It’s hard to believe this patent should ever have been approved by a patent examiner acting in good faith, especially considering the criminal convictions standing in stark contradiction of the purported “inventor’s” affidavit of lies, but let’s assume the USPTO did, as they claim, handle this one by the book.

Even the appearance of such ridiculous impropriety as granting a patent for fake research is enough to signal the extent to which the system is flawed.

It’s not surprising that more scholarship self-identifying as IP-focused is about patents. After all, they drive much of commerce and innovation (and arguably the problems with the two) in the industrial and technology sectors.

It’s worth noting though that, unlike much of the protection afforded by a patent, many copyright protections are available even without registration, although it’s admittedly difficult to enforce them via litigation and to win statuory damages without timely registration.

Check out this PDF by the U.S. Copyright Office for more information.

David Kappos thinks software patents are just fine, but I’m interested in what his as-yet unknown successor will have to say on the matter.

Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office David Kappos, quoted by Timothy B. Lee at Ars Technica:

In a system like ours in which innovation is happening faster than people can keep up, it cannot be said that the patent system is broken.

Of course, he’s wrong, but what else would he argue?

"The work my directorate does is under-funded and based upon a flawed patchwork of case and statutory law that frustrates our Constitutional mandate!"

Unlikely.

It’s a great idea, and I hope it yields some useful results.

This is a great article on patent drawings and models, as selected for Co.Design by Kelsey Campbell-Dollaghan.

This looks, on its face, like a good thing. I wonder (sincerely, not sarcastically) how patent attorneys feel about it.