Comments on: Patently bogus

By: Paul K.

Paul K. — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 17:14:06 +0000

Would really like to get in touch with Bobby Orbach, since he recently discussed the brokerage of my patent and I do not know him. Paul@pjasonkingassociates.com

By: krish

krish — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 21:16:25 +0000

Letting the people use the powerful internet to provide input on prior art or views against very generic patents to be granted would bring value to the process.
Maybe a two columen blog for each patent pending filed with with arguments and references – for and against could be the way out. This reduces the effort of those making decisions on patents and also aid in more transperancy, reducing the filing numbers.

By: John Dodds

John Dodds — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 14:38:48 +0000

I wonder if you could actively choose to leave this clause in and then use its inclusion as evidence (in any future law suit) that you had been badly advised or forced into signing something you didn’t understand. Far-fecthed i know, but lawyers will try anything.

By: JP

JP — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 22:19:22 +0000

Hey B0bby, I didn’t mean to “blame the patent attorneys” in isolation. It’s the patent process that’s broken.

Maybe it’s time that some of the brains you speak of applied themselves to sorting out the process.

By: bobby orbach

bobby orbach — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 22:12:32 +0000

JP,
I saw this several weeks ago, a couple of attorneys with a sense of humour, (a rarity nowadays) … in any case, I have been involved in the acquisitions of many patents in the past two years; the issues encountered are all over the map.
the results are always blamed on patent attorneys, when a large part of the blame should be placed on the inventors and their related companies. IP is only valuable when the brains that create the concept, process, invention etc are also the brains behind how and what patents are applied.

bobby

By: Stephen Smoliar

Stephen Smoliar — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 22:14:48 +0000

I am not sure I would call the processes stupid. In many respect I think that the processes constitute as good an approach to review as you can expect. They are not stupid; they are just broken. They have broken under the strain of a load that was never anticipated; and, in an age of “brokers” who deal with the rights to patents the same way that Hollywood studios deal with the rights to novels, I do not see the load getting any lighter.

Here in the United States I feel sorry for the reviewers at the Patent Office who have to bear this burden. I have seen examples in which efforts to detect prior art come down to searching the patent database for what look like the most relevant keywords. This gums up the system even more, since the inventor now has to defend the originality of a claim against another claim that in no way constitutes prior art.

(You see the implications of this one: the next time someone files an application with the word “bogus,” the claim you quoted will be cited as prior art!)

It is not enough to call for change. Those of us who have been through the system (not to mention those of us actively working in the system) do not need to be reminded how broken it is. However, when you consider the overall “case load” of the Federal Government at the present time, I just do not see anyone in the Congress viewing this as a “crisis situation.”

I once heard that Microsoft had decided to opt out of the system, the argument being that it was a waste of time and money when all that really mattered was that you have lawyers strong enough to get what you want out of “the other guy,” whoever that “other guy” might be. That may work if you can afford an army of strong lawyers, but most of us are not in that position. So what are we do to?

By: Nothing to Declare » Things I should have patented #335

Nothing to Declare » Things I should have patented #335 — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 17:00:31 +0000

[...] Triggered by the faux-patent debate, I was reminded of something I thought might actually be worth registering at some point, namely a coding system that is organised to generate characters based on combinations of 6 simultaneous key presses. It goes with idea #334 – the keyboard glove. The 6th is to do with clever use of the thumb on a balled fist. [...]