|
I caught up on the thread and have to agree with kalman. Reforming the examination process is really key to stopping bad patents from being issued in the first place. I'll use the Japanese patent office model. The JPO employs far fewer examiners than the USPTO after accounting for differences in terms of workload. The statistics back this up: Japanese Examiners examine 2.5 times as many applications compared to US examiners (JPO Annual Report 2013). This is only possible because under Japanese practice, the burden of proof is assumed to be on the Applicant. A JP examiner can reject 150 of your lovely claims in under three sentences. In the end you have a small set of mostly fantastic examiners who can issue logical, practical rejections without getting caught up having to write 100 pages of mostly copy pasted bullshit for every action. Compare this to the USPTO where I can hardly even understand the logic behind half of the actions I get from them. It's an army of morons producing garbage. A counterpoint is that shifting the burden gives too much power to the examiner. But this already happens in the US. Bad examiners allow bad patents and are immune. Bad examiners issue bad rejections and their supervisor backs them up every time. Really the only people you have to blame for bad patents is bad examiners. Fire the least competent 70% and reduce the burden on the ones who are left. Increase hiring and training standards. Zo fucked around with this message at 06:09 on Dec 20, 2013 |
#
¿
Dec 20, 2013 06:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 12:20 |
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Edited slightly you have just fixed every problem with all levels of government. The same could be said for the education system, or police brutality, or for that matter Congress. Except it's very feasible to reduce the individual examiner's burden, thus making this suggestion even possible, unlike your other examples. I mean, for education, how would you reduce the burden on each teacher while firing a large portion of them? Impossible. Same with cops etc. With examiners it's very easy, all you do is: Kalman posted:(It would need to be accompanied by a change from "examiner must show why it isn't patentable or it issues" to "applicant must show why it is or it doesn't issue" in order to really be effective.) (Full disclosure I work as a patent agent handling mostly US and JP cases, with a small number of EP, KR, and CN cases. The USPTO examiners are by far the least competent of the bunch in my admittedly anecdotal experience.)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2013 16:42
|
|
|
Tech sites are uniformly totally worthless for any patent related news.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
So, cls bank v alice corp. I'm not a US expert by any means (I work mostly on JP cases) but this decision reads like a mess, with very little that would seem to help lower courts or the uspt analyze even slightly more moderate claims.I honestly sympathize with that one federal circuit judge who wanted everything be valid under 101, and let 102/103 sort them out, as they undoubtedly would have for the alice corp patent.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2014 07:37
|
|