Patent Law

Article One praised, sort of

By Lawrence B. Ebert, Esq.

The words growing problem of bad patents sound like something taken out of Quillen and Webster. With the application acceptance rate now below 50%, one might inquire about the "growing" problem of improper rejection.

One comment to the Quinn post got to the heart of the issue, which is beyond what Quinn was discussing:

Instead of trying to change the law, let's focus on making the law we have actually work. The basic quid pro quo of disclosure for limited exclusive right is in place. We need to have the system applied so that the disclosures are in line with the priveleges bestowed. A strong 112 enforcement would clear up both the nebulous disclosures and reduce the broad overclaiming rampant in certain sectors. If we change the laws per industry, what happens for each suceeding wave of innovation? We will end up perpetually repeating the segragation of laws and will create a burdensome thicket. Building silos does not work, nor should we aim to isolate one sector of innovation from another. Cross-fertilization is an innovative well-spring that should be encouraged, not squashed.

Examination quality needs to happen the first time through. A second set of eyes is a stop-gap band-aid measure at best. Perhaps the legislature should order the Office to obey the laws we have, including executive orders that require officials to evaluate whether the current systems have something to do with the problem. The willful ignorance of the Office pertaining to its beloved production system coupled with its offensive power grab is the root of the system's failure. Let's focus on that rather than what anyone, including trolls, decide to do with their lawful property.

The commenter's remark about "first time through" resonates in Deming and previous statements by LBE. Re-examination is a form of product inspection, and a true solution is to correct problems in production, as Deming would tell you if he were still alive. Thus, re-examinations are preferred to Intellectual Ventures (as Quinn says: I do still believe that reexaminations are the way to go) but, if hypothetically in Quinn's world there is a growing problem of bad patents, re-examinations are not the way to go to solve that underlying problem.

Quinn himself did not discuss some real but not-yet-crystallized problems with what Article One is doing, described variously as front running or market manipulation.

Full post as published by IPBiz on December 16, 2008 (boomark / email).