2 ms·
> the IPR process and its openness are incredibly valuable and should be retained. but it’s misleading to portray this proposed rule as arbitrary or corrupt. B
by autoexec 3y ago
> the IPR process and its openness are incredibly valuable and should be retained. but it’s misleading to portray this proposed rule as arbitrary or corrupt.
Both things can be true. I'm sure there is a need for changes to IPR, but that doesn't mean they didn't know what they were doing when this was proposed. It's hard to imagine a good faith effort to end abuse of the system that also just happens to protect bad actors. Is it really likely that they had no idea that this would drastically weaken the ability to challenge bad patents? I suspect they knew exactly what the proposed rules would mean, that there are other options that would help prevent abuses like the one you pointed out without making it needlessly difficult for legitimate challenges.
- semiquaver 3y agoSure. It certainly seems that this is being proposed for reasons more aligned with the interests of patent holders than patent challengers. I’m just pointing out that without a discussion of the recent events which clearly motivate this rule change, the narrative is missing important context that makes the USPTO look like mustache-twirling villains for proposing this. They may in fact be villainous, but readers still deserve the full backstory to come to that conclusion themselves.