|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 04:06 PM EDT |
Oh...and process/incentive changes at the USPTO might also
be helpful.
The current process appears to be...pay fee and resubmit
until patent approved. Since value ~ broadness to inventor
and cost ~rejection for USPTO, the incentive for the
inventor is to submit ridiculously broad patents and for the
USPTO to approve them. This hasn't worked out well.
It might be better to try a process like...
1. Submit -> pay fee X.
2. If reject:
a. Accept rejection, end.
b. Appeal -> submit bond 3X.
i. If appeal rejected, forfeit bond, end.
ii. If appeal accepted (proof beyond a reasonable
doubt required, presumption that USPTO is correct), resubmit
without fee, keep bond.
c. Resubmit with changes->pay fee 3X
...
Note that previously submitted patents would be considered
as prior art. so starting another submission would be
problematic.
This would at least reward the USPTO for doing its job and
discourage pushing the envelope in terms of patent coverage.
In addition, patent lifetime should start from date of
submission but patent protection should start from date of
acceptance.
Finally, for jury trials, and in general, the standard of
proof for patent infringement should be extended to 'beyond
a reasonable doubt'. That change would encourage clarity.
(Right now, there's a sort of patent lottery where any suit
has a reasonable chance of ending up at..dunno what they
said, but they probably infringed.)
--Erwin[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
