Sure, sure. (Guess I missed the forest for the trees and all that...)
But in either case, first the patent granting authority needs to be held grossly liable to prevent this rampant abuse, then and only then will subsequent measures be effective.
However, targeting the examiners focuses on the personal responsibilty for their actions. If you institutionalize that responsibility (patent office vs patent examiner) you create a situation where the perpetrator (examiner/boss) hides behind the collective back of the patent office and the taxpayers are again left holding the bag of liability.
A person or a discrete group of persons approved the granting of this right to the applicant (or the denial of freedom to non-applicants). Why should they be absolved of their individual responsibility, for their individual actions?
But in either case, first the patent granting authority needs to be held grossly liable to prevent this rampant abuse, then and only then will subsequent measures be effective.
However, targeting the examiners focuses on the personal responsibilty for their actions. If you institutionalize that responsibility (patent office vs patent examiner) you create a situation where the perpetrator (examiner/boss) hides behind the collective back of the patent office and the taxpayers are again left holding the bag of liability.
A person or a discrete group of persons approved the granting of this right to the applicant (or the denial of freedom to non-applicants). Why should they be absolved of their individual responsibility, for their individual actions?