3 ms·

I tend to agree, but unlikely will get there, too much money involved. Another solution could be to fix/use the asymmetry of being granted a patent and invalid

I tend to agree, but unlikely will get there, too much money involved. Another solution could be to fix/use the asymmetry of being granted a patent and invalidating a patent. Right now it seems getting a patent is much easier than invalidating it. There have been steps to sort this, e.g. inter partes review (IPR). I'd like it to reversed, i.e. invalidating should be much easier than being granted a patent.

patentatt 8y ago
This I agree with. The asymmetry is exploited by bad actors for far too long. But consider the alternatives. If we make it $250k to file a patent, then we'd all be here complaining that only the rich can afford to acquire patents. And that would kind of suck. And on the other end, most of the cost involved is in paying patent attorneys to make your case for you. What do we do about that? I'm not against the idea of having a dedicated class of highly trained and specialized people to argue these very important matters, right? It kind of comes back to a general argument about the fee structure of American litigation. Perhaps a fee-shifting arrangement where if a patent owner has a patent invalidated they have to pay the other side's fees? But being so unpredictable would still provide a barrier to entry to challenge patents. Should we have a government contingent of patent attorneys available to assist in patent validity challenges? Kind of like a public defender of sorts. Who would decide who gets their help? Who would pay for it? Is that public good (of ridding the system of bad patents) worth that cost? Interesting things to ponder.