Mitt Romney on Patents (And More from Barack Obama)

Romney.TimeMitt Romeny’s primary business experience comes from heading Bain Capital, the Boston based private equity venture fund. Its not surprising then that Romney believes in a “strong U.S. patent system.” In a letter, Romney announced three initial patent office reforms:

  1. Ensure that the Undersecretary of Commerce and Director of the PTO will be a distinguished U.S. patent lawyer with many years of experience.
  2. Propose to Congress and/or support only such patent reform legislation as will strengthen the U.S. patent system; and
  3. Carefully consider appointing to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, as vacancies arise, excellent lawyers who have experience practicing U.S. patent law, particularly since all decisions in patent cases by the United States district courts are appealable to the Federal Circuit.

Romney also praised the October 31 injunction against the PTO Rules as an appropriate way to stop this “anti-innovation governmental meddling.”

Of course, a “strong patent system” does not mean that patents are lightly issued or that the PTO should not limit unreasonable tricks.

Obama_time_cover_102306In a recent Q&A with TechCrunch, Democratic hopeful, Barack Obama indicated that he believes we can do better:

TechCrunch: Do you think changes are needed in the way the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office reviews and grants patents?

Barack Obama: I know that it is essential we have a system that produces timely, high-quality patents. By improving predictability and clarity in our patent system, we will help foster an environment that encourages innovation. Giving the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) the resources to improve patent quality and opening up the patent process to citizen review will reduce the uncertainty and wasteful litigation that is currently a significant drag on innovation. With better informational resources, the Patent and Trademark Office could offer patent applicants who know they have significant inventions the option of a rigorous and public peer review that would produce a “gold-plated” patent much less vulnerable to court challenge. Where dubious patents are being asserted, the PTO could conduct low-cost, timely administrative proceedings to determine patent validity. As president, I will ensure that our patent laws protect legitimate rights while not stifling innovation and collaboration.

Other candidates have been silent on patent issues.

45 thoughts on “Mitt Romney on Patents (And More from Barack Obama)

  1. “I don’t know why being of the Mormon faith is bad, only that he is attacked for it in ways that, e.g., Clinton and Huckabee are not.”

    I think Huckabee is getting lots of questions, and rightfully so given that he (like Bush before him) has made his religious beliefs a major selling point for his campaign. Clinton has not done this to nearly the same extent, as far as I’m aware (Obama totally eclipses Clinton when it comes to religious pandering).

    Romney has also extolled his faith to garner votes and therefore his views should be subject to the same scrutiny that Huckabee’s views are. The point is that none of these views will actually be scrutinized, however. They will simply be taken at face value because to question such beliefs or their legitimacy in policy considerations is considered disrespectful UNLESS you are Islamic or a member of a “cult” (i.e., a religion that is not widely known or practiced), in which case such litmus tests are mandatory. Non-polymgamist Mormonism, being a widely recognized if not widely practiced subsect of Christianity that is — on its own — politically powerless in nearly every State, is considered suitably “conservative” and, therefore, “harmless” by most Christians who pay attention to such things.

    By the way, I forgot to add Islam in my earlier post as the other major contemporary rhetorical target in politics, along with gays and Hispanics.

  2. Well, we made the change in topic from patents to presidential politics. Mooney, Romney does not presume you care how his faith will inform his presidency. I’d like to think that one’s religion shouldn’t matter too. Unfortunately, plenty of other Americans do care. I don’t know why being of the Mormon faith is bad, only that he is attacked for it in ways that, e.g., Clinton and Huckabee are not.

  3. “I want to thank you for noting that the “Big Lie” you discuss is only espoused by many religious people, not all.”

    Yes, well, I personally know people who practice religion but who are honest and intelligent enough to understand that, at the end of the day, it’s a lifestyle choice not unlike choosing to smoke cigarettes, play the piano, or chant “om” for five hours a day. In other words, they do it because it helps them relax and keep a grip on things as their lives progress.

