On Fri, 1 Oct 2004, Harold Hallikainen wrote:

> So, why leave it to the patent examiner? Publish patent applications for
> public review. The patent examiner then reviews the public comments and
> allows or disallows the patent. Patent applicants may not like their
> applications being published, especially if a patent is not eventually
> issued. Those with truly innovative inventions would be granted, so the
> publication is just a little earlier. Those whose "inventions" are not
> truly innovative may choose to protect their ideas through trade secret
> instead of the patent process.

This is a good idea, in the spirit of f.ex. aspiring politicians being 
stopped from running for office if someone brings legal proof they are 
felons (not ex) etc.

But I also think it is too candid. Droves of industrial spies, lawyers, 
and other types of non-technical persons would swarm over the published 
applications while real techies would have a strong deja vu feeling and 
some would act on it. I don't think this would work in today's world.

The easiest way out of the hot water for the p.o. (utopical proposal 
follows) would be to hire a lot of retired engineers and scientists with a 
relevant past in the industry on a small per-job fee to review patent 
applications and say nay or aye, leaving further discussions to the more 
active members of the p.o. and lawyers. This would be a fairly democratic 
process, the asked people not knowing who else would write what. A one 
page email would be amply sufficient from each, sent in an electronic form 
and together with an nda and non-involvement statement (similar to that 
required from jurors) that would be evaluated by machine. It would have 
only two choice answers as in 1. don't know 2. I do know, and in that 
case, write at most 1 page below, quoting at least one actual previous art 
example (patented or not). In the USA at least this could function as an 
extension of the juror system used by the courts I think. Obviously the 
identities of the 'jurors' would be kept secret to prevent tampering by 
interested parties, and the 'jurors' chosen for the review of a certain 
patent application would be chosen electronically, and randomly. Just an 
idea ? Even if it would not be an ultimate solution, the conclusion 
reached would be more in the spirit of technical/knowledgeable people 
imho.

Peter
_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist