4 ms·

I don't think natosaichek's comment above attempts to explain the paper's observed correlations. Possibilities include that: 1. Examiners who want to get hired

I don't think natosaichek's comment above attempts to explain the paper's observed correlations. Possibilities include that: 1. Examiners who want to get hired in private industry go easy on their future employers' applications. That would explain the linked paper's correlations. 2. Examiners who want to get hired in private industry help create a quagmire of complex procedures that they will then be uniquely qualified to help their employer follow. That also would explain the linked paper's correlations. 3. Examiners who want to get hired in private industry go hard on their future employers' applications. That would not explain the linked paper's result, though it could still be true if some confounding variable (e.g., different approval rates for different fields and types of client, as patentatt speculates) explains the correlation. People worried about the revolving door are usually thinking (1). I suspect that it's actually (2), since that achieves the same effect in a way that superficially seems less corrupt, and that requires less trust between the revolving-door employer and employee.

patentatt 8y ago
Run of the mill examiners don’t set policy, so I’m not sure how that would work
- tripletao 8y ago
  An employee who knows the policy has revolving door value, even if they didn't personally create it. You'd know better than I would how much of the USPTO's policy exists as law vs. published guidance vs. internal documents vs. shared habits that never actually get written down; but it often seems as if our lawyers act based on "policy" that's on the fuzzier end of that continuum. That's what's hardest to learn without hiring/being a former examiner. Like, where do you learn to say "a plurality of" instead of "two or more"? "A first X" and "a second X"? When to express algorithms as flow charts? Those particular examples are well-known, but I presume there's a lot more culture/style like that. That seems as important to me as the formal policy, not necessarily anything substantive but a sign that you're in the club.
  - patentatt 8y ago
    “not necessarily anything substantive but a sign that you're in the club.” That’s most of what this stuff is, you hit the nail on the head. Normal people don’t talk or write in ‘patentese.’ Some of it is just an optimal way to be extremely precise in written English, but a bunch of it is just accumulated cultural nonsense. Good point.
forapurpose 8y ago
> 2. Examiners who want to get hired in private industry help create a quagmire of complex procedures that they will then be uniquely qualified to help their employer follow. That also would explain the linked paper's correlations. From my amateur point of view, that would seem to cause a decrease, not an increase in granted patents. At best the number would be unchanged and the process would take longer. So how would (2) explain the observation of an increase?
- tripletao 8y ago
  The paper studied the relative benefit to firms that hire former examiners. That relative benefit is the same regardless of whether examiners go easy on revolving-door employers, or hard on non-revolving-door employers.

patentatt 8y ago

Run of the mill examiners don’t set policy, so I’m not sure how that would work

tripletao 8y ago
An employee who knows the policy has revolving door value, even if they didn't personally create it. You'd know better than I would how much of the USPTO's policy exists as law vs. published guidance vs. internal documents vs. shared habits that never actually get written down; but it often seems as if our lawyers act based on "policy" that's on the fuzzier end of that continuum. That's what's hardest to learn without hiring/being a former examiner. Like, where do you learn to say "a plurality of" instead of "two or more"? "A first X" and "a second X"? When to express algorithms as flow charts? Those particular examples are well-known, but I presume there's a lot more culture/style like that. That seems as important to me as the formal policy, not necessarily anything substantive but a sign that you're in the club.
- patentatt 8y ago
  “not necessarily anything substantive but a sign that you're in the club.” That’s most of what this stuff is, you hit the nail on the head. Normal people don’t talk or write in ‘patentese.’ Some of it is just an optimal way to be extremely precise in written English, but a bunch of it is just accumulated cultural nonsense. Good point.

forapurpose 8y ago

> 2. Examiners who want to get hired in private industry help create a quagmire of complex procedures that they will then be uniquely qualified to help their employer follow. That also would explain the linked paper's correlations. From my amateur point of view, that would seem to cause a decrease, not an increase in granted patents. At best the number would be unchanged and the process would take longer. So how would (2) explain the observation of an increase?

tripletao 8y ago
The paper studied the relative benefit to firms that hire former examiners. That relative benefit is the same regardless of whether examiners go easy on revolving-door employers, or hard on non-revolving-door employers.