Patent Reviews Via Wiki 84
unboring writes "Fortune reports on a pilot program where the patent approval process would be opened to outsiders for review. Reviewers can vote and discuss on different proposals, through say a wiki. Given the many (recent and past) patent approval fiascos, this seems like a good idea. It'll be interesting to see how they would deal with the issues faced by Wikipedia."
Why a wiki? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why a wiki? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why a wiki? (Score:4, Insightful)
The bottom line is that the process will be more transparent and more open to correction than the current system.
If it would be a forum.... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
\o/
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Why a wiki? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wikis are better at presenting a single summary of discussions. In a forum, minor mistakes don't get fixed easily (eg. if one person corrects another person, you have to read through the whole conversation to get an accurate glimpse of the conslusions drawn).
That doesn't mean wikis present only one view... a page can note that disagreement exists, and the page can present different views of a situation by different groups of people. But when there's longer amounts of discussion, having a single-page summary is far far better for newcomers, and for decision-makers to scan the arguments more quickly.
Re:Why a wiki? (Score:4, Interesting)
I took the original poster's (excellent) suggestion not to mean "literally use a forum" but rather, more generally, why not keep track of who said what? There's nothing to say you can't design a forum in which there are discussion threads and other mechanisms, such as accounts you can log into and vote. It's not rocket science to give the person a menu that says:
I don't think everyone editing each others' text is the way to go on this since it creates an artificial sense of tension--there's no reason that my having a different view than you means we have to fight over who's view gets recorded. But allowing each person the choice of several ways to present their throughts (interactively or not, multiple choice or not, size-constrained or not) seems good because you can get summarizable info when people choose to offer it.
Also, allowing anyone to update at any time means you can keep by-day summaries of how people's opinions change and to review the history of what the discussion and opinion summaries looked like on a given day.
Re: (Score:1)
I believe they are intending to build a community review process, not a community wiki of patents. So there will be threaded discussion, karma, ratings AND group editing of documents. From what I can tell the project is designed to provide a community forum and process where experts can work together (or singly) to identify prior art, rate the relevance of submissions
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Link to patent review project (Score:5, Informative)
Interestingly, the lead sponsors for the project are HP, IBM, Microsoft, and Red Hat. Strange bedfellows, eh?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The benefits of a large company being able to jeopardize another are clearly offset by the fact that they can be pushed back. This translates into every company spending
Lawyers are expensive (Score:2)
Project Red Herring (Score:5, Insightful)
The patent problem has to be solved and the patent problem is NO problem of prior art, novelty assessment, "triviality" or "obviousness", patent examiner laziness or mistakes etc. However patent institutions and patent professionals like to let you enter the toyground. There you can think up solutions, but they will not solve the problems, and the institutions are safe.
Patent reform of Congress went into the same trap. They discussed the issue for the
Re:Project Red Herring (Score:5, Interesting)
Even worse, it's a solution to a problem which doesn't actually exist. The vast majority of people think they understand the patent process but simply don't. Publication is a vital part of the process, as is prior art assessment, demonstrating novelty and non-obviousness (to a "person skilled in the art"). You get a patent (ie. exclusive right to commercially prosper) for a set amount of time (20 years in most places) in exchange for disclosing the idea to everybody.
There is nothing to stop you filing a patent application which is an exact copy of an existing, granted patent. That patent application could go to PCT and be published at 18 months and then progress into national levels in individual territories. This could take 3-5 years and can happen without anyone in the patent office having actually examined the validity of that patent . If the patent application was published without an international search report, it might not even have been cross-referenced against the existing patent database!
