The innovation alliance has a well engineered video focusing on various inventor-patentees explaining the “value of a strong patent system.”
A couple of the inventors (Richard Dean, Qualcomm & Rob Smithson, Fallbrook Tech) make the argument that strong US patents preferentially generates R&D in the US. I don’t really understand that argument. US patents are available to inventors from around the world almost regardless of where the R&D took place. As a consequence, a strong US patent regime provides a global incentive to innovate products that will be valued in the US.
You’re knowledge and understanding of Constitutional law are on par with your knowledge and understanding of patent law.
LOL
If you ever bother to actually study history, and law, you will find that the what the framers “originally intended” by “necessary and proper” is hardly clear. Anti-Federalists (e.g. Patrick Henry) thought it meant one thing, and Federalists (e.g. Alexander Hamilton) thought it meant something else. It really wasn’t until J. Marshall decided McCollough v. Maryland that it was interpreted. And J. Marshall gave it the interpretation he wanted in order to achieve the result he wanted. Happens all the time.
But the idea that you can determine what the “original intent” of a Constitutional provision, such as “necessary and proper,” and then give it a “strict construction” is a fantasy that is indulged in by idiots like Scalia. And you apparently.
It is a fallacy rooted in an absurd notion that the framers were all of one mind, i.e. intent, when they drafted the Constitution. They weren’t. Each framer had his own idea of what the various provisions meant. Giving a “strict construction” to language that was a compromise amongst many different men, states, and interests is a fool’s hope. Unfortunately, there are lots of fools out there. Some of them wear black robes and go to work at 1st Street, NE every day.
“You don’t seem to understand the difference in saying ‘well, you can’t just go reinterpreting the fundamental powers granted to our federal gov and the fundamental rights granted to the people’ and saying THEY”RE SET IN STONE!!! I DIVINED THIS ORIGINAL INTENT N THAT”S WHAT IT MEANS!!!”
I don’t think you even understand that mess you typed.
Some of the fundamental powers granted to our federal government include, for example, regulating commerce amongst the states. What is “commerce”? What was the “original intent” of the framers in allowing the federal government to “regulate” such “commerce”? What does “amongst the states” mean? What are “strict constructions” of “commerce,” and “regulate” and “amongst the states”?
If you ever bother to study this one single issue of Constitutional law you will find that nobody knows what the “original intent” was, or how to apply a “strict construction” to these terms. Of course people are going to advocate for different meanings. It’s why we have a judicial system. So people will use it to present their arguments and have a (theoretically) objective judge and/or jury decide.
“As an aside, maybe you could explain to us why every time any reinterpretloling is allowed the people never gain any individual rights, or are less under the yoke of gov. Every single time it happens it is just more government control of your life.”
Flying your ignorance flag high today I see.
I guess you’ve never read cases like Griswold v. Connecticut, and Loving v. Virginia, and Roe v. Wade. How about that Heller decision? Pretty significant decisions that got government out of people’s lives and decisions.
Scalia is a demagogue. He preaches to the ignorant and uninformed like you. You lap it up like a dog.
BTW, what does 1820 have to do with anything?
“The framers didn’t even know what they were.”
Bull shi t. Apparently they were just spit balling when drafting the constitution.
That’s probably the most rtarded thing that I keep hearing from certain corners.
The guys writing this document weren’t rtards like you are.
“But did they “intend” that the words they chose would be carved in stone and given some “strict construction” determined by trying to somehow divine their “original intent”?”
You don’t seem to understand the difference in saying “well, you can’t just go reinterpreting the fundamental powers granted to our federal gov and the fundamental rights granted to the people” and saying THEY”RE SET IN STONE!!! I DIVINED THIS ORIGINAL INTENT N THAT”S WHAT IT MEANS!!!
Again, all one needs to do is inspect the alternative, reinterpretloling the fundamental cornerstone of our gov for no fing reason at all. It is outrageous. Entirely outrageous.
The fact that people over the years have been able to throw the meanings of those clauses into confusion is just testimony to lawyers bull shi tting over the years. Nothing else. You didn’t have people wondering:
“What do “necessary” and “proper” mean? What are the “other rights” of Amendment IX? What are the “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution” of Amendment X that are reserved to the states, or to the people?”
In 1820. You just didn’t. Go ahead point me to some documents where some totally confuzzled politician writes to a colleague who wrote back without an answer what so ever.
As an aside, maybe you could explain to us why every time any reinterpretloling is allowed the people never gain any individual rights, or are less under the yoke of gov. Every single time it happens it is just more government control of your life. And it befuddles me as to how any individual who is not a powerful figure can espouse such a process as being proper in a country supposedly ruled by law.
Scalia pwns you. And it isn’t hard to see why.
Dear don’t bother,
Thank you for bothering to take the time to enlighten me.
I believe your explanation helps advance one of my missions in life —
to defame the constitutionally unlawful ussc Merc v eBay opinion.
The Framers made certain of their intentions (by no means ALL)
crystal clear in Article I, Section 8, e.g:
cl. 17) DC not larger than 100 square miles,
cl. 12) no more than 2 yrs’ military appropriations, and
cl. 8) exclusive rights for (ALL) inventors, i.e.,
the right to stop an infringer
even if the inventor or patent owner chooses not to license the infringer.
From wikipedia:
The Necessary and Proper Clause (also known as the Elastic Clause, the Basket Clause, the Coefficient Clause, and the Sweeping Clause[1]) is the provision in Article One of the United States Constitution, section 8, clause 18:
“ The Congress shall have Power – To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Wikipedia Is Not Your Lawyer (WINYL)
Wikipedia Is Not Legal Advice (WINLA)
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 – The Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department of Officer thereof.
