Hacker News Reader

Comment by jimmydddd | Hacker News Reader

For those who want to improve patent quality, let the patent office keep its funds so it can invest in updated technology and hiring and training patent examiners. Currently, those applying for patents pay fees to the patent office, but congress takes most of the money for other stuff (e.g., pet projects in their districts). Let the patent office keep its funds paid for by patent applicants, so they can be re-invested in the system.

View on HN

Looks like at least for the last few years, the patent office has spent approximately the amount it takes in as fees:

"estimated base fee collections for 2016 of $3.207 billion. This forecasted amount of fee collection revenue continues a trend of year over year increases in fee collections from the 2015 estimate ($3.142 billion) and the actual 2014 collections ($3.024 billion). The total budgeted program level for the USPTO during the 2016 fiscal year has also been growing incrementally year over year. The total estimated obligations of the PTO for 2016 are $3.499 billion, over $150 million more than 2015’s estimated obligations ($3.331 billion) and about $500 more than actual 2014 obligations ($2.997 billion)." http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/02/05/usptos-budget-increases...

@kbutler Agreed. That Web site has a good understanding of the patent system (unlike, e.g., in general, writers for the NYT and WSJ). The article appears to state, however, that the patent office is working from reserves to make up for current shortfalls. Another issue is that while patent laws passed by congress often include sections that appear to stop congress from taking money from the patent office, they always leave a back door in the legislation to allow for the taking in the future.

That would create a corrupting incentive for the USPTO to encourage and accept more patent filings, which is the opposite of what they should be doing.

@omellet You make an interesting point. The patent office doesn't really encourage the filing of patent applications though. Instead, it examines patent applications after they are filed.

Their point is that the Patent Office would have a "perverse incentive" to encourage/increase the number of filings and the numbers of patents it grants if the Office were allowed to keep the proceeds raised from fees, which you correctly point out is not the case right now.

@wavefunction. I see their point, but I don't quite follow their logic. I don't think the patent office has much control over how many people file patent applications, they just examine them once they are filed. For example, the patent office doesn't advertise during the superbowl. If they have less resources to examine the filed patent applications, then they will not be able to examine them as effectively.

@omelet. Also, many feel that the patent office is currently incentivized to allow low quality applications to issue as low quality patents, because the patent office does not have the resources (i.e., people and computer search tools) to do a proper search and analysis of the incoming patent applications.

Something similar happens to the SEC. IIRC from memory, around the mid-2000's, the SEC took in circa 600 million in fees, while Congress budgeted it circa 100 million.

For years, the SEC was/is clamoring to hire more and more qualified examiners. This budgeting has cut these proposals/initiatives off at the knees.

A few years ago, it was announced that they would be creating... again, IIRC, roughly 1000 of these positions. One of the "significant" announcements/initiatives following the 2008 financial crisis. The last I heard, a couple of years ago, this initiative was still stalled, due to... no allocated budget.

In understanding regulation (and IP as well is "regulation", of a sort), in addition to all the "politics", it is merited to apply that old but apt saw, "follow the money".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com