Comments on: Who Needs a Patent Lawyer Anyway? http://www.speechtechblog.com/2009/06/30/who-needs-a-patent-lawyer-anyway Fri, 05 Feb 2010 16:27:56 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Re: Who Really Needs a Patent Lawyer Anyway? A Debate About the Fundamentals | Speech Technology Magazine Blog http://www.speechtechblog.com/2009/06/30/who-needs-a-patent-lawyer-anyway/comment-page-1#comment-2440 Re: Who Really Needs a Patent Lawyer Anyway? A Debate About the Fundamentals | Speech Technology Magazine Blog Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:21:04 +0000 http://www.speechtechblog.com/?p=1872#comment-2440 [...] 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 [...] [...] 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 [...]

]]> By: Walt Tetschner http://www.speechtechblog.com/2009/06/30/who-needs-a-patent-lawyer-anyway/comment-page-1#comment-2437 Walt Tetschner Wed, 01 Jul 2009 02:35:34 +0000 http://www.speechtechblog.com/?p=1872#comment-2437 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. 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.

]]>