The cp will be abused and creates a new layer of complication that links to their net benefits

(J.D. expected May 2010, Michigan State University College of Law, specializing in Intellectual Property Law; B.S. 2007, Michigan State University College of Engineering, “From Germany To Australia: Opportunity For A Second Tier Patent System In The United States,” pg online @ https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/mistjintl18&div=16&g_sent=1&casa_token=&collection=journals //pa-ef)

D. Concerns with Implementation

Some negative effects are inevitable when implementing a system with so many variables. Especially when implementing a system that offers limited monopoly rights to select individuals whose applications are not being substantively reviewed. One concern is that these property rights will be abused by owners sending unwarranted cease and desist letters to noninfringers. This concern may be mitigated with an effective option to request a technical opinion, as envisioned in the proposed system. Another concern is that courts will depart from the suggested standard when interpreting the requisite level of inventiveness. Giving the disparity with the current inventiveness standard, introducing another to the courts could result in a more complicated and an ultimately unsuccessful system. Statutory interpretations by the Federal Circuit and lower courts would need to be made with close attention to legislative intent. Ultimately all major changes will have an element of risk, but nothing will be gained without taking such a risk.