US Patent Office Fast Tracks Green Patents 136
eldavojohn writes "A new initiative is being piloted where 'green' patents are given special priority over other patents in the backlogged system. David Kappos (Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO) said, 'Every day an important green tech innovation is hindered from coming to market is another day we harm our planet and another day lost in creating green businesses and green jobs. Applications in this pilot program will see a significant savings in pendency, which will help bring green innovations to market more quickly.' The details of how you qualify for a green patent (PDF) are available with patent blogs offering opinions on this initiative."
Hmm, seems a little weird. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hmm, seems a little weird. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you are right, why doesn't the porn industry get the same subventions as the crop industry.
How dares the executive to set priorities, instead of spreading the money equally amongst men.
Maybe equal protection has nothing to do with it?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe equal protection has nothing to do with it?
Since equal protection is in the Constitution, it certainly should have something to do with it.
Re: (Score:2)
One way to speed up things would be to dismiss a lot of patents for being too obvious.
And that's something that doesn't need to require too much skill.
Also make sure that any patent dismissed for obviousness can't be refiled.
Re: (Score:2)
A better way would be to stop issuing software patents.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the part that bother me: "Every day an important green tech innovation is hindered from coming to market is another day we harm our planet and another day lost in creating green businesses and green jobs."
I just heard that quote on a Christian radio station not too long ago, but with slight differences: Every day a [missionary work] is hindered from coming to market is another day we harm our [souls] and another day lost in [saving the sinners]. More-and-more Greens are looking like they belong
So, if it's like software/internet patents -- (Score:5, Funny)
-- you know, the ones where you can say "a method for conveying stateful customer information ON THE INTERNET -- then pretty much all I'll need to contribute to the progress of the useful arts and sciences and, more to the point, amass a formidable patent portfolio, is add USING SOLAR POWER.
I've already applied for the business method patent, but reasonable licensing is available!
Re:So, if it's like software/internet patents -- (Score:5, Interesting)
Every patent will point out that it consumes less energy than it theoretically could have if it had been poorly engineered. It's...greener than the alternative...I guess.
Faster algorithms will qualify. Just tabulate the total energy saved in data centers that will use your green algorithm. New, large hats might reflect more visible sunlight back to space. New oil extraction methods will more efficiently deliver fossil fuels to gas tanks (thereby lowering the price point and generating more emissions), a new method of writing patents can will green-wash them so they generate less paper work in the streamlined process. All will qualify! (Except that the meta-green patent is a methods patent and wouldn't qualify anyway.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Look. It's a *jump to conclusions* mat - that's - *solar powered*.
There's going to be difficulty... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:There's going to be difficulty... (Score:5, Interesting)
The fact is, this move will do nothing to increase the speed of technology, because technology in no way depends on the patent system. You don't have to wait for a patent to be processed before you can actually build and market your product. You don't even have to wait to charge royalties until the patent is approved. This new policy will accomplish nothing.
Re:There's going to be difficulty... (Score:5, Insightful)
What it does do is solidify the positions of green IP holders looking to screw companies in less advanced nations by taking their cut of (or limiting production of) the "green" products that will be required to play in the newly-legally-mandated global green economy.
I know it sounds all tin-foil-hat-y, but the prospect that CO2 policy could be used to keep richer nations dominant via IP has been haunting me for some time. If US/Euro companies get their cut of the green economy mandated by their own governments without actually having to produce anything, it could artificially screw with otherwise normal factor-price equalization.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ah, don't worry, IP is mostly used to screw richer nations, and is one of the reasons that western industry is so incapable of competing these days. From a macroeconomic point of view it's the equivalent of a heavy taxation scheme, and a very inefficient one at that, leading to higher costs in industry and workforce and rendering it uncompetitive. It'd be almost amusing to see complaints about high taxes and inefficient government while getting reamed by IP if it just wasn't so sad.
The less advanced nations
Re: (Score:2)
Sir -
The purposes of patents was, among other things, to publicize inventions that would otherwise have remained trade secrets, allow commercialization with the risk of others "stealing" the idea, and to prevent the invention from disappearing when the inventor died (these purposes being long before corporations lived in perpetuity).
