Patently-O Bits and Bytes No. 5

  • PatentLawPic158Majority Leader Harry Reid Plans to Move Quickly on Patent Reform: In the first work period of the Senate, Reid intends to move on patent reform (after handling the defense appropriations bill and economic stimulus). “Once we work these issues out, time permitting, we will also turn to two other priorities in this first work period: patent reform and an energy package.”  Perhaps appropriately, Reid’s concept of invention is tied-up with entrepreneurs: “On patent reform, we must carefully strike the right balance with a bill that promotes rather than blocks innovation from enterprising entrepreneurs.”  In Reid’s view, the bills should have become law in 2007: “If not for the obstruction of just a few Senators, we would have passed these bills last year. I am hopeful that the overwhelming majority of Senators – Democrats and Republicans alike – will have their voices heard this year.” [Zura]
  • ScreenShot024Comments for Japanese Patent Office: The JPO recently established a Policy Committee and have a schedule to recommend JPO policy changes in a report in April/May 2008. The Committee has generated broad goals of (1) a global system; (2) a predictable system; and (3) a system that promotes both creation and utilization. Comments on the goals and potential solutions are requested by Feb 25 (Japan time). [More Info] [Committee Broad Goals and Plan]
  • PatentLawPic157Patent Bar Exam: Patent Agent Alex Nix has created an excellent wiki to help those studying for the Patent Registration Exam: www.PatentBarQuestions.com. Learn and Contribute!

