Research shows that patent examiners are more likely to grant patents to companies they later work for

[doctorow]

Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2018/09/21/claim-one.html

…

[Boundegar]

Impossible! Why, that would imply time travel! Either that or some form of dishonesty!

[atl]

Does it control for the fact that patent examination is an iterative process and the companies that filed good patents may impress the examiners and build a relationship with them? Or that people that file lousy patents that can’t get through the process might not be worth working for?

If they went through and looked to see whether those patents were later rendered bad – i.e., a verdict against validity, or a loss at a re-exam – they might be on to something. This seems small beer without knowing whether the patents were good, or shoved through to make someone happy.

[granpajames]

I see what you did there with the patent drawing…

[granpajames]

I’m not big on ad hominems, but your rationale sounded a tad naive to me… js

[Pensketch]

“This just in, water is wet! Shocked looks on film, at 11.”

Not so say that I already knew this, or even expected it of happening, and I do appreciate the effort spent by people looking into it, but it didn’t even raise my eyebrow, much less my pulse rate.

[atl]

Far be it from me to accuse you of engaging in apophysis.

[anothernewbbaccount]

@atl

apophysis.

Making bony outgrowths? Isn’t that what cadet bone spurs claimed?

Thinking about it, apophysis and apophasis both apply to Trumpty-Dumpty Toad Stool, I guess.

[gfish]

I can’t believe they don’t strip trivial identifying information like that before sending it to the reviewers. Our culture is so corrupt it actively resists taking even the most basic of actions to reduce bias.