It seems that although patent management is one of very few roles that I would consider to be a legitimate government function, as all government functions, the government invariably screws it up.

That presumes that your product is based upon "an idea". Software is a string of hundreds or thousands of ideas.

Unfortunately, there was time that the Patent Office measured the quality of examiner's work by the ratio of patents allowed to patent application examiner. The lower the allowance rate the higher the quality. This was often summarized as rejection equals quality. Thus examiners would tell me that it was easier to reject my client's patent application than deal with their supervisors.

This started under Bush 2 when he appointed Jon Dudas (not a patent attorney or technical) as the head of the patent office. Technical Dudas' actions were illegal in multiple ways. There was at least one lawsuit against the patent office on point.

The next director of the patent office changes this, but the attitude remains in many parts of the patent office and may be the attitude of the new director of the patent office.

the evidence is overwhelmingly against you. that is the point of the article. :)

no. most patents are licensed. Just negotiate. it does NOT stop tech advance. Everything about it is published around 18 months. Advance invent. so think about it. the inventor's invention is told to the world many months before it is even prosecuted by the patent office. so the whole world knows your idea and you do not have a patent yet. c'mon!

yes.

the patent forbids anyone ELSE from manufacturing and selling it. You are correct that you dont HAVE to actually manufacture it. So you could just stop the advance of technology by sitting on your patent. That is true. But I would think that most people who go through the work of patenting something actually DO want to use it in some way to recoup their investment. So if you use it, or license others, it is the equivalent of having a government protected monopoly keeping anyone else who comes up with the same idea (who had nothing to do with taking your intellectual property) from benefiting from their work.
I just dont see how this is fair at all under the current system.
If any good comes from the patents, its that it encourages others to get around the patents, which does nothing to preserve the intellectual property of the original patent holder at all.

nailed it

you are anti-patent, even though you always say you aren't. I am not sure why you are interested in this site. Rand refers to patents almost 200 times in Atlas Shrugged. This is an Objectivism site. These property rights are fundamental to Capitalism. In fact, a foundation of Capitalism. Why are you here?

This essay is strident, religious, all-or-nothingism and reveals mainly that its author is a simpleton.

No one opposes patents per se (though I have met people who oppose copyright). But there are many such as myself who believe that there need to be reasonable limits on intellectual property awards -- not only on their duration, but on what they prohibit competitors from doing without permission -- because when original owners have the right to ban derived works for decades or longer, that power can be and often is used to prevent more innovation than the patent enables.

It's even worse when IP awards are retroactively extended for decades longer. That obviously can't cause any new inventions whatsoever.

My view is quite unqualified, since I am not a patent attorney, but I have patents of my own and, as we all, use patents of others. I think that the current system of limited number of years is reasonable, as are the lower costs for small and micro entities. The one problem that I've experienced with the system is that it seems that a patent examiner is often not an expert in the field and it seems that some of them have a wrong mentality for patent work, rejecting innovation when it doesn't fit into their square mold.

as usual, from some in this crowd, you are pointed down for understanding both the law and the philosophy of Objectivism. People really need to research property rights. very frustrating. I guess, makes for a lively Saturday.

Me dino (7 years news reporter/photographer, 21 years prison guard, 2 years an eBay seller and an off and on semi-retired security guard in that order) has never been much of a businessman and definitely not an entrepreneur, but it is really not hard to figure out

Not when it is true. You are not interested in a rational discussion, you just want to continue spewing propaganda.

As the post made clear your position is so outrageous that it is clear that you are not interested in reason.

Right because I've claimed to be an expert and referenced my own website as a response? No, I've proved you with research from experts in the field which have shown that multiples exist and are the norm. You are clearly not interested in these fact and insist that despite the experts' finding you alone have without evidence proved that multiples are in fact rare. You've not addressed any of that but rather relied on logical fallices and evasion. Comparing the research of experts in the field to your postings here indicates you either do. It understand the fundamentals of patent infringement and the basic logic behind them, and are simply arguing from an emotional standpoint. Therefore there is no value in attempting a rational discussion with you about it. A pity, as someone with your intellect would clearly be able to bring that to provide value on the issue rather than being willfully ignorant of the problems with the current system. Good day and feel free to have the last word. Hopefully it won't be yet another fallacy or insult.

it costs around 400 bucks for a company to do a search. For any business, that is peanuts before launching their idea. gah!

no matter how many times I tell you this, you still harp on the same argument. 1. the patent office ran a program, for a long time, just for simultaneous invention. They discontinued it because it was not an issue. 2. You thinking up an idea in your head and not doing the due diligence on what has already been patented? that is on you. Think about it. 3. It takes up to 10 years for a new tech to get out there in the marketplace. Just do the due diligence and stop whining. and yes, I am frustrated. because this has been explained to you many times, yet you keep coming back with the same argument.

actually, you are writing long-winded comments with no expertise in the profession. I understand I am calling argument from authority, but you are not one

Yes.
The issue comes down to your own time and whether or not you own your time...and hence your life (and the products thereof).
This is the metaphysical basis of Objectivism and individualism.

if you look at the definition, term, you will see it is not. I have a patent. It does not give me the right to manufacture it and sell it. It does not give me a govt granted right to an industry. Think ATT before baby bells, think Comcast. It simply gives me a right, for a limited time to my invention, whether or not I get to use it. Think cellphones. there are thousands of cellphone patents. Have they ruined the cellphone industry? shut it down? look at any disruptive technology. You do not see "monopoly." I will have Dale come in and explain the history of monopoly for you. Long procedural history. It is a contradiction, though, to misuse the term. and it hurts our patent system, which is the strongest in the world -well weakening.

this is why there are companies which purchase patents. The main goal is to licence them to manufacturers and others who would "use" them. However, companies often don't want to pay, so they infringe and you see litigation. Often inventors invent, they don't invest in manufacturing their invention.For lots of reasons.

Ah name calling - the hallmark of rational and reasonable discussion. Were you trying to be ironic by talking about the telephone then directing the "absurdly ignorant" reader to articles which are not about the telephone?

I also notice that while you were choosing to insult someone who disagreed with you, you also avoided the thrust of the argument to focus on one (or two, maybe even three?) historical incidents - namely that independent invention is not rare as you claim, but as shown by data and research to be the norm rather than the exception.

Agreed. K and I have documents 10s of times where Rand says you own yourself and 1 time she says the "right to life" is the source of all rights. BTW that is not necessarily contradictory.

And that makes no sense, there's no rational logic in that--well maybe a perverted or irrational logic.

So lets start with the BS on the Telephone. You are so ignorant is absurd. Start with this article. https://hallingblog.com/2009/07/20/di... and this https://hallingblog.com/2013/03/14/wr...