Deep Jive Interests

The Washington Post reports that the US Patent Offices are going ’2.0′ — and using the wisdom of crowds to help it go through the mountains of applications for patents that are applied every year.  Yes, they are actually going to allow, through the internet, a community of individuals to comment and ‘vote’ on trademark and patent applications — and use their opinions to help decide whether or not to approve some of these applications.

It seems like most folk are in favour of it.  But, does anyone else have an alarm bell going off in their heads?

There is in mine — and its saying “Gaming Alert! Gaming Alert! Gaming Alert!”

Has no one learned anything from Digg or MyBlogLog?  Social systems where people stand to gain something (monetary compensation or otherwise) lead to its weaknesses getting exploited.  The result is a manipulation of apparently public and apparently transparent process to ends that benefit specific people.

And this isn’t some fancy shmancy “web2.0″ project.  The stakes are high and they are real.  The WaPo states:

With so much money riding on patent decisions — for instance, a federal jury ordered Microsoft last month to pay $1.52 billion for infringing two digital-music patents — the program’s designers acknowledge that the incentive to manipulate the system is immense.

Billions of dollars, folks!  That means that unlike other social networks on the web, the guys behind the US Patent Office have to be bullet proof.  And they don’t have time to learn from mistakes.  If one or two stories on Digg get inappropriately promoted that’s one thing (although i would argue that Digg has a moral responsibility in some cases).  But in these kinds of cases there is absolutely no room to let “one or two get away” — the consequences could have real meaning for companies, an entire industry, and at the end of the line, real jobs.

How could the system be subverted?  Ask any third rate author on Amazon wanting to pump his or her book.  Or, an obsecure hotel in Mexico wanting to get a little more business through Tripadvisor.  Or, any top 30 Digger, even.

To improve an application’s chances of success you could try:

1. sock puppet accounts – companies could flood the Patent site with fake accounts with the single desire to promote a patent application.  Want to do it manually?  Outsource it to a country where its citizens are tech savvy, but cash poor.

2. bribing of existing “prominent users” – influencers exist in every community, and the article clearly states that a reputation system will exist here as well.  Once people get recognized as being highly reputable, what’s to prevent companies from approaching them behind closed doors and makin them an offer they can’t refuse?  If a successful application might mean millions or billions of dollars in revenue, do you think they’ll even bat an eye throwing gold bricks at these users?

Here’s another twist on things.  How about industrial espionage?

Companies could create sock puppet accounts, or bribe existing users to report on patent or trademark applications that are being revued, before they actually get accepted.  Rival companies could even go through a “negative” voting slant, and get rival patent applications tanked so their own products or services could get an edge.

Man, the list goes on and on.

The wisdom of crowds is fine with a great many things.  But there are some things that NEED to remain locked down and not prone to so many potential weaknesses — so that we can protect the process from undue influence.  The worst part about “socializing” the Patent process is that it gives the appearance of transparency and accountability, so that gaming such systems have an easier time avoiding notice or scrutiny.

Is this what the US Patent and Trademark Office wants?  Because I can just imagine in 6 months after it starts something rotten *will* hit the mainstream media.  The potential for gain is just too high for some companies to NOT try and sockpuppet their way to patent or trademark success.  And then someone’s going to notice.

And when they do, i wonder if it will be the first public example where “socializing” a process went very, very, very wrong.