6 ms·

Obama: Patent office's system is 'embarrassing'

80 points by bensummers 17y ago

bensummers 17y ago
The processes, not the patents it's granting, however.
dpcan 17y ago
He's talking about the receiving, printing, scanning, and management of patents being embarrassing. He wants to speed up the process by which big business can cripple innovation.
- jbooth 17y ago
  He said that? I didn't see it. Must have been printed between the lines.
  - pohl 17y ago
    It's there, on the lines, not in between them. The flaws that he's pointing out are, in fact, inefficiencies for which I am thankful, for the exact reasons dpcan mentioned. "Believe it or not, in our patent office -- now, this is embarrassing -- this is an institution responsible for protecting and promoting innovation -- our patent office receives more than 80 percent of patent applications electronically, then manually prints them out, scans them, and enters them into an outdated case management system," Obama said a today's Forum on Modernizing Government.
    - amalcon 17y ago
      To be entirely fair, it's theoretically possible that (if they didn't have to do these things) they could examine the average patent more carefully on the same budget. It's unlikely, though. What would actually happen is an entirely different matter.
    - decode 17y ago
      Apparently, the PTO doesn't actually do this anymore. President Obama was misinformed in his statement. http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/01/14/president-obama-calls-uspto-filing-system-embarrassing/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/01/14/president-obama-calls-u...
  - dpcan 17y ago
    No. Not really between the lines. If the process gets faster, it will directly affect the speed that which big business can get their patents approved. So, if he wants the patent process to go faster, then he wants big business to be able to get their patents faster (as is true with any patent filer actually) and therefore, a==b==c
    - jbooth 17y ago
      That's ridiculous. Having a natural aversion to the kind of idiocy described in the article does not mean that you're specifically for the dumbest patents that are granted by the system. Personally, I'm against inefficiency and against stupid patents. One is an administrative issue, the other is a policy issue. You with me? Do I need to break it down further?
- fuzzmeister 17y ago
  The fact that any modern government agency processes information in such a backwards way is embarrassing, no matter what that agency is doing. If you want patent reform, campaign for it directly, rather than relying on how slow and tedious the process is.
  - pyre 17y ago
    The point is that Obama isn't embarrassed about the patent system because it is broken. He's embarrassed because the patent office's infrastructure is behind the times. There's a distinction.
LargeWu 17y ago
I heard the patent office wants to modernize their system, but they can't because there's a patent already covering 'a system to electronically manage patent submissions...'
- ShabbyDoo 17y ago
  They just have to negotiate a royalty agreement with the patent holder. It would be a clever denial-of-service attack to start filing patents that would preclude the USPTO from "practicing" its work without negotiating agreements with patent holders.
  - ubernostrum 17y ago
    The US government has -- and has been known to use -- the ability to exempt itself or its contractors from patent liability for specific purposes (typically national security).
    - electromagnetic 17y ago
      I'm sure it would be simple to bring out legislation that prevents "Patents that impede the ability of the Patent Office's performance of duty".
      - mkramlich 17y ago
        It would be simple... except I have a patent on making that kind of legislation.
- pbhjpbhj 17y ago
  I know you're joking but Section 1 of the UK Patent Act 1977 as amended (it's been 5+ years but I'm pretty sure it's in 1(1)) includes the requirement for industrial applicability. AFAIR I did make an objection under that clause once out of hundreds of applications. No one can issue patents, by law, apart from the Patent Office and so the patent could not be applied by the holder - also there are morality clauses (which again only very very rarely could be applied, again IIRC I made a casefile note on consideration of a morality objection only once but didn't object). Finally the Gov. has the option to use any application in times of national crisis - I think I remember something about radar patents being used in WWII but that the inventors had been compensated. Lastly if you're sitting on a patent and won't license it and aren't using it yourself the Comptroller can force you to license it under terms they consider fair.
tptacek 17y ago
I don't know what "average processing time" means, but the amount of time it takes for a patent to issue is more like 5-7 years.
- decode 17y ago
  It depends a lot on what field the patent is in, but less than 20% of utility patents take 5+ years to issue. It looks like the average time has been about 3 to 3 1/2 years recently. http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/07/patent-application-pendency-percent-of-applications-still-pending.html http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/07/patent-application-p... This about 3 years old, but shows the differences between different types of patents: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2007/02/prosecution_dat.html http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2007/02/prosecution_dat.html Software patents are definitely on the long side of things.