Even granted patents are technically not valid until they have been challenged and upheld by a court.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but: It is very important to understand that these steps are formal assessments in a patent process driven by patent examination logic. What the patent system rules as beeing "non-obvious" will be thought of as "trivial" by most of us. But that does not mean that the patent system made a "mistake" or did not examine properly. You cannot glue market "non-obviousness" in patent system "non-obviousness", in fact "non-obviousness" is just a
Re: (Score:2)
However, I do like the idea of having all of us concerned volunteers able to give some of our time to help the patent office out with our spare time and do a lot of their research for them. Seeing as the patent process is important in our society, it could
Re: (Score:2)
Us citizens like to play with the red herrings which are novelty and non-obviousness. You are unable to solve anything that way. The fundamental problem is not examination but that the patent system is applied to fields where it has no meaningful role/foundation such as software and business methods. there is no way to
If you build it, they will abuse it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If you build it, they will abuse it. (Score:5, Interesting)
I suspect that there will be more need for accountability than there is with, say, wikipedia, but just having the facts unearthed by an army of interested persons will be valuable.
The mere fact of having some prior art or other pertinent information on the wiki won't be 'make or break', but an idea of what factors need independent verification should add enormous value to the Patent Office's research.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:If you build it, they will abuse it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Conversely, if a company's competitor has a multimillion dollar product on the line, it could be very beneficial to help dig up prior art to prevent/negate a patent and then cash in by selling (or not withdrawing) a similar product. That might sound bad, but it would allow for actual innovations to get protected (no prior art) and allow the public (as well as other companies) to pay less for derivative items because of increased competition. If the idea catches on, the grassroots/astroturf community could get used to help ensure keep sabotage successes to a minimum.
I think it's a great idea. I just wish I could see how it'd apply to biotech items. Patenting genes and chemicals found in nature still bugs me.
Re: (Score:2)
"if a company's competitor has a multimillion dollar product on the line"...
So basicaly the system is doomed: 2 companies screwing the system in their direction doesn't automatically produce the truth or something fair for the rest of the world. Companies will fight using their usual ways : I let you "if then else" patent go through on the other hand you let my "for next" patent in.
Also "multimillion dollar" basically means that only paten
Re: (Score:1)
The way I see it, this is actually the way the patent system is supposed to work. The only way that a competitor can prevent a patent is by proving that there is "prior art", thus preventing somebody from patenting something that's not new and needing protectionn. The only way a company can protect itself from losing patent status is to make sure that their product actually is new and not just an exercise in word play that's an older innovation.
Either way, one mustn'
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
A wiki seems a strange choice (Score:1, Insightful)
This will produce some *very* unhappy campers. (Score:5, Interesting)
Specifically, those who would ordinarily slip through the cracks because someone doesn't catch prior art.
A significant population with an [almost] unmeasurable body of knowledge and information would do a pretty thorough job of flagging someone which the patent examiners working under extremely high pressure to push things down the assembly line. This would make the examiner's job one of validation of claims posted via wiki.
One question remains: What's going to happen if we see a couple of companies who shall remain nameless and are granted patents by filling out a pre-approved form are faced with prior art (or silly art) claims and the company receives the approval anyway? That might prove there's some monkey business is afoot. (Donating a Playboy Bunny to their favorite charity? (Charity begins at home)
Obvious problem (Score:3, Interesting)
I must be missing something, because this seems so obvious and insurmountable.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Obvious problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, any inventor who wants to seek protection outside the US has to make a public application anyways. The US is basically the only country left with a closed review process. You can opt for a closed review, but then your patent is only enforceable inside the USA (and possibly a couple other places - but not Europe, and some other large markets).
Second, the fact that the site is "public" is ot the relevant fact for patent validity. What matters is if the inventor makes one of a few categories of "disclosure". That includes most avenues of publishing, sales, etc. But if the USPTO does something that resembles disclosure (like posting it in a review wiki), they are still free to give it whatever legal definition they deem appropriate. And there's no way that they would define any part of their review process as a disclosure.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
In hindsight, he might have been talking about the long-term enforceability issue: that publication of a patent application doesn't invalidate the patent once it has been issued. That would be consistent with what you're saying. Either way, I've got to ask mor
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe his statements are not correct from a legal point of view, but they do illustrate a practical issue which will surely rear its head with a patent-wiki.
