Peer to Patent

Brian Kahin on CCIA Statement on Patent Reform

http://www.ccianet.org/modules/patentPDFs/CCIA_WP_PatReformDigEcon.pdf

As you know, I applaud the vision and goals of the Peer to Patent Project.  We need to aggressively align the patent system to the flow of knowledge within technical as it created and used by those expert in the subject.  We need to ensure that the processes of the patent system are optimally informed and efficient. This is not the case in information technology, and especially not in software, where patents are both ignored and ridiculed by the technical community. 

Pedersen Proposal Commentary

From Brad Pedersen, Esq:

I have reviewed the materials for the Peer-to-Patent Review pilot project and am impressed with this ambitious and thoughtful effort to bring the "power of the people" to the aid of the US Patent Office.

I am a practicing patent attorney with twenty years experience and a keen interest in patent reform. 

I am the author of a forthcoming article (Download pedersen-braginsky_final.pdf) to be published by the Minn. Journal of Law, Science and Technology on the debate between first-to-file and first-to-invent systems and was one of the principal authors of the Minnesota Intellectual Property Lawyers Association comments on the proposed PTO rules on continuations and designated claims.

I have a suggestion for your project which I would encourage you to consider adopting.

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?

Grokking Peer to Patent

The following are comments from Pamela Jones, founder and editor of the award-winning website, Groklaw, and one of the contributing authors of the book, Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution.  Jones is a leading voice in the Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) community.  This email exchange took place during April 2006.

Larry Sanger Comments on Peer to Patent

The following e-mail exchange took place with Wikipedia co-Founder, Dr. Larry Sanger, during February 2006.  As one of the leading experts in online, expert, collaborative communities, I turned to Dr. Sanger for his advice with the Community Patent Project.  He raised several important critical comments in response to the draft of the Peer to Patent: Community Patent Reform proposal.  To push the dialogue and the design forward, we are publishing the interchange here. Sanger’s comments are numbered with my responses and clarifications interspersed.  This provides a supplement to the “questions asked-and-answered” in the Peer to Patent draft proposal.