What do “necessary” and “proper” mean? What are the “other rights” of Amendment IX? What are the “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution” of Amendment X that are reserved to the states, or to the people?
Idiots like Scalia will tell you, “Well, it was the original intent of the framers…” when in fact nobody knows what these things are, or what the framers “originally intended” them to be. The framers didn’t even know what they were. The framers left them to be interpreted by those who had to take a bunch of words written on a piece of paper and transform them into an actual, living, breathing republic.
Did the framers choose their words carefully? Sure. But did they “intend” that the words they chose would be carved in stone and given some “strict construction” determined by trying to somehow divine their “original intent”? No.
“Original intent” and “strict construction” are buzz phrases used by idiots like Scalia whose view of democracy is simply “majority rule.” The Constitution was written to protect individual liberty from the tyranny of “majority rule.” Idiots like Scalia don’t understand that. Never have and never will.
What is the “elastic clause” ?
“The founders weren’t trying to bs around when they wrote the document, they meant what they said. Not some trumped up interpretation that lawyers managed to come up with hundreds of years later.”
This is a popular misconception amongst the uninformed. And lazy. Like Scalia.
The idea that that writers of the Constitution had defininte meanings and intent for every word and provision they used is a fallacy. If the “elastic clause” doesn’t prove that, I don’t know what does.
There is perhaps a difference between simple and simple-minded.
For more on the discussion of promotion, see:
link to patenthawk.com
“Actually, SCOTUS’s decision in Heller is probably going to spawn more litigation over gun rights, and restrictions, than it prevented.”
I’m aware, and I was going to put a sentence in there about that, but I figured everyone already knew that. The bottom line is, we no longer have people bsing about “well it means … some bs about militias” or some other outrageous crp that I can’t even remember because the decision delegated it to the dustbin of history. The founders weren’t trying to bs around when they wrote the document, they meant what they said. Not some trumped up interpretation that lawyers managed to come up with hundreds of years later.
“You have shown no capacity for legal, logical thought. I truly doubt that there will be any quantum of improvement merely because the topic is something you personally believe. In fact, quite the opposite is likely, as your already minimal sense of logic will be further clouded by your irrationality. When your position is exposed as weak and inconsequential, you re-double your attacks, descending into profanity and outright contradictions and cling more fiercely to your bag of tricks and nonsense.”
My bag of “tricks” trumps your trumped up “logic” every single time. So long as that holds true, I’m just fine with your analysis of the situation.
And btw, I only “resorted” to profanity because you were being an arse. I considered not using it, due to your genteel nature and all (lol) but you need to understand that your constant taunting, when all you’re trying to say is “hur, I don’t understand”, does nothing but pis me off. If you want to say “hur, I don’t understand” then say that. Don’t try to pretty it up so that people who aren’t as smart as me think you’re pulling something over. You wanna talk about a “trick”? Let’s talk about a trick.
And Max, don’t worry about it. Anyone can see through the majority of her positions with little trouble. Kind of like the recent article by Chris Cotropia on the BRI. All one needs to do is see the unacceptability of the alternatives to see why BRI is a necessary “evil”.
I bet I’m not going to get many sandwiches from Noise very soon 🙁 <3 4 u Noise.
Have to say that I’m grateful to contributer 6.
I thought I knew what the Constitution meant by “promote” the progress of “science” and “useful arts”, namely what 6 says it means. I had thought that job creation and the improvement of society were seen as beneficial indirect downstream effects of giving patent rights and recognising copyright. I had no idea that people were using the argument back to front (that, if it creates jobs, it must be promoting progress and so, ergo, it must be patentable).
I smell a rat.
All rats have tails. That animal has a tail. Therefore, that animal is a rat.
“And all that goes double because we’re talking about what I personally believe.”
You have shown no capacity for legal, logical thought. I truly doubt that there will be any quantum of improvement merely because the topic is something you personally believe. In fact, quite the opposite is likely, as your already minimal sense of logic will be further clouded by your irrationality. When your position is exposed as weak and inconsequential, you re-double your attacks, descending into profanity and outright contradictions and cling more fiercely to your bag of tricks and nonsense.
You also personally believe that Dudas may have been the best USPTO Director ever. That about sums up your credibility.
“And gun rights people have one less question to bs/banter about.”
Actually, SCOTUS’s decision in Heller is probably going to spawn more litigation over gun rights, and restrictions, than it prevented.
Noise I know all about you guys indirect nonsensical “I made a job and thus the person I hired will be able to advance the useful arts” arguments for including the creation of jobs in the advancement. And I know how they relate to rl concerns. The problem is, that “type” of advancement is indirect and unreliable, in contrast to say, someone just writing down an enabling disclosure.
And yes, I get that in today’s world (and even the world of yesteryear) it is essential to have jobs being provided in order for the arts to advance. That doesn’t change the fact that the patent “bargain” is between the gov and the inventor, for the purpose of advancing the state of knowledge directly, not for the purpose of providing jobs to sorta kinda maybe eventually advance the state of knowledge. The market is “supposed” to take care of that, so far as I’m aware.
“You really need to advance beyond “See Spot run” in order to explain what may be entailed by “promote” and “advance””
Not really, the only time that is necessary is when people who are trying to make too much of simple words join in a discussion because they stand to gain from throwing the whole mess into confusion. There is no reason to dig into those words. None. Just because the words can be dug into doesn’t mean that we should or need to. And all that goes double because we’re talking about what I personally believe.
