Morten, Thanks, for pointing out the article and effort. The Peer to Patent concept of leveraging the web to allow constructive peer review of patent applications is an excellent one.
This effort could go a long way towards helping to streamline the patenting process, preventing patenting of things that are not unique within their niche or are too broad. It promises to both speed the process and bring important information to light much earlier in the process. This should cut appeals and litigation later on that are currently plaguing the system. The best way I think the best way that the IxDA could assist is by encouraging members join the peer review committees and participate. I just did. (short rant) Having participated in about a dozen applications and reviews, my particular pet peeve that still isn't addressed with these efforts is that at times I believe the patent application language is intentionally written to obfuscate the actual workings of the inventions in question. By comparison to the wording of any particular patent application, that same invention written by an engineer (not a lawyer) to be built by engineers, will much more clearly and precisely describe how to build the device. (I'm of course referring to those rare articulate engineers who write well) I realize there are specific legal terms and phrases, but setting standards to be succinct and clear would go a long way to preventing common ideas from sounding unique and being slipped past the glazed reviewers eyes. My own preference would be to see something akin to a design specification with use cases and glossary qualifying the terms. I think this would again speed understanding of the intent and of what is truly novel. But alas, I'm not a lawyer. (end rant/) /Kam On 10/4/07, Morten Hjerde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The patent system today is a joke. Its badly broken, and we suffer for it. > Both in our work as IxDs and as private consumers. The most ridiculous and > overly broad patents are granted left and right for claims that are > obviously bogus to anyone with any domain knowledge. Companies are "gaming > the system" as long as the Patent Offices grants monopoly rents to patent > holders that have not, in the end, invented a novel product. > > The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Britain's > Intellectual Property Office (IPO) and the European Patent Office has an > initiative to help this sad situation. > Well worth checking out for anyone interested: > http://dotank.nyls.edu/communitypatent/index.php > > (Now, for the record: I'm strongly in favor of protecting intellectual > property. Had my own IP been possible to protect, I would probably been a > rich man today.) > > Frankly, I think IxDA should take a stand on this issue, but that may be > wishful thinking. Most of us work at companies that want to, or does > exploit > the system. Don't bite the hand that feeds you, etc. > > > >From the Economist< > http://www.economist.com/search/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=9719020> > : > > PATENT examiners, who scrutinise applications for patents and determine > whether they ought to be granted or not, are used to poring over diagrams > of > complicated contraptions. But now the patent system itself, just as > complex > in its own way, is under increasing scrutiny. > > The number of applications has soared in recent years, but patent offices > have been unable to keep up—resulting in huge backlogs and lengthy delays. > Standards have slipped and in America the number of lawsuits over > contested > patents has shot up (see chart). In an attempt to fix these problems, the > United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Britain's Intellectual > Property Office (IPO) and the European Patent Office are evaluating a > radical change: opening the process up to internet-based collaboration. > > > The scheme, known as "Peer to Patent", was created by Beth Simone Noveck, > a > professor at New York Law School. It applies an unusual form of peer > review > to a process which traditionally involves only a patent applicant and an > examiner. Anybody who is interested may comment on a patent application > via > the internet. The scheme was launched as a one-year pilot programme in > America on June 15th. Sean Dennehey of Britain's IPO, who sits on the > project's advisory board, says his organisation will follow suit by the > end > of the year. The project is being supported by big technology firms > including IBM, Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard. > > An efficient patent system is essential for the promotion of innovation. > Patents give inventors a temporary monopoly on a new idea in return for > disclosing how it works, so that others can subsequently build upon it. > But > if a patent is granted for something that is not novel (people are already > doing it), or is obvious (any Tom, Dick, or Harry in the field could think > it up), it can hamper innovation by turning a widely used invention or > process into one person's monopoly. The trouble is that examiners cannot > always tell when a patent is unwarranted. > > > > > > > -- > Morten Hjerde > http://sender11.typepad.com > ________________________________________________________________ > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! > To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] > List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines > List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help > Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe > Questions .................. [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org > -- /Kam ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe Questions .................. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org
