someone else would say it, no one did, now I am: the purpose of the vast majority of software patents is not to enforce them.

They are marketing gimics. "Acme Graphical Design: Using patented Make-It-Better technology...". Some companies advertise using the absolute number of patents they've been granted, like it was

Salaries for examiners

[zuikaku]

"work and have risen through the ranks, and young examiners, either fresh out of law school or still working on their degrees, who stay perhaps five years before moving on to the more lucrative private sector."

While I would hope that higher salaries would attract better employees, I seriously doubt that the government ever could (or should) compete with the range of salaries that these lawyers can earn in the private sector, especially if you factor in the occasional large jury award.

I think it's more important to attract more of the people who enjoy that kind of work and less of those who are using this as a stepping-stone. Increasing the salary is not very likely to accomplish this, unless the increase is for those who work there more than just five years.

Re:Salaries for examiners

[shaka999]

How do you differentiate the work done in the private sector by that done in the public? I guess you could find people who would rather review applications then prepare them but thats a long shot. Increasing salary is a sure fire way to get, and retain, people.

Personally this is one thing I'll never understand. People refuse to allow our governments to pay competitive salaries and then are upset when they have to stand in line because some clerk is completely incompetent. You get what you pay for!

what we pay for?

[bodrell]

People refuse to allow our governments to pay competitive salaries and then are upset when they have to stand in line because some clerk is completely incompetent. You get what you pay for!

I would love to pay government employees competitive salaries (though not exorbitant), but you're assuming "people refuse" to allow the government to do that. How so? If you mean people don't like tax hikes, you're right. But the reason is not necessarily because people are stingy or don't want to pay government empl

I think it's time..

[Anonymous Coward]

to privatize the patent office. Contract out the work of reviewing patents, and renew the contracts of the best workers when the contracts expire.

Madrid Protocol

[MeBadMagic]

They must be trying to make up for the
Madrid Protocol [inta.org]
where now you have a direct means of applying for registration in 60 countries throughout Europe, Asia, Latin and South America by filing a single application in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
hmmmm......

Social Security

[Anonymous Coward]

A step in the right direction, but isn't the relentless siphoning of funds from Social Security a more pressing issue? The longer we ignore these issues, the more momentum the debt train builds up and the harder it will be to stop it.

Every week the government takes money from my paycheck, ostensibly for my retirement. Then they spend the money for their own pet projects, and have no feasible plans for restoring those funds. If a bank did the same thing it would be called fraud, massive fraud. (Banks re

Re:Social Security

[argoff]

Well, if you're saying that we need to reform social security too, by getting rid of it. Than I am all for it. It is clearly the biggest exploiting the elderly, racket, ponzi-scheme ever to birth upon the history of human kind.

The soluion, as in any similar crime, is to stop the exploitation, halt the collection, and punish those responsible for promoting the scheme to begin with.

public forum for patents

[garns]

Wouldn't it be grand if when a patent was applied for it was sent out to a number of people who had signed up to review patents of a certain type. These people would provide feedback to the patent auditor and there would then be the possibility of a quick rejection.

Otherwise the auditor would have to do the same leg work as before, but this should reduce the amount of time a paid employee would have to review a patent, and allow more time for them to evaulate the "tricky" ones.

Re:public forum for patents

[MoebiusStreet]

Interesting idea, but I don't think it would actually work.

Would the applicant have any recourse if you (the volunteer vetter) provided bad input? It wouldn't be fair if he didn't have a way to challenge bad calls. Consider the liabilities that you could incur.

Also, it's likely that interested parties would be competitors. It would be difficult to ensure impartiality (it may also be hard for me to spell it :) )

Huh?

[extra the woos]

A good thing? LoL. All the article talks about is this making patents go through the system faster. "the company has been frustrated by the long wait for several key patents that, if granted, could strengthen its intellectual-property position in its target digital audio, infrared and MP3 chip markets" YAY! Maybe congress was siphoning off funds because the patent office is worthless? Congress isn't usually as dumb as you think :) What it sounds like to me is tons of intellectual property companies lobied congress hard for this change, they just want their patents to fly through the system faster.