To the Congress of the United States: I am transmitting to the Congress today a legislative proposal entitled, the “National Productivity and Innovation Act of 1983.” The bill would modify the Federal antitrust and intellectual property laws in ways that will enhance this country’s productivity and the competitiveness of U.S. industries in international markets. As you know, one of the most important goals of my Administration has been to revitalize the competitiveness and productivity of American industry. Tax cuts proposed by my Administration and enacted during the 97th Congress have greatly stimulated economic activity. In addition, our efforts to rationalize Federal rules and regulations have significantly enhanced the efficiency of our economy. For the first time in over a decade, there exists the foundation for a period of strong and sustained economic growth. The ability of the United States to improve productivity and industrial competitiveness will also depend largely on our ability to create and develop new technologies. Advances in technology provide our economy with the means to produce new or improved goods and services and to produce at lower cost those goods and services already on the market. It is difficult to overstate the importance of technological development to a strong and healthy United States economy. It has been estimated that advances in scientific and technological knowledge have been responsible for almost half of the increase in this country’s labor productivity over the last 50 years. New technology also creates new jobs and gives us an advantage in world markets. For example, the U.S. computer industry, which was in its infancy just a short time ago, directly provides jobs for about 830,000 Americans and is a leader in world markets. The private and public sectors must spend a great deal of time, money, and effort to discover and develop new technologies. My Administration has moved to bolster research and development (R&D) in the public sector by proposing in our 1984 budget to increase Federal funding of R&D by 17 percent, to $47 billion. However, it is vital that our laws affecting the creation and development of new technologies properly encourage private sector R&D as well. The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 provides a 25 percent tax credit to encourage firms to invest in additional R&D. Our economic program has helped reduce inflation and interest rates and thus has lowered substantially the cost of conducting research. The antitrust and intellectual property laws also have a very significant effect on private investment in R&D. The antitrust laws are designed to protect consumers from anti-competitive conduct. While the economy generally benefits most from vigorous competition among independent businesses, the antitrust laws recognize that in some areas, like the creation and development of technology, cooperation among producers, even competitors, can actually serve to maximize the well-being of consumers. The intellectual property laws, for example, those dealing with patents and copyrights, also serve to promote the interests of consumers. The promise of the financial reward provided by exclusive rights to intellectual property induces individuals to compete to create and develop new and useful technologies. After reviewing the effect of the antitrust and intellectual property laws on the creation and development of new technologies and after consultations with key members of Congress, I have concluded that the antitrust laws can be clarified in some respects and modified in other respects to stimulate significantly private sector R&D. This can be done while maintaining strong safeguards to protect the economy against collusive actions that would improperly restrict competition. The National Productivity and Innovation Act of 1983, which embodies those changes, is a package of four substantive proposals that deals with all phases of the innovation process. Title II of the bill would ensure that the antitrust laws do not unnecessarily inhibit United States firms from pooling their resources to engage jointly in procompetitive R&D projects. Joint ventures often may be necessary to reduce the risk and cost associated with R&D. So long as the venture does not threaten to facilitate price fixing or to reduce innovation, such ventures do not violate the antitrust laws. Nevertheless, the risk remains that some courts may not fully appreciate the beneficial aspects of joint R&D. This risk is unnecessarily magnified by the fact that a successful antitrust claimant is automatically entitled to three times the damages actually suffered. Title II would alleviate the adverse deterrent effect that this risk may have on procompetitive joint R&D ventures. This title provides that the courts may not find that a joint R&D venture violates the antitrust laws without first considering its procompetitive benefits. In addition, Title II provides that a joint R&D venture that has been fully disclosed to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission may be sued only for the actual damage caused by its conduct plus prejudgment interest. This combination of changes will encourage the formation of procompetitive joint R&D ventures. And unlike some other proposals currently before Congress, it will do so with the minimal amount of bureaucratic interference in the functioning of those ventures. If we are to assure that our laws stimulate investment in new technologies, however, it is not enough merely to correct the adverse deterrent effect the antitrust laws may have on procompetitive joint R&D. Rather, we must also assure that the antitrust and intellectual property laws allow — indeed encourage — those who create new technologies to bring their technology to market in the most efficient manner. Only in this way can those who invest their time, money, and effort in R&D be assured of earning the maximum legitimate reward. Titles III and IV recognize that very frequently the most efficient way to develop new technology is to license that technology to others. Licensing can enable intellectual property owners to employ the superior ability of other enterprises to market technology more quickly at lower cost. This can be particularly important for small businesses that do not have the ability to develop all possible applications of new technologies by themselves. However, the courts have not always been sympathetic to these procompetitive benefits of licensing. Title III would prohibit courts from finding that an intellectual property licensing arrangement violates the antitrust laws without first considering its procompetitive benefits. In addition, the title would eliminate the potential of treble damage liability under the antitrust laws for intellectual property licensing. Although those who suffer antitrust injury as a result of licensing would still be able to sue for their actual damages plus prejudgment interest, Title III would minimize the deterrence that the antitrust laws currently may have on potentially beneficial licensing of technology. Title IV would also encourage the procompetitive licensing of intellectual property. Pursuant to this title, the courts may refuse to enforce a valid patent or copyright on the ground of misuse only after considering meaningful economic analysis. Finally, Title V will close a loophole in the patent laws that has discouraged investment in efficiency-enhancing technologies. Creation of and improvements in the process of making products can be just as important as creating and improving the product itself. Currently, if someone uses a United States process patent outside this country without the owner’s consent and then imports the resulting product into the United States, the importer is not guilty of infringement. Title V of the bill would close this loophole so that owners of process patents can earn their rightful reward by preventing the unauthorized use of their technology. We must not delay making the necessary changes in the law to encourage the creation and development of new technology, to increase this country’s productivity, and to enable our industries to compete more effectively in international markets. We must act now. I therefore urge prompt consideration and passage of this legislative proposal. Ronald Reagan The White House, September 12, 1983. —–

43 thoughts on “Patently-O Bits and Bytes No. 5

  1. Is Big Hairy Rat a patent troll tracker ?

    Heck, probably not..

    Most likely some total looser – a school dropout reading too much of techdirt…

    PTT is most probably some well-paid legal scammer (an inventor’s definition for a typical in-house legal councel of a large multinational corporation)

    It’s sickening enough already without rats, especially big hairy ones…

  2. Hi bhrat,

    Re: “If expressing that concern makes me a troll then so be it.”

    From the view of an independent inventor, it makes you a rat, not a troll. But I guess you knew that.

    It is hard enough eke out a living as an independent inventor without rats.

    * * * * *
    Re: “I believe that overall the effect of the current patent system has been to slow down progress”

    I believe that sentiment is your rational for your biased subjective view.

