3 ms·

Is it not true that the problem of waiting years for one's patent to be examined could be solved by hiring more patent examiners?

by jcrites 14y ago

pestaa 14y ago
Not if additional examiners don't work in parallel, but sequentially, adding more layers to the process.
AnthonyMouse 14y ago
>Is it not true that the problem of waiting years for one's patent to be examined could be solved by hiring more patent examiners? The problem with this part of the patent system is that there are too many software patents filed. Moreover, the amount you get paid as a patent examiner is a small fraction of what you get with the equivalent computer science or engineering education in private industry. In order to fix the problem (other than by using the proper solution of eliminating software patents), they would have to do three things simultaneously: Give each examiner substantially more time to do the work of searching for prior art and fighting with the applicant's lawyers, hire significantly more examiners, and pay each examiner substantially more so as to be wage competitive with private industry and attract sufficiently high-quality examiners. Doing any without the others just expands the scope of the problem. If you hire more examiners but still don't give them enough time to vet patent applications or still don't pay them well enough to attract the sort of people who can match wits with patent applicants' teams of lawyers, all you get is bad patents faster. And, naturally, if you can get patents faster (bad or otherwise) then you increase the incentive to file patent applications (bad or otherwise), which puts more load on the patent examiners. Which they won't want to (or be allowed to) hire more of again since they just did, and they'll continue to be under pressure to shorten the time to patent issuance given those they just hired, so the pressure on each examiner to examine patents quickly instead of thoroughly increases, it becomes even easier (rather than just faster) to get bad patents, and the number of bad patent applications increases again. And, of course, doing all three of the things that would be necessary to fix that would be extraordinarily expensive, because they multiply together: You have to hire more, higher paid examiners to each examine fewer patents. Or we could just eliminate software patents. That would sort it.
- npsimons 14y ago
  Or we could just eliminate software patents. That would sort it. I tend to agree with this, but: what if we had some other rules in place, not just for software patents, but all patents? Like for instance, anyone who files a patent must also file documentation that they have searched for prior art and either not found any, or have documentation as to why their patent is different enough. If the patent examiner finds prior art that the filer didn't disclose, automatic denial of patent and the filer's privilege to file is revoked for a limited period of time. That and outlawing non-practicing entities from holding patents would probably go a long way to fixing the situation, and might even have a chance of happening.
  - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
    >If the patent examiner finds prior art that the filer didn't disclose, automatic denial of patent and the filer's privilege to file is revoked for a limited period of time. Revoking the ability to file is no real deterrent because they'll just file the next one under a different shell corporation. And you're falling into the "small inventor trap": "The little guy can't afford such a comprehensive search so you're excluding him from the patent system." (Never mind that the patent office is expected to do such a search for the amount of the filing fee.) That's the argument you'll get. >That and outlawing non-practicing entities from holding patents would probably go a long way to fixing the situation, and might even have a chance of happening. You have a much better chance of abolishing software patents than preventing trolls from holding patents in all industries -- the trolls are the main lobby for keeping software patents. The balance of major software companies is, if anything, probably somewhat against software patentability.
brown9-2 14y ago
I would argue that even if it was true, it isn't an easy and practical solution, given the fear of budget deficits and spending that has infected Congress - hiring more federal employees isn't always the easiest sell. So for the article to suggest that there is such a simple solution to this problem that the government is too stupid to overlook seems quite incorrect.

Is it not true that the problem of waiting years for one's patent to be examined could be solved by hiring more patent examiners?

by jcrites 14y ago

Is it not true that the problem of waiting years for one's patent to be examined could be solved by hiring more patent examiners?

pestaa 14y ago

Not if additional examiners don't work in parallel, but sequentially, adding more layers to the process.

AnthonyMouse 14y ago

>Is it not true that the problem of waiting years for one's patent to be examined could be solved by hiring more patent examiners? The problem with this part of the patent system is that there are too many software patents filed. Moreover, the amount you get paid as a patent examiner is a small fraction of what you get with the equivalent computer science or engineering education in private industry. In order to fix the problem (other than by using the proper solution of eliminating software patents), they would have to do three things simultaneously: Give each examiner substantially more time to do the work of searching for prior art and fighting with the applicant's lawyers, hire significantly more examiners, and pay each examiner substantially more so as to be wage competitive with private industry and attract sufficiently high-quality examiners. Doing any without the others just expands the scope of the problem. If you hire more examiners but still don't give them enough time to vet patent applications or still don't pay them well enough to attract the sort of people who can match wits with patent applicants' teams of lawyers, all you get is bad patents faster. And, naturally, if you can get patents faster (bad or otherwise) then you increase the incentive to file patent applications (bad or otherwise), which puts more load on the patent examiners. Which they won't want to (or be allowed to) hire more of again since they just did, and they'll continue to be under pressure to shorten the time to patent issuance given those they just hired, so the pressure on each examiner to examine patents quickly instead of thoroughly increases, it becomes even easier (rather than just faster) to get bad patents, and the number of bad patent applications increases again. And, of course, doing all three of the things that would be necessary to fix that would be extraordinarily expensive, because they multiply together: You have to hire more, higher paid examiners to each examine fewer patents. Or we could just eliminate software patents. That would sort it.

npsimons 14y ago
Or we could just eliminate software patents. That would sort it. I tend to agree with this, but: what if we had some other rules in place, not just for software patents, but all patents? Like for instance, anyone who files a patent must also file documentation that they have searched for prior art and either not found any, or have documentation as to why their patent is different enough. If the patent examiner finds prior art that the filer didn't disclose, automatic denial of patent and the filer's privilege to file is revoked for a limited period of time. That and outlawing non-practicing entities from holding patents would probably go a long way to fixing the situation, and might even have a chance of happening.
- AnthonyMouse 14y ago
  >If the patent examiner finds prior art that the filer didn't disclose, automatic denial of patent and the filer's privilege to file is revoked for a limited period of time. Revoking the ability to file is no real deterrent because they'll just file the next one under a different shell corporation. And you're falling into the "small inventor trap": "The little guy can't afford such a comprehensive search so you're excluding him from the patent system." (Never mind that the patent office is expected to do such a search for the amount of the filing fee.) That's the argument you'll get. >That and outlawing non-practicing entities from holding patents would probably go a long way to fixing the situation, and might even have a chance of happening. You have a much better chance of abolishing software patents than preventing trolls from holding patents in all industries -- the trolls are the main lobby for keeping software patents. The balance of major software companies is, if anything, probably somewhat against software patentability.

brown9-2 14y ago

I would argue that even if it was true, it isn't an easy and practical solution, given the fear of budget deficits and spending that has infected Congress - hiring more federal employees isn't always the easiest sell. So for the article to suggest that there is such a simple solution to this problem that the government is too stupid to overlook seems quite incorrect.