Usually, a company applies for patents on all kinds of novelties for their new products. Often these novelties are not really patent-worthy: they are based on a novelty in an obscure older product (prior art), or they are quite obvious to anyone with the right skills. Still, the company applies for the patents because they might get some of them grant
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Even this is a common misunderstanding of patents. Technically, even a granted patent is not actually tested until it ends up in a court. Just because a patent is granted (remember that most of what you see is actually a patent application and many of those will never be granted) doesn't mean it will stand up in court.
The patent process is expensive and slow enough as it is - as far as I can
Re: (Score:2)
All patent applications in the US are kept secret until 18 months after they are filed -- see 35 U.S.C. 122. After 18 months, the application is published and is viewable to all [unless the applicant pays a fee and promises not to file foreign applications, the
Re: (Score:1)
IANAL but it is my understanding after dealing with such lawyers that patent protection is from filing date. But you usually can only get awarded back-damages from the publication date.
Second, the fact that the site is "public" is ot the relevant fact for patent validity. What matters is if the inventor makes one of a few categories of "disclosure". That includes most avenues of publishing, sales
Re: (Score:2)
What we really need is an outright ban on software patents, but the greedy corporations and the politicians in their pockets will never let that happen - take a look at the end-run being attempted in Europe right now for evidence.
Re:Obvious problem (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Obvious problem (Score:4, Informative)
Already today the USPTO publishes pending patent applications, usually years before they are either approved or denied.
You can see for yourself here: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.
Publication is a very fundamental part of the patenting process, if you do not want your competition to know about your invention then you cannot patent it either. The idea is that if your invention really is novel then you will get protection sooner or later and can go after anyone thats infringing on your patent.
If your application does not get approved, then you are correct that you will have lost any edge on your competition by way of secrecy. But then again, if your application is rejected then its most likely not very valuable anyway.
BTW: This is the reason a lot of millitary research or technology deemed important for national security is never patented. Patent applications implies publishing.
Re: (Score:1)
>security clearance, and the patents are granted but held in secret. It kind of runs counterintuitive to the
>public disclosure nature of patents, but it's there nonetheless.
That is not correct.
The government can declare a patent application secret due to national security, but if they do then the patent will not get granted until the secrecy order is lifted again. The patent process is fr
Uhmmm ... not a new idea (Score:2)
yeah (Score:2)
Bad idea (Score:4, Interesting)
Wikis are bad when millions of dollars are involved and anyone can edit them. It only takes some "unknown person" who "doesn't have anything to do with the company" to goto the wiki and repeatedly edit it so it seems the patent is invalid or worthless and it may just seem that way (yes I know theres checks). Look at viral marketing and Sony's "lets graffiti shit to look cool" idea, notice how companies don't care how much money they spend just so they can look cool? Well what if they could pay some kid a couple of bucks a week to edit a wiki which could influence major things down the line... Yep you guessed it, they'll eat it up.
People need to register "Use the right tool for the right job" rather than "Wow it's open source! I bet I can use this system to fix everything in the world! Cancer/World hunger/Wars I've got your number bitch!"
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Some more real flaws (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That fee will likely increase greatly, since with any sort of real reviewing, almost no patent would ever make it. Less patents, higher fees each.
Frankly, patents don't matter for a hill of beans anymore. China doesnt honor them, and noone else is good enough about allowing slave and prison labor to make their costs low enough. Every movie, produ
Re: (Score:2)
That's why they are also moving to a first-to-file model. Prior art no longer matters
That's not correct. Prior art still matters, because it goes to the very patentability of whatever it is one is trying to patent. Something that is not novel is simply not patentable at all. The change that "first to file" would make is that in the case of a novel patent, the patent would be awarded to whoever makes the first filing, and not whoever is the first to actually invent it.