    What I find disturbing about speeches like Romney’s is the presumption that I (or anyone else) should care how his “faith” (by definition, a collection of unsupported beliefs) will “inform” his Presidency. The premise itself is rather unsettling.

    What I would rather hear from ALL of the candidates is (1) what are their policy positions (2) what is the rational basis for those positions, including the probable beneficial and adverse effects of those positions on various segments of the population. Anything else is simply pandering and, as often as not in our society, an excuse for some sort of bigotry (with the favorite targets at the moment being gays and Hispanics).

  4. Wow, Malcolm, this is getting a little off topic. However, I want to thank you for noting that the “Big Lie” you discuss is only espoused by many religious people, not all. For what it’s worth, “evangelicals” and “fundies” (by which I presume you mean fundamentalists) are not the same. There are plenty of the former who agree with you that faith does not precede morality. Many of those, however, believe that without some articulable theory of morality we humans are more prone to behave like uncouth beasts. Unfortunately, we often act like uncouth beasts in the name of a theory of morality.

    For what it’s worth, I don’t expect Romney to say very much about his personal beliefs at all in his Thursday speech. The speech is billed as “an opportunity for Governor Romney to share his views on religious liberty, the grand tradition religious tolerance has played in the progress of our nation and how the governor’s own faith would inform his presidency if he were elected.” I expect the last to get short shrift. Romney has appeared quite uncomfortable with some of the details of his chosen religion. Given what little I know of Mormonism, some of those details would appear quite strange to the “fundies” you mention.

  5. “”I can’t wait to hear his speech on Thursday where he talks about the other crap he believes.”

    … like the crazy belief that evangelicals will support him?”

    The fundies will show up to support whoever their leaders (Robertson, Dobson et al.) tell them to support. That sheeplike behavior is why they are pandered to in the first place. (For the record, Robertson and Dobson will tell people to vote for whoever the Republican candidate for President happens to be.)

    I was referring more to the belief espoused by many religious people that “faith” (i.e., a belief in some mysterious undetectable force and the stories in one or two books detailing the effects of that force) necessarily precedes morality and without such “grounding” we humans are more prone to behave like uncouth beasts.

    It’s a Big Lie, obviously, but it’s been repeated so often by religion promoters that Americans buy it wholesale.

    I’m certain that it is this aspect of his “beliefs” that Romney is going to focus on: why people like him who profess belief in some sort of Sky Daddy are teh awesomest kindest people ever and the only people who hold sincere American values but he will promise to never ever use the Presidency to push his religion on anybody.

  6. “I can’t wait to hear his speech on Thursday where he talks about the other crap he believes.”

    … like the crazy belief that evangelicals will support him? It’s amazing that he’s happy to let them keep their anti-gay bias, but not their anti-Mormon bias.

  7. eh wrote:
    >From this, I gather that you’re some kind of nut with the >maturity of a six-year-old.

    Evidently, you are the name caller.

    >hyperbole (“I will bet that bozo Doodoo and bozo Moore >can’t even read/evaluate a patent.”),

    Not hyperbole. I will bet that it is literally true that neither Moore nor Dudas–I don’t want to offend your sensitive morals–could write a set of claims, or even evaluate a patent. Dudas is there to reform the patent system, but he can’t even read and understand a patent. I wonder why given these set of facts that someone might refer to the Nazis.

    >trite historical allusions (I doubt you’re a historian or >know much about history, other than USSR=bad and >Nazis=bad).

    It is very sad eh that you don’t understand the Nazis or the U.S.S.R. That is probably why you have no idea how to interpret a reference to concentration camps and outsiders. You don’t need to get a Ph.D. eh. Just read a few books and think. If you want a reading list, I can provide you one.

  8. The use of “troll” as a verb is noteworthy. I suppose the writer vaguely had in mind a word vaguely like “trawl” or “poll”. Reminds me of the vague use of “pimp” as a verb: presumably the user was vaguely thinking of something like “primp”, but then rejected it as boring, old-fashioned sounding, and not edgy enough. What makes a politician successful is a talent for sounding ultra precise, while actually being totally vague. The more obfuscation, the better. Now what talent would it be, that helps patent lawyers to success, in the courts of the USA?

