3 ms·

The question is: Will it (only) hit the real problem makers? For me, patent trolls are only a symptom and not the real problem. Patent trolls are a symptom of

The question is: Will it (only) hit the real problem makers? For me, patent trolls are only a symptom and not the real problem. Patent trolls are a symptom of an overstretched patent system, where everybody (with enough money) can patent anything (also stupid and trivial stuff). Where 50 years ago, one patent was made, 10 or 100 patents are made to secure any detail of the "invention". And many, many patents are made, that would have not have the smallest chance of been patented. Remember: The patent application for the Z3 (one of the first computers) was denied. [1] The problem is: How to distinguish small inventors (for which the patent system in former days should give security) which do not have the capital to produce their invention from so called "patent trolls". My fear is, that the legislation will fail to make a good enough distinction. For big corporations it is a good thing to redirect the public agenda from the patent system to the smaller topic of "patent trolls". Big corporations that make many thousands patents a year, are also a part of the problem and not "patent trolls" alone. [1] http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/file_download.php/875fd251dc5edb66b4db4818001eb36agermany_zuse.pdf http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/file_download.php/875fd251dc5... See Abstract

BurningFrog 12y ago
The line between patentable and not patentable inventions is very fuzzy, and always seems to drift toward allowing a little more each year. Fun thought experiment: What if the patent office was only allowed to issue a certain number of patents per year, and was directed to pick the most worthy ones.
- NeverEnough 12y ago
  that's an interesting thought. it could be done monthly or quarterly as well.
- PythonicAlpha 12y ago
  The US patent office is paid by the patents it grants. So this idea will never be realized ... Also the numbers of patents are presented every year to prove, how grand the nation is. Nobody wants to spoil that. (BTW: That would be a real patent reform)
  - throwawaykf05 12y ago
    > The US patent office is paid by the patents it grants. Not exactly, the USPTO is funded by the patents it examines and keeps active (maintenance fees). Issuance fees are actually small compared to the rest of the fees involved in examination. Additionally an issuance happens only once, but rejections are unbounded. If making money was an incentive, they'd do much better by repeatedly rejecting applications and forcing applicants to keep paying for continued examination rather than issuing them.
    - PythonicAlpha 12y ago
      Ok, I did not dive to much in the detail. But I don't think, that repeated rejections would make the patent office happier. First of all, they would create much (political) pressure from the big corporations and second if they reject to much, the number of patent applications would decrease. Third, they would cash in less maintenance fees.
      - throwawaykf05 12y ago
        There actually was an unofficial policy of "reject everything" instituted by the Director of the PTO during the Bush era in a misguided attempt to bolster quality. What happened was not that people stopped applying, but the patent backlog grew huge. Sure, some gave up, but by and large most kept trying. Maintenance fees are quite a bit higher, but they are bounded (only 3 times over the life of a patent). Also, they are not guaranteed, because often a patentee finds out that the patent is not worth much due to the vagaries of the market and abandons it. However, it would be interesting to model this as a maximization problem given enough statistics about the probabilities of applying, continuing prosecution and abandonment... In any case, this is all academic because the PTO gets to keep only flat amount of the money it brings in. Everything extra goes back to the Fed. Money is really not an incentive for the PTO.
- Animats 12y ago
  The line between patentable and not patentable inventions is very fuzzy, and always seems to drift toward allowing a little more each year. That hasn't been true for several years, and the PTO has been very tough on software patents since the Supreme Court decided Alice v. CLS. The PTO is currently rejecting applications that fail the "machine or transformation of matter" test, although sometimes they can be argued out of a rejection. The Alice decision is rather unclear, which annoys everybody. The "patent troll" problem isn't that big. The EFF's data indicate that almost all the bulk infringement claims come from three lawyers in the Eastern District of Texas.
  - PythonicAlpha 12y ago
    Of course, every development also has its counter-development -- specially when a big court gives new guidelines. Everybody (the examiners, people who think about the system and judges) can see, that the system is overstretched. So a reaction was very much necessary. But there are strong forces, that are pulling the system into the wrong direction. Big corporations, patent lawyers and investors want the overstretched system, because it is good for their profit. It is good for dinosaur corporations that want to defend their "claim" against smaller and more agile competitors.

BurningFrog 12y ago

The line between patentable and not patentable inventions is very fuzzy, and always seems to drift toward allowing a little more each year. Fun thought experiment: What if the patent office was only allowed to issue a certain number of patents per year, and was directed to pick the most worthy ones.

NeverEnough 12y ago
that's an interesting thought. it could be done monthly or quarterly as well.
PythonicAlpha 12y ago
The US patent office is paid by the patents it grants. So this idea will never be realized ... Also the numbers of patents are presented every year to prove, how grand the nation is. Nobody wants to spoil that. (BTW: That would be a real patent reform)
- throwawaykf05 12y ago
  > The US patent office is paid by the patents it grants. Not exactly, the USPTO is funded by the patents it examines and keeps active (maintenance fees). Issuance fees are actually small compared to the rest of the fees involved in examination. Additionally an issuance happens only once, but rejections are unbounded. If making money was an incentive, they'd do much better by repeatedly rejecting applications and forcing applicants to keep paying for continued examination rather than issuing them.
  - PythonicAlpha 12y ago
    Ok, I did not dive to much in the detail. But I don't think, that repeated rejections would make the patent office happier. First of all, they would create much (political) pressure from the big corporations and second if they reject to much, the number of patent applications would decrease. Third, they would cash in less maintenance fees.
    - throwawaykf05 12y ago
      There actually was an unofficial policy of "reject everything" instituted by the Director of the PTO during the Bush era in a misguided attempt to bolster quality. What happened was not that people stopped applying, but the patent backlog grew huge. Sure, some gave up, but by and large most kept trying. Maintenance fees are quite a bit higher, but they are bounded (only 3 times over the life of a patent). Also, they are not guaranteed, because often a patentee finds out that the patent is not worth much due to the vagaries of the market and abandons it. However, it would be interesting to model this as a maximization problem given enough statistics about the probabilities of applying, continuing prosecution and abandonment... In any case, this is all academic because the PTO gets to keep only flat amount of the money it brings in. Everything extra goes back to the Fed. Money is really not an incentive for the PTO.
Animats 12y ago
The line between patentable and not patentable inventions is very fuzzy, and always seems to drift toward allowing a little more each year. That hasn't been true for several years, and the PTO has been very tough on software patents since the Supreme Court decided Alice v. CLS. The PTO is currently rejecting applications that fail the "machine or transformation of matter" test, although sometimes they can be argued out of a rejection. The Alice decision is rather unclear, which annoys everybody. The "patent troll" problem isn't that big. The EFF's data indicate that almost all the bulk infringement claims come from three lawyers in the Eastern District of Texas.
- PythonicAlpha 12y ago
  Of course, every development also has its counter-development -- specially when a big court gives new guidelines. Everybody (the examiners, people who think about the system and judges) can see, that the system is overstretched. So a reaction was very much necessary. But there are strong forces, that are pulling the system into the wrong direction. Big corporations, patent lawyers and investors want the overstretched system, because it is good for their profit. It is good for dinosaur corporations that want to defend their "claim" against smaller and more agile competitors.