> no one in the system — neither the PTO nor the courts — is specifically responsible for representing the public's interest, by making sure that the informatio

> no one in the system — neither the PTO nor the courts — is specifically responsible for representing the public's interest, by making sure that the information being disclosed is valuable enough to deserve the monopoly. By law, that's the job of the USPTO. The PTO routinely rejects patent applications if the examiner thinks that the claimed subject matter wasn't novel or would have been obvious at the time the invention was made. Most rejections stick (I would guess), but sometimes examiners get worn down by patent attorneys. The problem was famously summarized nearly a century ago by the legendary federal judge Learned Hand, who said that "... the antlike persistency of solicitors has overcome, and I suppose will continue to overcome, the patience of examiners, and there is apparently always but one outcome." [0] [0] Lyon v. Boh, 1 F.2d 48, 50 (S.D.N.Y.1924) (L. Hand, J.), at https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9696597566965196877 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=969659756696519... , rev'd on other grounds, 10 F. 2d 30 (2d Cir. 1926).