3 ms·

"the solution is to properly staff and fund the USPTO" This is categorically impossible for software patents. We will never have enough patent examiners with

"the solution is to properly staff and fund the USPTO" This is categorically impossible for software patents. We will never have enough patent examiners with the necessary expertise much less time to make valid decisions on software patent applications. Look at the backlog. Any one on this board who designs software solutions and has ever read a patent knows this is true. Thus it doesn't matter whether you like the idea of software patents in theory, in practice it is simply not a viable mechanism, period.

Steko 15y ago
Thanks for stating your contested opinion/conclusion as categorically fact that we all know as true, period. Your argument basically amounts to "well the dog pooped on the carpet, that's what dogs do, what can we do it about it except get rid of the dog?" Real world: people respond to incentives. (1) Currently the patent troll model is heavily incentivized. (2) Currently, there's a huge incentive to file obvious and frivolous patent applications. (3) Currently the USPTO is underfunded. Obvious solutions... (1) Disincentivize the patent troll model. You can do this by limiting the amount they can recoup from litigation or by increasing their costs. I'm suggesting both. (2) Disincentivize obvious and frivolous patent applications. Obvious solutions are to stop approving these and to have some additional penalties for failed applications (esp. repeat offenders). I'd suggest both. (3) Increase funding to the USPTO. You could do this with money from income taxes and the general budget (laff) but I'm suggesting using the highly lucrative patents themselves to finance the office.
- eevilspock 15y ago
  Says the guy who says very categorically, "Fact: way too many obvious or stupid patents are granted." No, that is not what my argument amounts to. You should read up on logical fallacy. (1) So what if I'm a poor inventor whose truly patent-deserving idea hasn't yet made money and gets copied by a rich megacorp before I can. Your solution protects the rich, not the risk-taking inventors, the latter being the reason we have patents. (2) You beg the question. (3) The USPTO received 500,000 patent applications in 2010. Have you ever read a patent? Do you realize how specialized they one are? You have to be an expert in the field to be able to discern what deserves a patent and what doesn't, and even then it would take one weeks if not months to truly understand the proposed patent and all prior art to render such judgement. The USPTO would need an army of 10,000 (one week per patent) to 100,000 (2-3 months per patent) experts on staff.

Steko 15y ago

Thanks for stating your contested opinion/conclusion as categorically fact that we all know as true, period. Your argument basically amounts to "well the dog pooped on the carpet, that's what dogs do, what can we do it about it except get rid of the dog?" Real world: people respond to incentives. (1) Currently the patent troll model is heavily incentivized. (2) Currently, there's a huge incentive to file obvious and frivolous patent applications. (3) Currently the USPTO is underfunded. Obvious solutions... (1) Disincentivize the patent troll model. You can do this by limiting the amount they can recoup from litigation or by increasing their costs. I'm suggesting both. (2) Disincentivize obvious and frivolous patent applications. Obvious solutions are to stop approving these and to have some additional penalties for failed applications (esp. repeat offenders). I'd suggest both. (3) Increase funding to the USPTO. You could do this with money from income taxes and the general budget (laff) but I'm suggesting using the highly lucrative patents themselves to finance the office.

eevilspock 15y ago
Says the guy who says very categorically, "Fact: way too many obvious or stupid patents are granted." No, that is not what my argument amounts to. You should read up on logical fallacy. (1) So what if I'm a poor inventor whose truly patent-deserving idea hasn't yet made money and gets copied by a rich megacorp before I can. Your solution protects the rich, not the risk-taking inventors, the latter being the reason we have patents. (2) You beg the question. (3) The USPTO received 500,000 patent applications in 2010. Have you ever read a patent? Do you realize how specialized they one are? You have to be an expert in the field to be able to discern what deserves a patent and what doesn't, and even then it would take one weeks if not months to truly understand the proposed patent and all prior art to render such judgement. The USPTO would need an army of 10,000 (one week per patent) to 100,000 (2-3 months per patent) experts on staff.