There are many areas of government over which Obama has pledged to wave the magic wand of reform. And given the severity of the current economic crisis, fixing the system by which the US awards patents and trademarks has presumably been placed on the back burner. If that's the case, it's a shame, because the patent system's problems have reached tragi-comic proportions. As of early 2008 (when I last researched the matter for my book) it took an average of 2.5 years for an application to work its way through the USPTO, which has a backlog of more than 1 million applications. The 5,500 examiners themselves are notoriously underpaid and overworked, and can only allot twenty hours to review even the most abstruse patents. Further hampering the process, reviewers rarely posses expertise in computer science and aren't allowed to consult the Internet in their research, relying instead on the USPTO's own database of prior art. The result? An increase in undeserving patents and a Gordian Knot of conflicting claims. Unsurprsingly, patent litigation has doubled since 1990, at an average cost of $2 million per lawsuit.
In my book I chronicled how Beth Noveck, a professor at New York Law School, was trying to harness the network—which is to say, all of us—to improve the process. She launched Peer-to-Patent in June of last year, in cooperation with the USPTO, as well as such companies as IBM and Microsoft, whose outsized patent portfolios exercise a magnetic force for frivolous litigation. How it works: Post applications to the public, and let interested parties submit prior art and comment on the claims. The wisdom of crowds will do a better job of determining validity, the logic goes, than a single reviewer. I'm a fan, as I make clear in my book, but to judge by the number of participants (2352 members have submitted 274 instances of prior art), it's failed to gain the level of traction that would—and I'm speculating here—persuade the USPTO to adopt Noveck's methodology across the board.
Now a new model has emerged: On Monday a company called Article One Partners hung up its shingle. It's like Peer-to-Patent, in that it relies on the collective intelligence of the public. It's unlike Peer-to-Patent in that it offers money—up to $50,000—for anyone that can provide documentation that an existing patent either is or isn't valid. My colleague Julian Sanchez at Ars Technica (now part of the Wired empire) notes that this isn't entirely original, and perhaps Article One—which has filed for patent protection—is guilty of patent infringement itself. That's not quite right—in fact, Article One is working with Noveck. It will pay Peer-to-Patent contributors if they submit prior art that is accepted by the non-profit.
No, my problem with Article One is that it would seem to create the prospect of freelance IP mercenaries, with a cash incentive to dig up material that would assist possible plantiffs in a suit, leading to a further, unwelcome increase in court dockets. I could be wrong (and if I am, I'm sure AOP will be the first to tell me), but my impression is that whereas Peer-to-Patent asks its community to review patent applications, Article One asks its contributors to review existing patents. This strikes me as a horse of a different color, and one that patent lawyers might consider with some relish, and judges with a sigh of exhaustion.
Now, I'm not entirely unaware of the contradiction in my complaint—part of the solution to aforementioned Gordian Knot it to invalidate patents that shouldn't have been granted in the first place. But the problem is that given the complexity of many of the patents in, say, computer sciences or biotechnology, originality is in the eye of the beholder—or, as it often happens, a judge.
At any rate, I'm excited to see Article One launch for one reason: It offers an unparalled window into what may be the most fascinating, and thorny, aspects of research in community production: What motivates the contributors? Will more people contribute to Article One than have participated in Peer-to-Patent? If so, what's the signal to noise ratio? Did the cash incentive bring out the idiots and the trolls? All interesting questions that time will surely answer.


Certainly, it's hard to tell from the Article One page where they are directing their efforts. It is almost certainly patents that are already granted, although most patent applications in the US are now publicized eighteen months after they are first filed (and therefore long before actual patents are granted).
It's too bad people don't remember Bounty Quest, an attempt in the late 90s to start a company that gave bounties for people who find prior art. My employer, Tim O'Reilly, invested in their company, which couldn't make a go of it then. (This posting represents only my opinion.)
Posted by: Andy Oram | November 20, 2008 at 06:24 PM
Money is never the greatest motivator - want of status is (90-9-1 principle) - but it will still be interesting to follow those two; either it will be a patent battle or a patent prattle. Even so, I can't help feeling a certain Mr Gray would not have hesitated to sign up for both services.
Posted by: txtface | November 25, 2008 at 07:26 AM
In all honesty has Obama lived up to his expectations - I don't hear a great deal of what you would know as I'm in the UK.
