Comments on: Time for Patent Reform http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2006/02/time_for_patent.html Dispatches from a Small Business Sun, 12 Feb 2012 09:39:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Bob Smith http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2006/02/time_for_patent.html/comment-page-1#comment-2368 Bob Smith Mon, 27 Feb 2006 23:06:55 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2006/02/time_for_patent.html#comment-2368 <p>There are actually 2 problems here. First, a computer science degree isn't a permissible qualification for a patent examiner, so patent examiners are invariably clueless when it comes to software patents and, sometimes, hardware patents. Second, the absurd language used in patent applications to describe the invention is very different from that generally used in the trade or industry of the applicant. Even if the patent examiner is an expert in the field, determining what the application actually covers and whether it's "novel" is often so difficult that it's easier for the examiner to rubber-stamp the application than go through the headache of deciphering the claim.</p> There are actually 2 problems here. First, a computer science degree isn’t a permissible qualification for a patent examiner, so patent examiners are invariably clueless when it comes to software patents and, sometimes, hardware patents. Second, the absurd language used in patent applications to describe the invention is very different from that generally used in the trade or industry of the applicant. Even if the patent examiner is an expert in the field, determining what the application actually covers and whether it’s “novel” is often so difficult that it’s easier for the examiner to rubber-stamp the application than go through the headache of deciphering the claim.

]]> By: Max Lybbert http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2006/02/time_for_patent.html/comment-page-1#comment-2367 Max Lybbert Mon, 27 Feb 2006 22:40:07 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2006/02/time_for_patent.html#comment-2367 <p>There happen to be a certain number of back doors in the patent examination process that the harm from the broken system is reduced. However, the basic concept is broken from the start. First, we have a bureaucratic government body that is supposed to determine if something is "non-obvious" (basically "creative"). Why are we surprised when these guys get it wrong? Second, we hand out identical patent terms for drugs (where the research involved is incredibly expensive, and where getting the FDA to approve a new drug can take several years, and where a "cutting edge" drug can be fifteen years old) and software (where economics are very different).</p> <p>The good news is that most patent examiners reject the first application as a way of getting the applicant to explain things better. This is good because that rejection establishes an invention that is not patentable (Google "markman hearing" for more information). The bad news is that patent applicants are figuring this out, and I bet they're filing applications meant to lose that first round.</p> <p>Oh well, the government bureaucracy is working on changing things. But, to be honest, I'm not holding my breath.</p> There happen to be a certain number of back doors in the patent examination process that the harm from the broken system is reduced. However, the basic concept is broken from the start. First, we have a bureaucratic government body that is supposed to determine if something is “non-obvious” (basically “creative”). Why are we surprised when these guys get it wrong? Second, we hand out identical patent terms for drugs (where the research involved is incredibly expensive, and where getting the FDA to approve a new drug can take several years, and where a “cutting edge” drug can be fifteen years old) and software (where economics are very different).

The good news is that most patent examiners reject the first application as a way of getting the applicant to explain things better. This is good because that rejection establishes an invention that is not patentable (Google “markman hearing” for more information). The bad news is that patent applicants are figuring this out, and I bet they’re filing applications meant to lose that first round.

Oh well, the government bureaucracy is working on changing things. But, to be honest, I’m not holding my breath.

]]> By: Jay http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2006/02/time_for_patent.html/comment-page-1#comment-2366 Jay Mon, 27 Feb 2006 21:13:13 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2006/02/time_for_patent.html#comment-2366 <p>I'm with you on this, including the observation of karma coming back at RIM over the period of time when they were popularly known as LIM: Lawsuits In Motion.</p> I’m with you on this, including the observation of karma coming back at RIM over the period of time when they were popularly known as LIM: Lawsuits In Motion.

]]>