On Nov 18, 11:00*am, Richard Clark wrote:
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 07:04:03 +0000 (UTC), "Geoffrey S. Mendelson"

wrote:
While it was very limited in its understanding of the problems,
at least it was an attempt to fix the problem instead of scrapping the
whole system or reducing its scope (e.g. eliminating software patents).

Hi Geoffrey,

I think they should be sent to the bit-bucket. *This is a point where
claims are specific and a huge amount of published patents have
clearly been built from work existing in the Public Domain for
decades.

Going back to the populist nature of an "Inventor," too many are
corporations hiding behind this cultural perception while they crush
innovation with offices full of attorneys hammering down individuals
who can't afford the cost of litigation.

First to invent has its problems too. Without a system of publication, one
can simply describe inventions in dated documentation and wait for other
people to patent them. Then you just show up with proof of first invention
and collect your patent someone else paid for.

It doesn't work that way. *What you are describing is an IP that has
been ceded to the Public Domain, not patented as if it were a grab at
the brass ring.

Possibly a system where patent applications are published within 30 days of
recepit and the amount of time to file claims of prior invention are limited
to a year or 18 months.

Prior art is not a limited, moving window in time. *Otherwise, we
would be flooded with re-inventions of the telephone every year and
half by your method.

This would also require the publication of provisional patent applications
which is currently never done.

They are always done. *For the bulk of invention, provisional patents
are often copies of press releases, journal articles, degree work,
papers for presentation and so on. *And it hardly matters unless the
party files an actual application. *Again, this was put to bed in 1995
and is supported by the international field. *In fact, you need only
attach one claim to a provisional patent and you have international
protection. *The claim can even be changed later!

The effect of the bonus system has been to change a patent application from
the final step in the process to one near the begining. This has been a
windfall for the top patent lawyers who can successfully navigate the appeal
process and a disaster for the small inventor or patent agent.

Sound like the Patent system I was very much a part of in the 80s and
90s. *Being a small inventor, it was actually quite to my advantage
(the market practicalities aside).

I expect that one of the smaller countries with a minimally functioning
patent system will take over. They will, for a large fee, issue a patent
quickly and quietly. Something like for a $100k fee, they will issue a
patent without publication of the application, in 6-8 weeks.

Once they issue the patent, as US patent via the Patent Cooperation Treaty
is assured. It does not matter if the US application takes years or there
are any appeals and so on. You have what is in effect a US patent and just
have to wait for the paperwork to catch up.

I would think that 14 years of experience would have revealed this
anticipated grief by now. *Getting a patent faster does not make the
ideas come sooner to submit that fast-track application.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

What is lost in this review of the frailty of our patent system is the
destructive interference
of what we refer to as justice. Not only does law change with the
current meaning of the word in this country other countries ensure
that the intent of the written word is determined
at the point that the law is made. It is for this reason that the U.S.
has more lawyers than any other country as all laws as with the
written word changes with the passing of time. At least in the eyes of
experienced debaters. Another deterent to fairness of patent
protection
is that other countries has that the "loser pays ALL costs generated
by the suit" !
In the U.S. for some reason each pays their own costs regardless if
the charge was malicious or not. Thus we have a continuance of suits
and countersuits depending on the finances of both or the amount of
money that can be made during the generated passing of time. Many
examples of this can be seen in the many pharmacutical cases.
Worst of all, with respect to fairness in the protection of patents,
is when the true owner of a patent has not the funds such that he can
keep pace with the challenger such that the time comes when he has not
the funds to appear in court and thus the challenger unjustly wins his
case. Not on the merits of justice but on the amount of funds he is
willing to spend compared to the losses incurred by violating patent
law.
Present patent law attempts to combat these problems by giving prime
responsabiulity to the PTO but we are finding that justices resent
this action and are more than willing to accept cases where they gain
back their original powers.which is not always dependent on justice.
From the congressional side of any so called change in justice, one
cannot ignore that the patent system is a "cash cow", revenue that any
congress is not willing to give up as part of his rescources for
spending.