3 ms·

I am sure so many examiners would be willing to take that job.

by nceqs3 4y ago

sebastien_b 4y ago
Or take this as an incentive to actually do their jobs properly.
- pbhjpbhj 4y ago
  All my own personal opinions. I work in IPR. You're basically closing down the patent system here, any prior disclosure anywhere in the World, in any language can be used to show the invention lacks novelty. There are some restrictions in different jurisdictions on what can be used to show there is no invention (ie there is no 'inventive step' or it's 'obvious' [it's a legal definition, not just a dictionary definition of this term that is used]). If you're going to hold an examiner liable (there's actually a law in the UK protecting civil servants from liability, but hey) then you're going to have to give them lots of time and lots of resources ... that's going to make it all too costly. You'll spend more than is profited from most patents in order to be sure that a patent won't be challenged in court ... and it still could be, just under other facets of the law, such as whether the disclosure is sufficient to work the invention. You have to allow people to be less than perfect. If you're a programmer, imagine you had essentially unlimited liability if you created a single bug (examiners don't know if the patent is worth nothing, or 100s-of-$Millions, that's all down to externalities). Could the system be improved, for sure, but it's always going to have to balanced against cost of administration. If you're court system is working effectively you don't need anything like a perfect parent examining system. If you're courts aren't working ... well fix them instead of spending disproportionately elsewhere.
  - sebastien_b 4y ago
    All good points; I will however point out something about this specifically: >then you're going to have to give them lots of time and lots of resources ... that's going to make it all too costly. If the system has to become prohibitively costly to get it to a level of semblance of actually working, then one has to wonder if it's worth it at all for it to exist.
    - nceqs3 4y ago
      The patent system works currently...
      - sebastien_b 4y ago
        ...somewhat
    - pbhjpbhj 4y ago
      It doesn't matter how expensive your telescope is, if you want it to have perfect optics you'll have to spend more. You need to decide at what point it is good enough. If your post-processing is good (courts) then you can cut costs on the optics (patent examination) and still achieve the results you want.
      - sebastien_b 4y ago
        But I wouldn't expect my neighbour to have to pay to fix/improve the optics on my telescope.

I am sure so many examiners would be willing to take that job.

by nceqs3 4y ago

I am sure so many examiners would be willing to take that job.

sebastien_b 4y ago

Or take this as an incentive to actually do their jobs properly.

pbhjpbhj 4y ago
All my own personal opinions. I work in IPR. You're basically closing down the patent system here, any prior disclosure anywhere in the World, in any language can be used to show the invention lacks novelty. There are some restrictions in different jurisdictions on what can be used to show there is no invention (ie there is no 'inventive step' or it's 'obvious' [it's a legal definition, not just a dictionary definition of this term that is used]). If you're going to hold an examiner liable (there's actually a law in the UK protecting civil servants from liability, but hey) then you're going to have to give them lots of time and lots of resources ... that's going to make it all too costly. You'll spend more than is profited from most patents in order to be sure that a patent won't be challenged in court ... and it still could be, just under other facets of the law, such as whether the disclosure is sufficient to work the invention. You have to allow people to be less than perfect. If you're a programmer, imagine you had essentially unlimited liability if you created a single bug (examiners don't know if the patent is worth nothing, or 100s-of-$Millions, that's all down to externalities). Could the system be improved, for sure, but it's always going to have to balanced against cost of administration. If you're court system is working effectively you don't need anything like a perfect parent examining system. If you're courts aren't working ... well fix them instead of spending disproportionately elsewhere.
- sebastien_b 4y ago
  All good points; I will however point out something about this specifically: >then you're going to have to give them lots of time and lots of resources ... that's going to make it all too costly. If the system has to become prohibitively costly to get it to a level of semblance of actually working, then one has to wonder if it's worth it at all for it to exist.
  - nceqs3 4y ago
    The patent system works currently...
    - sebastien_b 4y ago
      ...somewhat
  - pbhjpbhj 4y ago
    It doesn't matter how expensive your telescope is, if you want it to have perfect optics you'll have to spend more. You need to decide at what point it is good enough. If your post-processing is good (courts) then you can cut costs on the optics (patent examination) and still achieve the results you want.
    - sebastien_b 4y ago
      But I wouldn't expect my neighbour to have to pay to fix/improve the optics on my telescope.