Gregnews flames examination reform proposal

A proposal to abolish the patent examination system and replace it with
a balance of incentives and burdens where peer reviewers are paid by the
applicant if they invalidate the patent, can be found at

	http://wiki.ffii.org/PatexamReformEn

I wonder if it is as "idiotic" or perhaps even more "idiotic" than the
one proposed by New York Law School professor Beth Noveck.  Unfortunately
GregNews cites no source where I can find the Noveck proposal.  Maybe
Greg could judge? 

                              ====================

    -  LAW PROFESSOR PROPOSES IDIOTIC SOLUTION TO PATENT QUALITY

Without no serious analysis, Wired reports on one of the more idiotic
solutions to patent quality.  New York Law School professor Beth Noveck
is proposing that patent applications be posted to the Internet for
peer-review.  Beyond dozens of logistics problems, once again, why do
all solutions to problems at the PTO ignore the fundamental problem -
PTO management?  Most examiners, given good prior art, do a good job
with patent examination (and the rest need more training).  That's not
a fundamental problem that needs peer review (which also ignores the
fact that many peer reviewers make more money than PTO examiners).  Her
solution also ignores that this experiment has been tried and failed
(which PTO management also ignores) - the European Patent Office's ending
of its separate searching and examination (the seperated searchers being
the equivalent of peer reviewers).

The real problem is getting prior art to the examiners.  Does Prof. Noveck
propose getting the best, most appropriate, peers to provide prior art
through searching - THE INVENTORS - by tightening Rule 56? NO NO NO.  Until
she writes something serious about the hypocrisy of Rule 56, let's have 
none of these silly proposals.  It amazes why law professors ignore the
silliness of Rule 56 in this era of large number of easily accessible
science and engineering databases.  Tightening Rule 56 (it can be done,
no nonsense from search-naive lawyers saying it can't) is long overdue.
Does Prof. Noveck propose overhauling PTO automation and search support
management to provide examiners with much more powerful resources and tools
to do their searching integrated with their examination in a much more
logistic efficient manner?  NO NO NO.

If you raise PTO application fees by an average of $100 for five years,
and devoted the money solely to improving PTO examiner search tools and
resources, and having the money managed competently with competitive
bidding for solutions, you could solve many of the quality problems at
no undue burden to applicants, not silly gimicky external solutions
(like peer review, outsourcing, etc.).  Or instead of this $100 extra
fee, just get Congress to not waste $100,000,000 elsewhere (like with
its current energy bill), and fund the improvements directly.

Why are law schools and the patent bar so silent, still so lacking in
courage and leadership, to not address the fundamental problem of patent
examination flowing from PTO mismanagement, and instead propose these
logistically silly alternatives?

--
Hartmut Pilch, FFII.org, Munich Office +498918979927, Brussels +3227396262
Protect Innovation, not Monopolies       http://www.economic-majority.com/