New government statistics prove that allowing advocacy groups and private individuals to challenge existing patents is a remarkably effective means of weeding out the worst of them and pruning back the overly broad.
So, naturally enough, there are corporate and political interests at work in Washington trying to muzzle patent watchdogs before they can do even more good in the public's behalf.
How's that for your tax dollars at work?
From the Electronic Frontier Foundations' blog:
Since the start of ex parte reexamination in 1981, there have been over 9,000 requests that the (Patent and Trademark Office) revisit issued patents, averaging over 500 annually in recent years. From 1981 through the end of 2007, the Office of the Patent Commissioner has granted over 90 percent of these ex parte reexamination requests. Out of the 8,000 requests that have been granted since the start of ex parte reexamination, 6,060 resulted in a narrowing of claims. In other words, the PTO grants 92% of the reexamination requests it receives, and in 3 out of 4 of those cases, the requests are having a substantial effect on the claims.
If only every arcane mechanism within the vast federal bureaucracy operated so efficiently.
You can see the Patent and Trademark Office report in its .pdf entirety here.
Just last week, the EFF's Patent Busting Project demonstrated anew the value of third-party reexamination opportunities by spearheading an effort that will result in the holder of a questionable gaming patent having to defend it against newfound evidence that plenty of "prior art" predated its issuance, which if true means it never should have seen the light of day.
Sheldon F. Goldberg was awarded the illegitimate patent for online gaming systems that use tournament-style play, advertising, and real-time updates of ladder-rankings in multi-player games. Goldberg has used this bogus patent to coerce licensing fees from numerous small businesses.
In the reexamination request, EFF along with Paul Grewal and Brad Waugh of Day Casebeer Madrid & Batchelder show that the technology covered by the Goldberg patent had been widely disseminated in the public domain for years before Goldberg made his claim. The Patent Office took quick action on the request, recognizing this substantial new question of patentability less than a month after the request was filed.
Such victories and sterling statistical support aside, groups such as the EFF face being largely written out of the game if patent-reform legislation pending before the Senate passes without amendment. This "reform" as it stands will protect frivolous patents from the EFF and similar watchdogs by limiting to one year after a patent's granting the time in which it could be challenged by anyone other than those suffering direct financial harm.
Granted, such a provision wouldn't stop major gaming companies with their vast resources from challenges a patent such as the one just targeted by EFF. However, it would strip an important layer of protection from smaller business.
More to the point, however, it would reward the holders of bogus patents and siphon more coin from the pockets of consumers.
Message to lawmakers: Resist the temptation to fix what isn't broken here.
Welcome regulars and passersby. Here are a few more recent Buzzblog items. And, if you'd like to receive Buzzblog via e-mail newsletter, here's where to sign up.
The 1 in 10 Brits hurt 'texting while walking' will now find comfort in padded lampposts
Just using Facebook gets this guy dragged into Wikileaks case.
In defense of Caller-ID spoofing.
Stallman on handing over GNU Emacs, its future and the importance of nomenclature.
Call "retail renting" what it is: short-term theft.
Google renames the Persian Gulf.
Get $500 just for going on a job interview. (No, really.)
Top 10 Buzzblog posts for '07: Verizon's there, of course, along with Gates, Wikipedia and the guy who lost a girlfriend to Blackberry's blackout.
The Leader in Network Knowledge
not so fast
I wish you and the other shills for large corporate thieves would stop whining about patents and put more of your effort into developing innovative technologies to help us better compete with the Chinese. But then many of those companies can no longer innovate or were never truly very good at, relying more on superior capitol and antitrust behavior as we read about nowadays so often.
As to the PTO statistics you cite, not so fast. Just because claims are narrower, does not mean the patentee no longer owns patents covering meaningful or even essential technologies. Sometimes the claims are broader than needed as a practical matter so narrowing may not have any bearing on protection. Your cries of a “substantial effect” are unsupported without further data and you fail to cite any instance where these 3rd party submissions have proved fruitful. It is interesting to note that you do not specify the probability that all claims were reversed. That of course would justify such a declaration of a “substantial effect”.
As for the EFF, who funds them? Could it be that they are funded by the same corporate raiders who are so often found guilty of stealing others innovations? Are they truly an advocacy group, or just paid assassins? Are these really 3rd party submissions anyway? They should come out publicly and release the names of their principal funding sources, or sit down and shut up.
Finally, I would not be so fast to make accusations of “frivolous patents” if I were you. Have you noticed recently what happened to the mole of Cisco? Ever hear of defamation or libel? Cisco and the mole have now.
stv
Specking of shills
Speaking of shills, STV sounds like a shill
for patent trolls.
Debunking completely bogus patents IS in the
best interests of the consumer. As if STV
didn't already know, patent trolls do not
innovate and are rarely hurt by
patent infringement since they have no real
products which are being financially impacted by patent infringement.
Also, I believe the motives of the EFF are
much less suspect that those of STV.
TMW
It's not worth anyone's time
It isn't worth the bits it takes to refute your obviously biased, poorly considered arguments, which seem based largely on your inability to read and comprehend.
Please grow a brain cell or two, make sure they're functioning, then come back. We can talk then, and I'll be sure to use words with no more than two syllables so that you can understand clearly.
Patent Challenges - They are worth our time.
Broad patents stifle competition.
Most innovation comes from small companies, this is true in many areas of technology, including biotechnology.
The big drug company have not brought you much that was not from cooperating with a smaller more innovative company?
The many erectile dysfunction drugs, SSRIs, statins, beta blockers, calcium channel blockers, ....
The big drug companies are more involved with "me too" drugs, because it is difficult to innovate when you are large.
We should not be discouraging small companies by making it difficult for them to profit from their honest work.
Your obtuse ranting stifles discussion.