6 ms·

I agree. Just like how engineers certify building plans to ensure the laws of physics are respected, patents really should need to go through some sort of peer

I agree. Just like how engineers certify building plans to ensure the laws of physics are respected, patents really should need to go through some sort of peer certification review - at the submitter's expense - before it gets in front of an examiner!

Groxx 8y ago
Making patents even slower to approve, and even more big-corp-only focused. You win some, you lose some. I'm not even sure which I'd prefer. It's all just fairly terrible.
- bsder 8y ago
  For the little guy--you lose some, they win more. Patents need to have a much shorter lifetime except when regulation is involved. Tech patents, in general, should probably last about 5 years. If you get a patent, you should have to actively promote and license it if you want money from it. You shouldn't be able to just sit on it for decades and then nail somebody who comes out with a useful product down the road. Medical patents probably should be a little different. They should probably be 5 years OR you can tie the patent to an FDA approval which would give you FDA approval date+5 years. But, if that particular FDA approval fails, your patent falls.
  - consp 8y ago
    5 years, from filing to market to making profit is really short. Maybe it works for simple parents but I'm pretty sure most true inventions (and smaller companies with somewhat less complicated patents) will not be able to profit properly from the patent that way.
    - bsder 8y ago
      Tough. The nominal goal of a patent is to encourage innovation--not rent seeking. And, if you can't monetize the patent within 5 years then maybe the patent really isn't that important or you really don't know how to implement the thing in the patent. That suggests that maybe you shouldn't be granted the patent in the first place. Making patent terms short also has the upside that the big guys will want stricter review of patents rather than the current mess of almost universal approvals. After the big guys get burned a few times by somebody patenting something that can't actually be implemented but causes disclosure and burns up the clock on the patent they were going to file on their current product development, they will start screaming for real patent review processes.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
    - TeMPOraL 8y ago
      Depends on the market. For most software patents, even 3 years might be too much, as in that time the "invention" will be already obsoleted by something else. I strongly agree with GP that companies should not be able to just sit on patents. The ability to literally prevent useful ways of thinking from manifesting in this world is something that goes against the core justification of the patent system. Also, I'd like to see much bigger pressure put on quality of patents. All patents are eventually meant to go to public domain, and the public is meant to be able to recreate the invention from the text of the patent. Therefore, I believe a patent should not be granted if it isn't demonstrated that it contains all and accurate information necessary to reproduce the invention.
  - jjeaff 8y ago
    You could keep the time limits where they are, if only they required that the inventions "actually" be novel and non-obvious. They need to stop issuing patents for basic reorganizations of existing tech. Idiotic things like a "one click checkout" or "sending email" or "packaging a media file into a podcast" should have been kicked back with a big red "denied" stamp from the USPTO after about 10 minutes of wasted time by the examiner.
    - candiodari 8y ago
      They only check: Prior art Form requirements Legal form of the PTO s reply https://www.indeed.com/m/viewjob?jk=07e3e8caed7c8dc1&from=serp https://www.indeed.com/m/viewjob?jk=07e3e8caed7c8dc1&from=se... They do not seem to be checking obviousness at all. And if this scares you may I suggest you never look up what determines if a public prosecutor takes a case or how social workers decide to go after children or psychologically ill people or not.
      - glandium 8y ago
        They don't look at prior art. Otherwise, they would have found all the prior art that the "vigilante engineer" found (and it's not like it was very hard to find, some was ironically linked from the patent itself).
        lbriner 8y ago
        They do look at prior art but remember they only have basically a "google search" type of tool so often find so-called duplicates that are not (because they have the same words in the title maybe) and miss ones that are the same because they are called something else. Just a very poor system for the money it costs and the potential outcomes to businesses who can literally go bust over a wrong decision.
burfog 8y ago
The review will never be enough. It's better to eliminate the presumption of validity. Without that presumption, there is no need to bother with review, and patents become little more than certified timestamps.
- Eug894 8y ago
  ...with R&D price tags attached. Then everyone who uses something a court considered similar must pay his contribution to the price of the oldest patent involved.
adrianN 8y ago
Maybe patents should come with a prototype.
- lbriner 8y ago
  Maybe your competitor finds out while you are trying to build the prototype, builds one more quickly and gets the patent before you!
  - adrianN 8y ago
    I don't think it would be too hard to enable some kind of preliminary filing while still requiring a functional prototype.
  - anticensor 8y ago
    This also fullfills the purpose as all parties are encouraged to innovate.

