Reader Comments                                                                                                                Report an offensive comment

return to story

Cutting Through the Patent Thicket

All Reader Comments

page 1 of 5

Patent King Apr 18, 2010 5:32 PM GMT What an idiot! Get out of the lab and into the real world. This is about the worst thought out logic I've ever seen in the Patent reform thinkology. Who proofread this for sound thought and fact?? What an idiot...
Link to this comment

Mino Oct 17, 2007 9:13 PM GMT Dr. Blonder's arguments are flawed. Here are things overlooked in his argument. I also have nearly 80 US patents and many more International patents (not doubles).1) Why are many patents or IP not used? Business decisions by bean counters who have no clue as to the value of the IP and reluctance to retool. This can account for about 70% of shelved IP.2) The obvious argument. By your argument Alexander Bell would not have received a patent. He beat his competitor by 6 hours. Think of what would have happened if he did not get the patent. Today there are many more smart people exceptionally skilled in their art. The competition is a good thing. Also corporations forbid inventors to read patents in their field for fear of infringement and treble damages.3) Once you have filed a patent it is your duty to file every competing idea you can think of, laying minefields whereever you can. Defensive patents protect your corporate assets.Respectfully,Mino
Link to this comment

PatentPro Feb 16, 2006 11:32 PM GMT Here we go, "...oh the patent system is broken." Why is it that people, like Mr. Blonder, whose sole credentials are that he once watched a patent case and is an inventor, have the loudest voices? The patent laws are drafted to be over inclusive. "A patent shall issue unless..." Now that Mr. B. has his 70 patents I guess it's pretty easy to say "raise the bar." Who is Mr. B. to say that most patents are useless. You never know until after the fact. Twelve out of 70 is not bad--close to 20%. IMHO as a patent attorney, the patent system is just fine. For a modest fee, you get a reasonably thorough examination and patent grant. Under the law, a third party can file a re-exam if obvious or anticipated prior art is found. Third party re-exam places the costs right where they belong, on those who stand to benefit most by invalidating the patent. The only remaining problem is lengthy pendency. Solution: Hire more examiners by getting Congress's hand out of the PTO till.
Link to this comment

I need an angel Dec 31, 2005 1:01 AM GMT I have been there, too. I also have invested so much time, effort, and money into obtaining a patent. Although I have succeeded in obtaining a US and UK patent all seems to be at a standstill. It seems a neverending road with no one willing to give a helping hand.
Link to this comment

makessense Dec 29, 2005 9:47 PM GMT But why is Amgen filing 1000's of claims? Because the USPTO grants blocking patents for trivial ideas, or in the hope that a claim will slip through. Its not a matter of money going off to Congress, but of low standards and just too many patents clogging up the system.
Link to this comment

Normal Synthesis Dec 29, 2005 7:32 PM GMT Indeed "novel" needs a little bit of clarification, or standardization, but the point about the USPTO being robbed of its net income producing funds to support other Bush Administration initiatives is precisely right.It is becoming impossible for the USPTO to actually examine patents because big orgs like Pfizer and Amgen file patents with 5000 claims or more. there should be a US$5 million excise fee for patents with more than 1000 claims, and a $10mm filing excise for any patent with more than 2000 claims. This money should go into a small-inventors' support pool so that small inventor fees can be dropped, allowing a chance. Larry Lessig is the beacon here that the USPTO should follow.Greg's comment that lawyers willing to work on contingency will somehow magically appear is incredibly far-fetched and highly unlikely
Link to this comment

BeenThereToo Dec 28, 2005 3:23 PM GMT The author is whining and repeating the same thing that folks have been saying for 200 years.Parsed, the editorial says "Things were much better in my Father's day. Why, back then we patented things like gravity!"What the writer fails to report is that patents back in the day took ten or more years to get and often were not used. Sort of like now, but much worse. The fact that patents do not come out fast enough for a VC to profiteer off of them should not really concern us greatly.Oh, and confessing to patenting an obvious invention. Yeah that's something to be proud of too.The system is not perfect, and we should constantly seek to improve. There have been periods of over- and under- patenting. Get over it.
Link to this comment

Inventors Dec 27, 2005 5:18 PM GMT I liked the article only to the extent that it might help to stimulate more serious thought and debate about the current state of the US Patent System. What I can't accept is that the author's "fix" to the system would abandon those whose contributions to technological progress have always proved the greatest ~ namely, the independent inventor and small business enterprise. Ironically, the writer's proposal would put himself out of his VC business, along with those who couldn't afford his proposed cure. While symptoms of a sagging patent system may be most apparent in USPTO backlogs, the core of the problem is found in the patchwork approach taken by The Congress in its perennial reaction to big business. My wish for 2006 is that The Congress will take a constuctive look at the need for a 21st Century patent system that will nurture and reward innovation from all quarters, large and small.
Link to this comment

sunny Dec 24, 2005 3:37 AM GMT I disagree with this article. I have been told by others that my ideas were "obvious" only to find that same product patented a few years later. Just because it is obvious to a PhD does not mean it is obvious to one simply skilled in the art.
Link to this comment

Skipixx Dec 23, 2005 11:49 PM GMT I'm a inventor with 4 inventions gathering dust and cobwebs because it costs $375.00 for a Utility Patent and I'd need a Design Patent which is another $375. It'd take a Patent Attorney to write up the abstract correctly and that's probably a few thousand dollars. I went through Invention Submission Corporation (ISC) with one invention and had the abstract written up along with the design. They wanted an additional $4500 for marketing which I didn't have. A year later, someone tried to market a similar product based on my utility and design but I didn't have a patent so my hands were tied. The Patent Application system today in my opinion is for millionaires who can afford to experiment with new ideas. If Alexander Bell or Thomas Edison had to go through with our process today then we'd still be using the telegraph and lighting our homes with coal oil lamps. The process needs to be simplified and cost effective for inventors who are usually poor to begin with.
Link to this comment

BW Mall - Sponsored Links

Buy a link now!