|
Edited on Sun Apr-29-07 01:34 PM by originalpckelly
I ask because it's such a slow and lumbering system. There has to be a way in the 21st century to get patents approved in less than two or more years. It's ridiculous. I've been thinking of a new system lately that would help small time inventors protect their ideas and unique innovations, but also reduce the hassle of doing so. It would work much like the copyright system. In the current copyright system there are basically three ways to copyright something:
1. Maintain documentary evidence that the work was created by the party or parties that originally created the work. All unique material is capable of being copyrighted so long as there is not an explicit release into the public domain, or some other non-copyright use agreement like the "creative commons license". This is so even if the following two other methods of copyrighting a work are not visible or completed.
2. Place a "copyright mark" on the medium containing the work, this alerts potential copyright infringers that a piece is not public domain or some other type of freely usable work under a different license. This will stand even better in a court of law, because the offending party had fair warning that the material was copyrighted.
3. You may send in an actual copyright registration form to the United States Copyright Office for a relatively low cost fee of $45 in most cases, as well as a non-returnable form of the media to be copyrighted. This is a very substantial way to prove a copyright case, because it is an official record.
This system works damn well, because even people who don't officially register a copyright can defend their copyright in court if they have documentary evidence that the copyright has been violated. With the placement of the mark, there is more hard evidence that the media is copyrighted, as well as when it is officially registered.
There would obviously need be some minor differences if patents were to be implemented in this same way, but this system could reduce the overhead of the patent office, reduce the wait time to file a patent, and even protect inventors who maintain documentary evidence they produced a unique innovation before a party or parties whom infringe on that unique innovation.
I propose a "general patent" mark. This mark would be placeable on any device an inventor believes contains a unique innovation. If the technology in this device was reverse engineered, the patent infringement suit would have a more severe penalty/civil remedy than a case wherein it was totally unknown to the infringers that the device contained unique innovations. It would be two letters inside of a rectangle the letters "G" and "P" to indicate "general patent".
I propose a registered patent mark, to replace the current patent registration system. Instead of having to list every single patent registration number in a product, a single registration number would indicate a record in an official "registered patent" archive to be maintained by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The mark would be an "R" and a "P" in side of a rectangle to signify "registered patent".
Along with an Internet based patent registration system, which would place kiosks in local postal offices for the use of individuals without computers and Internet access, and allow those with computers and Internet access to simply register their patents on the Internet.
The patent office will no longer determine if a patent contains a unique innovation, that responsibility will go to patent courts trying patent infringement suits. The patent office will be responsible, as I said before, of maintaining a central archive of this information, and they will still have to categorize patents, but this will greatly reduce the waiting time to register a patent, because they will not have to search through their database for every single application, just when there is a patent infringement suit, and even that will be easy because they will just electronically send that to the patent judge.
Judges who work on patent infringement cases must already determine patent infringement, this task of determining whether or not the specific innovations claimed by the plaintiff in a patent infringement suit is already a part of their jobs. The only thing that they would have to do that is new, is use a computer to search for descriptions in the category of documents sent to the judge by the US Patent and Trademark Office from their archive. If the US Patent and Trademark Office defines categories narrowly enough, then there shouldn't be much for the judge to look at.
In other cases of patent infringement, where there was not a placement of a general patent or registered patent mark, the judges would be required to sift through the documentary evidence provided by the party or parties whom produced a certain innovation, to determine whether or not a legitimate claim of patent infringement exists.
In all cases judges presiding over these cases would be able to give civil remedies and penalties when needed. There would also be a mandatory civil penalty (a fine) from the plaintiff to the defendant in a patent infringement case, were the case thrown out by a judge, to punish individuals who push frivolous claims on the court system. This remedy would include any proven costs incurred by the defendant as a result of defending against the frivolous claim.
OK, so there's my proposal for a new patent system strikingly similar to the copyright system. It still accomplishes the purpose of a patent, to retain knowledge of inventions while protecting the intellectual property of the inventor. But protection of the law will work faster for inventors allowing more technological innovation.
In light of this proposal, do you feel the current slow system of patents should be reformed?
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