Courts need to step up their defense of the simple meanings of laws and bring the hatchet down on the ridiculous nonsense that pops up from time to time. That way we wouldn’t have to have these conversations because they’d be moot. See, for example, the recent case on 2nd amendment rights. Beautiful. Even though the USSC didn’t go quite as far as I would have prefered, it was beautiful. And gun rights people have one less question to bs/banter about.
And btw, if you can do without the profanity I can do without the constant attitude.
“Please try again.”
Please don’t. My head hurts.
“Do you need me to expound further?”
Obviously, yes.
– See I can do it without the profanity – you might try it sometime.
As for the triple negative, it is entirely appropriate given the context. Oops, that’s right, I’m discussing something with 6 – the master of NOT understanding context.
To underscore the “promote” and “advance” discussion, providing jobs in the field can very easily fall into the categories of “promote” and “advance” and if you had any real world experience in managing R&D, you would recognize how glib and insubstantial your comments have been. You really need to advance beyond “See Spot run” in order to explain what may be entailed by “promote” and “advance”, or to defend why you think certain things are not included. I can see where your habits of providing merely cursory statements may come from, but in a discussion, they hold no sway.
Please try again.
“Please don’t run, don’t explain what is NOT in the definition, I am looking for your understanding of the meaning.”
Je sus btch, can you read? What about write? That’s a triple negative in that sentence. Check it out, “Please don’t run or forget to explain what is in the sentence”. How’s that?
“As to the full meaning, a short answer would be “advance the state of knowledge in the sciences and useful arts”.”
There is my answer, if you read it you will find it isn’t quite the same as the constitution’s clause. Do you need me to expound further? Your needing me to expound further because you are stu pid and have trouble reading, or are luring me, isn’t me “running away”. So stop blabbing about running k?
Attempting to state what this simplistic arse sentence means is like trying to explain what the sentence “See Spot run” means. It means to see spot run. It is a simple sentence (or phrase in this case), and there is no simpler breakdown available. Similarly, the constitutional phrase means, very simply, to promote science, and to promote the useful arts. That is, to advance science and/or the useful arts. That is, to add to our existing knowledge (specifically the written kind, but that comes from a later part in the sentence) about science and the techniques and objects utilized in the useful arts. Useful arts is a term that could for all practical purposes, have been readily replaced by “manufacturing” back in the day, but is generously afforded “technology” by many in today’s terms. As for myself, I’m a purist, the document means the exact same thing as it meant 100 years ago. Manufacturing.
You know all this about me already, surely, from my many posts. I’m not even sure why you’re trolling for more, unless to entice me into saying something you can pick at. I guess if you ask what “see spot run” means enough, eventually an exasperated speaker of English will say something like “it means use your two eyes to observe spot moving his four limbs” which isn’t technically true, because you could use one eye, and spot could run on his hind legs. Never the less, explaining that isn’t worth the effort, so the above will just have to do you.
A big Booyaa for Pres. Clinton —
but I wouldn’t let him alone on a plane with my daughter.
“I think that for our purposes it will be faster to point out what it does not mean.”
translation: let me put on my skirt and track shoes and run away from providing a direct answer because I have none.
“The meaning is plain on it’s face.”
LOL – sort of like your understanding of “prima facia”, except, when others over rule what YOU consider prima facia (as you became extremely irritated at a couple of threads ago). Guess what, “according to 6” has no place in either the definition of “prima facia” or the current quote in question. Please don’t run, don’t explain what is NOT in the definition, I am looking for your understanding of the meaning. Copping a “well, it’s plain on its face”, and simply reiterating a quote just tells us that you DON’T understand what it means and CANNOT explain it.
Please try again.
“I used to service a very large client headquartered in another country.”
Serviced, you say… a very large client, you say… (nudge nudge wink wink say no more)
“If you’ve been working at the PTO for about 3 years and you do a better search the second/third/fourth etc. time around, you’re not getting it. If you’re even doing a second/third/fourth etc. search, you’re clearly not getting it.
But thanks again for proving my point.”
No I “get it” JD, I “get” that mo rons, and people who like to just go home and don’t give two shts, will do one search per app. No matter what. And then “updatelol it”. I “get it” just fine. I also “get” that it is short changing the inventor if I don’t follow up on any new understanding about a. the invention, or b. a reference that has been brought to my attention since the action went out, either by the art I’ve sifted through, the applicant himself, or anything else.
You’re the guy who is 100% comfortable with giving the man at your drive through back $10.00 when his change is $10.10. In various industries, where your kind are easily detected, for example fast food, they install little machines that show the person the change they should be getting outside the window to help cure their ignorance of what their change should be. That’s so that the “customer” can call bs. In patent prosecution the customer can’t see quite as easily what his change (search report) should have been. And we allow the “haze of expertise” to still cloud this particular aspect of examining, even though it is absolutely despised when that haze enters into an action being written.
In short, anyone who “gets it” is as jackas. Just nod your head and go along with the crowd, that’s you guys moto.
Thanks for bringing out the larger “point” behind the basis for your “point”.
And don’t even get on here and try to get hypocritical saying things like “well you should have divined that new information the first time around, hur!” and “Well, that’s why I was so much better than your avg examiner, I always understand applications fully the first time through, and my searches always look perfect in retrospect”. Don’t even try it.
Curious, I’ll give you this much, at least you admit you don’t understand. If you were making a living at searching though, you would.
“almost afraid to ask, but 6, what iyho, is the point of the patent system?”
““promote the progress of science and useful arts’ mean?”
I think that for our purposes it will be faster to point out what it does not mean. It does not mean “provide jobs”. As to the full meaning, a short answer would be “advance the state of knowledge in the sciences and useful arts”. You can replace useful arts with technology if you have a hard time with understanding language. The phrase doesn’t really need a whole lot of analyzing. The meaning is plain on it’s face.
“And how non-complex of a design job do you see to make the patent laws designed to provide jobs?”
First, amend the constitution to provide “”The Congress shall have power to promote the progress of anything, as well as provide job opportunities, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive…”. Then eliminate stat categories, 103, everything in 102 except a and b (maybe keep f and g), and a handful (read: at least a couple of pages of laws) of other bs. In short, make it “come up with a combination of anything not before written down, patent it, and go about your trollin biz”.
A whole industry of “R&Dlol” will spring right up, suckling on the teat of what little manufacturing we have left (and don’t forget imports and everyday biz’s!).
“People that weren’t seatbelted in flew up and hit the ceiling, so their heads and their faces hit the plastics all up at the top,” John Norwood of Houston told WSVN-TV. “A couple of people were badly hurt from the plastic breaking on their faces from the lights. There were people cut, bleeding. There were a few people unconscious.”
————————–
1. An overhead light source covered with a flexible translucent or transparent material, wherein said light is positioned above a passenger seat in a jet airplane.
“If you’ve been working at the PTO for about 3 years and you do a better search the second/third/fourth etc. time around, you’re not getting it. If you’re even doing a second/third/fourth etc. search, you’re clearly not getting it.”
I understand the second search — but not the third/fourth etc. — that is why there are so many RCE’s
It should be noted that the Malcolm post of: “[Night Writer Patent Attorney | Aug 04, 2009 at 12:26 PM ::: comment blocked] Ah, sweet relief!” is provided courtesy of the “ignorance is bliss’ module, a standard feature of the MMtroll-bot.
6,
“You’re nearly always going to get a better search the second/third/fourth etc. time around if the examiner tries at all.” – That’s one heck of a caveat – if the examiner tries at all – I’m surprised JohnDarling hasn’t teed off on that.
“The point of the patent system is not to provide jobs. Never was, never will be. …Either that, or we should change the patent laws so that they are designed to provide jobs. If that is what is wanted, then the changes are not all that complex.” – echoing Broje, and almost afraid to ask, but 6, what iyho, is the point of the patent system? And how non-complex of a design job do you see to make the patent laws designed to provide jobs?
While I was typing I see that you have responded to Broje with your classic ignorance. Your understanding of world economic principles should make every reader cringe. There are just too many issues you have gotten wrong in your reply to even waste time responding to. The best we can hope for with your comments on China is simply to put you in a hole in the ground and cover you up.
As for actually answering the question of what patents are for, your glib quote of “promote the progress of science and useful arts” doesn’t tell us what you think that means. So 6, what does “promote the progress of science and useful arts’ mean?
Broje,
I can’t decide which quip I like more:
“Your head is full of FAIL.” or
“I wouldn’t trust you with a toothpick on a dirigible.”
“You’re nearly always going to get a better search the second/third/fourth etc. time around if the examiner tries at all.”
If you’ve been working at the PTO for about 3 years and you do a better search the second/third/fourth etc. time around, you’re not getting it. If you’re even doing a second/third/fourth etc. search, you’re clearly not getting it.
But thanks again for proving my point.
“4000 patent applications in a single day? I’m having a little trouble getting to the rest of your story, after that whopper.”
That was the most I saw returned on an esp@ce search by typing in the applicant name and a random date. The least I saw was 14, and that turned out to be a weekend day. From less than 10 samples, I get the impression that 200-400 per day is more typical.
“4000 patent applications in a single day? I’m having a little trouble getting to the rest of your story, after that whopper.”
That’s what I thought too. Even IBM doesn’t file that many I don’t think.
“If Americans are going to compete for manufacturing jobs with labor forces of other countries, then they have to accept the same quality of life and working conditions. ”
Not true. That’s an assumption you want to make because we have weak trade policies in place in this country. The trade deficit apparently means nothing to you. Americans had a much better standard of living due to manufacturing before we started importing nearly everything we need at pennies on the dollar. Everyone presumes globalization is here to stay and will never go away. They’re right of course in a limited way, but globalization in its present form is almost 100% doomed to failure, at least in so far as America is concerned. Protectionist policies will have to end up ruling the day if people in this country want to maintain a high standard of living.
I’m sorry, let me say that a different way, protectionist policies will have to end up ruling the day if people in this country WANT A CHANCE to maintain a high standard of living. The world has already gone flat, and that’s a tough one to roll back. Policies may not even be enough, but without them, there is a 0% chance.
You’re just swallowing the party line created by rich folks who want to plunder the american market while it can still sustain being plundered. Which is fine I should add. But it won’t last. The whole reason there was a market to plunder at all is because people had high paying jobs. And they weren’t bulsht jobs.
As an aside, China thinks they’re all that and a bag of chips. Truth be told they’re still just sucking at the teet of America’s market. America could shut them down as quick as can be, but then who would supply us with junk, that we mostly don’t need, for pennies?
“And we won’t be manufacturing those goods to sell here because people won’t be able to afford them.”
Oh, so now a domestic market would simply collapse in on itself? Hogwash. Absolutely hogwash. People would just have less plastic junk clogging up their garage and we might not be able to use as many disposable plates etc. Hardly a travesty.
“And we won’t be able to sell them there because the coutnry that does have the marketplace filled with people who can afford the goods will inevitably have a strong patent system that will have protected the rights of the innovators.”
What country might that be?
You appear to have a bad case of confusing correlation with causation. Patents, themselves, do not make a market able to afford things. Why you necessarily associate them with such a market is bizarre to say the least. The fact that America grew into being the greatest market and had decently strong patents during this growth is a correllation, it doesn’t necessarily show causation.
“I suggest you move to China or Mexico or India if that is the kind of country you want to live and work in. ”
Apparently you’re deaf, and/or can’t hear anything I’m telling you. I prefer this “kind of country”, and I prefer it without R&D into obvious/nonstat bull being subsidized by others. And so does the USSC. And so does everyone who doesn’t directly benefit from such subsidization. Someone, it appears, like you were.
“The patent system was initially created in the Venetian City States to encourage the importation and availability of new goods and, well, technology. That IS the point of the patent system. What did you think it was for?
”
Our patent system, I believe, was initially created in Washington DC. It was created to, and I quote, “promote the progress of science and useful arts”. In fact, the ability to grant a patent for any other reason is not even possible for the Office to do, legally speaking. And if you can find some instances of it being done, and where the case is in litigation, you should let the lawyers involved know so that the patent can be invalidated immediately.
“LOL. I wouldn’t trust you with a toothpick on a dirigible.”
I haven’t told who JAOI is, and I haven’t told who Noise is (I just found out yesterday lol, hi 2 u Noise). I’ll keep your little secret. Besides, how hush hush can a multi million/billion dollar company moving their R&D off shore be?
Btw, get on Netflix and watch IOUSA. Pay attention in the third section.
“we encourage multinational corporations to do R&D here through a strong patent system.”
You mean we used to encourage …
“This was the type of client to file 4000 patent applications in a single day, worldwide, including National Stage applications, etc.”
4000 patent applications in a single day? I’m having a little trouble getting to the rest of your story, after that whopper.
“…send me a mail at examiner6k@yahoo.com and tell me the name of this company, and some links showing this horrible travesty. I promise not to go blabbing all over the net.”
LOL. I wouldn’t trust you with a toothpick on a dirigible.
“Bull sht. Or coincidence.”
It is possible it is coincidence. But it was well after 9-11, and well before the housing crisis. KSR 101 D’oh-fecta is the only thing I can think of that led to the decision. And higher ups seemd to think the unfavorable IP law climate is what caused the exodus. I will let you draw your own conclusions.
“Let some other country subsidize their “research” into bull sht and then we’ll look at their disclosures when they’re published for some good lols while our factories get to make items using the tech np.
The point of the patent system is not to provide jobs.”
You’re talking about trading places with China and India and Mexico. If Americans are going to compete for manufacturing jobs with labor forces of other countries, then they have to accept the same quality of life and working conditions. It is a race to the bottom.
And we won’t be manufacturing those goods to sell here because people won’t be able to afford them. And we won’t be able to sell them there because the coutnry that does have the marketplace filled with people who can afford the goods will inevitably have a strong patent system that will have protected the rights of the innovators.
Your head is full of FAIL. I suggest you move to China or Mexico or India if that is the kind of country you want to live and work in. It is a global economy, and we encourage multinational corporations to do R&D here through a strong patent system. The patent system was initially created in the Venetian City States to encourage the importation and availability of new goods and, well, technology. That IS the point of the patent system. What did you think it was for?
“6k, I can haz link to your web site? I’m interested in checking it out. ”
Not yet, but soon. And like I mentioned, it’s a rough draft of what I want to make. I can’t decide if the final product should be srs or not. I might make two, practically a mirror of each other, one for srs comments, and one for telling it how it is.
“Thank you, too, for proving my point. ”
Your point was that applicant’s want the worst possible search ever? I can see that you have a point, but I don’t think it is something you need to flash around public.
Dennis, a year-year graph showing the number of applications filed and the number of examiners with at least three years experience would be interesting and useful.
“For the record I know of a homeless person who got off of a street corner.”
I’m not interested in your life story.
Just saying. 🙂
“You’re nearly always going to get a better search the second/third/fourth etc. time around if the examiner tries at all.”
Thank you, too, for proving my point.
” I wonder if you ever bother to ask yourself why it is that none of these “homeless” people you’re giving money to ever manage to get off the corners. ”
For the record I know of a homeless person who got off of a street corner. That one’s a funny story.
“Right.
I think you answered your own question as to why applicants appeal instead of filing RCE’s. And proved my point. All in one post.”
Because they don’t want a much better search? I guess he did prove your point.
Fact of the matter is, I usually get to a “much better search” the further into prosecution we get, no matter how we get there. Anyone examining, or prosecuting a case becomes more familiar with it every time they go over it. And you look at the app with newly experienced eyes every time you pick it up as well.
You’re nearly always going to get a better search the second/third/fourth etc. time around if the examiner tries at all.
“After KSR hit, and the 101 issue reared its ugly head, they closed most of their U.S. R&D facilities, fired practically everyone, and paid to transfer the technology overseas. So, there you have it.”
Bull sht. Or coincidence. If it isn’t, send me a mail at examiner6k@yahoo.com and tell me the name of this company, and some links showing this horrible travesty. I promise not to go blabbing all over the net.
Even if you aren’t bsing, it’d be good to see the patent system no longer subsidizing businesses that exist by churning out obvious, and/or nonstatutory crp and then patenting it. Let some other country subsidize their “research” into bull sht and then we’ll look at their disclosures when they’re published for some good lols while our factories get to make items using the tech np.
The point of the patent system is not to provide jobs. Never was, never will be. It was turned into that based on false pretenses, and allowed our country to think we could always be great even if nearly our entire mo fin manufacturing sector died off, at least in some people’s eyes. Bull.