Groxx 8y ago

Making patents even slower to approve, and even more big-corp-only focused. You win some, you lose some. I'm not even sure which I'd prefer. It's all just fairly terrible.

bsder 8y ago
For the little guy--you lose some, they win more. Patents need to have a much shorter lifetime except when regulation is involved. Tech patents, in general, should probably last about 5 years. If you get a patent, you should have to actively promote and license it if you want money from it. You shouldn't be able to just sit on it for decades and then nail somebody who comes out with a useful product down the road. Medical patents probably should be a little different. They should probably be 5 years OR you can tie the patent to an FDA approval which would give you FDA approval date+5 years. But, if that particular FDA approval fails, your patent falls.
- consp 8y ago
  5 years, from filing to market to making profit is really short. Maybe it works for simple parents but I'm pretty sure most true inventions (and smaller companies with somewhat less complicated patents) will not be able to profit properly from the patent that way.
  - bsder 8y ago
    Tough. The nominal goal of a patent is to encourage innovation--not rent seeking. And, if you can't monetize the patent within 5 years then maybe the patent really isn't that important or you really don't know how to implement the thing in the patent. That suggests that maybe you shouldn't be granted the patent in the first place. Making patent terms short also has the upside that the big guys will want stricter review of patents rather than the current mess of almost universal approvals. After the big guys get burned a few times by somebody patenting something that can't actually be implemented but causes disclosure and burns up the clock on the patent they were going to file on their current product development, they will start screaming for real patent review processes.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    Depends on the market. For most software patents, even 3 years might be too much, as in that time the "invention" will be already obsoleted by something else. I strongly agree with GP that companies should not be able to just sit on patents. The ability to literally prevent useful ways of thinking from manifesting in this world is something that goes against the core justification of the patent system. Also, I'd like to see much bigger pressure put on quality of patents. All patents are eventually meant to go to public domain, and the public is meant to be able to recreate the invention from the text of the patent. Therefore, I believe a patent should not be granted if it isn't demonstrated that it contains all and accurate information necessary to reproduce the invention.
- jjeaff 8y ago
  You could keep the time limits where they are, if only they required that the inventions "actually" be novel and non-obvious. They need to stop issuing patents for basic reorganizations of existing tech. Idiotic things like a "one click checkout" or "sending email" or "packaging a media file into a podcast" should have been kicked back with a big red "denied" stamp from the USPTO after about 10 minutes of wasted time by the examiner.
  - candiodari 8y ago
    They only check: Prior art Form requirements Legal form of the PTO s reply https://www.indeed.com/m/viewjob?jk=07e3e8caed7c8dc1&from=serp https://www.indeed.com/m/viewjob?jk=07e3e8caed7c8dc1&from=se... They do not seem to be checking obviousness at all. And if this scares you may I suggest you never look up what determines if a public prosecutor takes a case or how social workers decide to go after children or psychologically ill people or not.
    - glandium 8y ago
      They don't look at prior art. Otherwise, they would have found all the prior art that the "vigilante engineer" found (and it's not like it was very hard to find, some was ironically linked from the patent itself).
      - lbriner 8y ago
        They do look at prior art but remember they only have basically a "google search" type of tool so often find so-called duplicates that are not (because they have the same words in the title maybe) and miss ones that are the same because they are called something else. Just a very poor system for the money it costs and the potential outcomes to businesses who can literally go bust over a wrong decision.

burfog 8y ago

The review will never be enough. It's better to eliminate the presumption of validity. Without that presumption, there is no need to bother with review, and patents become little more than certified timestamps.

Eug894 8y ago
...with R&D price tags attached. Then everyone who uses something a court considered similar must pay his contribution to the price of the oldest patent involved.

adrianN 8y ago

Maybe patents should come with a prototype.

lbriner 8y ago
Maybe your competitor finds out while you are trying to build the prototype, builds one more quickly and gets the patent before you!
- adrianN 8y ago
  I don't think it would be too hard to enable some kind of preliminary filing while still requiring a functional prototype.
- anticensor 8y ago
  This also fullfills the purpose as all parties are encouraged to innovate.