|
Authored by: Gringo_ on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 07:54 PM EDT |
I think we can assume that when examiners
make mistakes, it is
usually in favor of the patent issuing.
It is human nature
to serve your clients - those who pay
for your services and put the bread and
butter on your
table. This bias is built in to the system there at the
USPTO.
Who does the USPTO serve? Not the public, nor the interests
of the public, for
sure. They serve their "clients" - those
who pay the fees that ensure the long
term survival of the
bureaucracy. Naturally if one of them should complain, the
squeaky wheel gets the grease. This built-in incentive to
issue patents must
be acknowledged and removed, so that the
USPTO can focus on the public good
rather than the
satisfaction of their current "clients". It's a no
brainer.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 11:13 PM EDT |
If the examiner makes a favour of the patent, it is not corrected. Only errors
denying the patent are corrected.
If the examiner's error rate is balanced between incorrect approval and
incorrect denial, the result is more incorrect approvals get through because the
applicant will appeal incorrect denials. There is no correction mechanism for
incorrect approvals prior to litigation.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 03:54 PM EDT |
...delaying patent issue will tend to make the problem
worse, as forward looking patents become more valuable the
later they are granted. (My understanding is that the
initial laser patents were deliberately delayed for over a
decade...)
...one option would be to grant patents based on time from
initial submission...
...another is to charge patent submissions significantly in
excess of actual cost of review for any valid requirements
of resubmissions or amendments. This would tend to
encourage careful consideration of patent submissions, as
rejecting a patent would be profitable.
--Erwin[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|