The patent system in the United States is broken. Patents
are granted for “inventions” that aren’t innovative. For example, Apple was granted
a patent on “slide to unlock,” which has been in fence gates for many years.
The validity of a patent is not contingent on progress of the invention. Courts
making rulings on patent cases aren’t knowledgeable about the industry or invention
in question. A recent
Supreme Court ruling about a patent on DNA was decided by judges without any
experience in DNA sequencing. There isn’t an easy way to search the patent
database. There is no patent exchange currently in existence. I think that all
of these problems should be fixed to make room for the modern age. Patents should
be granted or denied based on innovation; this should be determined by an
expert in the field the patent is being filed in. If no significant progress is
made on an invention for five years after the patent was issued then that
patent should go up for sale in a public auction similar to the stock exchange.
Lastly, there should be an easy to use, online patent database; I found the current version confusing to use.
patents.stackexchange.com is a good place to go review pending patents. It's cool because the people who accept patents will usually use a search engine to see if there is any information already out there on the topic. So what people write on this site can help prevent bad patents from being accepted.
ReplyDeleteI think another important issue is how liberally the patents can be applied to anything. The "slide to unlock" is a great example. Apple sued Motorola and claimed that they had a "tap to unlock" and that a "tap" is a "zero length slide" so Motorola is violating patents. Obvious a problem but I am not sure what a good answer is.
ReplyDelete