  - tptacek 17y ago
    Sorry, I meant software patents. None of mine have taken less than 5 years.
- pbhjpbhj 17y ago
  When I worked in the UK Patent Office, now called UKIPO, the patent "processing time" was a measure of the actual work time spent on each application by an examiner. In the UK we did both search and examination and followed the application through to grant - which is different to the US and EPO I gather (or was) - the time spent doing this is referred to internally as PP (patent processing time). When I left I was working mainly on IPC code G06F (computing). This field had the highest time allowance as it had the most complex/time consuming applications to search and examine. Search would take about 1 day and examination approximately the same other case handling would bring this up to 2½-3 days. That is processing time by the examiner is under 3 days usually over about a 3-5 year period (there is also "formalities" ensuring all the sections are there, the right line spacing, the right fonts, payments, etc., done by others). Remember this was the highest allowance of time. Some applications would take far longer it generally goes by the number of claims made. Some would be a lot shorter - for example earlier in my career I did "displays" and nearly every other search in one heading there was for "automatic number plate altering systems for trucks to show the cabs license number on the trailer" - once you'd done a couple of such searches it could often be a quick review of more recent prior art and then cut and paste the citations adding pertinent comments. I'd say however that most applications had some novelty of some sort that could be gleaned to gain a patent by a good agent but of those not many would represent enough of a product to be worth financing (except for the mega corps like HP/IBM that would, it seems, deal with bundles of patents to broker entry to a given area of tech). Oops, I've wittered on, sorry.
seldo 17y ago
The embarrassing part of the patent system is not how long it takes but the way patents have been perverted from their original purpose. The point of a patent was that you would get an exclusive license to your invention for 8 years. In exchange, you would provide detailed instructions on how to duplicate your invention so that after 8 years, other people could build it. It was supposed to spread innovation. It was a trade you made with the government: they would protect you, you would inform them. Instead we have patent trolls who build nothing and use patents to extort money from those who do, actively hindering development of new products. The patents granted these days do not include instructions on how to build a device, they just say "I do it this way so now you can't". It's a disgrace. If it's possible for somebody else to copy your invention without reverse-engineering your product, then you shouldn't be granted a patent.
- smokinn 17y ago
  If it's possible for somebody else to copy your invention without reverse-engineering your product, then you shouldn't be granted a patent. No, you should be awarded the patent. It's the person who reverse-engineered your invention and did it a different way who shouldn't be found as be infringing. They should also be granted a patent for instructions on how to make the same invention a different way, this way both become public knowledge and once the patent runs out (right now that's basically never) someone who reads both may be inspired to again make the same invention, perhaps combining both into a more optimal device. Other than that, I fully agree.
  - seldo 17y ago
    I see what you mean, but I was referring more to the situation where merely the existence of the product is enough to show how it's done -- e.g. the infamous "1-click" patent, which doesn't describe a technology but instead a method. My point was that a patent was supposed to be a trade: monopoly for blueprints. If nobody needs your blueprints, then why are we granting you a monopoly? That should be the yardstick, and the bias should be towards denying patents rather than granting them.
  - philwelch 17y ago
10ren 17y ago
"This is one of the reasons why the average processing time for a patent is roughly three years." [emphasis added] For an average patent, what percentage of those 3 years is spent on printing, scanning and entering? If it's one day, then that's the maximum time that could be saved. Profile twice, optimize once.
- InclinedPlane 17y ago
  Let's say it takes a mere day to process a patent application the roundabout way (printing, scanning, etc.). However, the system is near or above 100% capacity because total throughput is slow. Even if they have enough staff to match the needed throughput they still have a 3 year backlog. So even though they can process 1 year of patents in 1 year, it still takes 3 years to make it to the head of the line. Now, if you cut down overhead you'll be able to get rid of that 3 year backlog and get to processing current applications in closer to real-time.

