An interesting piece from the Washington Post, available here. It talks, among other things, about the conflicting interests of bio/pharma and technology. Interesting read.
An interesting piece from the Washington Post, available here. It talks, among other things, about the conflicting interests of bio/pharma and technology. Interesting read.
The PTO has no director because of the Frauds around US6370629. This single patent is the most defrauded IP instrument in history.
For figureheads at systemically important Patent Offices, life is becoming increasingly stressful. Just ask the current President of the EPO (much in the news at the moment) whether he is living in “interesting times”. What else to expect though, when the economic importance of IPR is ever-greater.
Not sure Dennis how much the interests of tech and pharma inherently “conflict” with each other, when the patent system functions as it should. Journalists regularly tell us that patent law is no longer fit for purpose but rely for support exclusively on malfunctions found only in the American patent system.
Is Phil Johnson a person of integrity, somebody one can trust? If so, he could have been relied upon to act with integrity at the USPTO, irrespective whether he was moving to the USPTO from Google or from J&J. If he is a person of integrity then, as I see it, it is simply irrelevant whether he is working just now in pharma or in tech. But I’m not a politician operating in a democracy.
Max, what it shows is that the battles are now high stakes, and anyone who has ever said anything publicly on the topic of troll legislation probably cannot be successfully appoint regardless of credentials.
Pure FUD:
“Journalists regularly tell us that patent law is no longer fit for purpose but rely for support exclusively on malfunctions found only in the American patent system.”
Irresponsible “journalism” is purposefully repeated and given the “gloss” of “truth” all in order to advance the cause of the “journalist”
The name for this is not “journalism.” The name is propaganda.
Agree. Everything in DC is completely polarized and political nowadays, however….
…however….
…the position remains empty.
Politics aside – people should not be so NIMBY as to be untroubled by an administrative agency (as part of the executive branch) that is so cavalier as to the oversight protocols of vetting the leader of the administrative agency.
These vetting protocols were put in place for a reason – regardless of who is in power now, regardless of which agenda is being followed now.
If Lee is “allowed” (even cheered on as the Congressional Judiciary Committee appeared to do in the recent hearing), then why would we really expect Obama to be held accountable to play by the rules and properly appoint a leaser that would be “accountable”?
We have our Pogo…
Not sure Dennis how much the interests of tech and pharma inherently “conflict” with each other, when the patent system functions as it should.
There is no inherent conflict. However, Pharma companies make (big) money by developing new products while some tech companies don’t actually develop new tech but implement old tech. As a result, they get in trouble with patents because their products aren’t completely 100% new.
Let me put this another way, when Pharma develops a product, the actual manufacture/use of the product may be covered by a handful of patents. On the other hand, companies like Facebook and Google (although innovators in their own right) are likely to be performing activities covered by thousands if not tens of thousands of patents when providing a service. As such, unlike Pharam, it is nearly impossible for these companies to own all the IP that they are using. Hence, they are frequently get sued (asked to license) on the IP that they don’t own.
Is Phil Johnson a person of integrity, somebody one can trust? If so, he could have been relied upon to act with integrity at the USPTO, irrespective whether he was moving to the USPTO from Google or from J&J.
Good point. Moreover, ideology of the person running the USPTO shouldn’t matter. Congress sets the tone here — not the USPTO. It is the USPTO’s job to ensure that the laws written by Congress are followed. Johnson would have been a good candidate because he ran a large IP system in a large company. Hence, he has an understanding of the issues and was accustomed to running a large corporation. What he thinks on certain IP issues shouldn’t matter because Congress has already given him his marching orders.
Once again, Oh no, I find your post thoughtful and well composed.
And once again, the reason you display will be ignored in any discussion on the merits (by the typical circle of contributors).
One (unforeseen?) effect of the current trend in the use of 101 as a “abstract” bludgeon may be to force the patent efforts to follow the path that you indicate as worrisome for the computer tech people: micro-piece patent protection. If you cannot climb the ladder of abstraction for protection, then some might think to patent the heck out of all of the rungs at a certain height. “Clarity,” (another topical boogeyman) may not provide the relief that the computer tech people want.
One aspect of the problem is that the problem is bigger than the solutions available. The “end result” – what they need to have in place to run the business model they want to run – is an effective dismantling of the patent system. Nothing short of this will suffice.
There is a parallel in the copyright world, but that is a whole discussion in itself.
Comments are closed.