RE: Vulnerability-based IPS Patent

["Larry Seltzer" <larry () larryseltzer com>]

Speaking of patents, there's a great editorial in the WSJ today
(unfortunately, paid subscribers only -
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114360476879210882.html?mod=opinion_main_rev
iew_and_outlooks) calling for patent process reform. Here is an excerpt:

"...Bruce Lehman, Patent Office commissioner through much of the 1990s, once
summed up the problem when he said, "We are the patent office, not the
rejection office."

The Patent Office itself gets paid when it grants a patent, creating
pressure on the staff to keep the money coming in. Patent examiners' bonuses
are also based in part on the number of files they close in a year. But the
only way to close a file for good is to grant the patent because an
application that's been denied can always be modified and resubmitted, and
frequently is. So examiners have a direct financial stake in closing
application files by green-lighting the patent.

Today the Patent Office grants so many patents that half of the fees it
generates are given back to the Treasury to spend on other things. Next
month, Congressman Lamar Smith (R., Texas) will hold hearings on a
patent-reform bill that has many good qualities, such as allowing third
parties to submit evidence of "prior art" to show that an alleged innovation
is not in fact novel -- before the patent is granted. It would also allow
administrative review of questionable patents after they've been granted but
before an infringement lawsuit is filed."


_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.