  9. “The reason to like Romney so much is not just for his views on patents, but that his views on patents illustrate that he understands the world.”

    LOL. I can’t wait to hear his speech on Thursday where he talks about the other crap he believes.

  10. Someone doesn’t understand the difference between the verb use of the word “troll” and the allegorical one. Either that, or they’ve never been fishing.

  11. Night Writer, thanks for helping us isolate the substantive arguments that you’ve buried in personal attacks and hyperbole. I read your comments, and I see that you don’t like Judge Moore, you don’t like Dudas, you don’t like Bush and you don’t like the PTO. You express these feelings primarily through name-calling (bozo, DooDoo, Nazi, etc), hyperbole (“I will bet that bozo Doodoo and bozo Moore can’t even read/evaluate a patent.”), and trite historical allusions (I doubt you’re a historian or know much about history, other than USSR=bad and Nazis=bad).

    From this, I gather that you’re some kind of nut with the maturity of a six-year-old. I’ll take your word for it that you made some substantive arguments in the process, but it’s not worth my time (or likely anyone else’s) to figure out what those are and to debate them on the merits. If you have something substantive to say, give us more details and fewer epithets, and maybe some of us will care enough to give you a decent response.

  12. Dear BandarBush,

    Thank you for your most interesting comment. Personally, I’d like to see New York’s Mayor Mike Bloomberg throw his hat in the ring. I believe Mike has the management talent, integrity and dedication to turn our country’s decline around. I won’t vote for any of today’s candidates simply because I don’t want to encourage the bastards (I heard that line in a movie and it helped galvanize my own feelings).

    I’m sure you’d like to know that there is a more accurate and politically correct way to describe the slur slang saying “patent troll.”

    It is more sensitive and preferable to use the phrase “patent abuser,” or simply refer to a patent abuser as someone who “abuses patent rights” lest you offend the honorable efforts of inventors who are gainfully self-employed in their chosen profession promoting progress in America. Some inventors may abuse their patents just as some lawyers may abuse their license to practice law, and these abuses may pale in comparison to some business executives who promote cigarettes to children.

    You see, the term “troll” today is used in association with more insidious abusers; for example, when discussing pedophilia, the sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object. Only this morning, an MSNBC TV Special was described a follows:

    “Adult predators troll Internet chat rooms in pursuit of children.”

    Use of the phrase “patent troll” has led to terrible trouble because it is a contributing cause of big business and all three branches of our government acting unlawfully and dreadfully, by destabilizing, demoralizing, deflating, discouraging, depressing, denigrating and diminishing America’s democratic government. More discussion may be found in the comment on this link:

    link to

    <>The Trouble with Troll Talk is similar to the Trouble with Tribbles<>

    If you are interested, the conditional Constitutional patent rights are discussed in the comment on this link (which precedes the above link):

    link to

    <>The Constitution’s PROMISE to an inventor is CONDITIONAL<>

  13. Square deal and eh:

    You two are pretty poor thinkers. Referring to the methods of the Nazis or the U.S.S.R. is not per se bad. The tactics of the Nazis and the U.S.S.R. should be understood by everyone. They both innovated and used tactics that everyone should understand and be able to refer to. References to the tactics of and making analogies is not the same as calling someone a Nazi. I wonder if either of you even understand how concentration camps were used, do you? Do you understand how the U.S.S.R. ruled? I doubt it.

    I made substantive arguments. (1) That Doodoo was trying to terrorize us with ethics attacks rather than do his job and fix the PTO so that good examinations could be done, and (2) that an outsider was brought in to “reform,” but the “reform” was brutal, and ill-thought out, and would be better characterized as an attempt to slaughter. Doodoo was picked by Bush because he was an outsider. My point was that only an outsider would be able to commit such an assault on the dignity of the patent system.

    It is part of our culture to understand terror and outsiders, and making references to the entities that innovated and perfected these tacics is appropriate.

