

Obama: Patent office's system is 'embarrassing' - bensummers
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/76055-obama-patent-offices-system-is-embarrassing

======
seldo
The embarrassing part of the patent system is not how long it takes but the
way patents have been perverted from their original purpose.

The point of a patent was that you would get an exclusive license to your
invention for 8 years. In exchange, you would provide detailed instructions on
how to duplicate your invention so that after 8 years, other people could
build it. It was supposed to _spread_ innovation. It was a trade you made with
the government: they would protect you, you would inform them.

Instead we have patent trolls who build nothing and use patents to extort
money from those who do, actively hindering development of new products. The
patents granted these days do not include instructions on how to build a
device, they just say "I do it this way so now you can't". It's a disgrace.

If it's possible for somebody else to copy your invention without reverse-
engineering your product, then you shouldn't be granted a patent.

~~~
smokinn
_If it's possible for somebody else to copy your invention without reverse-
engineering your product, then you shouldn't be granted a patent._

No, you should be awarded the patent. It's the person who reverse-engineered
your invention and did it a different way who shouldn't be found as be
infringing. They should also be granted a patent for instructions on how to
make the same invention a different way, this way both become public knowledge
and once the patent runs out (right now that's basically never) someone who
reads both may be inspired to again make the same invention, perhaps combining
both into a more optimal device.

Other than that, I fully agree.

~~~
seldo
I see what you mean, but I was referring more to the situation where merely
the existence of the product is enough to show how it's done -- e.g. the
infamous "1-click" patent, which doesn't describe a technology but instead a
method.

My point was that a patent was supposed to be a trade: monopoly for
blueprints. If nobody needs your blueprints, then why are we granting you a
monopoly? That should be the yardstick, and the bias should be towards denying
patents rather than granting them.

------
LargeWu
I heard the patent office wants to modernize their system, but they can't
because there's a patent already covering 'a system to electronically manage
patent submissions...'

~~~
ShabbyDoo
They just have to negotiate a royalty agreement with the patent holder.

It would be a clever denial-of-service attack to start filing patents that
would preclude the USPTO from "practicing" its work without negotiating
agreements with patent holders.

~~~
ubernostrum
The US government has -- and has been known to use -- the ability to exempt
itself or its contractors from patent liability for specific purposes
(typically national security).

~~~
electromagnetic
I'm sure it would be simple to bring out legislation that prevents "Patents
that impede the ability of the Patent Office's performance of duty".

~~~
mkramlich
It would be simple... except I have a patent on making that kind of
legislation.

------
dpcan
He's talking about the receiving, printing, scanning, and management of
patents being embarrassing.

He wants to speed up the process by which big business can cripple innovation.

~~~
jbooth
He said that? I didn't see it.

Must have been printed between the lines.

~~~
pohl
It's there, on the lines, not in between them. The flaws that he's pointing
out are, in fact, inefficiencies for which I am thankful, for the exact
reasons dpcan mentioned.

"Believe it or not, in our patent office -- now, this is embarrassing -- this
is an institution responsible for protecting and promoting innovation -- our
patent office _receives more than 80 percent of patent applications
electronically, then manually prints them out, scans them, and enters them
into an outdated case management system,_ " Obama said a today's Forum on
Modernizing Government.

~~~
decode
Apparently, the PTO doesn't actually do this anymore. President Obama was
misinformed in his statement.

[http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/01/14/president-obama-
calls-u...](http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/01/14/president-obama-calls-uspto-
filing-system-embarrassing/)

------
bensummers
The processes, not the patents it's granting, however.

------
10ren
"This is _one_ of the reasons why the average processing time for a patent is
roughly three years." [emphasis added]

For an average patent, what percentage of those 3 years is spent on printing,
scanning and entering? If it's one day, then that's the maximum time that
could be saved. Profile twice, optimize once.

~~~
InclinedPlane
Let's say it takes a mere day to process a patent application the roundabout
way (printing, scanning, etc.). However, the system is near or above 100%
capacity because total throughput is slow. Even if they have enough staff to
match the needed throughput they still have a 3 year backlog. So even though
they can process 1 year of patents in 1 year, it still takes 3 years to make
it to the head of the line. Now, if you cut down overhead you'll be able to
get rid of that 3 year backlog and get to processing current applications in
closer to real-time.

------
tptacek
I don't know what "average processing time" means, but the amount of time it
takes for a patent to issue is more like 5-7 years.

~~~
decode
It depends a lot on what field the patent is in, but less than 20% of utility
patents take 5+ years to issue. It looks like the average time has been about
3 to 3 1/2 years recently.

[http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/07/patent-
application-p...](http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/07/patent-application-
pendency-percent-of-applications-still-pending.html)

This about 3 years old, but shows the differences between different types of
patents:

<http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2007/02/prosecution_dat.html>

Software patents are definitely on the long side of things.

~~~
tptacek
Sorry, I meant software patents. None of mine have taken less than 5 years.