For example, presume that X complet
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which "next guy" would that be? Jeff Bezos?
Nosey parkers ought to mind thier own business! I mean it's not as if the patent system was set up to spread this sort of information or anything...
Patent pending (Score:3, Funny)
How many free eyes are they expecting? (Score:3, Interesting)
In this case, however, they seem to be expecting tghousands of 'volunteers' to go hunting through an exponentially expanding list of stupid applications and doing the reviewer's jobs for free. I expect that this is really only going to happen to the most agregious of the 'bad' patents.
Other than that, you might be able to hope that some of the big companies will start assigning people to look at these things on an ongoing basis in the hops of slamming just about anything that moves before it get legs. Of course, if they start making agreements as to what they'll 'miss', then we'll have the worst of both worlds -- with the big companies setting up truces against each others' "volunteer" examiners, while the little guys get lambasted.
Yep. Lots of room for abuse.
Participants get sued - for knowing patent use (Score:1, Interesting)
I'm really not sure it will be wise to contribute to this if you have anything to do with software production o
How will.. (Score:1)
Bills into Laws (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Why not just approve all patents? (Score:3, Interesting)
You could even add fines for entities registering patents which have unmentioned prior art (they obviously didn't do their research).
It would perhaps also keep investors from only investing in companies that _appear_ to have some interesting patents, but no real technology/knowledge/expertise to back it up. It would be nice to see more investment into companies that actually know how to make something and actually advance technology.
Hmm. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would anyone assume that something that involves the government spending more money also involves taxpayers actually paying for it? We just need to raise the debt ceiling another trillion dollars and spend, spend, spend!
Simon Phipps (Sun):"the social contract is broken" (Score:3, Insightful)
Moreover, the articles also linked there [webmink.net] indicate that in the field of software at least, quite probably there never even really was such a time when the "industry's know-how was only being advanced by corporations" (rather than e.g. academics and individual inventors).
This already exists for over 1 year already (Score:3, Informative)
http://prevalent.de/index.pl?site=1&subsite=3&lan
Ok, it's for german and european patents only, but it should fit to give you an idea on how I imagined this. On the left side there is always a patent application, and on the right side you can vote the patent, submit prior art, use a forum to discuss or enter a wiki side for each patent.
The difference is, that I don't review patents before they are published. (That's not possible of course). But there are new patents that are granted, but are still within the german or european objection time.
Until today I filed four objections at the german patent office against granted patents. The cases are still running and not yet decided.
Take a look at it: http://prevalent.de/index.pl?site=1&subsite=3&lan
cu,
Jan
Maybe good, maybe not so good, but... (Score:1)
Improve patents (Score:2, Insightful)
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?HowToImprovePatents [c2.com]
# The evaluation of patents should be based on objective methods, not subjective rules.
# A business secret rule. To get a patent on an idea it most be a business secret. an idea is a business secret if it can be used in a business without giving it away. An contra example is amazons one click patent which can't be used in business without reveling it. This rule insure that the community get something in exchange for the
Summary dismissal of perpetual motion machines? (Score:2)
Ultimately... (Score:1)
I dunno... (Score:1)
"Patentality" doesn't have the same ring as "Wikiality".
- RG>
Could help a lot of projects (Score:2)
If we put the entire patent process into a wiki (hell, even official approval) then there would be a very strong incentive to counter the flaws of the wiki.
Just talking out my ass. No real proof this work. Like everything else, it would probably just cause more spam and Nigeria scams.
Wisdom of the masses (Score:1)
Yes, please, wisdom of the masses is exactly what we need when patenting is in question.
On the internet, with its anonymity, the so called "wisdom of the experts" is nothing but a meaning. This meaning could belong to Generic Ted, or Bill Gates. Certainly Generic Ted won't unleash his meanings to every patent, but to a subjective share. Bill only registered because he wanted to say that Microsoft should be allowed to patent the
right-mouse-click.
If the answer to that problem is moderating, then why bother