In many ways the patent system has succeeded in achieving many of its objects in a way that I feel confident has significantly advanced human society (in ways that would never h
Re: (Score:2)
Green patent trolls, green cross-licensing agreements, green blocking of competitors....
Re: (Score:2)
Hardly. It's *patents themselves* that makes screwing of the third world possible in things like biotech.
The obvious intent is to increase the number of green tech startups. One of the things on the goody list when somebody buys you out is do you have any licensable IP. It won't make much difference to Dow Chemical, but it will make a difference to some chemist who wants to start a compnay that might be *bought* by Dow. A lot of startups need more money to commercialize an idea than can be found by smashi
Re: (Score:2)
I know it sounds all tin-foil-hat-y, but the prospect that CO2 policy could be used to keep richer nations dominant via IP has been haunting me for some time.
Well, yeah. Stupid, fraudulent spectacles like Copenhagen illustrate that fairly clearly.
The assumption behind the entire CO2 hysteria is that the rest of the world does not really deserve the comforts that we take for granted. So the assembled carbon racketeers are perfectly happy to forbid the most cost-effective technologies available to the develop
Re: (Score:2)
Muhaha... "the use of materials that can be more easily replenished and/or recycled". Patent Pending... suck it bitches.
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense! The "public" neither knows nor cares what type of patents are being issued, so they'll not even notice "the ideal of efficiency and conservation" being "promoted".
The Law of Un-Intended Consquences (Score:2, Funny)
In an interview, the lead scientist said "We were waiting for our patent to go through, and we just got this notice 'Your Patent has been moved back in the queue to make room for "greener" energy patents. We hope you understand, as we take part in saving the world'. I thought it was a joke at first, but the 1-800 number at the bottom was for the US
Re:The Law of Un-Intended Consquences (Score:5, Interesting)
The patent process for pharmaceuticals is (very) different from the regular process. In the US, drug patents are usually applied for and granted 8-12 years before the drug is brought to market, and even a few years before human trials begin.
Purported "HIV wonder drugs" sadly seem to be about as commonplace as perpetual motion devices these days.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you missed the satire in the GP's post.
Re:The Law of Un-Intended Consquences (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, perpetual machines have more stringent guidelines for patent application, where there must be a working prototype first.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_machine [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, perpetual machines have more stringent guidelines for patent application, where there must be a working prototype first.
I thought all inventions needed a working prototype. That'd be a very sane requirement to stop the flood of silly, stupid and obvious patents that are only based on some fancy idea rather than actual research.
Re: (Score:2)
Uhhh (Score:5, Insightful)
"Every day an important green tech innovation is hindered from coming to market is another day we harm our planet and another day lost in creating green businesses and green jobs. Applications in this pilot program will see a significant savings in pendency, which will help bring green innovations to market more quickly."
I'd consider myself a reasonably strong environmentalist, but cannot for the life of me comprehend that quote. Aren't products released to market all the time with a "Patent Pending" status? Wouldn't environmentalism benefit from weaker patents surrounding green tech?
The same logic has been applied to drug patents, which only last 7-12 years in the US, purportedly to widen availability of generic drugs, as well as to keep the industry on its toes. (As the law of unintended consequences goes, this makes non-generics outlandishly expensive, and makes pharma a very high-risk industry, given the incredibly high R&D costs of developing/testing new drugs)
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't environmentalism benefit from weaker patents surrounding green tech?
That is the biggest question, and the answer is a resounding yes. If everyone can make the greenest FOO, it will less expensive. If it's less expensive, it will be more likely to replace existing non-green FOO. I know I might buy more CFLs if they would cost less than Incandescents.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That is the biggest question, and the answer is a resounding yes.
Then it's not much of a question, is it?
Even though I agree with you on a basic level, I'm not sure I agree with the principle. Without patents, what drives innovation to produce the newest and greatest green FOO? The R&D expenses for some of this stuff can be quite high.