Re:Huh?

[dreamchaser]

It also talks about hiring more skilled engineers to better vet technical patent applications. I'm still not holding my breath though...

More lawyers (yeah, believe it!) might help...

[cenonce]

I used to work in the Trademark Division at the USPTO. One of the criticisms my friends on the Patent side had was that there were too many patent examiners who were engineers and not lawyers as well. They would issue patents even though there was caselaw to support not granting a patent in a particular case. My friends felt the Patet side needed more lawyers, who understand the legal theory behind the patent system and less engineers, who appeared to issue patents based purely on scientific theory.

I don't know if there are right or not. And I am certain there are some lousy lawyers as well as some lousy engineers issuing patents in the Patent Office. The question is, why should the Patent office be any different than any other Federal agency that requires an attorney to represent the interests of the public good?

Re:More lawyers (yeah, believe it!) might help...

[ewhac]

I have a very, very stupid question: Why are lawyers involved in the patent process at all?

I mean, yeah, it's a legal document at all, and a lawyer could wordsmith your similar creation into non-infringing territory. But, at the core, patents are about engineers communicating with other engineers. So why are patents written by lawyers, people unfamiliar with the engineer's, "dialect?"

Schwab

Balance of Interests & Preexisting Bad Patents

[amplt1337]

The question isn't whether more money for the USPTO will result in better engineers being hired, the question is whether it will remove the income incentive for approving as many patents as possible. Well, that and whether that change will shift the balance of interests enough to influence PTO behaviour.
Will there still be pressure from large corporations to get lots of patents approved? We've seen patent disputes cut both ways, so that may be a wash.

Anyway, don't hold your breath for this little change to result in massive review of the bad patents already issued. Patent law won't be in order until it's been thoroughly scoured by Congress with the express purpose of fixing it, and changing the status quo is the hardest thing for a legislative body of wealthy elites to decide to do...

Experts?

[highwaytohell]

What so called experts will they hire? Tech experts who have been in the industry for several years or more politicians who could siphon off a bit more money to advance their political status? WHy does it seem that whenever it comes to patents, everyone is either passing the buck, or chasing their own tail.

This Sucks. They might disallow my application!

[Selecter]

I have recently thought up a new invention that is a refinement on existing stuff but not the same as that stuff in a number of ways. I am going about the business of finding out if my "invention" is marketable - I dont want the existing laws messed with too much in terms of quality becuase I dont believe it's nessacary.

I'll give an example, an absurd one. Somebody actually succeeded in getting a patent for a helmet that you wore on your head that was airtight - except you would be breathing oxygen generate

Re:This Sucks. They might disallow my application!

[Chris Burke]

I'll give an example, an absurd one. Somebody actually succeeded in getting a patent for a helmet that you wore on your head that was airtight - except you would be breathing oxygen generated by little cactus's that sat on a shelf near your ears inside the helmet !!!! No, it's not a gag!

What are you saying? That's an awesome idea! Assuming you can get a cactus that could match a human beings CO2 emissions/O2 requirements, which seems doubtful...

But I see it doing two things -- first, providing divers,

Re:This Sucks. They might disallow my application!

[ewhac]

The point is that anyone but that inventor knows that that patent is wasted time and effort on the inventors part, but he paid his share of the fees too. I dont want some one at the government looking at my patent for worthyness or not; that's NOT what they should do. The *marketplace* determines that, not the patent office. A patent on a stupid or unneeded thing is worthless.

In an ideal universe, where all patents issued were novel and non-obvious; and infringement required substantial overlap, you wou

Time for a change

[TygerFish]

This may be heartening news.

As things stand today, getting a patent, from the most complex biotechnologies, to the simplest gadget costs tons and takes years.

If, for once, the government does it right, ignores the lobbyists, and provides for the patent office to be less of a cash-cow by taxing crackpots, and granting every unscrupulous firm that asks a seventeen-year lock on breathing, we might see a time when it costs less to come up with an idea and use it to quit your day-job.

