Arstechnica, Slashdot, IPBiz on peer-to-patent
The goal of the new system is to bring the expertise of the community to bear on patent claims. The goal is to supplement overworked patent examiners with community voices that can point out instances of prior art and make compelling arguments against a new patent application. Patents that survive the peer review system should in theory be strong and nonobvious claims, and the proposal suggests rewarding such claims with a longer patent term. Nate Anderson of Arstechnica.
The new service will be developed this fall with hopes to go live by next January. [Jan. 2007]
The system will only be in place on a trial basis, but if the trial goes well, it should eventually become a full-scale deployment that would run alongside the current system (companies could choose which route to pursue). Throwing the wisdom of the community at the patent problem won't fix all the issues with the process (for instance, it does nothing to address the question of whether we should even have software patents), but it may go a long way towards keeping poorly-screened patents out of the marketplace and the courtroom.
IPBiz note: The proposal is about prior art. It does not address enablement or written description, so patents such as the hydrino or applications such as those of Hwang Woo-Suk are untouched. There was no prior art for these. Further, to address whether something is or is not prior art, one has to render definitions of claim terms ("Markman hearing") and the general public is probably not up to speed on that. The idea that this is "peer review" is a misnomer, because all we have is the public submitting prior art that the examiner may consider. The examiner is still the one doing the reviewing. The examiner still only has 19.7 hours per application. There have already been complaints about flooding the examiner with "too much" prior art, and now we give the examiner more work to do. "Peer to patent" will matter if the "public" picks prior art different from what the examiner's search developed AND that prior art is more relevant.
***from Slashdot-->
the purpose of Peer to Patent is to find patents that have been issued for already made products or items that don't properly qualify for a patent. Because the USPTO usually does not have the manpower and time to thoroughly check every patent that comes into the office, many are unjustly rubber stamped.' The program will utilize a Wiki, among other tools, to get the job done."
Comments on Slashdot-->
*I struggle to see how the patent office is going to get much out of this. I also struggle to see why people should contribute (without being paid) to such a broken system. Contributing in this way will not make the system any less broken. It will more likely just make it a bit easier to keep running it.
*But then there is a problem with motivation and bias. Maker of XYZ patent is of course going to say his patent is different than or a vast improvement over patent YXZ, even if the two are virtually identical. The patent submitter has a monetary stake at getting their patent approved, so of course they will do sufficient "research" to "prove" that their patent is unique and appropriate.
Thus the need for independent reviewers. Which is what frightens me somewhat about opening the process to peers. If MS submits a patent request for a new form of technology, Apple, Sun, IBM and who ever else wants to can flood the review panel with peers with a bias. Preventing MS from acquiring a patent (even a valid one) can prove to be financially beneficial to MS's competitors.
I think this system will help the process, but there still needs to be significant over-site to ensure that people are not buying the ability to block competitors' patents.
*My second response was that, like WalMart's Wikipedia page, this will be taken over by the evil masses of paid-for goons.
*The USPTO often recruits near where I live and work. In college, they had a booth at the college career fair and were the only people with NO line whatsoever. They literally had to walk around and ask people to come talk to them. It was pretty sad.
It wasn't hard to figure out why, they were offering salaries nearly $15k lower than the competition. A CS/EE Master's degree and a 3.9-4.0 GPA would earn you something like $56k. In the DC area that's roughly $35k if you live somewhere with an average cost-of-living. Needless to say, most weren't too interested in the USPTO.
To make matters worse, the job is awful. You are given x number of patents a week, period. Whether or not you finish them you're still getting them piled on you. It's just one after the other, like sorting mail your whole life. They tried to make it sound exciting, but it just wasn't.
I spoke with some people who worked at the USPTO. They hated their lives. Their technical skills went completely to waste and they quickly learned you either become a patent lawyer or you flounder and die.
This grim picture is all the USPTO has to offer to incoming recruits, and no wonder they are understaffed. Lousy patents making it through the system makes sense when you're reduced to hiring the desperate and underqualified. That's why I'm excited about this program. It allows others to help make decisions and provide insight rather than placing the entire burden on an underpaid, understaffed government office. A much needed change. [IPBiz: this person needs to read Deming. Sets up the right preface, but reaches the wrong solution.]
