1 / 34

STIET SEMINAR, University of Michigan March 23, 2006 “Peer to Patent”: Community Patent Review

STIET SEMINAR, University of Michigan March 23, 2006 “Peer to Patent”: Community Patent Review. Prof. Beth S. Noveck, New York Law School Director, Democracy Design Workshop http://dotank.nyls.edu/communitypatent http://dotank.nyls.edu. AGENDA From Centralized to Collaborative Expertise

lance
Download Presentation

STIET SEMINAR, University of Michigan March 23, 2006 “Peer to Patent”: Community Patent Review

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. STIET SEMINAR, University of MichiganMarch 23, 2006“Peer to Patent”: Community Patent Review Prof. Beth S. Noveck, New York Law School Director, Democracy Design Workshophttp://dotank.nyls.edu/communitypatent http://dotank.nyls.edu

  2. AGENDA • From Centralized to Collaborative Expertise • Patents: A Parade of Horribles • The Patent Process and the Goldilocks Dilemma • The Peer to Patent Community Reform Proposal • Rating, Reputation and Expertise

  3. Bureaucratic Expertise Based on Outdated Technological Assumptions Our legal administrative structures have been constructed around certain key beliefs: Our legal administrative structures have been constructed around certain key beliefs: • Centralized administrators have the best access to information • Expert bureaucrats are the only way to produce dispassionate decisions • Making decisions in the public interest requires keeping the public at bay • Agencies can “do science” as well as law • Despite APA, public consultation is difficult, time consuming and produces little • Innovation demands secrecy

  4. From Centralized Administration to Collaborative Expertise: A Fundamental Rethinking

  5. From Centralized to Collaborative Expertise • What if, instead of one examiner, an application had “1000 examiners”? • What if the community collaborated on developing repositories of prior art for its area of expertise? • What if persons skilled in the art could comment on how novel and non-obvious an invention actually was? • What if a wider array of people had a simple way to put forth prior art before the patent was approved? • What if we could review applications faster and better? • What if we could make public participation in policymaking a reality?

  6. The Challenge • Patent examiners • labor under 600,000 application backlog • have fewer than 18-20 hours for initial application review • lack time for training in new and advanced scientific subjects • do not have access to a wide-enough array of informational resources • must contend with poorly drafted applications and often uncooperative applicants • Cannot leverage the community of experts to promote the progress of useful arts

  7. Wikipedia - The User Created Encyclopedia Wikipedia uses collaborative editing software (known as a “wiki”) that enables people to draft together. Over 1 million entries in English alone 200+ languages

  8. Example: Wikipedia - The User Created Encyclopedia These 1 million entries are largely managed by 700 people 10 percent of all users make 80% of all edits 5 percent of all users make 66% of edits Half of all edits are made by just 2 1/2 percent of all users Open, easy to use interface makes it possible for people to contribute.

  9. Organization by the Community

  10. Meta-moderation system allows users to rate and rank each other’s postings

  11. Water Skipping Article Incorporating Elliptical Outline and Hollowed Interior Core

  12. Combined Coconut-Shaped Drink Container and Coin Bank

  13. A Parade of Horribles • Peanut Butter and Jelly Patents • Patent Trolling • Underpaid and Overworked • Ex Post Patent Law and Policy Reform

  14. Congress may not “enlarge the patent monopoly without regard to the innovation, advancement or social benefit gained thereby.” -Graham v. John Deere (1966)

  15. The Do Tank Digital Institution Design: The New Case Method • Three Fundamental Shifts • Network Technologies and New Ways of Wielding Power • The Visual Interface and Visual Deliberation • Lowered Transaction Costs • Law of E-Democracy • Regulation of Human Behavior • Creating Governance and Social Order • Normative Design

  16. A Solution: Exploit New Technology to Tap Collective Intelligence of the Community of Experts We have arrived at a moment when it is possible to explore the option of “peer review” for patents Why Now? Five factors converge: • Political and technological moment is ripe • Citizen consultation practiced by all agencies; peer review in widespread use in government (e.g. NIH, EPA, NSF) • Most US patents applications are published after 18 months • Social reputation, social networking and social recommendation technology • Experience with large scale collaboration: Wikipedia, Slashdot, Yahoo Answers, Open Source Programming suggests scaling of peer review

  17. Design and Pilot an Online System for Peer Review of Innovation http://dotank.nyls.edu/communitypatent

  18. Patent Examination Process

  19. Patent Examination Process

  20. The Goldilocks Dilemma • Too much and too little prior art • Finding just right prior art • Combining relevant prior art

  21. Design Principles: Building Communities of Practice • Simple to use • Clear goal • Modular tasks • Divvying up of roles • Self assignment • Status and rewards • Social reputation

  22. Proposal Basics: “With Many Eyeballs All Bugs are Shallow”Community submission of prior art Phase I: Novelty Determination and Locating Prior Art Ideally-suited to peer review because it enunciates a clear goal, requires only minimal participation and lends itself to self-selection on the basis of expertise. An expert knows instantly whether an invention is reminiscent of earlier work. Designed right, the software can make participation for a network of scientific and innovation experts clear and easy. • Create online system to publish patents to expert peer reviewers • Enable participants to sign up for specific categories of art • Experts to self-select participation • Solicit wide array of expert participation • Make logon easy • Allow participants to rate and rank prior art

  23. Proposal Basics: Citizen JuriesConsult the community jury as a proxy for the PHOSITA Phase II: Obviousness Determination The obviousness determination could be aided by a small group of relevant experts acting as a consultative citizen jury to aid the examiner. Members of the expert community evaluate and rate each other’s participation. The patent examiner coordinates the back-and-forth colloquy with the inventor. • Make logon harder, e.g. credit card: persistent pseudonymity • Create small group panels to assess prior art and consult with examiner • Make participation practical and short • Use reputation software to enable the community to rate its own experts

  24. Workshop Goals: Moving from Proposal to PrototypeBreaking down into manageable questions. Embed the process in design. • • Expertise - how to identify expertise? ePHOSITA? • • Managing Inputs - how to make participation and feedback manageable? • • Incentives, Abuses and Impediments - how to create incentives for participation ? • • Translating Statutory Standards into Online Practices - how to design the review process? • • Addressing the Examination Process - how to adapt examination to outside input? • • Steps to Implementation - how to design a pilot? how to evaluate?

  25. Rating and Reputation • What role does rating and reputation play in building this community of practice? Is it necessary or useful? • Do we want experts to rate and rank prior art? • Do we need peers to rate? • Each other objectively • Each other subjectively • Each other’s participation • In such a high stakes game, can an effective peer review community emerge? • Can such a system be engineered or must it emerge?

  26. Timeline Realize Opportunities for Expert Consultation From Proposal to Prototype: Spring/Summer 2006 Solicit input via WIKI and Web Solicit input through workshops and consultation Workshops Feb-May 2006 Pilot Fall 2006 Draft Posted Jan 2006 Refining Proposal April-June 2006 Evaluation

More Related