I have already acknowledged this twice. Offer real solutions or value added content to the discussion or stop whining about the inherent disadvantages of the little guy.

 

Well that's easy. Get rid of all software and business process patents. Software and business processes are BY DEFINITION algorithms. Algorithms are math, and math is not patentable. Software is already protected by copyright.

Unfortunately it's not very realistic.

 

How do you feel that those changes would effect the business landscape. What would be the consequences both good and bad in your view?

 

On the software side, it would undoubtedly be better. Something like 67% of software patents are filed by hardware companies, like HP, IBM, Motorola, etc. They employ about 6% of programmers.

More of my thoughts here, fully cited for you. That is almost 3 years old now, and I wrote it in 3 days while pulling all-nighters (oh college), so I can't guarantee it's quality.

 

"...Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society, I know well the difficulty of drawing a line between the things which are worth to the public the embarrassment of an exclusive patent, and those which are not. As a member of the patent board for several years, while the law authorized a board to grant or refuse patents, I saw with what slow progress a system of general rules could be matured."

-Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson, 13 Aug. 1813

 

Yay Newegg! I buy things from them even when they're a little more expensive because of the top-notch customer service.

I believe the patent office is funded directly by congressional mandate, and it has been underfunded (like every single other program under congressional spending) for the past few decades. Yet we pay congressmen 175K per year starting wage, not factoring in the added value of the comprehensive benefits package and the guaranteed job as a corporate lobbyist shill when you leave.... Oh, and a little less than half of congressmen are in the top 1% of income. Shouldn't we make them pay us for the job?

http://www.expectsomuch.com/wp-conte...Congress-2.jpg

But I digress. IIRC, the patent officers are paid bonuses based on how many patents they go through, and denying a patent takes longer than approving one. I think fixing that would fix a lot of problems. I can't find the article I was reading about it, it was a former US Patent examiner's tell all about the horrors of the system.

 

I saw one bill in r/watchingcongress that was interesting: H.R. 442: To provide that a former Member of Congress or former Congressional employee who receives compensation as a lobbyist shall not be eligible for retirement benefits or certain other Federal benefits.

Too bad it will never pass.

It is indeed scary. IIRC from my crappy research paper up there, the waiting list is ~3.5 YEARS. Oh by the way patent applications become public record after 18 months, so you have ~18 months where your competitors can see and copy your idea with nothing you can do about it except sue them when (if) your patent is approved. Also the USPTO actually MAKES MONEY, congress doesn't have to fund it. The problem is the opposite, congress takes money FROM the USPTO.

 

He raises good points even more relevant today.