[chmod775]

That's ridiculous.

Having lots of such work is no excuse to do it worse. It is however an excuse to have a growing backlog.

When it takes 10 years to have a patent granted governments will do something about it, but they won't if you "make do".

Appointments for certain government offices in my municipality are booked for 3 months in advance right now. It made the news and the local government is increasing staff.

This would have looked very differently if someone just decided to cut the allotted time for appointments in half.

Degraded service will be tolerated for a long long time. Broken or nonexistent service less so. Imagine the outcry if people and companies can't get patents anymore.

Thinking of it, patents should probably only be given to natural people and at most one every ten years per person (unless replacing an earlier patent), and who can only sign away up to 50% to a non-natural entity. That'll cut down on the bullshit as well. The notion that one person among billions can come up with multiple patentable ideas in such a timespan is patently ridiculous and need not be entertained. Patentable ideas should take research or domain knowledge accumulated over years and not be a five minute shower-thought.

[webmaven]

> Having lots of such work is no excuse to do it worse. It is however an excuse to have a growing backlog.

Unfortunately, examiners are evaluated based upon the number of applications they process.

Furthermore, when an examiner denies a patent or a claim, the patent application can be amended and refiled. Over and over again. Until the examiner grants the patent. Which still only counts as one patent toward the examiner's quota.

So, that backlog that you're imagining sitting there passively waiting actually represents an ever growing workload for the examiners, while their career-limiting KPIs get worse and worse.

[mulmen]

> Unfortunately, examiners are evaluated based upon the number of applications they process.

Well that sounds like it could be the entire problem.

[webmaven]

Well, not the entire problem, but yeah, a major chunk of it.

The problem of how to evaluate examiners' productivity is pretty similar to evaluating software developers'.

Unfortunately, the measure that is being used is akin to counting PRs merged.

It isn't hard to see how the PTO arrived at this method of evaluation: patent examiner time is their most constrained resource and they aren't provided the funds to hire more examiners, so of course they are focused on making the most efficient use of examiners' time to evaluate as many patent applications as they can.

Even so, patents are examined pretty thoroughly (just not thoroughly enough to prevent any bogus ones from slipping through) and it takes almost two years for a patent to be granted.

[mulmen]

Yeah I debated using that word. Probably not entirely accurate. Something like “if you change that all the other problems are insignificant” might be better.

I think your explanation of how this can happen is plausible. But it’s also the problem with treating government services like businesses.

USPTO incentives should be aligned with the public good, not the bottom line.

This differs from a service like the USPS or Amtrak that address a market failure.

[webmaven]

> This differs from a service like the USPS or Amtrak that address a market failure.

I think you may not understand the underlying economic forces.

Patents are explicitly addressing an existing market failure (that of suboptimal funding of innovation due to free rider disincentives). The mechanism is a grant by government fiat of an exclusive right for a limited time, enforced by the courts, and these grants (and the products covered by them) then become subject to ordinary market forces.

[webmaven]

Relevant post: https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/public-policy/refor...