SemiBull,
The patent office issues two types of patents: (1)basic or normal patents which are suppose to require
novelty, not be a logical extension of prior art, and implementable in practice; and (2)design patents which
have very specific product designs.
In general I believe: Since academic research, development and publishing is focused on developing the
theory and principles on which a phenomena is based, allowing patents to be issued which are covered by
existing basic theory or principles, prior art, is inappropriate. Unfortunately, the majority of patents fall into
this category. Others are so erroneously based on faulty research, non-replicatable, and non-workable that
patent issuance should never have considered. I would say ninety percent of patents fall into these two
categories. Many these have outrageously broad claims. This clogs up areas of development and research
and overloads the patent system.
Considering that 95 percent of patents issued are never lead to a developed product. They are a waste of
time and money while interfering with productive research and product development. This is one reason I think
the system is out of control and needs to be changed.
Untimely delayed issuance of patents, such as Lucent's, also interferes with R&D and funding
The original system was formed to handle mechanical devices and over time evolved into more conceptual
categories with broader claims. I believe a better system can be developed:
First, severely restrict and strengthen the novelty requirement, broaden the concept of logical extension of
prior art, especially to include established theory and principles; and require independent replication of
research or testing, if needed. This would disallow, remove 85 to 90 percent of the present patents.
Second, develop a "new design" patent category which would very slightly broaden the present design
patent coverage to include a minor degree of generality for a minor degree of novelty. Have it expire if a
product is not marketed in a short time-frame, cover a shorter period, limit the claims, and exclude
protection from products that were in the design phase of development during the filing period or covered
by basic patents. Many of the 90% of patents I wrote would fall in this category. Because of the less
stringent requirements and limited claim coverage these patents could be processed more quickly.
I am not familiar enough with the design patent requirements to say if the existing design patents would fall
in the category above or need to be a third category. I believe such a system would be much easier to
administer and fair to all parties. It would interfere less with research and technological advancement, than
the present system.
Specifically, the current carrying advantage of elongated grain particles was known from almost the
beginning of copper oxide high temperature superconductors both experimentally and as a logical result of
their anisotropic nature. I am sure it was presented at meetings in 1986-87 though not about this specific
perovskitian oxide. So issuing a patent in 1999 first filed in 1990 on this principle was unwarranted. I know
Bell Labs did extensive early research in the field. I would not have complained about them getting an early
patent. To allow them to abandon it, then reapply and delay issuance through the entire period of major
developments and theory formulation of High-Tc Cuprates was irresponsible on the Patent Office?s part in
my opinion. There are far worst cases. In fact, most patents are not as deserving of being issued as this one.
Having at one time in my life wasted 2 1/2 years of product development only to be blocked by an unused
patent by a company unwilling to license it. I wouldn't complain at all about abolishing the entire system in
favor of having only design patents with a product marketing requirement. I think one reason the
semiconductor microprocessor development occurred so rapidly was its non-reliance on the patent system.
I believe our patent system is the main cause of our failure as a nation in application development.
Skeet |
