4 ms·

The worst part is, as far as I understand it, the person who let this go through is simply not going to be reprimanded or face any consequence whatsoever.

nness 14y ago
Why should they? Its the responsibility of USPTO to ensure its agents are acting appropriately by following the rules and standards they set out. Unless the person responsible was doing something malicious, I don't see why they should be reprimanded.
- mikegioia 14y ago
  They should be reprimanded because they will end up causing billions of dollars in legal fees over patents that should never have existed in the first place. Do you understand the collateral damage that approving frivolous patents causes?
- diminoten 14y ago
  So poor quality work should be treated the same as high quality work, in the eyes of the USPTO, then?
bathat 14y ago
Part of the problem (as I understand it) is that when patent examiners reject a patent application, they are required to give a reason from an approved list of rejection reasons. The "this already exists" reason requires the examiner to cite some sort of approved publication which describes the invention. Unfortunately, the list of approved publications is essentially "existing patents and nothing else." The patent office recently (less than a year ago) started a wiki to allow experts in certain fields to document the state of the art in that field. Another part of the problem is that patent examiners are required to examine X number of patents per unit time. Unfortunately, when a patent applicant resubmits a rejected application, the patent examiner does not get credit for examining the patent a second time. So an applicant can troll the patent examiner by repeatedly modifying the application. The examiner becomes so overwhelmed with resubmitted applications that he or she has no choice but to approve the application in order to meet quota. The result of these rules is that a patent examiner effectively can't reject a patent application unless someone has already tried to patent the exact same thing. Or, "blame the game, not the player."
- jey 14y ago
  > Unfortunately, the list of approved publications is essentially "existing patents and nothing else." This is exactly it. It sounds like a joke, but the USPTO's definition of "non-obvious" actually boils down to "isn't already patented". (Allegedly -- I admit this is hearsay, and I hope it is just some joke.)

nness 14y ago

Why should they? Its the responsibility of USPTO to ensure its agents are acting appropriately by following the rules and standards they set out. Unless the person responsible was doing something malicious, I don't see why they should be reprimanded.

mikegioia 14y ago
They should be reprimanded because they will end up causing billions of dollars in legal fees over patents that should never have existed in the first place. Do you understand the collateral damage that approving frivolous patents causes?
diminoten 14y ago
So poor quality work should be treated the same as high quality work, in the eyes of the USPTO, then?

bathat 14y ago

Part of the problem (as I understand it) is that when patent examiners reject a patent application, they are required to give a reason from an approved list of rejection reasons. The "this already exists" reason requires the examiner to cite some sort of approved publication which describes the invention. Unfortunately, the list of approved publications is essentially "existing patents and nothing else." The patent office recently (less than a year ago) started a wiki to allow experts in certain fields to document the state of the art in that field. Another part of the problem is that patent examiners are required to examine X number of patents per unit time. Unfortunately, when a patent applicant resubmits a rejected application, the patent examiner does not get credit for examining the patent a second time. So an applicant can troll the patent examiner by repeatedly modifying the application. The examiner becomes so overwhelmed with resubmitted applications that he or she has no choice but to approve the application in order to meet quota. The result of these rules is that a patent examiner effectively can't reject a patent application unless someone has already tried to patent the exact same thing. Or, "blame the game, not the player."

jey 14y ago
> Unfortunately, the list of approved publications is essentially "existing patents and nothing else." This is exactly it. It sounds like a joke, but the USPTO's definition of "non-obvious" actually boils down to "isn't already patented". (Allegedly -- I admit this is hearsay, and I hope it is just some joke.)