Patent Examiners Don't Scale
from the in-case-you-were-wondering dept
Almost all of the publicly discussed plans for
patent reform tend to focus on a few minor changes to the system and then dumping a lot more money into hiring more examiners. Unfortunately, such a solution doesn't work when people don't want to be patent examiners. With the continued growth in patent applications due to the fact that companies feel they need to
patent everything just in case, and the layer of complexity in many new patents -- the backlog keeps getting bigger and bigger -- and with it, the pressure on existing patent examiners. In fact,
Slashdot is pointing to an article that notes
patent examiners are fleeing the Patent Office, as they feel that they're being overworked. They're given impossible quotas by managers who don't seem to understand how much work they need to do. While Jon Dudas, the patent office director, seems to brush off the concern by suggesting this is a minor "management" problem that can be sorted out, it actually seems to be indicative of a much bigger issue: patent examiners don't scale. The method for granting patents is out of date and can't handle the patent system we've set up. If we actually follow Dudas' own reform plan, which would grants patents to those who are "first to file" rather than "first to invent," it will actually make the problem even
worse, because it will make companies file as many patents as quickly as possible without doing all of the necessary research. So, Dudas' big plan for patent reform is to get more money to hire more patent examiners just as he has a labor problem on his hands -- and at the same time, overload them even more. Isn't it time we started looking at
real solutions for patent reform that recognize the fact that the current system obviously can'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. Other ideas include a more "open source" approach -- where patent applications are published much earlier along with an easy way for anyone in the public to object to the patent and provide prior art. These are solutions that distribute the work outwards and aren't relying on the same patent examiner system that obviously cannot handle the load created by our existing approach to patents.
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Deposit system -- lenders sometimes would have to
On the good side, some lenders mght develop an expertise in judging patents themselves and deciding which will probably stand up. The lenders might be able to judge which patents are good risks and which are bad risks, and could loan money cheaply or expensively accordingly.
Various kinds of preliminary screeners might even spring up to facilitate the inventors and lenders getting together (or staying apart if the patent is clearly a bad risk.)
The result might be a sort of competitive free-market patent examination system.
It's so crazy that it just might work! :-)
On the bad side, there might be even more scam artists saying 'pay us thousands of dollars to examine your invention and we might help you become rich' than there are already.
One problem I still see is that if a fight over an issued patent goes to litigation, patent litigation can easily cost a lot *more* than $50K
Anyone else have any (reasoned, please!) thoughts about how it might turn out?
Add Your Comment