Businesses Prefer Stringent Patent Exam Process Rather Than Faster Grants
from the good-to-know dept
It's not clear how relevant a sample this is, but a new study suggests that businesses don't want a faster patent review process if it means quality is decreased. This, hopefully, should be a reasonable stance for just about anyone to agree on -- but there are those who keep pushing to lower the hurdles needed to get a patent. It's true that the patent process takes a lot of time, but given how many bad patents get through, making the process even easier seems like a really bad idea. In fact, many of us would prefer (greatly) if things moved in the other direction, making it much more difficult to get a patent unless there's real proof that the idea is unique and non-obvious. Unfortunately, there are those who equate the number of patents filed or granted with innovation, and therefore see no problem at all with putting in place incentives for people to file more patents and the patent office to grant them. As it stands now, the patent office has a police of "when in doubt, approve" rather than reject -- and it seems like a good place to start would be with flipping that rule. It's yet another case where metrics have gotten in the way of common sense. The patent office looks at how many patents an examiner approves, and rejecting a patent doesn't help that number. We've all seen way too many bad patents make it through -- and have seen how those bad patents hinder, rather than help, innovation. Patents are a government granted monopoly, and should be handed out only in the rarest of circumstances -- not in large batches.
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
patent race
[ link to this | view in thread ]
USPTO examiner reporting...
Mike, I'm curious where you got that information from? While I'm 100% with you in the intellectual property debate, I happen to be a contractor working on the USPTO's data warehouse and I can say with some certainty this doesn't appear to be the case, at least from the kinds of reports we support for management.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: USPTO examiner reporting...
I don't have the source with me (travelling right now), but I remember where I saw it, so I'll check when I get back to the office. However, it focused on how examiners are rated, and how they can advance and receive raises at the USPTO, which has plenty to do with how many patents they go through. Rejected patent often involve a lengthy appeal, which slows the process down. Patent examiners have basically had incentives put in place that say "when in doubt, approve." So, the end result is all that matters is approving patents.
[ link to this | view in thread ]