For the record, and I'm sure you know, it wasn't APPLE dumping heavy metal in Chinese rivers.
I know. It was a theoretical scenario.
Please explain what you mean by "heavily revised and streamlined?"
Isn't that why there is an 18-month confidentiality period on applications?
Streamlined so that when the 18 month confidentiality agreement runs out the patent will actually have been granted/rejected, rather than still be pending, and thereby making the point of the 18 month confidentiality redundant!
Also the 2 or 3 years it can take to have a patent granted is a
long time to wait for small companies whose whole business may rely on 1 or 2 patents.
Revised, so that, for example, when you submit the documents with the names A. Smith and B. Jones and get assigned a unique reference number, and then later provide additional
requested information with the same reference number from the names B. Jones and A. Smith, it doesn't get returned to you because that reference number is already being used by A. Smith and B. Jones! (Seriously - happened to a colleague. And no, the order of names on the form doesn't matter - it was an admitted mistake on their behalf. The patent officers are too pressurised, and being asked to make decisions on extremely complex matters, so start to make silly mistakes.)
Software patents is another major area of concern, as essentially patents are being granted on mathematical equations .
The difficulty in enforcing patents is an acknowledged fact, but what is your solution to that problem? It certainly can't be throwing up your arms, and giving up on the idea of IP altogether?
For any company, who've invested (sometimes considerable) time and money, doing their research and innovation, and who have subsequently applied for, and received, a patent on their IP, the only recourse against theft of that IP, is the courts.
Yes, but that means that the patent system quickly becomes relevant to only a few massive corporations (Google, Microsoft, Apple, Samsung, etc.) who can afford to enforce their patents. It is often impossible for smaller inventors to afford to sue the thieves, and, for them, for all intents and purposes the whole patent system becomes a pointless exercise.
Making wilful and blatant patent infringement a criminal, rather than civil, matter (as it is essentially theft) along with bringing multiple small inventors together to provide some sort of patent protection (Edited for clarity - 'protection' replaced 'enforcing') umbrella group might well be steps in the right direction.
Thanks for the sensible questions, by the way, rather than the blind fanaticism that any discussion that doesn't 100% praise Apple is so often greeted with on this forum. And anyway, my beef isn't with Apple solely - it's with the flawed patent system being abused by anyone.