I only saw two changes mentioned in the blog. One was relatively minor - 14 - 15 years. Big deal. The other one is a slightly bigger one, but I'm not sure what consequence it will have since it's already kind of like that (just written different now). Big Deal again!
The last point you made strikes me as odd: "Did you know that an entry level patent examiner makes $42,000 - and they expect to get intelligent human beings for that?" Is $42k not very much for a person who is essentially in-training? Median income in the U.S. is ~$43k. I would have been more than happy to start out making that much right out of college, albeit that was awhile ago but if you haven't noticed, a lot of recent college grads are making far less than that. There are also many, many thousands of folks out there that were used to making 80-100k a year that are now struggling to make half that amount because of these harsh economic times. Some of them a very smart people too, they just happened to be in the wrong field. Lucky for you, you happen to be in a field not so severely affected. It is not right to mock the intelligence of those willing to work for something you consider a pittance. The next time you fly on a regional jet, think about how much those two guys/gals up front in the cockpit are making and then think about your statement (look up how much they make in case you don't know). Maybe you will want to pull the emergency door handle and slide down the shoot!!!
I do agree unanimously that the whole patent system is a mess, just like everything else run by our beloved government of fools. Like a poorly designed OS full of spaghetti programming and eband-aids, it would be better to scrap the whole thing and just start over.
What's interesting is how a US granted or China granted patent can go international w/o international support? Don't get me wrong. I agree with 1-for-all. However, I see an international patent organization shall be established. Before so, the patent process shall be revised. For example, a patent of a cube like smartphone w/o dimension shall not be granted, shan't it?
Good point! You get what you pay for.
Still, think of all of the issues a smart examiner might raise on each patent. I don't think the government wants a hard look at these things. Face it, they are mostly vehicles for lawyers to make money, not companies or engineers.
Just a thought.
As we unveil EE Times’ 2015 Silicon 60 list, journalist & Silicon 60 researcher Peter Clarke hosts a conversation on startups in the electronics industry. Panelists Dan Armbrust (investment firm Silicon Catalyst), Andrew Kau (venture capital firm Walden International), and Stan Boland (successful serial entrepreneur, former CEO of Neul, Icera) join in the live debate.