    Hey, we are all human (at leat most of us).

  3. Back in the mid- to late 80s, I was using a computer with a 386SX processor (not event the DX!), RAM measured in kb and a hard drive measured in MB. I have a hard time accepting that all important innovation halted at that time. There is both invention and value in figuring out how to make a pioneering device work twice as fast, be twice as small, hold ten times as much information, and so on.

  4. high atop the atrium : If I confused you, I apologize.

    Mr. Pitchford: I learned long ago that there are too many cyber bullies and griefers for it to be prudent to use one’s real name on any discussion web site. Further, I recall reading about research that found that anonymous discussion of issues was more effective than discussion where speakers were identified. There is a reason our political system is based on a secret ballot afterall.

    examiner6k points out what has really happened. The development of transistors and their improvement made a huge number of follow-on developments possible. No patent protection was needed to bring those developments forward and while patents may have slightly accelerated some, I believe that overall the effect of the current patent system has been to slow down progress. If expressing that concern makes me a troll then so be it.

  5. Though BHR perhaps goes a tiny bit overboard, I’m going to have to say that in large part the thing about 1983ish dates being the time when “real innovation” took a nosedive is correct. The thing is, we had a freakin golden age of things allowed by transistors making computers viable and there was too much to be done all at once so we’re still sorting through the mess. This is not to say that all innovation has now ended by a long shot, but it is to say that much of what is being protected is nothing more than all the myriad bs equivalents that are really just all the little alternatives available to one of ordinary skill.

    Now, maybe someone stuck their head out and did something a bit differently than the others and lo and behold it did some small thing some small bit better. Whoopie! OMG AN INVENTION! Patent protectable? Meh, should still be under the original patent for that product that was just improved as one of the myriad of ways of doing x available to the skilled artisan because that’s really all there was to that invention. This is legally hard to show however, thus we have the current problem of the legal system not fitting reality. Problem is, even the best reform will result in failure to fit reality because reality just got to complex. It’s a time in human history unlike any other, and it’s just too much for the conventional systems of doing things.

    Oh yeah, I must say, the best invention of the past few years was that guys machine to burn salt water. That’s pretty sweet, I would like to make one.

  6. Mark,

    It is apparent to me that BHR was suggesting that progress was slowed, not halted.

    I would point out that Europe and Japan are both have access to more and better technology than the US. This may be attributed to any number of factors. Our patent system is arguably one of them. Not saying it is or is not, but I can certainly see an argument for it.

  7. To say that there were technologies being researched and developed is one thing. To say that they were complete and nothing has been added means you’re an ostrich with your head in the sand or you’re a weasel who is being dishonest.

    Either way, I think the rat is a troll, not someone legitimately interested in discussing IP issues and policy. People who use sites like these for that kind of insight also use their real names.

  8. “I never said that and your attribution of it to me is intellectually dishonest.”

    ‘”And Rat, are you really suggesting that technological innovation ended in 1983? You realize that you’re posting this to a blog, right? … Tell me again about the Internet, cell phones, gps systems, and HDTV in 1983. I can’t remember much about them from back then.”

    Quite so. Glad to help.’

    What was the quite so referring to, then? Did you ignore his first question and answer a “right?” with a “quite so”? I somewhat doubt I have need to be intellectually dishonest with you – couldn’t it have been a mistake on my part or yours? You seem to be making the same assumptions regarding intent that the USPTO makes.

  9. “BHR, … Your hypothesis that technical innovation ended in 1983 is preposterous”

    I never said that and your attribution of it to me is intellectually dishonest.

  10. Dear high atop the atrium?

    How about Mus Minimus?

    * * * * *

    Hi bhr,

    “Just to be clear: My view is that too many patents are being issued for ideas that do not warrant patent protection and the remedies available to patent holders over the last twenty years have been excessive. The consequence of those excesses is to create a drag on the US economy.”

    We live in a country where organized big business is controlling more and more of our Congress, Executive agencies and our Courts and you focus on a few inventors that have received excessive remedies.

    I’d be even more impressed if you were more concerned about the myriad inventors that get screwed than the few that receive excessive remedies.

