Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

This isn't something that was initiated within the patent office. An external attorney filed a reexamination request, paid for it (thousands in fees), and included literally hundreds of pages of explanation as to why the patent should be struck down, with references to hundreds of pages of prior art. From that, it is much easier for an examiner to determine whether the patent should be struck down.

This is not something that a patent examiner has the tools, training, and, most importantly, time to do on initial application. So I wouldn't expect any changes from the patent office itself.




> This is not something that a patent examiner has the tools, training, and, most importantly, time to do on initial application.

... which then begs the question: If the USPTO cannot do adequate research for granting a valid patent, then why are they granting patents?


They have a mandate to grant patents. They have a certain budget to fulfill that mandate. I imagine (although I don't know) that they do the best they can to grant valid patents within those constraints.


I don't think the patent office is under any obligation to grant any particular patent. If they are unable to properly process a patent application, the consequence should be a decade long backlog that forces lawmakers to make a more sensible law, not a mountain of bogus patents that are worse than useless.


Those fees, at least, should be charged back to the filer of the original patent, who should have supplied the necessary references in their initial patent application. Which they don't want to do, of course.




Applications are open for YC Winter 2018

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: