¿Hay que arreglar el sistema?
Leo en el NYT un artículo en el que 2 profesores estudian la repercusión de las reformas legales introducidas en el sistema estadounidense. Básicamente, critican el velo de opacidad introducido por cierto sector de juristas que les favorece para seguir presentando demandas y ganando dinero.
He suggested that these changes for the worse occurred because "there's a relatively small group of people in the D.C. patent bar, and they have a very powerful influence on how patent policy gets decided. There is a powerful incentive for them to keep a patent system that is complicated, and one that involves protracted, costly litigation."
Por otra parte, implicitamente señala la baja calidad del trabajo que realizan los examinadores, principalmente la avalancha de solicitudes de los últimos años.
"The easier it became to get patents, the more people wanted to apply for them, and that led to a situation where examiners grappled with more patents to review, which led to them being pressed to do quicker reviews and a degradation in quality of patents issued."
Además, pide un nuevo modelo en el que se separen las invenciones "importantes" de las no importantes.
"Second, to see the patent review process as 'one size fits all' is again a mistake. There has to be way to figure out how to devote more resources to those patent applications which are really the important ones, and less to the unimportant ones."
Y por último, aboga por favorecer el suministro de elementos del estado de la técnica por terceros.
"Our recommendation is that we create very real incentives to third parties to contribute information to the patent-examining process," Mr. Lerner said. "There should be one level of review before and after the patent is issued, but within the patent office."
He suggested that these changes for the worse occurred because "there's a relatively small group of people in the D.C. patent bar, and they have a very powerful influence on how patent policy gets decided. There is a powerful incentive for them to keep a patent system that is complicated, and one that involves protracted, costly litigation."
Por otra parte, implicitamente señala la baja calidad del trabajo que realizan los examinadores, principalmente la avalancha de solicitudes de los últimos años.
"The easier it became to get patents, the more people wanted to apply for them, and that led to a situation where examiners grappled with more patents to review, which led to them being pressed to do quicker reviews and a degradation in quality of patents issued."
Además, pide un nuevo modelo en el que se separen las invenciones "importantes" de las no importantes.
"Second, to see the patent review process as 'one size fits all' is again a mistake. There has to be way to figure out how to devote more resources to those patent applications which are really the important ones, and less to the unimportant ones."
Y por último, aboga por favorecer el suministro de elementos del estado de la técnica por terceros.
"Our recommendation is that we create very real incentives to third parties to contribute information to the patent-examining process," Mr. Lerner said. "There should be one level of review before and after the patent is issued, but within the patent office."
0 Comments:
Publicar un comentario
<< Home