  11. BHR, and things are being developed today (like spin transistors, single-electron storage, biologically based nano-self-assembly, self-guided personal public transport, invisibility cloaks, CO2 sinks, all sorts of genetic engineering I can’t even fathom) that your children will have access to and/or benefit from in 20 years.

    Your hypothesis that technical innovation ended in 1983 is preposterous (though I guess to be expected from USPTO management and the like… everything that can be invented has been).

    [What do you call a baby rat, I wonder.]

  12. Rat – impressive!

    Just to add a note to your history lesson – the widespread use of GPS today was made possible by our friend Al Gore, who had Selective Availability (a feature used by the DOD to make the system less accurate for non-military users) turned off. Seems he had a vision that GPS could be a wonderful consumer technology, as well as an economic driver.

  13. “And Rat, are you really suggesting that technological innovation ended in 1983? You realize that you’re posting this to a blog, right? … Tell me again about the Internet, cell phones, gps systems, and HDTV in 1983. I can’t remember much about them from back then.”

    Quite so. Glad to help. Ignorance is dangerous.

    I am working on a computer with an open architecture (IBM PC introduced in 1981), which uses a CPU that uses an open instruction set (x86). I am using an open source browser.

    The internet was invented in 1973 by publicly funded research and brought on stream in 1983, again with public funding. The protocols are open.

    The world wide web was invented in 1989/1990 by an Englishman working for a publicly funded research organization located in Switzerland (CERN). He had had the original concept in 1980. The web is an open design and royalty free.

    GPS was developed and built using public funds to solve a military problem. The idea of using satellites for navigation appears to date from around 1960. The current system seems to have been developed and built using public funds starting in the late seventies and was in place by the early 1980s.

    The cell phone was conceived in 1947 but was not developed in its modern form until the late 1970s and early 1980s as a result, at least in part, of regulatory restrictions. By 1983 commercial cell phone service was available in some parts of the United States and the system was being rapdily built out.

    The Japanese had a commercial hdtv system in the late 1960s. HDTV was demonstrated in the US in 1981. In 1983, the industry created a group to establish a standard for HDTV. It appears that the commercial availability of HDTV was delayed by the fact that 20 different companies claim patents on the data compression algorithms used.

    Just to be clear: My view is that too many patents are being issued for ideas that do not warrant patent protection and the remedies available to patent holders over the last twenty years have been excessive. The consequence of those excesses is to create a drag on the US economy. Many of the readers of this blog disagree with me and some seem to think the status quo is so perfect that not only should we not change it, we should not even discuss changing it and that anyone who suggests reducing patent rights should be mocked and vilified.

    I draw solace from the fact that SCOTUS appears to agree with me.

    With all this typing, I’ve built up an appetite – I need to go find some cheese …

  14. “BHR, the problem with your logic is that the founding fathers detailed how inventors should be rewarded (the Federal government doesn’t have the authority to make direct cash grants, nor should it for any number of reasons), and I have to believe they were smarter than any of us are.”

    Wrong. The founding fathers detailed how inventors COULD be rewarded, if Congress so chose. As to whether the Federal government has the authority to make direct cash grants – wrong again. You’ve never heard of government-sponsored research? (Or welfare programs, for that matter?)

    Whether or not it’s the best way to promote progress, our patent system is certainly not the ONLY way.

  15. Anonymous, I generally agree with you, but it looks more like Congress is trying to get “patent reform” passed than “this administration” is. After all, the president doesn’t get to vote on bills.

    And Rat, are you really suggesting that technological innovation ended in 1983? You realize that you’re posting this to a blog, right? As in web log. As in the world wide web. As in the Internet. Tell me again about the Internet, cell phones, gps systems, and HDTV in 1983. I can’t remember much about them from back then.

  16. “general slow down is outside of the scope of Microsoft’s products”

    BHR, please detail to us in what sectors there is a slowdown in technology outside of Microsoft’s products. Really! In my experience,there isn’t any, and the false assumption that “patent trolling” has ever slowed down product development is contradicted by my 25+ years of working for big business – it just hasn’t happened in any field I’ve worked in (and yes, I know money has sometimes changed hands….)