(Also, how many lights do you have that CFLs are a cost-prohibitive option? I replace them one by one as they burn out. A 3-pack of good-quality CFLs costs about $6 at Wal-Mart. Still about 3x the cost of the same number of incande
Re: (Score:2)
to me the best solution is either force them to produce a prototype or limit the patent to 3 years if nothing is brought
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not usually a grammar fascist, but - are you drunk, or really trying to make a serious argument with that incomprehensible run-on?
Funny thing is I actually AGREE with your second statement about producing a workable implementation, otherwise limiting the patent length. But I totally disagree (I think, it's hard to tell ;) with your first, that patents inherently block innovation. I guarantee you that 90% of the modern drugs in use would not exist if they were not patentable. And most USEFUL patents i
Re: (Score:2)
that aside, i'd like you to provide some examples of modern drugs that wouldn't exist without patents. I hear this kind of defence for patents, but never any actual examples to back it up. again my proposed 3 year limit to bring it to market would protect these anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
"again my proposed 3 year limit to bring it to market would protect these anyway."
Yeah, that's part of the problem. I'm not going to go bother looking it up examples right now, but most drugs take longer than 3 years from initial R&D, multiple phases of trials, FDA approval, and launch.
That process can cost many millions (or in some cases billions) of dollars, and require many years to recoup those development costs. Without patent protection, who in their right mind would invest that much in highly e
Re: (Score:2)
There is a current cholesterol drug on the market that took 17 years to make it from concept to sellable product. If we started their patent clock from the day they applied (probably 10-12 years before they made it to market, in order to protect their investment), or if they had a 3 year limit, the drug would not be sold today because nobody would have bothered in the first place. They'd get a couple years of patent protection and then it's fair game, hardly enough to make the almost 20 years of work wort
Re:Uhhh (Score:5, Insightful)
A 3-pack of good-quality CFLs costs about $6 at Wal-Mart. Still about 3x the cost of the same number of incandescents, although the CFLs last a lot longer, and use sufficiently less energy to pay for themselves over their lifetime
As good little consumers I know that's what we're supposed to think, but:
1. my experience has shown that CCFL's need replacing much more frequently than incandescents ever did.
2. they only consume less energy if they're left on for long periods (> 30 mins or so) as they have quite high start-up currents until they come up to operating temperature (1-5 minutes).
3. they output much higher levels of UV than incandescents, aggravating some skin conditions and causing retinal damage with some people.
4. they also contain hazardous chemicals such as mercury, complicating their disposal - our local city council has no *legal* means of CFL disposal yet, with most people just throwing them in with the regular refuse.
I think that our (Australian) federal government having "phased out" incandescent bulbs is a premature action. I'd rather see LED lighting get traction but, again, hazardous chemicals.
Re: (Score:2)
1. PL-L CFLs need the replacing more often - they way they're designed is absolutely horrible and they burn themselves out because of it. I bought a 3-pack of regular spiral CFLs from Albertsons for $1 (thanks to a then-running Edison Electric sponsored special) and so far these have outlasted every PL-L that my apartment complex uses (all bathrooms use PL-L fluorescents and the new spotlight outside my stairs uses PL-L, and while my CFLs are a year old already, the PL-L tubes aren't even three months old,
Re: (Score:2)
1. Not in my experience.
2. The only study I know said break even was five mins.
3. A few watts of US is going to do significant damage?
4. You may have a point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"LED's : I don't think they contain that much dangerous chemicals."
If the word ARSENIDE is present in the diode formulation (such as an indium-gallium arsenide emitter,) then yes, there is a toxic substance. But still, pretty tiny amount.
Re: (Score:2)
If there were cyanide in your mucous, the result would be BLUE, not the green which is caused by bacterial waste products and mold growing in your sinuses.
CYANide
Re: (Score:2)
That shouldn't be surprising. First of all, it's hard for people to judge small differences in brightness; your eyes and brain automatically adjust for light levels to a large degree. Second, apparent brightness is also related to color temperature; a colder (higher temperature, oddly) light tends to look brighter.
