4 ms·

> For every point, you have to take a subjective decision that is in no way trivial. Have you ever been through a non-trivial patent filing process? Any other

by blagie 3y ago

> For every point, you have to take a subjective decision that is in no way trivial. Have you ever been through a non-trivial patent filing process? Any other non-trivial administrative law case? A non-trivial court case? This is precisely why these processes are so complicated, both under the rules I proposed and the rules currently in place. It's why we have judges and lawyers. The way policy happens is people float ideas, much as I did, and as other people have. Those get discussed at a high level. If something looks reasonable, people do deep dives and work out the details. Those are further smoothed over as laws translate into regulations, and the contours are defined in case law. I don't think your comment reflects an understanding of the problem we're trying to solve, which is narrowly patent trolls, and broadly, that it's impossible to do anything without inadvertently stepping on a dozen patents. WE NEED FEWER PATENTS. > 1) Additionally to what happens today now you need to compare patents (how would you increase the cap for non obvious if you can't say A is more non obvious than B) You don't need to compare. The patent office administrative apparatus needs to adjust the bar each year. There's already a bar set by them. That's the point of delegating to an executive branch -- they can make changes like this one quickly. > 2) Additionally to what happens today now you need to decide if something was possible 9 years ago. Our search tools are not that great at "present me the image of 9 years ago" and even then not everything is public, etc. Same as prior art. A patent examiner looks and has a discussion with the patent filer. It can be invalidated in court. > 3) Additionally to what happens today now you will have same patent applied to multiple domains with small variations. Which I would like to reduce or eliminate. When LSA was invented, there was a swarm of patents applying it to every which domain, making it impossible to do much of anything. > 4) Yet another process, which now happens in court if someone thinks the patent must be defended (a granted patent does not mean it can not be later invalidated) With one difference -- and this was lack of clarity in my writing -- my process kicks in at the time a patent is filed. If I want to avoid patent trolls in my domain, I can set up a search for relevant patents. > 5) How do you decide very clearly first ? No improvement versus today. This is simple. I am switching from OR to AND. You have to be first-to-invent AND first-to-file. If you're first-to-invent, and I'm first-to-file, neither of us gets the patent. Indeed, if I'm first-to-file, but you can show that you invented before I filed, no patent is granted. The improvement is fewer patents.

vladms 3y ago
Do you know anybody working in a patent office? I know people in the European patent office and they are overwhelmed by numbers of application, they need very educated people to read through lot of (boring) documents and they do not get much incentive to be perfect (I mean salary is fixed). > needs to adjust the bar each year. You make it sound like this is moving a slider - I have strong doubts this is the case, someone need to write a description, explain it, make sure people understood how to interpret it. Doubt that changing rules each year would work well. > A patent examiner looks and has a discussion with the patent file You seem to agree that this is additional work. > Which I would like to reduce or eliminate. Making a policy must take into account side-effects. The intention can be good but the result of it can be bad > my process kicks in at the time a patent is filed One more process? There is a search already when you fill (or pre-fill don't remember the terminology) something. In my limited experience, results are - let's put it mildly - average. > if I'm first-to-file, but you can show that you invented before I filed, no patent is granted. What is the difference with today? But this is easier said than done. Patent language is complex, details are very minor and people will argue very every little thing. Fewer "active" patents and "less incentive to be a troll" would also be obtained by reducing drastically the granted period and that is clear and simple to implement.
danaris 3y ago
> WE NEED FEWER PATENTS. If a system is implemented with this as its primary guiding principle, what you will end up with is fewer good patents, and a vastly higher proportion of junk or actively malicious patents. We don't need fewer patents. We need to eliminate software patents, better fund the patent office so it can employ enough people to properly review all the applications it gets, and probably do something different with biological and pharmaceutical patents (too many of these are built heavily on public research, and AFAIK it's far too easy to make small changes and get the original patent extended if it's still lucrative).

by blagie 3y ago

vladms 3y ago

Do you know anybody working in a patent office? I know people in the European patent office and they are overwhelmed by numbers of application, they need very educated people to read through lot of (boring) documents and they do not get much incentive to be perfect (I mean salary is fixed). > needs to adjust the bar each year. You make it sound like this is moving a slider - I have strong doubts this is the case, someone need to write a description, explain it, make sure people understood how to interpret it. Doubt that changing rules each year would work well. > A patent examiner looks and has a discussion with the patent file You seem to agree that this is additional work. > Which I would like to reduce or eliminate. Making a policy must take into account side-effects. The intention can be good but the result of it can be bad > my process kicks in at the time a patent is filed One more process? There is a search already when you fill (or pre-fill don't remember the terminology) something. In my limited experience, results are - let's put it mildly - average. > if I'm first-to-file, but you can show that you invented before I filed, no patent is granted. What is the difference with today? But this is easier said than done. Patent language is complex, details are very minor and people will argue very every little thing. Fewer "active" patents and "less incentive to be a troll" would also be obtained by reducing drastically the granted period and that is clear and simple to implement.

danaris 3y ago

> WE NEED FEWER PATENTS. If a system is implemented with this as its primary guiding principle, what you will end up with is fewer good patents, and a vastly higher proportion of junk or actively malicious patents. We don't need fewer patents. We need to eliminate software patents, better fund the patent office so it can employ enough people to properly review all the applications it gets, and probably do something different with biological and pharmaceutical patents (too many of these are built heavily on public research, and AFAIK it's far too easy to make small changes and get the original patent extended if it's still lucrative).