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
Sometimes the examiner makes mistakes | 310 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Client/server relationship cannot help but distort the outcome...
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 | # ]

Sometimes the examiner makes mistakes
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 | # ]

Sometimes the examiner makes mistakes
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 | # ]

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 )