Re: (Score:2)
what you're saying is : a/the incandescents have better numbers. and b/those numbers don't matter, because we can't judge the difference.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm saying the numbers (CRI, color temperature, and lumens) do matter, but _small_ differences in brightness don't matter.
Re: (Score:2)
I still like cfl's better than incandescents: you don't get the full blast the first 2-3 seconds(less blinding ...), and the light is much relaxer.
Re: (Score:2)
3. Never heard of this one before, and I can't find anything about it either way. It seems unlikely to be true since fluorescent lights put out more visible light and less "other" light than incandescent bulbs -- that's the very reason they are more efficient.
That's simply ignorance of how flourescent's work. The plasma in the flourescent bulb produces UV light pretty much exclusively. A coating of phosphors line the tubes which "flouresce" when hit by UV light, causing them to glow in the visible spectrum. That's why flourescent bulbs are never clear - you'd never see anything if they were, their light is invisible to us. Check the wikipedia entry [wikipedia.org] for more about flourescence.
The glass tubes filter much, but not all, of the UV light that gets past the phosph
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A 3-pack of good-quality CFLs costs about $6 at Wal-Mart.
I'm going to rant here....
The delay in reaching full brightness irks me to no end with CFLs. It's not a big deal when you are talking about a room where you turn the light on and leave it on for several hours (my living room) but it drives me up the fucking wall when you consider rooms that you breeze in and out of (the bathroom, closets, etc.). By the time the damn things reach a decent level of light output you've already moved on to the next household chore.
Then there's the Hg content. I wonder how
Re: (Score:2)
The additional coal burned to power an incandescent bulb will release a lot more hg into the atmosphere.
Re: (Score:2)
People are more worried about the Hg splashed in their bathroom sink next to their toothbrush / kitchen next to their cutlery than the Hg spread around the atmosphere of the planet.
Those selfish SOBs! What's a little brain and central nervous system damage & psychosis to them and their kids/pets as compared to the will of the one true Gore?
Besides, I'm sure that at this very moment there's a new EPA CFL/Hg Spill Taskforce being planned behind closed doors to solve this health and environmental threat. T
Re: (Score:2)
CFLs contain 3-5mg of mercury, which is roughly the same amount as is found in 10 6oz cans of tuna.
"Low-mercury" CFLs are making their way to market, which have only 1mg of Hg in them -- the equivalent of 2 cans of tuna.
As long as you're not eating broken lightbulbs, I'd say that a week's worth of tuna sandwiches is far, far worse for you.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as you're not eating broken lightbulbs, I'd say that a week's worth of tuna sandwiches is far, far worse for you.
But nowhere near as tasty!
Re: (Score:2)
Your logic is flawless assuming that somebody bothers to invent the greenest FOO in the first place. Where will you find investors to finance your R&D if they know that the moment your invention is proven to work everybody will copy it and sell it at a lower price than you (since they don't have
Re: (Score:2)
Patent Pending (Score:2)
He is simply trying to justify his departments existence with an obvious lie, either that or he has no idea what his department actually does.
At the very least... (Score:2)
...there should be compulsory licensing for all the green patents. In other words, you have to license the technology. To make that practical, I'd also stipulate that you have to license it at a reasonable rate and I'd base that on a fixed percentage of the sales price of the items made by the licensees.
This would also lay to rest all the "big oil companies bought the patent on the green tech so they could suppress it" conspiracies.
Actually, I think there should be compulsory licensing on ALL patents (ie,
Re: (Score:2)
"Wouldn't environmentalism benefit from weaker patents surrounding green tech?"
I think the idea is that strong patent protection encourages research and development by offering a limited monopoly to the patent holder.
Re: (Score:2)
We're drifting dangerously offtopic here, but I should point out that the TV spots don't make up a terribly large portion of the budget. Most pharma marketing can be broken down to two categories
1) Patient awareness -- The original sales projections for Viagra were way off, because ED was originally believed to be far less common than it is. Most men weren't going to talk to their doctor about something that was embarrassing and didn't have a cure. Most TV spots fall under this category.
