Recent Features
| |||||||||||||
BT Sues Google for Patent Infringements (Wired)BT Sues Google for Patent Infringements (Wired)Posted Jan 12, 2012 10:02 UTC (Thu) by anselm (subscriber, #2796)In reply to: BT Sues Google for Patent Infringements (Wired) by SecretEuroPatentAgentMan Parent article: BT Sues Google for Patent Infringements (Wired)
As for revenue the patent offices are supposed to be self funded AFAIR, one problem with the current system is that the (US, at least) patent office gets to charge fees for patents that are actually granted, but not for sub-standard applications that are eventually refused. This creates a powerful incentive on the part of the patent office to wave applications through and let the courts sort things out later, even for stuff that any reasonable person skilled in the field would refuse at first sight – somebody once said that, to the patent office, »obvious« means »obvious to a person with an IQ of 60«. This suggests one obvious improvement to the system, namely to have failed applications incur patent office fees of the same order of magnitude as granted patents – so there is less bias towards granting rather than refusing patents. The fees for previous failed attempts could be reduced or waived if an application is improved to a point where it actually becomes patent-worthy, and the failure fees should rise in proportion to the size of the applying company's patent portfolio (since the more patents a company holds, the more it can be expected to know how to apply for another one). There should also be a hefty surcharge on the failure fee for companies trying to game the system and/or waste the patent office's time by attempting to patent stuff that is patently (!) obvious and/or non-novel, such as hyperlinks in 20xx.
(Log in to post comments)
BT Sues Google for Patent Infringements (Wired) Posted Jan 14, 2012 19:22 UTC (Sat) by SecretEuroPatentAgentMan (guest, #66656) [Link]
> AFAIR, one problem with the current system is that the (US, at least) patent office gets to charge fees for patents that are actually granted, but not for sub-standard applications that are eventually refused.
First of all, there are many kinds of fees, also filing fees:
As for sub-standard applications, no patent attorney/agent I have met drafts sub standard applications. While the name of this person rarely becomes publicly known it is known to the applicant and we do have a reputation to maintain. Shoddy work can kill an application and that makes the applicant unhappy. Also a well drafted application can be refused simply because the Examiner found fatal prior art that was not known to the applicant.
> This creates a powerful incentive on the part of the patent office to wave applications through and let the courts sort things out later
At the USPTO, EPO and many other places the Examiners work according to a points system where sloppy work is not part of the objective. Previously at the USPTO the incentive system worked towards multiple rejections and continuations that apparently got out of hand and had to be amended. Even so getting a grant is not trivial, particularly after US Supreme Court decisions in Bilski and KSR. EPO has always been a hard nut and getting harder all the time.
> There should also be a hefty surcharge on the failure fee for companies trying to game the system
There already is something called Inequitable Conduct and that is fatal to the patent as well as the career of the patent attorney/agent who tried this. This is a profession where reputation is important and where ranking lists of patent law firms and individual persons are listed. I cannot see gaming the system could be a problem in light of sanctions such as these. You could in practice be barred for life.
|
|||||||||||||