4 ms·

I think you really need to re-examine 1 & 2. Increasing the speed and quality of patent review may lead to more patent applications, but would reduce the numbe

I think you really need to re-examine 1 & 2. Increasing the speed and quality of patent review may lead to more patent applications, but would reduce the number of baseless patents granted. As for price, the USPTO was never supposed to be self-sufficient. Doing it properly means the taxpayer picks up the tab. That's just something you have to accept in exchange for living in a highly developed economy. IBM's patents, as well as those of Google and others, are generally defensive. They're meant to provide ammo to protect themselves from patent trolls.

nickpinkston 16y ago
It would reduce the ratio of bad/good patents - not number, this is my argument: increasing ease of submitting (speed, etc.) will probably lead to more patent submissions - the relation of these curves says whether the number would decrease. I wasn't arguing for pricing it at true cost - I'm saying that if you're subsidizing an activity and increasing throughput - you tend to get doubly more of it. Defensive patents also restrict innovation - see: "patent thickets". Having IBM patent worthless things is just as bad - probably worse than smaller ones because of their credible threat.
dhimes 16y ago
Probably due to the fact that IANAL, I never understood why you need an actual patent to defend yourself. Why doesn't just having prior art suffice? Seems like if it's publicly reachable you should be safe. <sigh>
- dctoedt 16y ago
  > I never understood why you need an actual patent to defend yourself. Why doesn't just having prior art suffice? Only having an actual patent gives you a weapon for a counterclaim. And it's a weapon only if the company suing you for infringement is itself infringing your patent.
  - dhimes 16y ago
    OK- so you don't need one to protect yourself, only if you want to sue in retaliation. Am I understanding that right? Seems if you can invalidate a patent by showing prior art that would be a powerful deterrent to someone wanting to sue you.
    - dctoedt 16y ago
      > Seems if you can invalidate a patent by showing prior art that would be a powerful deterrent to someone wanting to sue you. Sometimes, yes, but not always. It once worked out that way for one of my clients. The client got a letter from another company's lawyer, saying, "you may be interested in this patent." That's code for a threat to sue. The other company was a legitimate company that actually made stuff; it wasn't a troll, er, non-practicing entity. My client had solid evidence that it had come up with the invention several years before, and that it had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed the invention. This put the client in a position to make a powerful invalidity argument, one that can be especially persuasive to a jury -- even assuming this invention was patentable, we'd have been the ones entitled to the patent, not them. I sent a letter to the patent owner's lawyer (whom I knew), saying, almost in so many words: I've reviewed some prior art not cited by the patent examiner, and my client is not the least bit interested in discussing your client's patent. The lawyer asked if I'd send him a copy of the prior art. I said, if you file a lawsuit, you'll get the prior art in the ordinary course of discovery. The lawyer evidently got the message - we never heard from them again, at least not on that subject. (As usual, YMMV, and don't rely on this anecdote as a substitute for legal advice. Knowingly infringing a patent without clear and convincing evidence of invalidity could result in being held liable for willful infringement. That in turn could mean having to pay treble damages and the patent owner's attorneys' fees, which will almost always be considerable.)
      - dhimes 16y ago
        Thank you; I sure appreciate the insight. It's heartening to know that if you try to do the right thing and mind your own business (as long as you document) then you stand a reasonable chance of being safe (so the system's not completely broken).

nickpinkston 16y ago

It would reduce the ratio of bad/good patents - not number, this is my argument: increasing ease of submitting (speed, etc.) will probably lead to more patent submissions - the relation of these curves says whether the number would decrease. I wasn't arguing for pricing it at true cost - I'm saying that if you're subsidizing an activity and increasing throughput - you tend to get doubly more of it. Defensive patents also restrict innovation - see: "patent thickets". Having IBM patent worthless things is just as bad - probably worse than smaller ones because of their credible threat.

dhimes 16y ago

Probably due to the fact that IANAL, I never understood why you need an actual patent to defend yourself. Why doesn't just having prior art suffice? Seems like if it's publicly reachable you should be safe. <sigh>

dctoedt 16y ago
> I never understood why you need an actual patent to defend yourself. Why doesn't just having prior art suffice? Only having an actual patent gives you a weapon for a counterclaim. And it's a weapon only if the company suing you for infringement is itself infringing your patent.
- dhimes 16y ago
  OK- so you don't need one to protect yourself, only if you want to sue in retaliation. Am I understanding that right? Seems if you can invalidate a patent by showing prior art that would be a powerful deterrent to someone wanting to sue you.
  - dctoedt 16y ago
    > Seems if you can invalidate a patent by showing prior art that would be a powerful deterrent to someone wanting to sue you. Sometimes, yes, but not always. It once worked out that way for one of my clients. The client got a letter from another company's lawyer, saying, "you may be interested in this patent." That's code for a threat to sue. The other company was a legitimate company that actually made stuff; it wasn't a troll, er, non-practicing entity. My client had solid evidence that it had come up with the invention several years before, and that it had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed the invention. This put the client in a position to make a powerful invalidity argument, one that can be especially persuasive to a jury -- even assuming this invention was patentable, we'd have been the ones entitled to the patent, not them. I sent a letter to the patent owner's lawyer (whom I knew), saying, almost in so many words: I've reviewed some prior art not cited by the patent examiner, and my client is not the least bit interested in discussing your client's patent. The lawyer asked if I'd send him a copy of the prior art. I said, if you file a lawsuit, you'll get the prior art in the ordinary course of discovery. The lawyer evidently got the message - we never heard from them again, at least not on that subject. (As usual, YMMV, and don't rely on this anecdote as a substitute for legal advice. Knowingly infringing a patent without clear and convincing evidence of invalidity could result in being held liable for willful infringement. That in turn could mean having to pay treble damages and the patent owner's attorneys' fees, which will almost always be considerable.)
    - dhimes 16y ago
      Thank you; I sure appreciate the insight. It's heartening to know that if you try to do the right thing and mind your own business (as long as you document) then you stand a reasonable chance of being safe (so the system's not completely broken).