80 points by bensummers 17y ago

The processes, not the patents it's granting, however.

dpcan 17y ago

He's talking about the receiving, printing, scanning, and management of patents being embarrassing. He wants to speed up the process by which big business can cripple innovation.

jbooth 17y ago
He said that? I didn't see it. Must have been printed between the lines.
- pohl 17y ago
  It's there, on the lines, not in between them. The flaws that he's pointing out are, in fact, inefficiencies for which I am thankful, for the exact reasons dpcan mentioned. "Believe it or not, in our patent office -- now, this is embarrassing -- this is an institution responsible for protecting and promoting innovation -- our patent office receives more than 80 percent of patent applications electronically, then manually prints them out, scans them, and enters them into an outdated case management system," Obama said a today's Forum on Modernizing Government.
  - amalcon 17y ago
    To be entirely fair, it's theoretically possible that (if they didn't have to do these things) they could examine the average patent more carefully on the same budget. It's unlikely, though. What would actually happen is an entirely different matter.
  - decode 17y ago
    Apparently, the PTO doesn't actually do this anymore. President Obama was misinformed in his statement. http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/01/14/president-obama-calls-uspto-filing-system-embarrassing/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/01/14/president-obama-calls-u...
- dpcan 17y ago
  No. Not really between the lines. If the process gets faster, it will directly affect the speed that which big business can get their patents approved. So, if he wants the patent process to go faster, then he wants big business to be able to get their patents faster (as is true with any patent filer actually) and therefore, a==b==c
  - jbooth 17y ago
    That's ridiculous. Having a natural aversion to the kind of idiocy described in the article does not mean that you're specifically for the dumbest patents that are granted by the system. Personally, I'm against inefficiency and against stupid patents. One is an administrative issue, the other is a policy issue. You with me? Do I need to break it down further?
fuzzmeister 17y ago
The fact that any modern government agency processes information in such a backwards way is embarrassing, no matter what that agency is doing. If you want patent reform, campaign for it directly, rather than relying on how slow and tedious the process is.
- pyre 17y ago
  The point is that Obama isn't embarrassed about the patent system because it is broken. He's embarrassed because the patent office's infrastructure is behind the times. There's a distinction.

LargeWu 17y ago

I heard the patent office wants to modernize their system, but they can't because there's a patent already covering 'a system to electronically manage patent submissions...'

ShabbyDoo 17y ago
They just have to negotiate a royalty agreement with the patent holder. It would be a clever denial-of-service attack to start filing patents that would preclude the USPTO from "practicing" its work without negotiating agreements with patent holders.
- ubernostrum 17y ago
  The US government has -- and has been known to use -- the ability to exempt itself or its contractors from patent liability for specific purposes (typically national security).
  - electromagnetic 17y ago
    I'm sure it would be simple to bring out legislation that prevents "Patents that impede the ability of the Patent Office's performance of duty".
    - mkramlich 17y ago
      It would be simple... except I have a patent on making that kind of legislation.
pbhjpbhj 17y ago
I know you're joking but Section 1 of the UK Patent Act 1977 as amended (it's been 5+ years but I'm pretty sure it's in 1(1)) includes the requirement for industrial applicability. AFAIR I did make an objection under that clause once out of hundreds of applications. No one can issue patents, by law, apart from the Patent Office and so the patent could not be applied by the holder - also there are morality clauses (which again only very very rarely could be applied, again IIRC I made a casefile note on consideration of a morality objection only once but didn't object). Finally the Gov. has the option to use any application in times of national crisis - I think I remember something about radar patents being used in WWII but that the inventors had been compensated. Lastly if you're sitting on a patent and won't license it and aren't using it yourself the Comptroller can force you to license it under terms they consider fair.

tptacek 17y ago

I don't know what "average processing time" means, but the amount of time it takes for a patent to issue is more like 5-7 years.

