More Patent Reforms Designed To Make The System Worse
from the does-no-one-think-these-things-through? dept
Joe T. Bradley writes "President Bush, as part of his 2007 fiscal budget, has revived the proposal that the Patent Office be allowed to keep all the fees it collects. Since the USPTO makes a profit, the government has been siphoning off money for years, and many critics claim that letting them keep the money will improve our patent woes. But not so fast, say some: 'If the USPTO relies only on funding from patent applicants, it is beholden to no one but patent holders, and becomes the poster-child example of regulatory capture.'" This is another bad idea from folks who clearly aren't thinking through the real problems at the root of the patent system. This is a "throw more money at the problem" type of solution, without any consideration for the unintended consequences it will lead to. Besides simply encouraging more patents (and more patent applications) it's based on the fundamentally false idea that the patent system can be solved by hiring more patent examiners. The problem, though, is that patent examiners don't scale -- and any system that encourages more patents will overwhelm however many new patent examiners are hired. The patent system needs to focus on making sure that fewer, better patents are granted -- not more problematic patents.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Correct me if I'm wrong, but...
I'm a conservative and felt forced to vote for the lesser of two evils, but I'm starting to think I should vote democrat so the republicans can actually grow a spine and rein somebody in...
This guy spends money like a drunken sailor on shore leave.
The patent office "makes a profit" because there is no direct correlation between the number of patents filed and the budget it is given, by congress, to work with. If the number of patents doubled, the "profit" would rise dramtically based on past history, because congress wouldn't allocate any more budget for operations.
I'm sure this math appeals to those MBAs who see thre world through Excel colored glassses but it is, as Mike points out, only going to lead to more problems, not less.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lesser of two evils ??????????????????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: lesser of two evils ??????????????????
Not in a haha way... More of a OMFG what is this guy doing kinda way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fee diversion at the USPTO
In the absence of spending some money, there aren't going to be enough examiners and there won't be sufficiently experienced examiners. The backlog of unexamined applications will continue to grow.
Fee diversion (under Clinton) was a budget gimmick, and should be ended.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patent examiners don't scale?
This certainly suggests that a system of peer reviewed patents that allowed various experts in the field to weigh in on patents could work better.
Some posts suggesting that peer review would be bad for the Patent Office:
http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2006/02/scientist-asks-if-peer-review-is.html
http://ipbiz.blogspot. com/2005/12/issues-of-peer-review-co-authorship.html
http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2005/10/2005-medicine- nobel-strong-argument.html
And, if you want to go further back than Hwang-gate, the 2005 Nobel, and Jan-Hendrik Schon, check out how the Royal Society "reviewed" the papers of Benjamin Franklin back in 1750.
Peer review won't work. Further, examiners do scale.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patent examiners don't scale?
http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2006/02/more-articles-on-stem-cell-funding-and.html
Peer review of patents, based upon the recent history of peer review in journals, is a bad idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]