Maybe we can get this country back on its feet again once the blowback from the past mistakes has gotten past.
Either that, or we should change the patent laws so that they are designed to provide jobs. If that is what is wanted, then the changes are not all that complex.
[Night Writer Patent Attorney | Aug 04, 2009 at 12:26 PM ::: comment blocked]
Ah, sweet relief!
6k, I can haz link to your web site? I’m interested in checking it out.
broje writes: “After KSR hit, and the 101 issue reared its ugly head, they closed most of their U.S. R&D facilities, fired practically everyone, and paid to transfer the technology overseas. So, there you have it.”
one step forward, two steps back — good job USA
“Also, I was told that they chose the U.S. because patent
laws in the U.S. were favorable. For example, it was less expensive to first file in the U.S. and easier to get broad claims allowed in the U.S. if the case originated in the US. ”
Additionally, the first application filed should be prepared to comply with the U.S. best mode requirement.
But wait, the MM-trollbot says that all they need for an incentive is to sell to customers.
MM-trollbot? Please respond to this poster. By the way, the MM-trollbot is in the market for a memory module to rid it of the persistent ignorance problem. So, if you have memory module for sale, please let him know. One problem we are having with MM-trollbot is that itkeeps erasing its memory because it believes that if it is not hardware that it can’t be eligible for patentability and the MM-trollbot has quite an ego about being an excellent machine that is eligble for patent protection.
Regarding the original topic issue of whether a strong US patent system promotes US R&D, I can only speak from experience. I used to service a very large client headquartered in another country. This was the type of client to file 4000 patent applications in a single day, worldwide, including National Stage applications, etc.
Most of their R&D facilities were in the US. I was told that the people working in R&D, mostly foreigners, just wanted to live in the U.S., and so they could attract the best people from Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. Also, I was told that they chose the U.S. because patent
laws in the U.S. were favorable. For example, it was less expensive to first file in the U.S. and easier to get broad claims allowed in the U.S. if the case originated in the US. Their patents originating outside the U.S. were usually tailored for other patent systems and consequently had much narrower claims when initially drafted. Getting broad claims in the U.S. was a priority because the U.S. is one of the most significant markets in the world.
After KSR hit, and the 101 issue reared its ugly head, they closed most of their U.S. R&D facilities, fired practically everyone, and paid to transfer the technology overseas. So, there you have it.
“I could be wrong.”
Yes. You could. And are.
Are you an examiner, or some other PTO employee?
I ask because, no offense, I’m not about to take advice from somebody who doesn’t practice. It’s pretty easy to dole out advice when you’ve 1) never had to actually do what it is you’re advising and 2) never had to deal with the consequences.
If it’s so easy to weigh the applicant’s options, please feel free to try your hand at it. I’m sure you’ll find it immensely rewarding. And I’m sure you’ll be a smashing success.
If you are a practitioner, well, then you and I will just have to agree to disagree on the best way to advise our respective clients.
I don’t have a “viscious disdain” for RCE’s. Your reading comprehension is quite poor if that’s what you concluded from my post.
I do have a “viscious disdain” for rewarding bad behavior, whether it be incompetence or malfeasance in gaming the production system.
I do not advise my clients to reward bad behavior. Such advice does nothing but generate more bad behavior.
I don’t expect perfect patent prosecution. But I don’t expect my clients to pay to fix mistakes made by the examiner. It’s not my clients’ obligation to train the examiners how to search. Or examine. Unfortunately, PTO (mis)management is doing such a horrible job at those functions that it seems like it is our obligation.
If an RCE is necessary because of a reason unrelated to the examiner’s performance (e.g. to get an IDS considered, to change the scope of the claims, to add claims to cover a new product, etc.) I have no problem filing one. Do it regularly.
Have a wonderful day. 🙂
JohnDarling,
To give you the short answer, no, I was just asking a question. I have often contemplated this exact situation. I simply drew a parallel to such a situation when I read your statement. I wasn’t accusing you of anything, but thank you for explaining your altruism. I actually do agree with your approach to helping those in need.
Likewise, your statement reminded me of the Seinfeld episode where the converstion went:
George : So let me ask you a question about the tip jar. I had a little thing with the calzone guy this week. I go to drop a buck in the tip jar and just as I am about to drop it in he looks the other way. And then when I am leaving he gives me this look like thanks for nothing. I mean if they don’t notice it what’s the point.
Jerry : So you don’t make it a habit of giving to the blind.
George : Not bills.
Come on, JohnDarling, lighten up buddy.
I’m still not sure I understand what you’re getting at, though, regarding your viscious disdain for RCEs. Do you desire a perfect patent prosecution system? Perfect is a pretty high standard. I just think you might want to weigh your options better, as I get the impression you might be wasting a lot of money by ignoring the RCE process and instead going straight to appeal. I could be wrong.
“so if the examiner has a conscious they might perform a much better search the second time around…”
Presumably you mean conscience.
They “might” perform a “much better” search the second time around?
Right.
I think you answered your own question as to why applicants appeal instead of filing RCE’s. And proved my point. All in one post.
Congratulations.
Keep up the record breaking outstanding quality work.
“So I take it you don’t have any habit of giving to the homeless?”
You’re a sanctimonious little jerk, aren’t you.
If you’re asking if I give money directly to folks standing at intersections holding signs, the answer is: No. I don’t.
Why? Because those people are addicts. It’s no coincidence that where I live every corner next to an ABC store has one or more such people. I personally don’t think that enabling their addiction is very helpful. If you want to give them cash, and get a warm fuzzy feeling about what a great humanitarian you are, be my guest. I wonder if you ever bother to ask yourself why it is that none of these “homeless” people you’re giving money to ever manage to get off the corners. My guess is you don’t.
