2 Responses

  1. Walt Tetschner
    Walt Tetschner June 30, 2009 at 10:35 pm |

    This article quotes me out-of-context. In so doing, the entire point of the e-mail that I provided to you is totally missed. The section that you left out was:
    “They (the inventors) are also the ones that are fully responsible for assuring that they are not committing fraud by filing a patent application for an invention where prior art existed. I really believe that using lawyers to do the search for prior art is a huge part of the reason that we have so many patents issued that are bogus. If the inventors did the search themselves they would be less likely to submit a fraudulent patent application. As I recommended in the article that I sent you, the way to reduce the number of fraudulent patents that are issued is to make knowingly submitting a fraudulent patent application equivalent to lying under oath.”

    Fraudulent patents are a major industry problem. Patents are routinely granted for “inventions” where a significant body of prior art existed. My proposal to criminalize knowingly submitting a fraudulent patent application would result in a dramatic reduction in the number of fraudulent patents that are issued each year by the US PTO.

    Of course a lawyer will defend the use of a lawyer for a patent filing. What else would you expect a lawyer to do? Lawyers are a big part of the problem that we have with fraudulent patents being granted by the US PTO.

  2. Re: Who Really Needs a Patent Lawyer Anyway? A Debate About the Fundamentals | Speech Technology Magazine Blog

    […] Speech Heads. If you caught yesterday’s post, an omitted sidebar from my article, you likely saw a response from Walt Testchner. He felt that I […]

Comments are closed.