decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Practical Solution: | 1347 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Practical Solution:
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 10:13 AM EDT
Here is a suggestion for a practical solution. The trolls won't like it, but
the government probably will as long as they don't listen to the trolls:

Patent application costs are higher if they bounce. A portion of the fee is set
aside, to be returned if the patent passes inspection.
Patent examiners recieve a bonus for each patent application they bounce, this
bonus can come out of the return fee that didn't get returned to the filer since
it bounced.
No refiling patent applications, all applications are a new filing, and may be
considered prior art for subsequent filings.
All patents granted before this goes into effect are considered "not valid
unless refiled" and the patent holder may refile under the new system if
they wish (with all appropriate fees), with prior art considered from the date
of their original patent filing. They may do this any time until the expiry of
their patent, but their patent maintains it's old expiration date.

The Governments will love it, as it gets them lots more money, and the trolls
will hate it, because it puts the incentives in the right place.


Not all of this idea is mine, but I don't think anyone's got a patent on it.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )