4 ms·

Cloudflare is shrewdly calculating that there is a lot of latent, unexpressed hate toward patent trolls but that most people don't want to make a career out of

Cloudflare is shrewdly calculating that there is a lot of latent, unexpressed hate toward patent trolls but that most people don't want to make a career out of it, but might very well make a little hobby out of it, and so they get to take advantage of people who are motivated by something other than money. More deeply, the very idea of a "patent examiner" has never made sense to me. It requires being expert in all things, which is impossible. It makes more sense to take someone who is an expert in a field, and put a "patent examiner" hat on them for a little while. Ideally the patent system is not so complex that it itself requires as much or more study to be expert in than the actual subjects of the patents -- this would be a very bad sign.

saratogacx 2y ago
Patent Examiners do specialize in their fields. It isn't something that is just a common pool subject to any patent that comes into the pipe. From the USPTO[1] What kind of degree do I need to apply, and which vacancy do I need to apply to? The minimum degree required to be a utility patent examiner is a bachelor’s degree. There are dozens of STEM-related bachelor’s degree types that qualify, even if they are not the exact discipline listed in the title of the job vacancy. For example, professionals with bachelor’s degrees ranging from engineering, mathematics, astronomy, space science, geophysics, oceanography, or hydrology could all apply to the "Patent Examiner (Physics)" vacancy when it is open. To see more details about which degrees best fit with which patent examiner vacancies, view this chart[1]. You can also attend one of our upcoming webinars or office hours to chat with a current patent examiner, or email us at JoinUSPTO@uspto.gov with your specific question. [1] https://www.uspto.gov/jobs/become-patent-examiner https://www.uspto.gov/jobs/become-patent-examiner [2] https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/patent-examiner-degree-crosswalk-august-2024.pdf https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/patent-e...
- codersfocus 2y ago
  There aren't any consequences to their decisions though. Patent examiner shouldn't be a civil servant's job. Rather, it should be a "bond" process given to private, accredited individuals / organizations. If your issued patents are found invalid, your bond (which would be in the millions) is raided to pay back damages.
svieira 2y ago
> Ideally the patent system is not so complex that it itself requires as much or more study to be expert in than the actual subjects of the patents Unfortunately, "patent law" is a complex body of laws, legal decisions, and specialized procedures large enough to be its own distinct specialization for lawyers. While it's not impossible to become an expert in it without years of study, it is definitely not possible to be excellent at it. Just to put it in perspective, the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure alone weighs in at over 4K pages of text. https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/index.html https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/index.html
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
btrettel 2y ago
> Cloudflare is shrewdly calculating that there is a lot of latent, unexpressed hate toward patent trolls but that most people don't want to make a career out of it, but might very well make a little hobby out of it, and so they get to take advantage of people who are motivated by something other than money. I don't think this is a good strategy. These folks tend to have a poor understanding of patent law in my experience, and you need to understand the basics to do this right. (You fortunately don't need to know too much law to handle 90% of cases.) And these folks probably aren't very effective at patent searching even if they understand the legal parts. I think most people overestimate their own search abilities. I certainly did. Examining patents didn't level me up as much as humble me in that regard. > More deeply, the very idea of a "patent examiner" has never made sense to me. It require being expert in all things, which is impossible. [...] As saratogacx pointed out, at the USPTO, the vast majority of examiners have a specific technology they are assigned to. While the matching of examiners to their "art unit" is often pretty bad (I could go on a rant...), the situation is not as bad as you described. There are some generalist examiners, but as I understand it, they are in (basically) QA roles and don't need to know the technologies as much. Unfortunately, USPTO upper management seems to want to make examiners into generalists, which I doubt will work out as they want. I agree that periodic rotations of industry folks into patent examiner positions is a great idea. It would help the patent system and give the industry folks some appreciation for what examiners do. If you're worried about lack of expertise, you should be more worried about the courts. Judges and juries almost never have a background in the technology of the case they are working on.
- the_gorilla 2y ago
  >It would help the patent system and give the industry folks some appreciation for what examiners do. The examiners regularly approve absolute bullshit patents in my field that either obviously have prior work, and shouldn't be patentable anyway such as game mechanics. They clearly don't understand the work they're meant to be doing. Either patent law is horribly designed and needs to be razed to the ground, or it's being horribly applied.
  - btrettel 2y ago
UIUC_06 2y ago
[dead]

