The patent process in the US is a mess. It is often too expensive and too complex for the average entrepreneur to take advantage of, but even when they do move ahead and go through the process the patents are not being protected as they should. It has become a political process favoring large corporations with lots of money.
Zachary Roth offers his analysis of the problem in this article from Washington Monthly.
The cause of the problem is easy to pinpoint. Over the last decade and a half, the patent office has been set up in such a way that it's an easy mark. The system overwhelms many patent examiners, operates under laws and bureaucratic incentives that favor applicants, and can potentially be hoodwinked by the unscrupulous. A recent Federal Trade Commission report, which laid out these criticisms, concluded that in key industries such as pharmaceuticals, software, biotechnology, and the Internet, the office now "hamper[s] competition that would otherwise stimulate innovation." For some companies, armed only with dubious claims, the patent office has become not something to fear but a patsy, as easy to fool as those elderly couples who send cash to the Nigerian prime minister's wife.
Mr. Roth offers a solution that is not one I would immediately embrace, as it sounds like an expansion of government. But it may be a necessary step as this critical governmental system has been hijacked and no longer works as it should.
Reformers propose various ways to fix the whole mess of problems that has ensnared the patent system. The most obvious fix would be to make the government subsidize the patent office again, instead of having the office pay for itself out of its own application fees. That would eliminate some of the financial incentives to green light patents. Given the mounting federal budget deficit, however, it's hard to see Congress suddenly turning down a source of revenue. Eliminating the count system, which encourages examiners to allow applications, is another obvious fix. The agency might still have an incentive to push through applications, but at least examiners would be somewhat insulated from that same pressure. Another wise move would be to hire enough examiners so that all complex patents are subject to the "second set of eyes."
Another equally worrisome aspect is protecting intellectual property in the international arena, particularly in China, and with international corporate identity theft.
(Source: National Dialogue on Entrepreneurship).