2) Doctor awarene
Re: (Score:2)
Here'e mine (Score:1)
Overkill (Score:5, Funny)
Looking around my hotel room here, there's no less than:
Green shampoo and conditioner
Green shampoo bottles (made from corn!)
Green soap (no soap in the middle of the bar - less waste!)
Green soap box (it's brown! it must be good for the enviroment!)
Save the environment sign with a panda bear, telling me to reuse my towels. (If you don't, the panda will eat you?)
Another sign explaining just how green the green soap is (and the green soap is actually branded "Green Natura"), including the use of soy products for the ink.
Green facial soap.
Sign telling me not to smoke unless I can breathe backwards.
Sign by my bed, telling me I need to place it on the bed if I want my sheets changed.
My fucking lord - you want MORE green products? Where will they go?
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the "green products" you've just mentioned in all likelihood have little actual environmental benefit. Alternative energy technology on the other hand may very well serve us well economically and environmentally. Even if you don't care one bit about the environment, you've ot to admit that at some point we're going to grow beyond what fossil fuels in of themselves are capable of providing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
you've ot to admit that at some point we're going to grow beyond what fossil fuels in of themselves are capable of providing.
We've had the technology to displace fossil fuels since the 50s. We just moved away from it because of a handful of loud NIMBYists/greenpeace'ers and a whole lot of FUD.
Re: (Score:2)
>>Most of the "green products" you've just mentioned in all likelihood have little actual environmental benefit.
But... but... they say GREEN in huge letters on the boxes! Surely they must be good for the environment! My lord, man, my soap has a giant hole in the middle of it! If that doesn't save the pandas, I don't know what will.
But yeah, seriously. Nuclear power.
Dammit! (Score:1)
You stole my idea for a "green" suppository!!
Re: (Score:2)
My fucking lord - you want MORE green products? Where will they go?
Uh, we're talking about patents here, dude. You know, that thing which originally was intended for ideas that nobody else has had so far?
Re: (Score:2)
To invent more pointless crap that is vaguely environmentally friendly?
Maybe now is the time for me to patent my oil-leak caps, which would be positioned on all the leaking fissures off the coast of California, to stop the earth from polluting itself with all that crude oil.
Never thought off-shore drilling could be so environmentally friendly, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
wrong. patents are not for ideas that no-one has had before. they are for inventions that no-one has made before.
patents do not cover ideas, they cover specific inventions. there's a HUGE difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I know. But it would've ruined the punchline to insist on the differentiation. :-)
Amazon (Score:2, Funny)
Patents "Green One-Click Checkout"
Politicizing the patent office (Score:5, Insightful)
More suggestions:
*fastrack patents that "help the poor"
*fastrack patents that will "create jobs"
This is just to broaden options for repaying campaign contributions.
Re: (Score:2)
Who will fast track patents that patents track fast will who?
Fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Fixed that for you for that fixed
Fixed that for you for that fixed
Government actions occur for political gain (Score:2, Insightful)
This is yet another example. When businesses decide things, they make choices to maximize financial gain. When governments decide things, they make choices to maximize political gain. Therefore, anyone who trusts the government to act in their interests had better be damn certain they never lose an election or fall out of political favor. If you're not directly in power, you're just "the little people" and that power will be wielded against you. You'd best hope those are limited powers.
BTW, this story
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up. This is political payback to the civil lawyer lobby who heavily fund Democrats. When they talk about "green jobs," they're obviously talking about cases for the trial lawyers to litigate.
You can also bet that "green" products won't have a statutory limit on liability claims from injured people anytime soon. Even if one of these products turns out to have health effects worse than asbestos.....
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up. This is political payback to the civil lawyer lobby who heavily fund Democrats. When they talk about "green jobs," they're obviously talking about cases for the trial lawyers to litigate.