  14. Night Writer (supra) is correct: neither of these statements has much of substance. Romney, as he has done throughout his career, is just pandering to us. He will support legislation that would “strengthen” the patent system? What does that even mean? Does that mean less public domain? More rigorous examination? More certainty?

    Meanwhile, Obama is at least proposing a substantive reform, though I’d like to know more details about this “peer review” system he’s proprosing. Also, he hints at patent trolls when he talks about “dubious” patents asserted in litigation. Finally, let us not forget, Obama is the only candidate to propose serious reform in the Senate (last spring).

  15. Wow, a patent law blog hits Godwin’s law in 24 posts. I wonder if Nightwriter patent attorney has set a record.

  16. consultants versus inventors … that is the essence of the question … never met a consultant that ate their own dog food (even bain) … *most* inventors never see a dime in return for real sweat equity …

    and, if, per chance the inventor needed a consultant, to what end exactly? perhas ex post the value or means of extracting value relates to consulting but the invention part, the agreement with the government concerning exclusion, is certainly outside the scope of the typical engagement and “prcoess” management of any given consultant … take ibm … yeah, take ibm … are they consultants or inventors (i dont believe in corporate “inventors”, per se) or are they driven to sell whatever management directs, sharehlders demand, capital requires, and consultants “justify”? microsoft is still driven by windows and office — all the rest is inconsequential to their results and have not been profitable in any significant way … so every entrenchd corporatist wants the status quo — clearly an obvious outcome.

    this is my argument in favor of enabling more folks to provide liquidity to the “patent” instrument without the inventor having to disclaim scope (how you gnna do that while disclosing information to a consultant?) — these would include “trolls”; hedge funds; even the vcs who said patents are a thing of the past (well, 10 years ago this was the common mantra — “they take too much time: markets move too fast” — uh huh) – as it stands the monopsonist (large companies with establish “use” or “need” for patents — offense or defense) have way too much leverage and that increases with the politicitization of the patent office and the patent practice in general.

    it is the politicization of the apparatus of application of law that is the heart of the problem … how many “activist” judges have you met that are labeled “conservative”? how many “good” patents are discussed? what about “good” inventors? how about all those good inventors that had good patents that died penniless … patents are about money and political sound bites consitute no real solution.

    as to the comments regarding lawyers who understand business?! uh, okay. but, the lawyer should be providing *legal* counsel, as advocate with ethical duties, they are not hired (hasty generalization perhaps) nor necessarily share in the risk of business decision-making … the best clients will recognize the limit and the best attorney will recognize the same limit to the effect of: “this is the legal boundary ABC and these other factors are business decisions”

    in fact, as has been bandied about a plenty on this blog … certain alleged attorneys have said they believe they are part of the “reduction to practice” in a literal invention sense (hmm … if so tell your client and provide a declaration!) … others seem to think that the expense of patent prosecution is simply a line item … much the same way that bsides 600 in house attorneys, msft decided to shift resources to file patents (dare say defensive patents) to reduce costs … they clearly see upside in both … that should not be a zero sum game for society or innovators, however.

    the extreme discussion of the soviet ssytem could apply to any economic system that has political weight in excess of capital weight (do things to attract political capital — it is the most expensive form of capital, btw — instead of market-driven capital returns). i hate to bring in the example of the copyright system … but there, i just did.

    SIMPLY PUT: If we knew what the results SHOULD be there would be no need to examine, or consult, or register — the most objective thing the patent office can do is to assist examiners in becoming experts in a particular, well-defined (by class/subclass) art with a common and shared interest in understanding the “civics” lesson of our patent system … they are not accountable to the litigation side … and the patent office does not issue damages … that is left to private parties in a dispute, litigation or not.

    no politician is driven to understand anything beyond the current election cycle he/she is in … which is fine … but that is not a basis for sound patent reform in any Process, Apparatus, System, Device … nor is it appropriate to take what belongs to the inventor in the middle of the game … stop the do-overs and let the courts provide guidance

    now if this was a discusion abotu the 2nd amendment (talk about claim construction) what would we be talking about? would it be as civil? didn;t think so … write your senators! and tell your clients to write their senators …

