4 ms·

I don't think that is inevitable. There is not an inherent reason why the Patent Office needs to award trivial patents. If they tighten up (or apply) their stan

by jpadvo 15y ago

I don't think that is inevitable. There is not an inherent reason why the Patent Office needs to award trivial patents. If they tighten up (or apply) their standards, the problem would be tremendously reduced.

rapind 15y ago
Coming up with relevant criteria to determine the triviality of a software patent application doesn't seem simple at all. This means you need to hire experts in the field. This is where it gets interesting. In most regulatory organizations where a high amount of expertise is required (like economics) you see a lot of corruption where companies hire out of and into these organizations specifically for the benefits of having representation on the inside. I.e. Henry Paulson. So unless you have a good way of preventing these employees from ever working for Microsoft / Facebook / Apple / Google etc. then it's really not going to work out as intended. IMO, just get rid of software patents. Sure it'll suck for some, but overall it's probably healthier for the industry. Plus it's nice and simple and doesn't employ a whole mess of lawyers.
seats 15y ago
The USPTO is overwhelmed and understaffed, so I can understand why they have poor QC on patents, particularly when they require technical knowledge to determine triviality. What I don't get though is why it seems to be such a challenge to prove the invalidity of these crap patents in court. The google loss to bedrock (the linux kernel troll) is a high profile example of this. Maybe the standards that need to be looked at are around litigation and if enough crap is thrown out, all the incentive is gone and all of the sudden the USPTO application volume goes way down.
- brettnak 15y ago
  What I frequently wonder is why an overwhelmed and understaffed organization can approve so many patents. If I were in their position, my default would be to deny almost everything. Are they being told that approving patents is in the best interest of America? Is this a case of patriotism-gone-bad?
  - tellurion 15y ago
    That's because of the way patent law is worded. I don't remember the exact wording (and i'm to lazy to look it up) but it's close to "a patent shall be granted except..." Basically, they have to grant the patent if they can't come up with a good reason not to. Perhaps changing the law to be worded "a patent shall not be granted except". Then require the applicants to show how their patent fits the requirements.
- lallysingh 15y ago
  So, to put it bluntly, they can't do a good job, so they shouldn't do the job at all. I agree.
tlb 15y ago
It is inevitable. No government can hire thousands of employees who can evaluate high levels of novelty or cleverness. People who can do so make more money and have more fun in the private sector.

by jpadvo 15y ago

rapind 15y ago

Coming up with relevant criteria to determine the triviality of a software patent application doesn't seem simple at all. This means you need to hire experts in the field. This is where it gets interesting. In most regulatory organizations where a high amount of expertise is required (like economics) you see a lot of corruption where companies hire out of and into these organizations specifically for the benefits of having representation on the inside. I.e. Henry Paulson. So unless you have a good way of preventing these employees from ever working for Microsoft / Facebook / Apple / Google etc. then it's really not going to work out as intended. IMO, just get rid of software patents. Sure it'll suck for some, but overall it's probably healthier for the industry. Plus it's nice and simple and doesn't employ a whole mess of lawyers.

seats 15y ago

The USPTO is overwhelmed and understaffed, so I can understand why they have poor QC on patents, particularly when they require technical knowledge to determine triviality. What I don't get though is why it seems to be such a challenge to prove the invalidity of these crap patents in court. The google loss to bedrock (the linux kernel troll) is a high profile example of this. Maybe the standards that need to be looked at are around litigation and if enough crap is thrown out, all the incentive is gone and all of the sudden the USPTO application volume goes way down.

brettnak 15y ago
What I frequently wonder is why an overwhelmed and understaffed organization can approve so many patents. If I were in their position, my default would be to deny almost everything. Are they being told that approving patents is in the best interest of America? Is this a case of patriotism-gone-bad?
- tellurion 15y ago
  That's because of the way patent law is worded. I don't remember the exact wording (and i'm to lazy to look it up) but it's close to "a patent shall be granted except..." Basically, they have to grant the patent if they can't come up with a good reason not to. Perhaps changing the law to be worded "a patent shall not be granted except". Then require the applicants to show how their patent fits the requirements.
lallysingh 15y ago
So, to put it bluntly, they can't do a good job, so they shouldn't do the job at all. I agree.

tlb 15y ago

It is inevitable. No government can hire thousands of employees who can evaluate high levels of novelty or cleverness. People who can do so make more money and have more fun in the private sector.