And on that day, I for on

This is BAD news

[argoff]

The patnet office needs to have less power, not more. When's the last time you ever herd of a bureauocracy being improved by throwing money at it.

The simple fact is, patents are evil, especially pharmacutical patnets where they have done little to create medical breakthroughs (inspite of all the propaganda to the contrary) but they have done alot to lock out people who are dying and can not afford certain types of medicine. Hell, they even sued the nations of Africa for creating generic drugs for people

Re:This is BAD news

[Moridineas]

How are drug companies that spent hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars developing drugs supposed to compete when a company can simply replicate their drugs for a penny, without the R&D costs?

How can they possibly make enough money to pay their scientists, to buy equipment, to fund studies, etc?

Do you have any ideas?

Re:This is BAD news

[argoff]

How are drug companies that spent hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars developing drugs supposed to compete when a company can simply replicate their drugs for a penny, without the R&D costs?

How can they possibly make enough money to pay their scientists, to buy equipment, to fund studies, etc?

Do you have any ideas?


Well isn't that the point. That's like asking how will the plantation masters ever make any money without slaves, ever recover the large cost of purchase and of running a

Re:This is BAD news

[argoff]

Creating new drugs is expensive, the R&D is high, then you get the costs of FDA approval (necessary trials, etc.). This is doubly so now that a single lawsuit for a single drug can kill a company. So without patents what incentive will there be for companies to research new drugs? The maybe 6 months you get to sell it for before someone makes a cheaper alternative since copying costs a lot less? Yeah they're suing African countries but at the same time without them the drug would never exist in the f

Re:This is BAD news

[man_ls]

Nobody in their right mind would *produce anything new of any value at all* if they didn't have some financial insentive for doing it.

That insentive is patent royalties for 9-15 years.

Face it, that's capitalism. The bottom line drives everything --- but the system approaches maximum efficiency, so it's hardly "bad"

Re:This is BAD news

[argoff]

Nobody in their right mind would *produce anything new of any value at all* if they didn't have some financial insentive for doing it.

That insentive is patent royalties for 9-15 years.

Face it, that's capitalism. The bottom line drives everything --- but the system approaches maximum efficiency, so it's hardly "bad"



That's like saying it's free market if the government granted someone a monopoly on growing oranges, because they have no "incentive" to grow oranges if someone else can. Bull. Patents

More, or less?

[EzInKy]

Smith, who chairs of the House Judiciary Committee's IP panel, said his bill, H.R. 1561, could result in 140,000 more patents being issued in the next five years. "That's 140,000 more economic opportunities for the American people," Smith said.

Maybe, but chances are for every one of those 140,000 monopolies there will be ten potential competitors who won't have any economic opportunities at all.

This is NOT a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

The fundamental breakage in the patent system today is that the patent office has only incentives from people getting patents. They get money per patent issued. They have every incentive to issue patents. They have no real incentives to be careful. That diffused cost is borne through society, but isn't an issue that is ever raised with the patent office.

This kind of feedback loop is well-known to economists. It goes under the name, "regulatory capture". And the patent office which was meant to regulate the patent system has indeed been completely captured by the interests of people who want patents issued.

Increasing how efficiently people get rewarded for existing behaviour doesn't help. Attempting to speed the process up while leaving the incentive system in its current broken state will make things worse.

Fix the incentives. First.

conflict of interest

[Anonymous Coward]

If the patent office recieves a fixed budget regardless or the number of patents they grant, they can objectively determine whether or not to grant the patent.

If their budget depends on the number of patent applications they get, which depends on the number of patents they grant, then it is in their interest to grant more and more patents - regardless of merit.

How about a distributed prior art search?

[junkmail]

Just post each new questionable patent idea on Slashdot and let the responses guide the search.

