In addition to the developments with the Peer to Patent system of peer review that I blogged last month, the good folks at WikiPatents have launched something akin to what I mused about here and here with using crowdsoucing and open Web 2.0 tools to help with the patent process and getting rid of bad patents. You can read the News.com story here, so I won't repeat it. I'm hopeful that what they've has launched will spread interest and focus on how to reduce the number of bad patents. And I think they're generally on a good path.
I fear, however, that WikiPatents is going to have a bumpy birthing process. Given that they're in beta and just launched, a full critique is inappropriate (and I want to encourage them to continue pushing forward!). But I see some big issues: they've added voting on things like market value which confuses the whole issue between information and speculation (and I think exacerbates bad actors/participants since we're all equal behind a screen name), and they've (so far) missed the opportunity to do asynch notification of patents that matter to me based on keywords (so I have to want to comment on patent #xyz, which is problematic if I don't know it exists).
More importantly, I think there is a bigger issue here around money flows and ego. With Wikipedia, the joy of being an author and contributor is what drives participation. When you can have pride and can claim expertise that stands up to scrutiny, there is a nice ego boost. Money flows matter less - you're happy to stay up late editing a Wikipedia post because it's there for the world to see.
After more reflection on crowdsourcing the patent application process, I've come to conclude that economics matter in this field. There isn't much joy and pride in delivering death blows to patents; to do it right is hard work. Details matter. Taking the time matters. Whining and complaining are easy, but to really expose flaws in a patent requires digging in. I'm happy to do that if you pay me (even a little) because my sense of right/wrong is buoyed by the cash. But to volunteer my time to chop off one bad application when another just rises in its place is a depressing proposition. I could be the foremost expert in field X, but doing some work on weekends and late nights finding prior art to blow up patents is pretty low on my interest screen after the first few weeks and initial righteous indignation. Cash is king in the world of incenting behaviors, and crowdsourcing shines best when you can tap into those that have more time than cash (or those that are so skilled they can make good cash by working quickly at the time and location of their choosing)...
Don't get me wrong, I wish Peter and his team the most amazing success in the world. I'd be delighted to learn that a sufficient number of folks care enough to participate and make a meaningful contribution. But I fear good intentions need to find a money flow here. Don't know if that's sponsorship or the "gold plating" model that Peer to Patent is pursuing, or what...
Comments