5 ms·

Not any more than other patent applicants. Currently all the layers in patent application process is incentivized to ignore quality. 1. Large companies pay a b

Not any more than other patent applicants. Currently all the layers in patent application process is incentivized to ignore quality. 1. Large companies pay a bonus for every patent applied and bigger one for approval. 2. Patent lawyers are paid for filed patents. 3. Patent office makes money on each patent. They view the review process as a cost center and optimize it for fast approval.

isbvhodnvemrwvn 3y ago
> Currently all the layers in patent application process is incentivized to ignore quality. Hasn't it always been the case? There's a ton of old patents for shit which can't work as described.
paulryanrogers 3y ago
Outsourcing real approval to the courts, what could possibly go wrong?
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  Would be fine if courts were sufficiently funded such that adjudication happened within weeks.
bumby 3y ago
>Currently all the layers in patent application process is incentivized to ignore quality. Not just "incentivized to ignore quality", they aren't duty-bound to consider quality at all. The PTO evaluates applications for novelty, not quality. The three main relevant parts of the US Code are: 35 USC Sec. 101: is it patentable? (i.e., it must be a process, machine, process, or manufactured good. It can't be something like an idea or song) 35 USC Sec. 102: is it novel? (i.e., no one single prior existing item teaches all the limitations of the patent claims) 35 USC Sec. 103: is it non-obvious? (i.e., you can't combine a couple of different patents to arrive at your patent) There's a few other important sections (like 112 that ensures you're giving enough detail), but none of them look at "quality". In other words, you can patent a worthless invention as long as it passes those wickets. Edit: Somewhat surprisingly to some, they don't necessarily evaluate infringement either. So you could, in theory, have a novel patent that you can't use to make something because it infringes on an existing patent.
- pc86 3y ago
  They're barely qualified to address novelty and get it wrong often, so I can't even imagine the types of things that would have been denied had they tried to evaluate the quality as well.
- samstave 3y ago
  >>The PTO evaluates applications for novelty, not quality. As it should be. The USPTO is in no place to evaluate a patent's quality, unless youre a USPTO clerk whos first name starts with Albert and your last name ends in -Stein. --- But in seriousness, novelty is the important factor in a patent, not quality. As utility patents/improvement patents are a thing.
- lesuorac 3y ago
  I would disagree and claim the patent office is "incentivized to ignore quality". The clerks are expected to do a certain amount of work per week and granting a patent counts as more work than denying a patent.
  - abduhl 3y ago
    Patent examiners are rated on office ACTIONS. Grants and denies both count as actions, although denials often take more effort (and complaints from the potential patentee).
    - lesuorac 3y ago
      I mean they're not rated on ACTIONS. They're rated on their PRODUCTION UNITS; of which an ALLOWANCE yields twice as many PRODUCTION UNITS than a REJECTION yields. So; clerk are incentivized to grant a patent as it takes less effort and yields more production units. If a patent is of poor quality and later is invalidated in a lawsuit; the clerk will not lose production units. Therefore; the clerk is incentivized to grant patents as they count as more production units and not penalized for granting a patent they shouldn't've. https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/Examination%20Time%20and%20the%20Production%20System.pdf https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/Examination%20Time...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
meragrin_ 3y ago
How do you define "fast approval"?
- samstave 3y ago
  yes
samstave 3y ago
>1. Large companies pay a bonus for every patent applied and bigger one for approval. When at lockheed we had what I referred to as the "Croatian Coalition" a bunch of Croatian engineers that were all over all the patents we were filing (RFID for weapons) -- they were all so proud of all their patents (as they should be) - but they were really aggressive on filing for not just the satisfaction (getting a patent must be a great feeling, I am not yet personally on any even though I have influenced several) But they like the bonuses and internal recognition that came with them. Also, spamming the patent office would be hard unless you have deep pockets/are a patent attorney or have Big Corp funding your efforts (and rewarding them) I am sure there are cheap ways to file, but for the average person, not so much.
swagempire 3y ago
I'm not sure what you are getting at here. The lawyer's job is not to judge the quality of a patent -- in the same way a defense lawyer is not there to judge the innocence of their client. The patent lawyer is just there to file the patent and help their client get past the approval process. It is the PATENT OFFICE who's job it is to judge quality. Have several patents, btw.
meltyness 3y ago
replicability is unenforceable
KMag 3y ago
0. Large companies much prefer to settle patent disputes with "Okay, you might have a case for patents A, B, C. We have a case for you infringing on our patents D and E. We like your patents F and G. What do you like from our portfolio? Okay, and we'll throw in these 300 random patents to show we're willing to reduce our ability to drown your lawyers in paperwork. How about you throw in 200 random patents to bring down the size of your paperwork arsenal? Do we have a deal?" Edit: so at some point in the patent portfolio cross-licensing negotiation, there's a pure numbers game, so for large corporations there is some value in patents nobody is ever going to implement. At least that's my recollection from 15 years ago about why Google paid me as sole inventor of a patent. (I was working on indexing, and thought "Oh no, if someone does X, then indexing becomes incredibly harder, basically DRM for the web. Webspam could hide more easily. Oh, but if we patent X, that might make my life easier in the future." The patent lawyer zeroed in too much on my mention of CAPTCHA as a possible use case, so I'm not sure if Google could really use my patent to prevent its use as DRM/Webspam hiding. At some point, I decided pushing back against the lawyer to make the patent more broadly applicable might not be good for society. I didn't feel strongly enough to turn down my patent bonus, just strongly enough to stop pushing edits back to the lawyer.)
yieldcrv 3y ago
really, how much do large companies pay per patent? any data points?
- lgleason 3y ago
  Someone mentioned Lockheed, at GE they had a program that was pushed really hard on software engineers/EE's etc. with a carrot of a bonus for patents accepted and approved.
- satya71 3y ago
  I've seen about $5k in the past. But I haven't worked at a large company for a while.
  - meragrin_ 3y ago
    Are those lawyer fees or USPTO fees?
ryandrake 3y ago
I know this is a little controversial, but I wish our software development culture would discourage patents as taboo, something to not be proud of. Software patents are a truly terrible arms race, and they essentially aren't protecting anyone except the big boys. "Having N patents" should be something that gets frowned on, not something you highlight on your resume. When asked about this myself (during interviews or whatever), I proudly boast that I have zero patents to my name and that I actively avoid being part of the problem by participating. I see it as an opportunity to 1. help steer our culture in whatever tiny way I can and 2. get up on a little soap box about the problem. In the past, I've been asked to help out with patent applications for these so-called "inventions" that I developed, and I always tell my manager "If you want to patent this, I can't stop you, but do not put my name on it or associate it with me in any way."
- bdowling 3y ago
  > "… do not put my name on it or associate it with me in any way." If you invented it, then they have to put your name on the application as the inventor. There’s also a declaration that the inventor is supposed to sign as part of the application. If the inventor is dead or otherwise unavailable (e.g., refuses to sign), there’s an alternative form that can be filed.
  - ryandrake 3y ago
    I'd be willing to bet lots of companies play fast and loose with the "inventor" names on patents anyway. I've looked up software patents issued to companies I've worked for, and sometimes the "inventors" listed were just eng managers and likely had nothing to do with the actual grunt work of writing the code.
    - alibarber 3y ago
      "the actual grunt work of writing the code" isn't actually patentable in my experience, from Europe (inc. UK). The inventive step is the actual decision of 'we will do this thing in this way', or rather determining the 'method'. In fact, the guidelines we follow are that someone implementing the design based on some instructions, i.e, just working on a ticket, is explicitly not to be included as an inventor - unless they actually decided that's how it should be done. Of course, it's nice to work in a place whereby you get to design and implement the system and become an inventor. In my opinion and experience at least. But I can see some organisations whereby developers are popping off tickets in sprints and implementing them - but that is by definition not an inventive step.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