    [I would ask the rhetorical question of why this administration is so worried about seeing the money and invention rights always flow to Big Corp. as if some how that is best for America (which it isn't), but I already know the answer.]

  17. Not to mention that most of Europe and Asia and Russia and etc. are vestigial monarchies at best, and communist dictatorships at worst. Therefore, the historical fabric from which these very governments spring are inherently against the notion of private wealth. America is the great experiment in that it is really the first government of its kind in modern history. America is the only place in the world where someone like Bill Gates, a college dropout, could become the richest man in the world without killing millions of people.

    Let’s leave a great thing alone.

  18. Big Hairy Rat is citing obscure history. There are many (more) historical examples that directly contradict his postulations.

    For example, I read an account, which I will post when I find it, of how a lack of patent awareness both at home at abroad nearly destroyed the Swiss watch business.

    Its easy for a country like Switzerland, or other European countries like Germany and the Netherlands, who are already controlled by a monopoly of government itself, meaning the means of production are monopolized in government (some will properly identify this as socialism or communism), to abolish a patent system. In such a country, there is really no “marketplace” for capital and thus no domestic need for a patent office.

    Does this mean you are advocating socialism Big Hairy Rat? Last time I checked the U.S. hadn’t sank that far yet.

  19. poster: Disagreement over the precise mechanism by which patent law is supposed to promote progress does not change my point.

    real anonymous: The general slow down is outside of the scope of Microsoft’s products so you cannot really blame Microsoft. I think the basic interpreter for the Altair was an innovative product but beyond that I agree that Microsoft has done very little that would count as innovative. You have to admit though that they are brilliant merchandizers selling huge amounts of buggy, bloated software to the world.

  20. Poster, real anonymous,

    Don’t waste your time — Give up on BHR, for he is a real loser.

    BHR,

    Go eat your cheese.

  21. “It appears to me that the digital revolution slowed down significantly at the end of the 20th Century (after 1983).”

    I credit Microsoft’s monopoly power with that, and that power had virtually nothing to do with bad patents. And now does this administration let Microsoft drive policy, as if they know anything about innovation?

    BHR, has MS ever come up with something innovative? (That’s not a rhetorical question, btw. The FAT patent is likely valid, but it is only valuable because of the standardization that was effected through monopoly power. And as with standardization in the phone system, computer standardization is good, though open source is perhaps much better than MS.)

  22. BHR,

    You are missing the point! The patent laws are to inspire and encourage innovation. The “Fathers” understood that without patent protection inventors would NOT come forward with their discoveries. Thus the discoveries would never become public knowledge. So where is your logic or support that the “their discoveries then become part of the general knowledge of all, to be exploited by all”

    The current patent reform bill is way off point and will only help a very small handful of Big Corps.

  23. Patent reform – more like a formula for national malaise. You 2l’s probably don’t remember our time of national doubt. Here’s what patent reform should be about.

    Public Papers of the Presidents

    September 12, 1983

    CITE: 19 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 1235

    LENGTH: 1417 words

    HEADLINE: National Productivity and Innovation Legislation

    HIGHLIGHT:
    Message to the Congress Transmitting the Proposed Legislation.

    “But the kicker is that without patent protection in the US at the end of the 20th century, there would have been no investment to produce the technological revolution.”

    The issue is not whether there should be patent protection, but how much protection and for what. Framing the question as a false choice does not advance the discussion. It appears to me that the digital revolution slowed down significantly at the end of the 20th Century (after 1983).

    I for one believe that providing patent protection for MercExchange or EOLAS or Forgent or NTP or the Verizon patents used against Vonage was not appropriate and that patents of that sort are a significant drag on the US economy and the overall pace of innovation.

  24. “Inventors can be rewarded by direct cash grants and recognition rather than by the grant of patents. This is what we do with university professors after all. Absent the patent system, their discoveries then become part of the general knowledge of all, to be exploited by all.”

