Proposal Feedback: Emails

Some of the feedback on the proposal has been coming in by email.  Excerpts from some recent correspondence re-printed below (with permission):

Professor Cynthia Ho writes:

I really enjoyed reading your peer to patent paper and it resonated greatly with me since I'm working on what I believe to be a related project.... Basically, I'm trying to write a paper proposing use of internet technology to assist with the quagmire of patents on controversial subject matter.  Like you, I'm not trying to modify the patent system. However, I do believe that internet/technology can be harnassed to make better decisions.  My general belief is that we are stuck in a stalemate of discussion between polar sides about whether all subject matter should be patentable, or whether we should impose a "morality" requirement.  So, my idea is to have a patent "blog/wiki/etc" to help
gather ideas, minimize misconceptions (through a possible dialog with the actual patent owner), and gather sufficient feedback for legislatures and policy makers to make informed decisions.

Although I believe that controversial subject matter is currently at the forefront of problems with patent policy, I believe that my proposal could be expanded (if it succeeds as a pilot project!) to address other policy issues in more real-time and between more participants. For example, although it is helpful to have periodic reports by the FTC and NAS on patent policy, such reports inherently are crafted by a small group of people and could potentially benefit from a more broad-based
discussion.

I'm attaching an older draft on the issue of some current problems with patent law and patentable subject matter. Alternatively you might be interested in this piece:
http://www.luc.edu/law/activities/publications/llj_faclawsymp.shtml,
I touch upon the idea of a technology solution at the end, but mostly I just try to point out the existing issues.

Ernie Rogers writes:

Read your short paper, and boy can I agree.  I am presently helping an inventor to understand why his perpetual motion machine that he just got a patent on isn't going to work.  He states in the description that it violates the second law, and he claims that as one of its benefits!

Besides granting patents on non-inventions, I think a worse fault with many examiners is that they are rejecting important inventions.  Bad patents are taken care of by the marketplace (eventually).  BUT important inventions that don't make it to publication are a loss to the world for who-knows how long.

You might say that there are safeguards to overly-critical examination, but the high cost of legal representation can prevent an independent inventor from getting the help he needs.

Paul Edward Geller writes:

I'm reading your "Peer to Patent" downloaded from the SSRN. It's quite fascinating, and I quite  agree with your basic principle. But, with peer review, do we need the patent bureaucracy at all?

You might be interested in a global proposal along similar lines. See: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=409260.  Or, as well: http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~pgeller/patutopia.pdf .  This 7-page essay was first published in 25 E.I.P.R. 515 (2003). It was translated and published in French, German, and Chinese.

I'd be most interested in your impressions and any critique. In any event, I'm convinced that you are on the road forward. How else to explain the trend toward defensive publication?

Comments

[bob gardner]

thanks for this article it was good to read througn