saratogacx 2y ago

Patent Examiners do specialize in their fields. It isn't something that is just a common pool subject to any patent that comes into the pipe. From the USPTO[1] What kind of degree do I need to apply, and which vacancy do I need to apply to? The minimum degree required to be a utility patent examiner is a bachelor’s degree. There are dozens of STEM-related bachelor’s degree types that qualify, even if they are not the exact discipline listed in the title of the job vacancy. For example, professionals with bachelor’s degrees ranging from engineering, mathematics, astronomy, space science, geophysics, oceanography, or hydrology could all apply to the "Patent Examiner (Physics)" vacancy when it is open. To see more details about which degrees best fit with which patent examiner vacancies, view this chart[1]. You can also attend one of our upcoming webinars or office hours to chat with a current patent examiner, or email us at JoinUSPTO@uspto.gov with your specific question. [1] https://www.uspto.gov/jobs/become-patent-examiner https://www.uspto.gov/jobs/become-patent-examiner [2] https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/patent-examiner-degree-crosswalk-august-2024.pdf https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/patent-e...

codersfocus 2y ago
There aren't any consequences to their decisions though. Patent examiner shouldn't be a civil servant's job. Rather, it should be a "bond" process given to private, accredited individuals / organizations. If your issued patents are found invalid, your bond (which would be in the millions) is raided to pay back damages.

svieira 2y ago

> Ideally the patent system is not so complex that it itself requires as much or more study to be expert in than the actual subjects of the patents Unfortunately, "patent law" is a complex body of laws, legal decisions, and specialized procedures large enough to be its own distinct specialization for lawyers. While it's not impossible to become an expert in it without years of study, it is definitely not possible to be excellent at it. Just to put it in perspective, the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure alone weighs in at over 4K pages of text. https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/index.html https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/index.html

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

btrettel 2y ago

> Cloudflare is shrewdly calculating that there is a lot of latent, unexpressed hate toward patent trolls but that most people don't want to make a career out of it, but might very well make a little hobby out of it, and so they get to take advantage of people who are motivated by something other than money. I don't think this is a good strategy. These folks tend to have a poor understanding of patent law in my experience, and you need to understand the basics to do this right. (You fortunately don't need to know too much law to handle 90% of cases.) And these folks probably aren't very effective at patent searching even if they understand the legal parts. I think most people overestimate their own search abilities. I certainly did. Examining patents didn't level me up as much as humble me in that regard. > More deeply, the very idea of a "patent examiner" has never made sense to me. It require being expert in all things, which is impossible. [...] As saratogacx pointed out, at the USPTO, the vast majority of examiners have a specific technology they are assigned to. While the matching of examiners to their "art unit" is often pretty bad (I could go on a rant...), the situation is not as bad as you described. There are some generalist examiners, but as I understand it, they are in (basically) QA roles and don't need to know the technologies as much. Unfortunately, USPTO upper management seems to want to make examiners into generalists, which I doubt will work out as they want. I agree that periodic rotations of industry folks into patent examiner positions is a great idea. It would help the patent system and give the industry folks some appreciation for what examiners do. If you're worried about lack of expertise, you should be more worried about the courts. Judges and juries almost never have a background in the technology of the case they are working on.

the_gorilla 2y ago
>It would help the patent system and give the industry folks some appreciation for what examiners do. The examiners regularly approve absolute bullshit patents in my field that either obviously have prior work, and shouldn't be patentable anyway such as game mechanics. They clearly don't understand the work they're meant to be doing. Either patent law is horribly designed and needs to be razed to the ground, or it's being horribly applied.
- btrettel 2y ago

UIUC_06 2y ago

[dead]