Closing the barndoor after the cows are out

[gcaseye6677]

This is too little too late, even if it is well intentioned. There are enough bad patents out there to make a fortune for the owners for the next 20 years. Worse, the patent litigation process is so expensive for defendants that they often settle even knowing that the plantiff could never prevail in court. Not too many small companies have $1 million, which can be necessary to spend on a patent defense. So even with reforms, it will still be just as possible to bully small firms with patent barratry as a business model. Until it is more realistic for someone to defend themselves against bogus patent claims, new laws about what you can patent won't do much good.

Reward examiners for obvious/prior art findings

[Anomalyst]

Take this new appropriation and use it to reward diligence by examiners to correctly declare a patent obvious and/or covered by prior art. This should reduce the frivolous filings and motivate the examiners to perform the job to the best of their ability. Findings by the initial examiner should be anonymously verified by a more senior examiner. Take it a step further, REQUIRE that a minimum number of possible "prior art" candidates be attached to the patent by the initial examiner. Points off their bounty for those that do not pass muster and bonuses for those that do.

Will a 7% Solution be Enough?

[serutan]

It says Congress has taken away $750 million in revenue since 1992. That's less than $70 million per year. Adding that $70 million back into the patent office's $1 billion budget is only a 7% increase. Should we expect a huge difference?

Nothing New

[syntap]

This happens every year... fees from the Patent Office are often grabbed for budget-balancing purposes. When this gets out of committee it'll be the same thing... fees that could go toward hiring patent examiners, better automation, etc will be siphoned off to pay for studies on the mating habits of daffodils or something.

Stop the abuse!

[IGnatius T Foobar]

Hopefully this bill will prevent abusive patents from making it out the gates.

Well, if we're lucky

[jelle]

If we're lucky, they will actually be able to hire a lot of good engineers to review all those patent applications. So that in the end, after all the outsourcing, and more and more lawyers applying for patents for business politics reasons (baystar?), all us engineers will be employed by the USPTO reviewing the deluge of patent applications of the local lawyers plus the outsourced engineers...

Of course, 'lucky' in this context is only true for those who can manage reading the patent application texts witho

Patent Office Educational Video!!

[danoatvulaw]

I took a patent law class this year at school, and the professor started the class with a video put out by the patent office. it went something like this - an inventor creates an invention. he sees a lawyer who will fill out some documents for the invention and sends it to the patent office. once at the patent office, it gets sorted and passed to the examiner's office, where it SITS IN A PILE AND WAITS ITS TURN! AFTER ALL THE EXAMINER IS VERY BUSY, AND THE DOCUMENTS MUST WAIT THEIR TURN!

If that's not a prime example of inefficiency....

120,000 Bad Patents

[Someone Else Entirel]

In the debate on HR 1561, Howard Berman said, "Using a random sampling methodology, the PTO estimates its error rate for patents issued in fiscal year 2003 at 4.4 percent. That means more than 7,000 patents were issued in error. That means that at any given time given the 7-year pendency term for patents , there are over 120,000 bad patents in force. " He meant 17 year life, not "7-year pendancy", but his 120,000 figure was in the right ballpark. PTO currently gets $1.2 billion dollars to examine patents on everything under the sun... from blue lasers to new cleaning solvents to fishing reels. While some /.ers question whether giving PTO more money is wise, I can't see where starving it for cash will make it operate any better. Because it takes years not days to get a patent, USPTO is under pressure to speed things up. Speeding things up either means hiring more people to handle the cases, or spending less time on each application. Hiring more people requires more money. Spending less time means there will be more than 120,000 bad patents floating around at any given time. When judgements for single patents can cost $500 million, as in the Eolas case, and patents on drugs can be worth a billion a year (e.g., Viagra) does it really make sense to cut back the PTO budget? Again, PTO gets a mere 1.2 billion. It's not like an extra billion will break the US budget. HR 1561, which was supported by the National Association of Manufacturers, the Intellectual Property Owners Association, and the American Intellectual Property Lawyers Association, will only add an extra $300 million. $385 billion gets spent on the military and national defence. $332 Billion gets spent on interest on the national debt. $278.5 billion on health care. $46.2 billion on the federal Department of Education. Only $1.2 billion for the agency that is supposed to protect all the R&D investments made in the US?