You can also bet that "green" products won't have a statutory limit on liability claims from injured people anytime soon. Even if one of these products turns out to have health effects worse than asbestos.....
Of course. Look at the government takeover of healthcare that is being misnamed "reform". Everyone is expected to take a hit, doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, the citizens, etc, in the form of less payment, higher taxes, higher premiums, etc. The only group left out, are, you guessed it, the trial lawyers.
I think lawsuits over the mercury in CFL bulbs are going to be the "asbestos" lawsuit bonanza of the next 20 years. The democrats don't care enough about this to ban them, the 100 watt bulb must
Better idea (Score:2)
Hire more examiners and make sure a good part of them have degrees.
How do we pay them?
How about a royalty tax? ...and that includes on the ridiculous settlements exacted by patent trolls.
Re: (Score:2)
How about every denied patent becomes a granted patented which is the property of the examiner?
Re: (Score:2)
Immediate conflict of interest.
Which may have been your point though.
Re: (Score:2)
Then it seems the patent office isn't competing hard enough for the talent it needs.
Considering all the bullshit patents coming out there's obviously a deficiency of some sort.
If the PTO is making a profit, then perhaps more of the fees need to go into the paychecks of the examiners instead of the treasury.
Green Tech and Trolls (Score:1)
Would you grant them for some dough?
Would you grant them for some blow?
Would you grant them for B-Ho?
Will you grant them, yes or no?
Locke:
Yes, we will grant green tech to trolls!
They'll make us look good for the polls!
Bubble (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Some of us are in it to stay because we have actual products, expertise, and technology to contribute - most everybody else is full of shit.
I have to file my patent quickly! (Score:1, Troll)
Oh good, now I can get my patent on "process for deploying biological devices to convert CO2 into oxygen and sugar using various enzymes in combination with solar power." I call this invention "plants."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OK how exactly was I a troll? I'm making fun of the USPTO, which damn well deserves it given all of the non-invention/"discovery" patents it has granted (such as the human gene sequence), and issues patents for devices which are obvious to those skilled in respective trades, and so forth. I was shooting for "funny" but my post is all too close to the truth.
I hate patents! (Score:1)
Patents are stifling battery technology. Further in the case of environmental and health concerns, there should be no patents at all. Additionally, greater minds than mine, such as Benjamin Franklin, a pioneer in the nascent field of electricity and electrical technology suggested that patents IN GENERAL were immoral, selfish, and that innovation should be contributed "For the Greater Good".
But whatever, let's rush the patents on stuff that we need for the planet faster, so that these greedy corporations
This is excellent news, but alas comes too late (Score:1, Troll)
Yes, its great news. Now, we have a great way of stopping some of these idiotic ideas in their tracks, which is what patents usually do, or stopping them once they have got going, which is almost as good. But it comes too late for many ideas, which are already in the public domain.
For example, we can no longer patent the idea of killing huge numbers of birds by erecting vast quantities of whirling mobile metal machines on migration routes, on the pretext of generating electricity. The thing I truly wish w
Patents do NOT on balance encourage innovation (Score:4, Interesting)
Unfortunately, this is not just theoretical. It is the what happens time and time again. Often, the obvious aspects of some technology get patented early which makes it uneconomic to do the necessary optimization of the process for a decade or more.
Re: (Score:2)
Patent trolls... (Score:2)
Faster green patents.. (Score:2)
Hopefully this will apply for those with an actual product and not some half-cocked theory without any real testing to back it up.
Wishing in one hand, the other hand is beneath my asshole.
more patent abuse (Score:2)
I'm skeptical. Big coal and oil companies are already patenting the hell out of every possible green tech, without any plans to actually implement this. Fast-tracking patents is likely to hinder innovative green startups, which cannot afford to patent everything, nor lawyers to hold off the bad guys. Rather depressing. Please tell me I'm wrong.
Fast track (Score:2)
nothing will kill green jobs faster (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ROFL, troll moderation. I guess we have a slashdot mod who can't tolerate any criticism of his/her religion of man made global warming, and it's prophet, Algore.