  17. Romney must remember the Clinton years when the head of the PTO was a trademark attorney.
    Obama says things that sound good, but Europe has had trouble with making the patent process open. Large corporations could then use the examination process to fight any invention that threatens their customer base or competitive position.
    I think we have the right mix: patentee-PTO examination and issue; and district court ‘re-examination’ usually as an obviousness defense against infringement claim of patentee. If the corporations can insert themselves in the patent examination process a small inventor could have a worthy invention blocked by procedural stalling and delay tactics. Also, the PTO would also be mired in such proceedings with the inventor.

  18. I agree with your general sentiment, Budge.

    I disagree with your specific line that, “Its not evil, its just how it is.”

    Corporations, as Eisenhower warned, have become too powerful politically.

  19. > What does Bain Consulting have to do with patent?

    Because, the problem with the PTO is they are not doing a good job examining applications. I think that could be fixed. A lawyer that understands business processes is what the PTO needs. From my experience with examiners, I think many are quite bright and well-trained. But, one problem is that the PTO has not figured out how to categorize the applications. Imagine if you were a patent examiner and the applications you got were all very similar. If the PTO could just enforce 102 properly, most of the problems would go away. In fact, the complaint that people are filing patents that have only tiny differences with previous application/patents makes examining the patent application (if there is good categorization and assignment to examiners) much less burdensome.

    In fact, what is remarkable is that the more applications that are coming in–if it were done right–should make examining the applications easier and less expensive.

    The reason to like Romney so much is not just for his views on patents, but that his views on patents illustrate that he understands the world. Think of it not as acting in self-interest, but using your specialized knowledge in patent law to judge the candidates. Obama has pandered to the high-tech theives that are represented by the Lemming at Standford. Isn’t it funny that before patents became such an issue, Microsoft didn’t have a research division and now Microsoft has a huge research division. Now what were those words from the Constitution about promoting…

    On the decline and fall of the U.S.: consider that Bushy’s tactics at the PTO are the same tactics the U.S.S.R. used to enforce unreasonable rules. The U.S.S.R. would get farm boys and ship them off to boot camp and then station them in the cities. The farm boys would see the cities dwellers as outsiders and would not hesitate to commit violence.

    Commissioner Doodoo wants us all to be afraid with inequitable conduct. He obviously wants to use terror like the Nazis to get what he wants. What a bozo. One of the great opportunities in modern history, and the evil bozo turns to terror.

    The PTO could be fixed with the proper use of technology/AI/and business processes. Instead we have concentration camps being set up to terrorize us.

  20. Mr. Palmer I agree with you. caveat :: between huckabee and paul there is certainly an interesting dynamic evolving concerning individual rights. the conservative shift in the courts as it relates to intangible property rights and liability is something i would really like to hear your opinion on …

    and, a 2nd amendment case to boot! maybe by the end of the next administration we will have covered all the basic constitutional “primitives” …

    Gideon the market for money is truly global; america is still a solid bet with investors; corporatism competing with statism puts *entitlements* in an entirely new light; and, an entrepreneurial awakening to fill the vacuum created by this competition — 50/50 shot. but atlas has not yet shrugged … while i agree with the pessimistic nature of all problems i also still believe in the inherent optimism of america …

    contact your senators …

  21. I used to be a Repub until Bush. But the USPTO rule changes have, with numerous other events, sparked ny own theory on emerging corporate socialism. Corporations have loyalty to make money for shareholders. At the same time, with NAFTA and trade agreements, American corporations are beholden to foreign governments, as they need foreign governments to grow (and be loyal to their shareholders). Then they buy US officials to conform laws. So they follow foreign governments and buy US government to make money for their shareholders. Its not evil, its just how it is. Its not going to stop on its own, because you cannot elect enough officials to office without corporate ‘donations’. So you end up with war profiteering of a US company that moves its HQ to Dubai. Or lead in your toys, but no US government intervention. OR dead pets. Or a corrupt USPTO. We are in a cycle that feeds itself. When the USPTO becomes the registration center for the biggest corporations, we will all be working for flat fees on a budget that would make some guy in India think twice before taking it on. Right now, unless you go with some fringe candidate like Gavel, we are all headed for another 8 years of this corporatism followed by Jeb Bush for 8 more.