The new service will be developed this fall with hopes to go live by next January. [Jan. 2007]
The system will only be in place on a trial basis, but if the trial goes well, it should eventually become a full-scale deployment that would run alongside the current system (companies could choose which route to pursue). Throwing the wisdom of the community at the patent problem won't fix all the issues with the process (for instance, it does nothing to address the question of whether we should even have software patents), but it may go a long way towards keeping poorly-screened patents out of the marketplace and the courtroom.
IPBiz note: The proposal is about prior art. It does not address enablement or written description, so patents such as the hydrino or applications such as those of Hwang Woo-Suk are untouched. There was no prior art for these. Further, to address whether something is or is not prior art, one has to render definitions of claim terms ("Markman hearing") and the general public is probably not up to speed on that. The idea that this is "peer review" is a misnomer, because all we have is the public submitting prior art that the examiner may consider. The examiner is still the one doing the reviewing. The examiner still only has 19.7 hours per application. There have already been complaints about flooding the examiner with "too much" prior art, and now we give the examiner more work to do. "Peer to patent" will matter if the "public" picks prior art different from what the examiner's search developed AND that prior art is more relevant.
***from Slashdot-->
the purpose of Peer to Patent is to find patents that have been issued for already made products or items that don't properly qualify for a patent. Because the USPTO usually does not have the manpower and time to thoroughly check every patent that comes into the office, many are unjustly rubber stamped.' The program will utilize a Wiki, among other tools, to get the job done."
Comments on Slashdot-->
*I struggle to see how the patent office is going to get much out of this. I also struggle to see why people should contribute (without being paid) to such a broken system. Contributing in this way will not make the system any less broken. It will more likely just make it a bit easier to keep running it.
*But then there is a problem with motivation and bias. Maker of XYZ patent is of course going to say his patent is different than or a vast improvement over patent YXZ, even if the two are virtually identical. The patent submitter has a monetary stake at getting their patent approved, so of course they will do sufficient "research" to "prove" that their patent is unique and appropriate.
Thus the need for independent reviewers. Which is what frightens me somewhat about opening the process to peers. If MS submits a patent request for a new form of technology, Apple, Sun, IBM and who ever else wants to can flood the review panel with peers with a bias. Preventing MS from acquiring a patent (even a valid one) can prove to be financially beneficial to MS's competitors.
I think this system will help the process, but there still needs to be significant over-site to ensure that people are not buying the ability to block competitors' patents.
*My second response was that, like WalMart's Wikipedia page, this will be taken over by the evil masses of paid-for goons.
*The USPTO often recruits near where I live and work. In college, they had a booth at the college career fair and were the only people with NO line whatsoever. They literally had to walk around and ask people to come talk to them. It was pretty sad.
It wasn't hard to figure out why, they were offering salaries nearly $15k lower than the competition. A CS/EE Master's degree and a 3.9-4.0 GPA would earn you something like $56k. In the DC area that's roughly $35k if you live somewhere with an average cost-of-living. Needless to say, most weren't too interested in the USPTO.
To make matters worse, the job is awful. You are given x number of patents a week, period. Whether or not you finish them you're still getting them piled on you. It's just one after the other, like sorting mail your whole life. They tried to make it sound exciting, but it just wasn't.
I spoke with some people who worked at the USPTO. They hated their lives. Their technical skills went completely to waste and they quickly learned you either become a patent lawyer or you flounder and die.
This grim picture is all the USPTO has to offer to incoming recruits, and no wonder they are understaffed. Lousy patents making it through the system makes sense when you're reduced to hiring the desperate and underqualified. That's why I'm excited about this program. It allows others to help make decisions and provide insight rather than placing the entire burden on an underpaid, understaffed government office. A much needed change. [IPBiz: this person needs to read Deming. Sets up the right preface, but reaches the wrong solution.]
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 4:28 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home