isbvhodnvemrwvn 3y ago

> Currently all the layers in patent application process is incentivized to ignore quality. Hasn't it always been the case? There's a ton of old patents for shit which can't work as described.

paulryanrogers 3y ago

Outsourcing real approval to the courts, what could possibly go wrong?

lotsofpulp 3y ago
Would be fine if courts were sufficiently funded such that adjudication happened within weeks.

bumby 3y ago

>Currently all the layers in patent application process is incentivized to ignore quality. Not just "incentivized to ignore quality", they aren't duty-bound to consider quality at all. The PTO evaluates applications for novelty, not quality. The three main relevant parts of the US Code are: 35 USC Sec. 101: is it patentable? (i.e., it must be a process, machine, process, or manufactured good. It can't be something like an idea or song) 35 USC Sec. 102: is it novel? (i.e., no one single prior existing item teaches all the limitations of the patent claims) 35 USC Sec. 103: is it non-obvious? (i.e., you can't combine a couple of different patents to arrive at your patent) There's a few other important sections (like 112 that ensures you're giving enough detail), but none of them look at "quality". In other words, you can patent a worthless invention as long as it passes those wickets. Edit: Somewhat surprisingly to some, they don't necessarily evaluate infringement either. So you could, in theory, have a novel patent that you can't use to make something because it infringes on an existing patent.

pc86 3y ago
They're barely qualified to address novelty and get it wrong often, so I can't even imagine the types of things that would have been denied had they tried to evaluate the quality as well.
samstave 3y ago
>>The PTO evaluates applications for novelty, not quality. As it should be. The USPTO is in no place to evaluate a patent's quality, unless youre a USPTO clerk whos first name starts with Albert and your last name ends in -Stein. --- But in seriousness, novelty is the important factor in a patent, not quality. As utility patents/improvement patents are a thing.
lesuorac 3y ago
I would disagree and claim the patent office is "incentivized to ignore quality". The clerks are expected to do a certain amount of work per week and granting a patent counts as more work than denying a patent.
- abduhl 3y ago
  Patent examiners are rated on office ACTIONS. Grants and denies both count as actions, although denials often take more effort (and complaints from the potential patentee).
  - lesuorac 3y ago
    I mean they're not rated on ACTIONS. They're rated on their PRODUCTION UNITS; of which an ALLOWANCE yields twice as many PRODUCTION UNITS than a REJECTION yields. So; clerk are incentivized to grant a patent as it takes less effort and yields more production units. If a patent is of poor quality and later is invalidated in a lawsuit; the clerk will not lose production units. Therefore; the clerk is incentivized to grant patents as they count as more production units and not penalized for granting a patent they shouldn't've. https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/Examination%20Time%20and%20the%20Production%20System.pdf https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/Examination%20Time...