  22. “Stop making war on the world for their oil, figure out how to lessen the damage that Peak Oil will have, stop the Fed and the bankers from destroying our economy, and THEN talk to me about patents.”

    The best would be Pat Buchanan, but Obama-rama will have to do. (like what he says about patents, but can’t stomach the Mormon stuff)

  23. Presidential hopefuls have ideas on patents? And who should care?

    We’re waging a world war for dwindling resources and the U.S. economy is in the first stages of collapse.

    I figure they’ll Hank Rearden all patents by the time my career is done, and so I hardly think these pretenders should be wasting time on patents.

    Stop making war on the world for their oil, figure out how to lessen the damage that Peak Oil will have, stop the Fed and the bankers from destroying our economy, and THEN talk to me about patents.

  24. I like what Romney says on patents. However, I’m not a Republican, or even a US citizen, so I still wouldn’t vote for him, and couldn’t anyway.

    More to the point, I don’t think he’s going to be president, or Obama either. Romney may well win the first primary, which will give him a boost in some states where he doesn’t lead at present. However, the latest polls I have seen show Giuliani leading in 23 states, Romney in 7 and McCain in 6 (yes, I know that only adds up to 43, some states haven’t been polled).

    Other polls show that Giuliani is the only Republican candidate that can compete with Hillary, and that she is way ahead of Obama in almost every state. I personally prefer Obama over Clinton… except on patents, but we don’t even know what her position is.

    Hence, I think it is most likely that the election for the presidency will be Giuliani v Clinton, which is predicted to be a close race, and while I don’t rule out a Romney nomination, I think it would ensure a Democrat in the White House. Either way, I think the next president will probably be either Hillary Clinton or Rudi Giulani. I could be wrong about that, but I am fairly sure it won’t be Ron Paul.

  25. at one fell swoop ::

    romney? oh boy … what does a bain consultant have to do with patents? night writer (?) a “call to arms” — poetic and inappropriate … we have real americans dying in a real war.

    ron paul actually believes in strong property rights (gee, he’s a real libertarian) … the others will take the “coalition for patent fairness” money (becaaue “it comes from our IT bsuinesses so it must be pro-innovation”) and continue the assault on the american patent system. here that annoying voice reminding everyone of the that sucking sound (that would be ross perot)

    i for one do NOT want a president that injects politics into the system or a congress that is in on the “FIX” … since 1995 cost of prosecution is up what 10xs; pendency is up 2-3xs; and the scope of protection is down (whether narrowing/elimination of doe, increasing bar on injunction, itc/international infringement issues, etc.) … wait wait wait rejections are up to 50%! forgot about that truly objective measure of success!

    redirect the applicant fees back to the office and force accountability on all parties … without POLITICS …

  26. Knightrider,

    The Democrats are not necessarily the people interested in preserving a strong patent system either. They were a major driving force in the “bipartisan” Patent Reform legislation that passed the House. The same legislation that would permit the USPTO to give us the privilege of submitting an ESD for every application regardless of the number of claims.

  27. Ditto on Goesta. I’m probably keenest on Dodd amongst the Dem candidates and Dodd strikes me as a tad more rational than Kucinich (who, like Reagan, has bragged of UFO encounters) …

  28. Agreed, this is a remarkable statement from romney – and demonstrates that either (a) he’s remarkable for getting this issue and/or (b) that he already has someone on his team that gets it but unfortunately (c) ebay’s meg -screw patents – whitman has already got her hand in his pocket so he’s probably doing (d) talking a good game but will govern just like Bush. Now if Romney called for DooDas’s head right now, i might start to believe him. You rep. patent attorney’s need to stay home this cycle cause only a dem (any dem) is going to clean out commerce and pto the way it needs. DON’T GET FOOLED AGAIN.

