November 11, 2008
Patently-O's Professor Dennis Crouch reports, as a straight man for unintentional comedy, that Senior IP Counsel at SAS US, Tim Wilson, having constructed a hypothetical demand curve "using the powerful computing resources of SAS," figures that if patents cost as much as $50,000, there would be a "dramatic decrease" in patent filings.
SAS is a member of the Coalition of Patent Fairness, a corporate corral for further engendering patents as the sport of kings.
In the interest of full disclosure, Patent Hawk clients often include Coalition members. Regular readers of the Patent Prospector know that Patent Hawk, with regard to patent political perspective, is not shy about biting the hand that feeds.
Patent Hawk views patents as a commoditization of invention, best exercised equitably and democratically, not as a further means for concentrating economic power.
Posted by Patent Hawk at November 11, 2008 2:28 PM | The Patent System
No, wait, let me guess: a software company showing the Patent Office how not to patent inventions??
How clever. What a surprise. Perhaps SAS will receive a Nobel prize in economics for their startling (though unpatentable) discovery.
Meanwhile, in other news, water is wet.
Posted by: niRPa at November 11, 2008 4:34 PM
The Office better grab as much as they can...
as found on The Invent Blog:
We all know that allowance rates are down, way down.
Matt Buchanan, after analyzing weekly USPTO utility patent grants, states that decreasing allowance rates:
…will have both an immediate and a delayed impact on Office income - Twenty thousand fewer issues fees have been paid so far this year as compared to 2006. If all of those ‘lost patents’ would have been large entity patents (which, of course, is not the case), the lost issue fees would be more that $28 million dollars ($14M if all would have been granted to small entities). That’s real money, even in Washington.
The impact will be felt again in 3 to 4 years when the first maintenance fees are due on this year’s crop (assuming similar maintenance rates). Maximum lost revenue here is greater than $18M (if all of the lost patents would have been maintained by large entities). This will ripple through the maintenance fee schedule as time marches on (fees will be due again in 7-8 years, and again in 11-2 years). If maintenance rates remain the same, proportionate reductions in income can be expected.
Can you say shortfall? Huge shortfall. Tens (if not hundreds) of millions of dollars of lost USPTO revenue.
How exactly are they going to make up the difference? Increase fees? Decrease services? Have patent applicants do more of the examination themselves? Lay off Examiners? Sublease space? Additional funding from Congress? Pressure from Congress to increase allowance rates?
Scary things to ponder….
Posted by: pay me now... at November 13, 2008 12:16 PM
Pay me now: that's simply more evidence that the office requires fee setting authority :) Or, at least that's what it can be used as when PTO lobbies again for it.
IMO it is a conspiracy to get filing fees jacked as a temporary fix. And of course... we all know what that will mean in the long run.
Posted by: 6000 at November 13, 2008 5:25 PM
pay me now,
So what happens if Reed Hundt, team advisor to Obama gets his way and we are no longer talking about a drop of 20,000 sets of fees but rather a drop of 150,000 sets of fees?
And, oh by the way, let's triple the USPTO budget at the same time.
Anyone at SAS or anyone in particular with an inkling of an economics background willing to guess at the outcome?
Posted by: don't pay at all at November 17, 2008 5:02 AM