Do I donate to charitable causes, including organizations that help homeless people and addicts? Yes. Not that it’s any of your business.
Got it?
JohnDarling: “Feeding RCE’s to RCE addicts doesn’t cure RCE addicts.”
So I take it you don’t have any habit of giving to the homeless? They’ll probably just blow it on crack and booze anyway.
Dear Jason Taylor,
Where have you been for 4 years?
Re:
“…you seem to be what some might consider as, to be harsh, a conspiracy nut case – perhaps you gravitate towards unnecessarily complex theories involving non-dominant effects?”
First, for the first time in this old man’s life I’ve been called a conspiracy nut. I’ve never thought of myself that way but if you think so, I don’t mind. Admittedly, I do think there are many goings-on behind the curtains in government and multinational conglomerates screwing We the People.
Don’t you?
Second, your first comment today drew a simplistic conclusion:
“1. Most patent applicants are not patent trolls; they are not primarily interested in licensing.
2. Entrepreneurs (job creators) should try to get local success before risking to go abroad.
1 + 2 = simple reason why strength of local patent system is directly coupled to local job growth.”
The troll insinuation in 1, supra, inter alia, leaves me suspect.
Third, your second comment today seems complex and, to be harsh, convoluted. For example, I’m still puzzling over “…complex theories involving non-dominant effects.”
However, despite our differences today, we have something important in common that helps allay my suspicions. We both have the same answers to the two questions Prof. Crouch posed four years ago, i.e:
“Using this clause [the Constitution’s Patent Clause] as a basis for analysis:
1) Would it be Constitutional for Congress to eliminate the right to an injunction for patent infringement?
2) Would it be Constitutional for Congress to modify the right to an injunction so that one is only available if the patentee is “making use” of the invention?
“Changing the topic back to the one raised by 6, I think by “percent of pre-appeals that get the go ahead” he meant the notices of appeal briefs filed, as opposed to just threatened to be filed say during an interview”
I meant the percent of pre-appeals that get the go ahead from the spe and conferee in the pre-appeal meeting. That is, the ones which are signed off on by the spe/conferee and a pre-appeal decision to proceed to the board is sent to the applicant. Furthermore, I want the number of those cases in that category of cases above which never get an actual appeal brief filed OR for whatever reason don’t ever get a decision rendered by the board.
I don’t see how this can be so confusing for you guys.
I don’t think the info is avail tho.
Just an ordinary inventor: “ Mr. David Boundy’s post on Jul 31, 2009 at 04:29 PM is neither too complex nor too long — it is elegantly cogent and concise”
Really? Concise??? Perhaps this explains why you seem to be what some might consider as, to be harsh, a conspiracy nut case – perhaps you gravitate towards unnecessarily complex theories involving non-dominant effects?
If so, fine, I’ll spell out why my gut probably hated wading through the Boundy yet concise “logic” and give you some of the complexity you may seek. Boundy wrote, inter alia:
“So the practical economic reality is that products get sold where the profits are.”
Seems obvious, no? But if that were really true, Prof. Crouch is spot on, and Mr. Boundy had not reason to post anything in the first place. In fact, Boundy’s statement supra is only true if the costs of globalization are fully zero. It generally takes years before an idea translates to reliable profits. The lag is important.
I’ll pick one example at random that perhaps anyone can understand: the potato chip. Supposedly invented by Crumb in 1853, sold locally at Moon’s Lake House near Saratoga Springs, New York. Over the decades, this chip slowly became popular throughout New York and New England, but it wasn’t until 1910 that the Mike-sell’s Potato Chip Company in Ohio started making them in serious quantity – it took 57 years before venture capitalists realized they could really make good money selling these funky potato chips.
Now, due to “globalization,” the 57 years is being squished down to perhaps 4 years. A typical business plan will call for losses the first two years or so. But there is still a lag. The lag is why Boundy’s statement is false. It’s why there is still a real cost of going abroad. It’s why my fact #2 trumps Boundy’s (IMO incorrect) statement. For some things, like Google‘s website, the lag might be small (I could argue even that, since, for instance, computer adoption lagged years behind Google‘s initial website, the ad revenue and brand took time to stream in, etc.), but for most inventions, the lag is very significant. It’s why there is both risk AND reward in investing in EARLY stage things: the profits aren’t “in the bank” yet. As soon as the knowledge of sustainable profit becomes clear to most investors, an industry of companies seeking similar profits will soon form. But that takes time, so Boundy statement isn’t true at any given snapshot in time. In fact, this effect eventually drives all profits towards zero in all mature industries, which just goes to show how absurd Boundy’s statement actually is.
You see, profits are sort of like hotspots on the global weather map. If the conductivity of the atmosphere were infinite, the temperature of the earth would be uniform, and there wouldn’t be any weather. If costs of globalization were truly zero, they’d too be uniform, and every investor would make the same return. But most real things aren’t zero nor infinite. That’s why we have sun, rain, and snowfall all on the same planet on the same day, rich people here yet poor people there, rich entrepreneurs intermixed with poor ones, all making the world such a wonderfully colorful and dynamic interesting place to live.
Changing the topic back to the one raised by 6, I think by “percent of pre-appeals that get the go ahead” he meant the notices of appeal briefs filed, as opposed to just threatened to be filed say during an interview, so these aren’t the rare 1 in 10 obscure cases but, as of late, according to slide 15, the majority. I could be wrong on that. As before, feel free to take my opinion with a grain of salt.