  29. Thought-provoking comments, thanks much. Now, will someone please tell me what’s his real name?

  30. Patent Law is my livelihood. I’ve been a patent attorney for 18 years. Of course, it is important to me and my clients. However, people, get real, as far as issues go that are important in selecting the next president, it is pretty much at the bottom of the list. Health care, the so-called war in Iraq, trade and budget deficits, education, environment, etc. are so much more important. Perhaps even “hot wife” beats out patent law. And, in that department Kucinich has it on Romney. My vote goes to Dennis … Kucinich that is.

  31. So having a “hot wife” enhances suitability to be the leader of our country? *sigh* Next thing you know, Dennis will have to provide sensitivity training on his web site.

  32. Neither of them has much of substance to say so far. “such patent reform legislation as will strengthen the U.S. patent system” could mean just about anything and amounts to a promise to only support or propose “good” legislation (and perhaps also a promise not to try to get rid of patents altogether, but who thought he’d try that).

    Romney’s other promises amount to being beholden to the patent bar… not sure that’s a good thing.

  33. I think it is time for a call to arms!!! We as the patent bar should mobilize and do everything we can to get Romney elected.

    I am going to think about how/what to do. Any ideas? I am thinking of a website for contributions from the patent bar.

    As a secondary goal we should try to bring to light how bad some of the actors that Bushy has put into place are. For example, maybe we should try to get Judge Moore removed or at least shame her into not trying to assert herself. She should spend the rest of her time on the bench never speaking and never writing a word. She could keep the restrooms clean and hand out pictures of the Honorable Judge Rich.

  34. Romney is an adult who understands the U.S. economy. I am not only going to vote for him, but I am going to give him money!

    To Ryan: I will bet you he doesn’t change his stance on the patent system. Romney is an adult–not a child. Romney understands the U.S. economy and will represent the U.S. people.

    Just think about what he has said. He went after the 4 ways Bushy has been pandering to big business. 1. legislation 2. Judge Moore (a person not worthy of an iota of respect and as Romney understands only an outsider to the patent bar would write opinions and papers so vile)3. Commissioner Doodoo (again only an outsider would so disrespect the patent system) 4. Internal reform at the PTO (again, clearly Romney as a business man understand the problem is that the USPTO is not doing its job properly.)

    My prediction is that if Romney gets elected we will get a new commissioner that has 10+ years of experience as a practicing patent attorney and who will engage outside business process experts such as Bain Consulting to figure out how to get the patent examiners to examine the patent applications properly, which as every practicer knows is what the problem is. I know that for every single patent that I have seen as an example of a bad patent, that I could have easily written an office action rejecting the patent under one of 101, 102, 103, or 112. I will bet that bozo Doodoo and bozo Moore can’t even read/evaluate a patent.

    Plus, the other reason Romney gets patents is that he has worked with start-ups as I have. And, if you actually work with real businesses that do real work, you find out that foreign companies will shamelessly copy/steal thier products. Only bozo academics don’t get it. And Romney is probably like me in that he has dealt with plenty of bozo academics at MIT and Harvard who will bend over and write a paper that supports any view so long as it gets published. (ole Dennis put one up on this board from the G school at Harvard not long ago to Dennis’s eternal shame.)

  35. Ok, so Mr Romney will have patent specialists heading the PTO, and in the CAFC (when a vacancy arises), and would block or enjoin any Statutory or PTO Rule changes that don’t make US patents “stronger”. PTO Examiners are to be exhorted to examine more thoroughly. As to the length of the queue of inventors at the USPTO, it’s set to get longer then, isn’t it?

  36. I like Romney’s statement too. Unfortunately, as with every other issue, he is sure to change his mind shortly.

  37. I’m with you Budge. Obama’s statement is mush — nothing specific and what does it mean? Nothing at all from anyone else.

  38. Well, now I am a Romney man. Even though he is a goofy “I would seek counsel” sort of guy. Hot wife + good on patents = winner.

Comments are closed.