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

meragrin_ 3y ago

How do you define "fast approval"?

samstave 3y ago
yes

samstave 3y ago

>1. Large companies pay a bonus for every patent applied and bigger one for approval. When at lockheed we had what I referred to as the "Croatian Coalition" a bunch of Croatian engineers that were all over all the patents we were filing (RFID for weapons) -- they were all so proud of all their patents (as they should be) - but they were really aggressive on filing for not just the satisfaction (getting a patent must be a great feeling, I am not yet personally on any even though I have influenced several) But they like the bonuses and internal recognition that came with them. Also, spamming the patent office would be hard unless you have deep pockets/are a patent attorney or have Big Corp funding your efforts (and rewarding them) I am sure there are cheap ways to file, but for the average person, not so much.

swagempire 3y ago

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. The lawyer's job is not to judge the quality of a patent -- in the same way a defense lawyer is not there to judge the innocence of their client. The patent lawyer is just there to file the patent and help their client get past the approval process. It is the PATENT OFFICE who's job it is to judge quality. Have several patents, btw.

meltyness 3y ago

replicability is unenforceable

KMag 3y ago

0. Large companies much prefer to settle patent disputes with "Okay, you might have a case for patents A, B, C. We have a case for you infringing on our patents D and E. We like your patents F and G. What do you like from our portfolio? Okay, and we'll throw in these 300 random patents to show we're willing to reduce our ability to drown your lawyers in paperwork. How about you throw in 200 random patents to bring down the size of your paperwork arsenal? Do we have a deal?" Edit: so at some point in the patent portfolio cross-licensing negotiation, there's a pure numbers game, so for large corporations there is some value in patents nobody is ever going to implement. At least that's my recollection from 15 years ago about why Google paid me as sole inventor of a patent. (I was working on indexing, and thought "Oh no, if someone does X, then indexing becomes incredibly harder, basically DRM for the web. Webspam could hide more easily. Oh, but if we patent X, that might make my life easier in the future." The patent lawyer zeroed in too much on my mention of CAPTCHA as a possible use case, so I'm not sure if Google could really use my patent to prevent its use as DRM/Webspam hiding. At some point, I decided pushing back against the lawyer to make the patent more broadly applicable might not be good for society. I didn't feel strongly enough to turn down my patent bonus, just strongly enough to stop pushing edits back to the lawyer.)

yieldcrv 3y ago

really, how much do large companies pay per patent? any data points?

lgleason 3y ago
Someone mentioned Lockheed, at GE they had a program that was pushed really hard on software engineers/EE's etc. with a carrot of a bonus for patents accepted and approved.
satya71 3y ago
I've seen about $5k in the past. But I haven't worked at a large company for a while.
- meragrin_ 3y ago
  Are those lawyer fees or USPTO fees?

ryandrake 3y ago

I know this is a little controversial, but I wish our software development culture would discourage patents as taboo, something to not be proud of. Software patents are a truly terrible arms race, and they essentially aren't protecting anyone except the big boys. "Having N patents" should be something that gets frowned on, not something you highlight on your resume. When asked about this myself (during interviews or whatever), I proudly boast that I have zero patents to my name and that I actively avoid being part of the problem by participating. I see it as an opportunity to 1. help steer our culture in whatever tiny way I can and 2. get up on a little soap box about the problem. In the past, I've been asked to help out with patent applications for these so-called "inventions" that I developed, and I always tell my manager "If you want to patent this, I can't stop you, but do not put my name on it or associate it with me in any way."

bdowling 3y ago
> "… do not put my name on it or associate it with me in any way." If you invented it, then they have to put your name on the application as the inventor. There’s also a declaration that the inventor is supposed to sign as part of the application. If the inventor is dead or otherwise unavailable (e.g., refuses to sign), there’s an alternative form that can be filed.
- ryandrake 3y ago
  I'd be willing to bet lots of companies play fast and loose with the "inventor" names on patents anyway. I've looked up software patents issued to companies I've worked for, and sometimes the "inventors" listed were just eng managers and likely had nothing to do with the actual grunt work of writing the code.
  - alibarber 3y ago
    "the actual grunt work of writing the code" isn't actually patentable in my experience, from Europe (inc. UK). The inventive step is the actual decision of 'we will do this thing in this way', or rather determining the 'method'. In fact, the guidelines we follow are that someone implementing the design based on some instructions, i.e, just working on a ticket, is explicitly not to be included as an inventor - unless they actually decided that's how it should be done. Of course, it's nice to work in a place whereby you get to design and implement the system and become an inventor. In my opinion and experience at least. But I can see some organisations whereby developers are popping off tickets in sprints and implementing them - but that is by definition not an inventive step.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]