[frobozz]

> There is no incentive for them to stop granting bad patents.

I disagree.

a: If they are currently overrun with more work than they can handle, they can remedy this by refusing patents, thereby discouraging frivolous applications. Having done so, they can become a more efficient organisation.

b: Fees for continuations, amendments and extending response deadlines can be larger than the fee for simply issuing the patent.

c: As a Government entity, they have an interest in making as much money as possible change hands (and therefore attract tax). One way to do this is to occupy the applicants' lawyers with remedial work.

[lyndonh]

a. They get money for each patent examined. If they spend more time scrutinizing it, their profit is reduced.

At their annual review, one measure of how hard an examiner worked is probably based on how many patents they dealt with.

b. As an examiner you can send a patent back for a clarification or ask for more details. That's why as an applicant you pack in as many obfuscated details as possible, without giving the game away.

Also, this: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/14/03/02/214237/inventor-has-w...

c. The money goes to the lawyers. It's not an incentive for the examiners.

[frobozz]

a. They get money for: 1) Each patent claim (a patent is made up of a number of claims); 2) Each patent issued; 3) maintenance fees on granted patents; 4) Any extensions or continuations requested by the applicant; 5) Any post-rejection amendments.

At their annual review, one measure of how hard an examiner worked is probably based on how many requests they dealt with appropriately, whether that's 5 requests for 1 patent, or 1 request each for 5 patents.

Using a measure like the one you described is like using number of Lines of Code in a programmer's annual review.

It is in no one's interest for an examiner to simply stamp "PASSED" on any application that arrives on his desk.

b. Examiners can send it back for clarification, but if the applicant needs more than the allotted time to clarify, then that attracts a fee.

c. Part of the money goes to the lawyers, some of the money goes to IRS. It is a weak incentive, but not no incentive at all.