5 Comments

Summary:

There may be light at the end of the tunnel for America’s beleaguered patent system thanks to a new partnership between the patent office and expert Q&A site Stack Exchange. The new system, which goes live this morning, invites members of the public to submit prior art.

stock-crowdglobe

A new partnership between the US government and a popular Q&A site may help rid the country of the low quality patents that have produced an endless series of lawsuits that threaten to stunt parts of the technology sector.

Starting today, the website Stack Exchange will run a channel devoted to patents on which the public can help scrutinize pending application. The move serves to crowdsource the arduous task of examining patents, permitting the general public to submit information that will help the patent office decide whether or not something is a new and useful invention.

It works like this. Once a patent examination is made public, anyone can submit it to Stack Exchange and launch a discussion. Others can then offer “prior art” that they believe is relevant to determining whether the patent should be granted. The collection of prior art is then sent on to an examiner at the USPTO who makes the final decision. To prevent gaming of the system, people are allowed to make only one submission with up to three pieces of prior art (additional submissions are possible but require a $120 fee).

The move is a boon for the Patent Office which has been lambasted for issuing a flood of seemingly obvious patents, including ones for emoticons, the use of auto-complete and a method of exercising a cat with a laser pointer. While such patents may seem simply frivolous, they are also ammunition for so-called “patent trolls” — shell companies that don’t make anything but make a living suing companies that do.

Crowdsourcing the prior art process will reduce the number of bad patents by helping examiners, who typically have around 18 hours to make a decision, locate material that shows an invention to be obvious or not new. Until now, the ability for third parties to submit prior art has been very limited.

Stack Exchange appears well-suited to vet patents. The site, which launched in 2008, is known for attracting communities of experts who answer questions on topics like software, photography and cooking. Stack Exchange also uses a sophisticated system of moderators and algorithms to keep discussions relevant and on point. In a phone interview, company executive Alex Miller explained why it’s taking part in the patent project:

“Like almost any tech company, we think there’s a problem with patents and think something must be done. We think this is great way to make progress on patent problems as work toward fund amentsl reform,” said Miller. “The second thing is empowers people who have this knowledge [to contribute to the patent system].”

The Stack Exchange project comes as other tech companies work to rein in a growing spate of patent lawsuits. Twitter, for example, is developing a contract that promises its engineers that their work won’t be used to fuel patent aggression. Meanwhile, Google will be contributing to the new crowdsourcing initiative by adding a “discuss” button to its patent pages that will bring users to Stack Exchange.

The crowdsourcing initiative is another coup for David Kappos, the popular USPTO director who started his tenure in 2009. The current project grew out of an earlier experiment called “Peer to Patent” in which outside experts were invited to join the patent examination process. Kappos has also taken other steps to modernize and invigorate the patent office such as opening a series of satellite offices where examiners specialize in areas of regional innovation. The patent office provided the following statement:

“By introducing third party input into the examination process for the first time since the inception of our nation’s intellectual property system, we’re able to expand the scope of access to prior art in key areas like software patents. This will improve the examination process and advance the Administration’s ongoing commitment to transparency and open government,” said Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO David Kappos. “We encourage our nation’s innovators to follow Stack Exchange’s example and assist us as we improve the examination process and resulting patent quality that will drive our economy and create jobs and exports.”

  1. Reblogged this on Briskin, Cross & Sanford, LLC and commented:
    This looks like an interesting addition to the patent review process. Ultimately, I am skeptical that it will make a significant impact on the process, bit it certainly cannot hurt and may even help!

    Share
  2. Daniel Tunkelang Thursday, September 20, 2012

    Interesting. I’ve been a long-time fan of Article One Partners — and generally of the idea of crowdsourcing the process of finding prior art. Am curious what legal, financial or social incentives are necessary to make it work. So far nothing seems to have made a dent.

    Share
  3. Very cool idea, I think companies that submit patent applications potentially should need to put up say an extra $1k (not enough to discourage the patent, but enough to reward someon) into “escrow” and then when someone finds prior art that invalidates your patent, that escrow gets used to “pay the bounty” It gives a commercial motivation for people to search for prior art, and may cut down on the crap. Kind of like http://www.articleonepartners.com/ but it wouldn’t require a lawsuit to start the ball rolling on prior art, and it would self pay for itself by the people applying for the patents.

    Share
  4. There’s a British startup doing somewhat similar thing er1cpeters mentions, the company is called CrowdIPR (http://crowdipr.com/projects)

    Share
  5. Why should anyone volunteer their time to *improve* the US patent system? The problem is laws that permit such nonsense patents to even be applied for. If brilliant people ignore the US patent system and just work to undermine it by hacking corporate secrets and publishing them online for all to see, everyone would probably be better off. There were some merits to owning patents on electronic and mechanical hardware when it was hard to get funding for a good idea, but that is no longer the case. Either restrict the patent system, as Richard Stallman advises, to innovations that respond to a real world problem with tolerances that can be measured, or give it up entirely. Patents on processes for cat exercising, or software which is composed of algorithms that manipulate an entirely predictable deterministic device, ought to be thrown out without need for citizen intervention.

    Share

Comments have been disabled for this post