    BHR, the problem with your logic is that the founding fathers detailed how inventors should be rewarded (the Federal government doesn’t have the authority to make direct cash grants, nor should it for any number of reasons), and I have to believe they were smarter than any of us are. (Now I know that won’t sit right with some of the yung’uns in the Bush administration….)

  25. Two things:

    “If not for the obstruction of just a few Senators, we would have passed these bills last year. I am hopeful that the overwhelming majority of Senators – Democrats and Republicans alike – will have their voices heard this year.”

    Does Senator Reid think this statement is likely to make those “few Seantors” MORE likely to be cooperative?

    According to Zura, after discussing the economic stimulus package, a health care proposal for native Americans, the FISA bill and DOD reauthorization bill, Senator Reid said:

    “Once we work these issues out, time permitting, we will also turn to two other priorities in this first work period: patent reform and an energy package.”

    This doesn’t sound like the Senate is going to get patent reform to the floor any time soon.

  26. “Correct me if I’m wrong, but in those civilizations and/or countries mentioned above, weren’t inventors/scholars rewarded by the government/people with money and recognition for their discoveries and inventions?”

    Yes, yes: for economies to flourish you need freedom to trade, property rights, and clear consistent laws. The problem with the patent system is not the basic idea that there are some ideas that should be protected – it is what ideas should be protected and how much. If you give too much protection (which includes overly harsh remedies) or give protection to the wrong ideas or you give protection for ideas with no clear boundaries then you are doing more harm than good.

    History does not particularly favor strong patent rights. If you look at the airplane, the possibility of patents no doubt encouraged the Wrights in their efforts but then their patents held back further developments of the airplane industry in the US and technological leadership shifted to France. If you look at the steam engine, the award of a patent to Watt effectively put the development of the steam engine on hold for twenty years.

    Inventors can be rewarded by direct cash grants and recognition rather than by the grant of patents. This is what we do with university professors after all. Absent the patent system, their discoveries then become part of the general knowledge of all, to be exploited by all.

  27. Dear Hairy:

    Except:

    “Finally and perhaps underemphasized by Murmann, because the textile industry in Germany was insubstantial compared to its prominent role in the U.K. and the United States, the German synthetic dye industry was successful in lobbying for policies that favored their bottom line while firms in the U. K. and the U.S. were not. (The textile industry was unlikely to favor policies that increased rent-sharing with the dye industry through protectionism or other means.)”

    Which could be interpreted to mean, fewer big companies in Germany (compared to the US and UK)manipulating the political system to their own advantage, so the “little guys” had a chance to develop their businesses.

    Like Apple, Amgen, Genentech, Microsoft, etc. in the early 1980′s. But the kicker is that without patent protection in the US at the end of the 20th century, there would have been no investment to produce the technological revolution. So we can’t compare apples to oranges, or cherry-pick information in support of an argument (at least if we want to spread more light than heat).

  28. I didn’t mean to imply a causal link. It’s just that it goes hand in hand (i.e., has a positive correlation) with business flourishing within a set of predefined rules that protect businesses from underhanded practices. The mob doesn’t exactly do a whole lot of research and development.

    Look at corporations. Delaware is far from the friendliest venue to corporations, however, most corporations file for incorporation there because they have had the most litigation and the rules are fairly well defined. Corporate entities (the people that run them anyway)place more value on certainty with respect to the corporate form than on additional protections that may be provided in other jurisdictions.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but in those civilizations and/or countries mentioned above, weren’t inventors/scholars rewarded by the government/people with money and recognition for their discoveries and inventions?

  29. “If so, then you ignore history. The strongest nations and economies in history are those that protect intellectual property …”

    Extremely doubtful. For example, England invented modern industrial chemistry but Germany came to dominate because its lack of patent laws allowed for a more flexible and competitive industry. It was only after the industry was well established in Germany that the new German industry started lobbying for patent laws to protect it against further competition. See, for example, link to eh.net

  30. “The strongest nations and economies in history are those that protect intellectual property and give people incentives to produce new intellectual property.”

    Yeah, such as Alexander the Great’s empire in 350 BCE or so, or the Roman empire in 300 CE.

