|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 20 2013 @ 08:26 AM EST |
Seriously. Whether possible or not.
Wayne
http://madhatter.ca
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 20 2013 @ 09:00 AM EST |
Simple solution.
No patents issued unless they actually do what's needed to show that the patent
would be a net gain for society.
No, I don't expect many patents would issue under that rule being applied. That
being a net gain for society is somewhat of a tautology.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: StormReaver on Wednesday, February 20 2013 @ 09:13 AM EST |
If patents were issued just for actual inventions that deserve to be called
such, then the patent office would have the time to actually do its job.
No patent should be issued if it cannot be adequately vetted. The current
practice of issue-by-default is a smoking sign that the patent system is
horribly broken.
Actual innovation increases in the absence of this particular form of Communism
(government deciding who will produce what, which is what the patent system has
become), and decreases with the increase in patents.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DannyB on Wednesday, February 20 2013 @ 10:07 AM EST |
It would be far too expensive to conduct a prior art search that
includes all relevant art throughout the world, even if such art was somehow
available.
That's why I would propose that the fee to file a
patent that is rejected should be very high and cover the costs of such
research. The fee to file a patent that genuinely benefits society and is
granted should be very low to protect even poor individual inventors. It also
puts the right incentives in place for the USPTO.--- The price of freedom
is eternal litigation. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 20 2013 @ 12:27 PM EST |
Research is a waste of money, when it could be going to patent attorneys
instead![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 20 2013 @ 12:33 PM EST |
If the USPTO can not perform the examinations required to determine the
validity of a patent in a patent application, then the patent should be
automatically declared invalid.
This can be appealed, but with an application of US$5,000,000,000 plus
patent clerk time to be billed at US$500,000,000 for the first 100 hours, or
part thereof. If more time for research, examination, etc is required, then a
further US$50,000,000 for each additional 100 hours. or part thereof, is to be
paid.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dio gratia on Wednesday, February 20 2013 @ 01:44 PM EST |
Lee Hollar's quote (PDF 81.1 KB), Introductory Statement of
Professor Lee A. Hollaar for the Panel Discussion on Inter Partes Reexamination
at the United States Patent and Trademark Office February 17, 2004.
35 USC § 101 tells us
"Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture,
or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain
a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title",
which raises the question of what strength 'subject to the conditions and
requirements of this title' actually has. The conditions and requirements
including novelty
("
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless— " and non-obvious subject
matter ("A patent may not be obtained ...").
The statutes don't say
anything about the patent office giving up because it's too hard and handing out
patent's like candy.
Professor Hollaar continues:
And the
expense of getting a patent plays an important, but often overlooked, role in
the effectiveness of patent examination. If the cost of getting a patent is too
high, inventors won’t apply for patents, perhaps keeping their inventions as
trade secrets, and descriptions of the state of the art won’t end up in the
place where they can be most easily found by examiners and others: the
collection of issued (and pending) patents.
We saw the problems this causes
when the Office discouraged the filing of patent applications for software-based
inventions. (Not by having high costs, but promoting the perception that such
patents wouldn’t be granted.) Many techniques remained trade secrets, so that it
is difficult now to cite them as prior art when they are reinvented, or find
them in a prior art collection.
This is why reexamination is not an
admission that the patent system is flawed, but a vital part in keeping its
application costs reasonable while weeding out those patents that should not
have been initially granted. It substitutes an administrative procedure for
lengthy and expensive infringement litigation, and permits the removal of a
“sword of Damocles” by somebody aware of a patent suspected of being
invalid.
You could note that Professor Hollaar does not hold a law
degree and his claim to fame for Intellectual Property law is having been
involved in the CONTU Report, the Copyright Act of 1976 as a House staffer and
some involvement in the DMCA. Some portion of his involvement in law matters
can be discerned from materials at
digital-law-online.info.
You could wonder why Professor Hollaar's
remarks aren't see as questioning the presumption of validity of patents? From
the last paragraph:
The FTC also recommended changing the burden of
proof necessary to find a patent invalid should be changed from “clear and
convincing evidence” to “the preponderance of the evidence.” Rather than change
the burden of proof in litigation, it might be better to require all questions
of validity raised in litigation to be first handled in reexamination, where
there is no presumption of validity or deference to the past decision of an
examiner, allowing the court to review the reexamination decision with proper
deference.
You might expect a presumption of validity for issued
patents would be incompatible with applicable statute conditions of novelty and
non-obviousness, not to mention patent subject matter, being too hard to pursue
during prosecution. Perhaps any question of balance should involve
Constitutional purpose ("To promote the Sciences and Arts") and ask how the
defensive burden of litigation and reexamination of uncertain quality patents
promotes any art other than that of patent law practice?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: globularity on Thursday, February 21 2013 @ 02:41 AM EST |
I have to love Lee's logic. It is not possible for a large government department
to do a proper job in issuing an individual patent but each and every member of
the IEEE that Lee purports to represent has to do a proper job for every
patentable element of their work tested against all patents.
The guy is a clown who should be removed from the IEEE
---
Windows vista, a marriage between operating system and trojan horse.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|