Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

1. 

   blankmeyer, 14 Jul 2005 @ 12:30pm

   
   

   This idea has promise

   I'm sure I've heard this idea somewhere before, but it is one worth further discussion (or would it be peer-review?).
   I think any (tech-minded) person will agree that the USPTO is broken and needs an overhaul. This idea would alleviate some of the backlog and protect against many of the frivolous patents we see being approved every month. Someone needs to champion this idea and work to implement it.

   [ link to this | view in thread ]

2. 

   Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2005 @ 5:01pm

   
   

   real solution

   They way to limit ridiculous patents is to limit the number of patents an individual or company can hold. If you can only have 20 active patents then you'd find those thousands of absurd 'one click' patents would quickly dissappear.
   
   Sadly, the politics of implementing such a rational policy would make it impossible.
   

   [ link to this | view in thread ]

3. 

   Ivan Sick, 14 Jul 2005 @ 5:41pm

   
   

   Re: real solution

   I really like your idea but unfortunately (still hypothetically though) it's easy for a company to have more than one name, for various purposes, multiplying that 20.

   [ link to this | view in thread ]

4. 

   Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2005 @ 7:16pm

   
   

   Re: real solution

   Yes, there are big problems with this idea that need to be solved, but it's the only idea that protects REAL inventions without burdening the rest of us with trivial rubbish.

   [ link to this | view in thread ]

5. 

   George Margolin, 30 Jul 2005 @ 11:27pm

   
   

   Peer Review of Patent equals Poor Review

   Mike -- you're clearly a very bright fellow. AND you said that peer review in science has got some problems. True. Now THINK of what inventions and patents require. First they have to be novel, useful, and have "an inventive flash" that people skilled in the art might understand but HAVE NOT COME UP WITH!
   
   Meaning hat the Poor Peers had NOT thought of it.So asking THEM to review it is an excercise in futility. MORE IMPORTANT -- PR (as in Poor Review) would eliminate the Deal that the Government suggesting when Jefferson and a few other smart guys -- created the Patent System and put it into the Constitution. The DEAL was -- that IF the inventor Disclosed his invention to the Gov -- the gov would PROTECT the secrecy of it until it issued as a patent and THEN the original inventor had a period of time in which to exploit this or stop others from using his invention. The period has been 14 years, and later 17 years from ISSUE of the patent. And is now, because of some hanky panky with the Eurpeans and Japanese -- is now 20 years FROM INITIAL FILING. That "ain't" the same as 17 years from Issue. But it's something.
   
   Now imagine what would happen if someones super duper secret invention of how to make -- let's say, an Anti Gravity device that could fit in your belt buckle.
   
   If THAT little secret were passed around the world, for everyone to see -- and yet was not YET protected -- or even granted -- What do you think would happen.
   
   I personally think that the inventor -- and the patent system would be screwed.
   
   Let's make it simple. A peer review means that the peers are suposed to have knowledge in the art. But as I said before -- they DIDN'T have enough oomph to have invented it. Why then should they be asked to critique it? Most of them would feel like fools for NOT having invented something they were supposed to be master of.
   
   Anyway Mike. BAD IDEA. In fact -- VERY BAD IDEA. But I can't blame you because others have also considered this. They were and are WRONG too.
   
   George Margolin
   A Professional American Inventor

   [ link to this | view in thread ]

6. 

   Mike (profile), 31 Jul 2005 @ 10:27am

   
   

   Re: Peer Review of Patent equals Poor Review

   Hmm. So, let me get this straight... you would RATHER have patents reviewed by people who know nothing about the subject, and have them make the determination on whether or not it's non-obvious to the skilled practitioner?
   
   Sorry. With the number of bogus patents making it through, that just doesn't cut it.
   
   As I've said before, the idea of protecting the invention doesn't make much sense. An invention is worthless unless it can be brought to market successfully. So, stop worrying about patents and get your product to market and see how it does in the marketplace.

   [ link to this | view in thread ]