    That’s an absurd statement. What you mean is “Several of the strongest nations and economies RIGHT NOW are those that protect intellectual property.” I’ll grant you a somewhat positive correlation, but the causal link is far from undisputed.

  31. Ex ub6 ib9 : “American people = 1″

    even money on passage depending on schumer and feinstein (and billy tauzin for BigPharma) — basically 5-7 senate votes still in play … (clairvoiyance helps sometimes)

    as for amendments — sessions already has an exception for the banking industry & several others are carving out to pick winners for their votes — what a great way to screw up innovation — bright side :: the Bush administration significantly curtails the damages aspect of the Bill …

    America will suffer as a result … highest drug prices and worst broadband deployments … just a few tidbits … wont change … Ex6k how about some help in that area?

    but :: once again, how pleasant, a bureaucrat paid with tax dollars and applicant fees who knows better than the marketplace for ideas … perhaps that is actually what will save the American people … Examiners who cant find private sector work …

  32. Red Dog,

    Thanks. Not that it makes 6k’s post any more comprehensible, but at least I feel a little hipper knowing that “PWNT is I33tspeak for Owned.” I think I know what PW stands for. :-)

    Live and learn.

    Thanks,

    VA

  33. I fail to understand why in an age where intellectual property is the currency of the economy so many people think that we should devalue that currency. Do you think that this will strengthen the US economic position or our status in the world? If so, then you ignore history. The strongest nations and economies in history are those that protect intellectual property and give people incentives to produce new intellectual property.

    And on a side note: I wish that patent attorneys did not have to press for allowance of applications that probably should be abandoned. But for those who think that the decision is up to the firm or the attorney, please acknowledge the reality of the situation. For anyone who needs it spelled out; our clients demand that we press the issue, not us.

    And Examiner#6k, you do realize that when we’re all out of work, you’ll also be out of work, right? That’ll work wonders for the US economy, our position in the world, and the families that depend on this business to get by (like mine). I understand that at the Office they now have a class on hating patent attorneys or something, but really, please try and see through the propaganda.

  34. “If you think FTF is a win for the American people, you’re entitled to your opinion, but watching filings, backlog and pendency swell.”

    Ahh, VA, I think they’ve thought of that – that’s where applicant quality submissions come in to stem the tide of patent applications (and the progress of the useful arts).

  35. Wow. I’m familiar with a lot of texting shorthand terminology (I loved Malcolm’s ROFLMAO), but you’re gonna have to help me out with qqers and PWNT.

    Personally, I think it’s even money that S1145 will pass unamended. But as S1145 doesn’t 1) amend 35 USC 120 to allow the PTO to limit continuations or 2) give the PTO substantive rule making authority (which would be the equivalent of handing a loaded gun to a 2 year old), it’s less objectionable than HR1908. All the rumors I’ve read/heard also say that if S1145 is passed by the Senate, it will be passed by the House without amendment, thus eliminating the need for a conference. So the house won’t be re-introducing any of the nonsense they initially passed.

    And its passage would strengthen GSK’s case that the PTO doesn’t have substantive rule making authority, which pretty much knocks out the preliminarily enjoined continuation/claim examination rules.

    If you think FTF is a win for the American people, you’re entitled to your opinion, but watching filings, backlog and pendency swell. Well, at least until applicants realize that the PTO has killed the patent system and it’s not worth filing any more apps.

    Then we can all go home. Or catch a ball game.

    I’ll see you at the game. Feel free to buy me a beer. :-)

  36. VA, JD, and any other qqers … PWNT.

    This Round:
    American people – 1
    Bad law – 0.

    Now taking bets. 5 to 1 it goes through with hardly any amendments.

  37. I am looking forward to the change. There will be no more partners filing a piece of crap and then thumpin-on an associate for not being able to get the thing allowed. Now you have to have the invention identified before filing. I have a feeling alot of the paper pushers masquerading as patent practitioners will have to look for other work.

  38. JPO – “creation and utilization”? Yeah, if you’re a Japanese company. Good luck if you’re not. The JPO is a huge money pit for foreign inventors. It’s interesting how their closed patent office mirrors their closed market. Interesting, no?

Comments are closed.