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.