Keith R. Williams
06-23-2003, 05:15 PM
In article <3ef65f1b.142870583@news.tellurian.com>, fammacd=!
SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com says... On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 21:06:26 -0400, Keith R. Williams <krw@attglobal.net> wrote:In article <3ef4e2d9.45510559@news.tellurian.com>, fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com says... If you add in the peer reviewed published materials you mentioned previously, the system has some rather obvious flaws.I don't think you're going to find any argument here. The issueis more "process". How does one search *all* public documents?The process is broken, to be sure, but how does one "fix" itwithout creating more problems? For an early answer to that one you might look to Europe, where the EU is forming a new comprehensive Euro-PTO with new approaches to rules. AIUI there was no communication with the existing national PTOs - apparently they were just supposed to get the msg that "we are taking over - you are now irrelevant and out of business". So yes, things could get worse I suppose but "Brussels" has a record of having broken everything else so they're only following "form". I'd hope we could do it better.
Well, you'll have that when bureaucracy trumps elected officials.
Defining the qualifications for the position of patent examiner presents a dilemma in itself - expertise in a fast moving, highly technical field can quickly become stale and dated.Well, the USPTO was trying to hire 500+ engineers to do such. Idon't know how this has panned out (likely not well). This isn'tan unsurmountable problem. The process *may* be broken, but thatdoesn't mean there is no reason to abandon IP rights, as manyseem to be advocating. From what I see they still have many uhhh, "positions" to fill.
I see that. Note that the USPTO is one of the two "self-funded"
government organizations (indeed the USPTO makes a profit). I
haven't heard of anyone going USPTOed either. ;-)
I assume/hope with some expectation of refreshing technical knowledge. It seems impossibly difficult though - there's no substitute for getting your hands "dirty" and some kind of input from peer review by real practitioners could make a big difference.Tee IP-law guys I deal with are *very* good. Sometimes we haveto explain the widget, but they get on-board very quickly. ...ofcourse we always have to have a lawyer joke on hand to put themin their place. ;-) Trouble is....... they also seemed to get "on board" with Rambus Inc. and possibly many others.:-P
I wuz talking about the corporate types *I* deal with. They're
just as shocked about the "others" as you or I.
>I don't think we want to throw out the bath-water yet though. Certainly some reform would seem to be in order. Would you not agree that there is currently an excess of patent infringement suits in the field of computer related "hardware".Hardware? Maybe. The problem as I see it: the courts are*DUMB*. They haven't a clue about hardware or software. Yes, Iwould approve of disinterested experts (binding arbitration fircivil affairs) deciding such nonsense. However, that's not goingto happen, as long as we have courts. The Constitution tells usthat the courts are the place to whine. The courts have the right to appoint experts though... rather than just point to USPTO, who may have made the mistake in the first place, as their arbiter. I realize "disinterested" is difficult and committees have their problems.
The fact is that case law (from the SCotUS, no less) puts the
USPTO as the final *expert* in such cases. A bureaucracy with a
golden mandate isn't a good thing.
--
Keith
SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com says... On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 21:06:26 -0400, Keith R. Williams <krw@attglobal.net> wrote:In article <3ef4e2d9.45510559@news.tellurian.com>, fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com says... If you add in the peer reviewed published materials you mentioned previously, the system has some rather obvious flaws.I don't think you're going to find any argument here. The issueis more "process". How does one search *all* public documents?The process is broken, to be sure, but how does one "fix" itwithout creating more problems? For an early answer to that one you might look to Europe, where the EU is forming a new comprehensive Euro-PTO with new approaches to rules. AIUI there was no communication with the existing national PTOs - apparently they were just supposed to get the msg that "we are taking over - you are now irrelevant and out of business". So yes, things could get worse I suppose but "Brussels" has a record of having broken everything else so they're only following "form". I'd hope we could do it better.
Well, you'll have that when bureaucracy trumps elected officials.
Defining the qualifications for the position of patent examiner presents a dilemma in itself - expertise in a fast moving, highly technical field can quickly become stale and dated.Well, the USPTO was trying to hire 500+ engineers to do such. Idon't know how this has panned out (likely not well). This isn'tan unsurmountable problem. The process *may* be broken, but thatdoesn't mean there is no reason to abandon IP rights, as manyseem to be advocating. From what I see they still have many uhhh, "positions" to fill.
I see that. Note that the USPTO is one of the two "self-funded"
government organizations (indeed the USPTO makes a profit). I
haven't heard of anyone going USPTOed either. ;-)
I assume/hope with some expectation of refreshing technical knowledge. It seems impossibly difficult though - there's no substitute for getting your hands "dirty" and some kind of input from peer review by real practitioners could make a big difference.Tee IP-law guys I deal with are *very* good. Sometimes we haveto explain the widget, but they get on-board very quickly. ...ofcourse we always have to have a lawyer joke on hand to put themin their place. ;-) Trouble is....... they also seemed to get "on board" with Rambus Inc. and possibly many others.:-P
I wuz talking about the corporate types *I* deal with. They're
just as shocked about the "others" as you or I.
>I don't think we want to throw out the bath-water yet though. Certainly some reform would seem to be in order. Would you not agree that there is currently an excess of patent infringement suits in the field of computer related "hardware".Hardware? Maybe. The problem as I see it: the courts are*DUMB*. They haven't a clue about hardware or software. Yes, Iwould approve of disinterested experts (binding arbitration fircivil affairs) deciding such nonsense. However, that's not goingto happen, as long as we have courts. The Constitution tells usthat the courts are the place to whine. The courts have the right to appoint experts though... rather than just point to USPTO, who may have made the mistake in the first place, as their arbiter. I realize "disinterested" is difficult and committees have their problems.
The fact is that case law (from the SCotUS, no less) puts the
USPTO as the final *expert* in such cases. A bureaucracy with a
golden mandate isn't a good thing.
--
Keith