decode 17y ago
It depends a lot on what field the patent is in, but less than 20% of utility patents take 5+ years to issue. It looks like the average time has been about 3 to 3 1/2 years recently. http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/07/patent-application-pendency-percent-of-applications-still-pending.html http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/07/patent-application-p... This about 3 years old, but shows the differences between different types of patents: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2007/02/prosecution_dat.html http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2007/02/prosecution_dat.html Software patents are definitely on the long side of things.
- tptacek 17y ago
  Sorry, I meant software patents. None of mine have taken less than 5 years.
pbhjpbhj 17y ago
When I worked in the UK Patent Office, now called UKIPO, the patent "processing time" was a measure of the actual work time spent on each application by an examiner. In the UK we did both search and examination and followed the application through to grant - which is different to the US and EPO I gather (or was) - the time spent doing this is referred to internally as PP (patent processing time). When I left I was working mainly on IPC code G06F (computing). This field had the highest time allowance as it had the most complex/time consuming applications to search and examine. Search would take about 1 day and examination approximately the same other case handling would bring this up to 2½-3 days. That is processing time by the examiner is under 3 days usually over about a 3-5 year period (there is also "formalities" ensuring all the sections are there, the right line spacing, the right fonts, payments, etc., done by others). Remember this was the highest allowance of time. Some applications would take far longer it generally goes by the number of claims made. Some would be a lot shorter - for example earlier in my career I did "displays" and nearly every other search in one heading there was for "automatic number plate altering systems for trucks to show the cabs license number on the trailer" - once you'd done a couple of such searches it could often be a quick review of more recent prior art and then cut and paste the citations adding pertinent comments. I'd say however that most applications had some novelty of some sort that could be gleaned to gain a patent by a good agent but of those not many would represent enough of a product to be worth financing (except for the mega corps like HP/IBM that would, it seems, deal with bundles of patents to broker entry to a given area of tech). Oops, I've wittered on, sorry.

seldo 17y ago

The embarrassing part of the patent system is not how long it takes but the way patents have been perverted from their original purpose. The point of a patent was that you would get an exclusive license to your invention for 8 years. In exchange, you would provide detailed instructions on how to duplicate your invention so that after 8 years, other people could build it. It was supposed to spread innovation. It was a trade you made with the government: they would protect you, you would inform them. Instead we have patent trolls who build nothing and use patents to extort money from those who do, actively hindering development of new products. The patents granted these days do not include instructions on how to build a device, they just say "I do it this way so now you can't". It's a disgrace. If it's possible for somebody else to copy your invention without reverse-engineering your product, then you shouldn't be granted a patent.

smokinn 17y ago
If it's possible for somebody else to copy your invention without reverse-engineering your product, then you shouldn't be granted a patent. No, you should be awarded the patent. It's the person who reverse-engineered your invention and did it a different way who shouldn't be found as be infringing. They should also be granted a patent for instructions on how to make the same invention a different way, this way both become public knowledge and once the patent runs out (right now that's basically never) someone who reads both may be inspired to again make the same invention, perhaps combining both into a more optimal device. Other than that, I fully agree.
- seldo 17y ago
  I see what you mean, but I was referring more to the situation where merely the existence of the product is enough to show how it's done -- e.g. the infamous "1-click" patent, which doesn't describe a technology but instead a method. My point was that a patent was supposed to be a trade: monopoly for blueprints. If nobody needs your blueprints, then why are we granting you a monopoly? That should be the yardstick, and the bias should be towards denying patents rather than granting them.
- philwelch 17y ago

10ren 17y ago

"This is one of the reasons why the average processing time for a patent is roughly three years." [emphasis added] For an average patent, what percentage of those 3 years is spent on printing, scanning and entering? If it's one day, then that's the maximum time that could be saved. Profile twice, optimize once.

InclinedPlane 17y ago
Let's say it takes a mere day to process a patent application the roundabout way (printing, scanning, etc.). However, the system is near or above 100% capacity because total throughput is slow. Even if they have enough staff to match the needed throughput they still have a 3 year backlog. So even though they can process 1 year of patents in 1 year, it still takes 3 years to make it to the head of the line. Now, if you cut down overhead you'll be able to get rid of that 3 year backlog and get to processing current applications in closer to real-time.