« uspto Public Search Room Moving to Alexandria, virginia - Opens Monday 9-27-04 | Main | What happens in Your Lawyers Office . . . »
September 27, 2004
Patent Lawsuits Stifle Innovation
From the New York Times
According to a couple of professors, the patent system is broken. In their forthcoming book, "Innovation and Its Discontents: How Our Broken Patent System Is Endangering Innovation and Progress, and What to Do About It," the duo asserts that a few mistakes in the system have had monumental consequences.
The establishment of a single federal appeals court in the early 1980s was one such mistake, according to the authors. Another was the change in financing of the USPTO. Apparently, allowing the office to pay for itself was a bad idea.
The authors point out that as more patents are sought, examiners become more pressed for time. This reduces the quality of patents issued. Basically, the easier it is to get a patent, the less the patent is worth.
The authors set out a few goals in the book that seem worthy of consideration. First, get rid of the notion that a patent examiner only needs a few hours to study relevant technology before making a decision on patentability. Second, eliminate the uniform approach for all patents. It makes sense to spend more time and money on inventions that are more important to society.
The authors think it is essential to get more information to examiners. One way they think this is feasible is to provide incentive for third party involvement.
The authors admit that substantial change will not happen until corporations realize that changes in patent law can impact their profitability as much as tax changes. Once this happens, the pool of patent lobyists will broaden beyond a few patent lawyers in the D.C. area.
The authors also criticize the litigation of patents, claiming that the money should be spent on the patent application process. They say that lawsuits place emphasis on the fight over the idea, diverting resources from innovation.
In my opinion, this actually makes sense. Less litigation would result in a level of certainty with regard to the validity of a patent. This would, in turn, allow companies to accurately determine the value, without worrying about a later determination of invalidity.
The book comes out in November, and you can pre-order at Amazon.com for $20.37. It sounds interesting, so I'm adding it to my Christmas list.
Posted by at 06:33 PM.
Permalink: Patent Lawsuits Stifle Innovation
| Comments (2)
| Sphere: Related Content
Interesting. What do you think about their issues? Do you agree?I do think that the patent system is a bit wonky. I was always surprised at the level of technical non-sophistication of the system, since the entire purpose of the patent system is to properly deal with protecting innovation... not really eating your own dog food.
Posted by: Jake at September 30, 2004 03:10 PM
Jake,I think that lawsuits that invalidate patents are a problem. There are some great posts over at http://www.krajec.com/blog/ on the issue. In an ideal world, the patent examiners would have the time to determine if a patent should actually be granted, instead of granting patents and letting the court system decide if it should have been granted.I honestly don't know who can do a better job: an expert with a few short hours, or the court system (lawyers, judges, a jury of average people) with a few short years. I do know that the cost involved in the latter choice is extreme, and deciding validity after the fact seems silly.I guess the US system is better than some countries where a patent is automatically granted without any review.
Posted by: Melody Wirz at September 30, 2004 05:48 PM
