On the Patent Office and Other Problems Facing the Country

There are two common complaints about the current state of the USPTO:

1. Quality -- This is exemplified by the cases you read about every day such as Amazon's One-Click patent and the Eolas web plug-in patent. Critics charge that examiners don't do a good job searching for prior art, and allow lots of applications that should be rejected.
   
2. Timeliness -- The current backlog at the USPTO is about 3 years, and growing by about 85,000 this year. That means that an application filed today won't be seen by an examiner until the end of 2008, if the situation doesn't continue to worsen. This makes it hard for businesses to seek protection for their innovations because technologies will make it to the market a year or two before the review process begins, and three or four years before the patent is issued. In the technology industry, that is typically beyond the lifespan of a product. What good is a patent on an obsolete technology?
   

The purpose of patents is to provide a limited monopoly for inventors (typically 20 years) in exchange for disclosing the detailed workings of the invention to the public. After the limited monopoly expires, anyone can read the patent and use the invention without paying a license. The Founding Fathers believed this limited protection would provide an incentive to inventors to share their ideas and serve the public interest by facilitating the free flow of information. Many people agree that the patent system has served those functions well, and some even attribute to patent process (combined with good 'ole American ingenuity) the US's economic dominance. However, the patent process must be modernized if it is to continue to be useful.

Hopefully, this brief write-up has explained the problems facing the PTO. My next entry will explore some potential solutions. But for now, I've got a bus to catch. (Then, all-I-can-eat sushi!)

Jean-Paul Sartre walks into a bar

Sartre walks into a bar. The bartender says, "Hey, Jean-Paul, what's happenin'? Can I get you a beer?" Sartre says, "I think not." Then he disappears.

Yeah, that kinda sucked.

On Saturday, I called my mom on the telephone. I told her about poker the night before, and mentioned how annoying our host was. First, a word about him. He's (allegedly) had a girlfriend for a few years, but they've decided to stay celebate until marriage (or maybe longer). If you'll permit me to analyze him for a second, I believe he suffered some kind of parental trauma when he was very young (possibly related to a strict Christian upbringing) that has caused him to become stuck in Freud's anal phase (not that I know what that means). Basically, everything turns into one big, obnoxious gay joke.

So, I explained this to my mom, and said that I needed to: a) forceably remove him from my social circle or b) stop hanging around him. My mom agreed that was probably a good idea. We talked a little while longer, and then she hung up. I sat down at my computer, and got a *DING* from AIM. In what is quickly becoming a weekly ritual, Michelle (my old roommate/BillKells significant other) suggested I come hang out in Delaware. While I was debating making the 2 1/2-hour trek, my mom called me back.

"Mark," she said, "I just wanted to add something. One thing I've lived by that has served me well is that you shouldn't hang out with people who make you feel bad. ...Let me rephrase that in a more positive light... You should be around people who make you feel good."

Well, that made my Saturday night plans an easy call. And I had a hell of a good time. Moms, you gotta love 'em.