|
|
|
| Authored by: trevmar on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 04:24 AM EDT |
The problem is when the examiner says "you can't possibly have implemented
that invention" and starts imposing their limited knowledge of
implementation on your wide understanding of the patent's utility, and how you
have used it. Sometimes you have no choice but keep filing amendments, not to
"wear the examiner down" by helping them to understand the inventor's
perspective, but to get them to reverse initial mistakes.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 04:31 AM EDT |
The reason for any continuations is the delay. They get priority from the date
of the patent application, and they get 20 years from the date of issue. So it
clearly makes it in their benefit to increase the gap between the two.
The ability to get patents on others inventions by filing continuances that
claim things not in the original patent is just broken.
IMHO, you should get X years from the date of submission, and get protection
from date of issue. And if your patent is rejected, you can challenge or fight
based on your original wording, or start again with a new application and a new
later priority date. Indeed, I cannot understand how this is not the current
status - anything else is just asking to be misused.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 05:35 AM EDT |
The problem, as I see it, is that no one can clearly see
when a patent is going to expire, due to the judicious use
of continuations and other legal chicanery. Therefore it
would seem to be simplest to make the expiry date a hard and
fast one.
Upon payment of an application fee for a patent, it would be
assigned an expiry date. This date would set the lifespan
of the patent and would not change. Each patent would have
four states. Pending approval, Approved, Rejected and
Expired.
No patent will be examined or put into the patent library
until the fee has been paid, and until that point it has no
validity. Whilst in the library it would remain active in
one of three states, Pending, Approved or Rejected until the
expiry date. Up until that point the patentee can amend it
as often as they wish. This would allow for a rejected
patent to be moved from rejected to approved if the patentee
was willing to pay for further examination. After the
expiry date the patent enters the public domain. Only
patents that are in the approved category
may be litigated. At that point the patentee can litigate
for the period that the patent was approved to the present,
and negotiate a licence for the remainder of the patent's
lifespan.
No continuation or re-examination can extend the life of a
patent. A patent re-examination by a hostile party, such as
a party to litigation on infringement would not be able to
move a patent from approved into pending, in order to stay
such litigation. A patent rejected through a hostile re-
examination would become rejected from the date of the start
of the re-examination. If the patentee seeks to regain
approval for the patent then the period available for
licencing or litigation starts from the point at which
approval status is regained.
I am sure there are scenarios under this proposed system
that would seem unfair, they could be addressed. The present
system however in most countries is manifestly skewed in
favour of N. P. E.s who have nothing to lose by
"submarineing"a patent to ambush real innovators.
I had an account once but lost the password.
Tailgunner30UK.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 08:27 AM EDT |
Continuation applicants would be incentivized,
rather than discouraged. Putting them at the
bottom of the pile provides more delay, which
is very much a goal.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 11:05 AM EDT |
Let's say the initial patent fee is $5000. (I don't know what it actually is,
but this is just an example)
Resubmit, or file for a continuance? $10000.
Resubmit again, or file for another continuance? $20000.
By the time e.g. Apple submits patent 8,086,604 the 10th time (which is when the
patent examiner finally caved in - true story), just that submission will have
cost them $2.5 million, and they will probably have spent over $5 million total.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: hardmath on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 11:08 AM EDT |
I'm reminded of a Field Trouble Report (FTR) we filed
with Unisys back in
the day when asked to test a new suite of
basic Internet applications they
rolled out. We found a
defect in the FTP application's file naming, as
compared with
published RFCs.
The eventual reply from Unisys engineering
was "Works as
implemented."
'Nuff said?
---
Recursion is the
opprobrium of the mathists. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
