Embedded Systems Conference
Breaking News
Comments
bidare
User Rank
Author
re: U.S. patent chief: applications up, quality down
bidare   4/17/2008 6:45:33 AM
NO RATINGS
US PTO should make AN ALTERNATE directory of silly application filed. Claim with out proper invention claim needs to be rejected with three - six months PTO can even grade the patent awarded and can even rank them. In my opinion, patents should not be used as an insurance to hang around in the system. The raise in patent application is due to this. PTO should ask for a live demo to prove the efficacy in the PoC.

JMWilliams
User Rank
Author
re: U.S. patent chief: applications up, quality down
JMWilliams   4/17/2008 5:28:58 PM
NO RATINGS
The underlying problem is that the law schools and working lawyers somehow have agreed that there exists something called "intellectual property", and that this includes patents (which give a right to deny use) and copyright (which deny a right to publish), among other things. A patent can PROTECT a thing, the thing being property; but the patent itself is not property. A patent is an administrative decision under the law. A copyright can not protect any thing; it can protect only the COPYING (not possession) of an expression EXCLUDING by law any merely physical thing. Likewise, a copyright itself is not property; it is an administrative decision under the law. The fact that a RIGHT can be transferred does not imply that there is property involved: Parents can transfer custody of a child, but this does not make the chils a kind of property. As the PTO author points out, the low quality of modern patent applications is because applicants are trying to buy "intellectual property" from the PTO(like bandwidth from FCC), rather than requesting that the PTO protect their innovative discoveries for a limited time. There is no such thing as "intellectual property". The very idea may be misunderstood by lawyers, but it is analogous to "imaginary reality".

rob20166
User Rank
Author
re: U.S. patent chief: applications up, quality down
rob20166   4/21/2008 10:01:41 PM
NO RATINGS
It's simple: The Patent Office does not reward Examiners for quality work. An Examiner gets about 4-8 hours to complete the entire examination process; it's not enough. Instead, they do the best they can in limited time, and Dudas pretends that it is a class of applicants that are the problem. This is false. I was a U.S. Patent Examiner in the late 1990s, and since then went into private practice as a Patent Agent. It?s remarkable to me that someone who is supposedly intelligent, Dudas, can?t recognize the basic problem with the entire Office: Examiners are not rewarded for doing quality work. Instead, they get a few hours to do an extremely complicated job and are yelled at when it isn?t "good enough" or when they don?t work every weekend to make everything perfect. Will and do some applicants abuse such a system? Sure. But blaming a small number of applicants for the problems of the Office is disingenuous at best, and intentionally misleading from the actual problems at worst. Good quality examination will eliminate bad quality patents. Good quality examination will not happen by placing artificial restrictions on the front end of the process (limiting the number of claims, or RCEs or continuations). It will only punish prolific applicants. If you want to get rid of "bad" applications, change the way examination is done, particularly the way Examiners are rewarded for their work. If you keep the system that was there when I was there in the late 1990s (which was also there decades before I arrived), nothing will change. It's a difficult problem to fix, but no one wants to take it head on. Instead Dudas makes dumb comments that are off subject, misinterpreted by anti-patent types and changing the subject from the real problems at the Office.



Radio
LATEST ARCHIVED BROADCAST
As data rates begin to move beyond 25 Gbps channels, new problems arise. Getting to 50 Gbps channels might not be possible with the traditional NRZ (2-level) signaling. PAM4 lets data rates double with only a small increase in channel bandwidth by sending two bits per symbol. But, it brings new measurement and analysis problems. Signal integrity sage Ransom Stephens will explain how PAM4 differs from NRZ and what to expect in design, measurement, and signal analysis.

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
Like Us on Facebook
Special Video Section
The LTC®6363 is a low power, low noise, fully differential ...
Vincent Ching, applications engineer at Avago Technologies, ...
The LT®6375 is a unity-gain difference amplifier which ...
The LTC®4015 is a complete synchronous buck controller/ ...
10:35
The LTC®2983 measures a wide variety of temperature sensors ...
The LTC®3886 is a dual PolyPhase DC/DC synchronous ...
The LTC®2348-18 is an 18-bit, low noise 8-channel ...
The LT®3042 is a high performance low dropout linear ...
Chwan-Jye Foo (C.J Foo), product marketing manager for ...
The LT®3752/LT3752-1 are current mode PWM controllers ...
LED lighting is an important feature in today’s and future ...
Active balancing of series connected battery stacks exists ...
After a four-year absence, Infineon returns to Mobile World ...
A laptop’s 65-watt adapter can be made 6 times smaller and ...
An industry network should have device and data security at ...
The LTC2975 is a four-channel PMBus Power System Manager ...
In this video, a new high speed CMOS output comparator ...
The LT8640 is a 42V, 5A synchronous step-down regulator ...
The LTC2000 high-speed DAC has low noise and excellent ...
How do you protect the load and ensure output continues to ...