PatentFizz mentioned in The Economist magazine

Ok, I posted this question at the peertopatent blog and never got an answer.

The only reason I can see to spent my free time reading patent applications and search for prior known art would be if I had a vested interest in busting that application. Who is going to spend their spare time (is there such a thing?) searching odd business methods, complicated clutches or simple widgets when there are plenty of paying jobs for this sort of work? The good ones get paid well, the ones who do it for free, well I guess we will see the quality of their searches.

My rare spare time is meant for fishing.

In my opinion I just don’t see how this will work for the hundreds of thousands of applications filed. I just see the few special interest applications getting overly reviewed with the majority (the vast majority) of applications being left untouched.

Now perhaps companies will hire searchers/attornies to search for prior art for competing companies to submit in in applications but that is a paying gig, I can understand that but are all companies planning on doing this?

Can someone please explain the error of my thinking? Who is going to do this work for free?

NFT –

You’re comment goes right to the heart of the distinction between PatentFizz and the USPTO project. While the Peer To Patent project puts the community review at the beginning of the process (i.e., during pre-grant examination), PatentFizz puts it at the other end (i.e., after grant).

The distinction is simple, but critical. As you point out, not many folks will have sufficient motivation to aggressively review applications prior to grant. With the PatentFizz approach, the community can focus on those patents that generate the most motivation in folks, such as those involved in high-stakes lawsuits and those with potentially far-reaching implications (e.g., patents allegedly covering technologies that have been adopted as standards, etc.).

Thanks for the comment.