Re: Microchip looses the plot ?



On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 12:11:18 -0700, Scott Moore
<samiamsansspam@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>Joe Butler wrote:
>
>> Don't you think it makes the Patent Office look like clueless muppets?
>>
>> Shouldn't there be some system in place, such as "3-strikes and you're
>> out" - where any patent clerk that achieves 3 successfully-challenged
>> patents should be removed from their position?
>>
>> Is it possible to sue the Patent Office for damages due to the issuing of
>> dumb patents and the negative publicity a 'stupid' patent claim can have?
>> If not, it should be.
>>
>
>Let's see. The patent office makes lots of money on issuing patents and
>maintaining them, so much so that congress is tapping the USPO for funds
>to run other government functions. If the patent office issues a "bad"
>patent, such as two patents that clearly duplicate each other (which
>has occurred often), not only does it take years before such patents
>are ruled invalid, but the USPO suffers no penalties for issuing such
>patents. They don't even have to refund fees charged for the invalidated
>patent.
>
>Now, WHY should the USPO care about bad patents ?


Right on ! The patent system is definately broken. It's good for
the patent office and the government monetarily, but bad for us
who have to prove our competition wrong to make them go away
and stop hounding us. (which I've done before)

BTW, does the patent examiner really look for prior art these days ?
I think that ~maybe~ they look at ~some~ patents, but I'm not sure
about prior art and published papers etc...

boB



.