Posted by: Payday Loans | May 28, 2010 at 01:41 AM
interesting post! in cooperation with the USPTO, as well as such companies as IBM and Microsoft, whose outsized patent portfolios exercise a magnetic force for frivolous litigation.
Posted by: Nursing apparel | June 28, 2010 at 11:13 PM
It's too bad people don't remember Bounty Quest, an attempt in the late 90s to start a company that gave bounties for people who find prior art.
Posted by: nike air force 1 | July 07, 2010 at 06:42 AM
I hope his reforms will make the life better
Posted by: Clenbuterol | July 09, 2010 at 05:13 AM
Excellent thinking Sonny - the companies that incorporate that kind of synergy into their old and new media will definitely be the ones who get the most for their money! Thanks for weighing in!
Posted by: free cna training | July 19, 2010 at 02:46 AM
That's great fantastic! I think your blog will brought the house down, I reading your article with much more pleasure. Thanks a lot indeed.
Posted by: discount coach | July 23, 2010 at 12:45 AM
Certainly.Money is not the greatest motivator all the time.
Posted by: men sports shoes | July 29, 2010 at 11:49 PM
The result? An increase in undeserving patents and a Gordian Knot of conflicting claims. Unsurprsingly, patent litigation has doubled since 1990
Posted by: cna training | September 24, 2010 at 08:26 AM
of conflicting claims. Unsurprsingly, patent litigation has doubled since 1990
Posted by: dollar shops | September 26, 2010 at 01:32 AM
Your artilcles are good,I read all yours,I got the best meaning about something,insist in them,and I will follow you in the future,and now can you support me to know about UGG 5235 boots of my website,only need to link my name and know all about it,thanks.
Posted by: UGG 5235 boots | September 27, 2010 at 08:32 PM
The result? An increase in undeserving patents and a Gordian Knot of conflicting claims. Unsurprsingly, patent litigation has doubled since 1990, at an average cost of $2 million per lawsuit.
Posted by: medical billing and coding | September 30, 2010 at 01:02 PM
Good news!Free shipping windows 7 premium on our store! why not own one for youself? There are many versions for you to choose,come on
Posted by: windows 7 premium | October 03, 2010 at 05:24 PM
Nice information...can you tell me is there any software or suites which is used to develop mobile applications?
Posted by: high interest savings account | October 17, 2010 at 10:49 PM
Patent reviewing such a lame process.
Posted by: School Grants | October 19, 2010 at 03:36 PM
have tried to contact you often -- I am a musician who is spreading positive music, and I often do
Posted by: MBT Shoes | November 05, 2010 at 05:25 PM
as well as such companies as IBM and Microsoft, whose outsized patent portfolios exercise a magnetic force for frivolous litigation.
Posted by: radiology technician career | November 09, 2010 at 09:02 AM
I hope she can come back.
Posted by: green laser | November 09, 2010 at 11:15 PM
Usually I do not post on posts, but I would like to say that this site really forced me to do it! Thanks, very good post. falling behind on mortgage payments is not something you want to willingly do; in fact, every measure possible should be taken in order to avoid that scenario.
Posted by: Tie | December 07, 2010 at 05:01 AM
It is very rare these days to find blogs that provide information someone is looking for. I am glad to see that your blog share valued information that can help to many readers. Thanks and keep writing.
Posted by: paydex score | December 07, 2010 at 06:09 PM
By 1990 the market had become a free-for-all of opportunists in which everyone had to fend for themselves. Investors were in desperate need of a platform on which they could safely and confidently conduct their trade.
Posted by: certified gold | December 08, 2010 at 09:57 PM
Your final decision will be whether to take physical possession of the gold you buy or have us make arrangements with either Brinks or Delaware Depository Services Company (DDSC), who will assess an annual fee to securely store your purchase.
Posted by: silver gold coins | December 10, 2010 at 03:06 AM
The importance of full-mouth radiography can’t be overstated for our veterinary patients. Normal-appearing teeth and gingiva don’t necessarily mean that all is well. Considerable pathology can be uncovered in apparently normal patients when a full-mouth radiographic series is used.
Posted by: Chiropractic DR X-Ray | December 13, 2010 at 01:51 AM
Our software allows users to access and route documents from anywhere they have an Internet connection, giving them the ability to get work done, no matter where they are.
Posted by: Document management system | December 14, 2010 at 05:48 AM