4 ms·

> 2k+ resolution camera that records at a 6:1 or more compression ratio. How does that even get granted? Does the patent office not have domain experts?

jjoonathan 4y ago
USPTO is entirely funded through patent fees. They get more fees if they approve a patent. No, I am not joking: https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/performance-and-planning/budget-and-financial-information https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/performance-and-planning/budg... There's your problem.
- SeanLuke 4y ago
  That is not the problem. Just because an agency is funded by fees does not mean that it has perverse incentives nor corruption (though it can be the case). After all, the FDA has to assess all of Pfizer's drug applications -- do you want to pay for all that out of your income tax, or should Pfizer be paying it? Furthermore, the USPTO has had the same issues described here long before they were self-funded by congress. The problem is that that the USPTO doesn't have enough money to hire inspectors and officials. They are woefully, desperately underfunded. The same problems that plague the USPTO also plague the IRS, and for the same reason. The USPTO would do much better if they were permitted to double the fees, or more, for patent application.
  - toma_caliente 4y ago
    > That is not the problem. Just because an agency is funded by fees does not mean that it has perverse incentives nor corruption (though it can be the case). After all, the FDA has to assess all of Pfizer's drug applications -- do you want to pay for all that out of your income tax, or should Pfizer be paying it? The FDA gets billions in funding from the government and the USPTO does not. I'm not saying you are right or wrong about the problems regarding the USPTO but to compare its funding to the FDA is disingenious and wrong.
  - btrettel 4y ago
    Former patent examiner here. The main problem with quality is as you describe: patent examiners don't get enough time. I've written about this before on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31197809 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31197809 Note that increasing fees alone won't necessarily change anything if USPTO management doesn't give examiners more time in response. For example, the USPTO charges applicants extra if they have more than a certain number of claims (20, I believe), but examiners only get 1 hour extra if there are more than that number. I once had an application with 45 claims... I estimate that I only got around 23 hours total for the first "office action" on that one (most of the work), and that includes the extra hour I got. So I got 5% more time for 125% more work! Edit: Here's the application with 45 claims that I worked on: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20190160529A1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US20190160529A1/en
  - codys 4y ago
    The FDA used to not be funded by the pharmaceutical industry, and instead be directly funded. There are routine questions about how the current arrangement influences FDA decision making in a way that negatively affects their ability to independently review drugs. IOW: the current setup causes the FDA to approve things they probably should not have approved, because they are incentivized to "get along" with the companies paying them.
lizardactivist 4y ago
The U.S. encourages carpet-bombing with trivial patents claiming to be bonafide inventions, because it gives opportunities for market protectionism.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
rlpb 4y ago
Patent lawyers consider the "not obvious to someone skilled in the art" test done by merely looking at prior art. If it's not previously explicitly patented, it's valid. According to them. This is exactly what a patent lawyer told me when I asked about how they test for that requirement.
- btrettel 4y ago
  Anything available to the public can be used in a prior art rejection, not just patents. (I'm a former patent examiner and I frequently used "non-patent literature" as it's called.)
  - failTide 4y ago
    That's very cool. Were you ever obligated to grant one of these ridiculous patents, or were you able to use your discretion?
    - btrettel 4y ago
      I wasn't around long enough for many to get to the point where they could be granted. I think I only granted around 3 or so. And those ones were unlikely to cause anyone trouble. I've heard a second-hand story of one examiner who granted a patent that was later strongly criticized. They specifically requested more time from their supervisor to work on it, but their supervisor denied the request. Since they didn't have any valid reason to reject the application, they allowed it. The examiner suspected that it wasn't valid, but they really didn't have a choice as they have to meet a quota and "docket management" requirements. So it's not a matter of an examiner using their own discretion. The examiner knew it was likely a problem but they couldn't find any evidence which was legally enforceable. Why do patent examiners sometimes grant invalid patents? For the same reason software developers sometimes release buggy software: Management doesn't give them enough time or resources to do a quality job.

jjoonathan 4y ago

USPTO is entirely funded through patent fees. They get more fees if they approve a patent. No, I am not joking: https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/performance-and-planning/budget-and-financial-information https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/performance-and-planning/budg... There's your problem.

SeanLuke 4y ago
That is not the problem. Just because an agency is funded by fees does not mean that it has perverse incentives nor corruption (though it can be the case). After all, the FDA has to assess all of Pfizer's drug applications -- do you want to pay for all that out of your income tax, or should Pfizer be paying it? Furthermore, the USPTO has had the same issues described here long before they were self-funded by congress. The problem is that that the USPTO doesn't have enough money to hire inspectors and officials. They are woefully, desperately underfunded. The same problems that plague the USPTO also plague the IRS, and for the same reason. The USPTO would do much better if they were permitted to double the fees, or more, for patent application.
- toma_caliente 4y ago
  > That is not the problem. Just because an agency is funded by fees does not mean that it has perverse incentives nor corruption (though it can be the case). After all, the FDA has to assess all of Pfizer's drug applications -- do you want to pay for all that out of your income tax, or should Pfizer be paying it? The FDA gets billions in funding from the government and the USPTO does not. I'm not saying you are right or wrong about the problems regarding the USPTO but to compare its funding to the FDA is disingenious and wrong.
- btrettel 4y ago
  Former patent examiner here. The main problem with quality is as you describe: patent examiners don't get enough time. I've written about this before on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31197809 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31197809 Note that increasing fees alone won't necessarily change anything if USPTO management doesn't give examiners more time in response. For example, the USPTO charges applicants extra if they have more than a certain number of claims (20, I believe), but examiners only get 1 hour extra if there are more than that number. I once had an application with 45 claims... I estimate that I only got around 23 hours total for the first "office action" on that one (most of the work), and that includes the extra hour I got. So I got 5% more time for 125% more work! Edit: Here's the application with 45 claims that I worked on: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20190160529A1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US20190160529A1/en
- codys 4y ago
  The FDA used to not be funded by the pharmaceutical industry, and instead be directly funded. There are routine questions about how the current arrangement influences FDA decision making in a way that negatively affects their ability to independently review drugs. IOW: the current setup causes the FDA to approve things they probably should not have approved, because they are incentivized to "get along" with the companies paying them.

lizardactivist 4y ago

The U.S. encourages carpet-bombing with trivial patents claiming to be bonafide inventions, because it gives opportunities for market protectionism.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

rlpb 4y ago

Patent lawyers consider the "not obvious to someone skilled in the art" test done by merely looking at prior art. If it's not previously explicitly patented, it's valid. According to them. This is exactly what a patent lawyer told me when I asked about how they test for that requirement.

btrettel 4y ago
Anything available to the public can be used in a prior art rejection, not just patents. (I'm a former patent examiner and I frequently used "non-patent literature" as it's called.)
- failTide 4y ago
  That's very cool. Were you ever obligated to grant one of these ridiculous patents, or were you able to use your discretion?
  - btrettel 4y ago
    I wasn't around long enough for many to get to the point where they could be granted. I think I only granted around 3 or so. And those ones were unlikely to cause anyone trouble. I've heard a second-hand story of one examiner who granted a patent that was later strongly criticized. They specifically requested more time from their supervisor to work on it, but their supervisor denied the request. Since they didn't have any valid reason to reject the application, they allowed it. The examiner suspected that it wasn't valid, but they really didn't have a choice as they have to meet a quota and "docket management" requirements. So it's not a matter of an examiner using their own discretion. The examiner knew it was likely a problem but they couldn't find any evidence which was legally enforceable. Why do patent examiners sometimes grant invalid patents? For the same reason software developers sometimes release buggy software: Management doesn't give them enough time or resources to do a quality job.