Dear Jason Taylor,
Mr. David Boundy’s post on Jul 31, 2009 at 04:29 PM is neither too complex nor too long — it is elegantly cogent and concise — a perfect response to anyone who doesn’t really understand the argument advanced in the “Innovation Alliance Video” — and it was the inspiration for my post on Aug 01, 2009 at 10:18 AM.
However, I agree with your comment that your two basic facts (1+2 =) are in fact an “overly simplistic argument [and should be taken ] with a grain of salt.”
* * * * *
Hello Noise above Law,
Right on!, & please write on.
David Boundy: “If you knew that 80% of the story was this bad, would you put it on YOUR web site?”
6: “Sure I’ll put it on my website. My site is …”
Hehe. I think Mr. Boundy was speaking to whether or not the PTO would be publishing data that would make *it* look bad, not to your (6’s) proposed redistribution of that data.
6: “However, I’d prefer to stay more or less away from that issue, and focus on the question at hand if everyone will be so kind.”
6, if you’d prefer to stay away from “other issues,” might I suggest indeed not ranting here about them in the first place?
JohnDarling: “Feeding RCE’s to RCE addicts doesn’t cure RCE addicts.”
No, but it does help cure the applicant’s issue of not knowing what to do with their previous surplus of bank funds (since it allows it to slowly get into applicant’s law firm’s account; the pto fees are insignificant), something far more important than whether or not the applicant gets a dinky patent to hang on their wall!
David Boundy: “In a world of zero transportation or other distance-related costs, anything that happens anywhere would indeed flow everywhere. … So the chain is several links long.”
Mr. Boundy, your argument in favor of patents in a global economy is Ok, but unnecessarily complex. You need only consider two basic facts:
1. Most patent applicants are not patent trolls; they are not primarily interested in licensing.
2. Entrepreneurs (job creators) should try to get local success before risking to go abroad.
1 + 2 = simple reason why strength of local patent system is directly coupled to local job growth.
That said, I personally no longer have any opinions on these issues (like patent reform, innovation alliance et al.), since it is a political discussion not belonging here anyway, and I have no worthwhile political opinions. I haven’t bothered even seeing the above video, so take the above perhaps overly simplistic argument with a grain of salt. (For that matter, I’m not sure why I’m even posting here now. Perhaps it’s because the posts regarding 6’s question supply useful legal data or because I got tired wading through Mr. Boundy’s more lengthy argument?)
Night Writer writes: “Universities are getting closer and closer to collapsing. My prediction is that in 10 years that almost all undergraduate learning will be from information technology of courses created like video games and movies to teach. Students will purchase the physics module or english grammar module and learn with or without the aid of mentor. The days of some ph.d. sitting up in front of class with attitude is coming to a close because of information processing machines.”
Universities are becoming so expensive that you might be correct.
Even law school (no offense, Dennis), you can learn just as much in a video taped bar review course in a couple of months than in three years of (hide the ball) law school.
MaxDrei,
Would you call it ironic that you like to think (first joke) that your contributions (second joke) nark because they prompt additional thought, which is work? The very reason I persist in pointing out the deficiencies in your posts and posting style is that your posts are done without thought (on your part), and they contribute far less than you like to think. Your lack of critical thinking is what creates the nark (the annoying Euro-bent is merely a secondary factor).
Further, any solutions that you think you bring (here I would assume, you are thinking of your repeated “do it the Euro way”), are NOT solutions, and ARE problems precisely because you are too lazy to set the table appropriately, conflate Euro and US laws and generally speaking, feel it beneath yourself to take the time to critically think about something before you post.
Your post at Aug 02, 2009 at 04:37 AM is reminiscent of the recent question about the emperor without clothes, where you fancied yourself to be like the boy, yet in reality you are like the clothiers. It is funny (in a macabre way) that you cannot see that MaxDrei’s clothes (posts for those who are afraid to think too hard) are woven from still wet dung – hardly the fine linens you like to think (pun intended).
Self delusion coupled with laziness makes for crap posts. Persistent ignorance in both accounts practically guarantees the lack of credibility that will prevent any solution you bring from being recognized.
If you like to post to take a contrary view, or even to have fun after dealing with American clients all day, that would be one thing. But at the least, you might consider that the fun and effective impact comes precisely from the thinking and application of wit to develop thoughts prior to posting. It may be fun for you to simply flush what is between your ears onto the boards, but the streak left behind by the sewage leaves a mark that most people do not associate with either “fun” or “solutions”. Obviously, as one steeped in the stuff, you cannot smell the difference.
>>”If you ask me, a strong university system has >>more of an effect on keeping/drawing R&D to >>the US than a strong patent system.”
From what I’ve seen of the university system , it needs to be scraped. The fact that some innovation comes out of it means little. The question is how good is that machine? I would suggest that the answer is that the university system is terrible. It inhibits graduate students from doig resarch. It uses tutition money to fund research instead of teaching.
From what I’ve seen professors lurk and steal the ideas of graduate students and enslave graduate students because they own the grant money. The professors have become experts at writing words and exploiting the ideas and labor of graduate students–not doig research. The professors need thier publications and research money.
Terrible. The graduate students need to have their slave chains removed. The reputation of (from many conversations I’ve had with former graduate students with or without ph.d.s) getting a ph.d. has gone from you’ll get a shot at developing your ideas (30 years ago) to their is high probability that the professor will steal your ideas and lie.
Universities are getting closer and closer to collapsing. My prediction is that in 10 years that almost all undergraduate learning will be from information technology of courses created like video games and movies to teach. Students will purchase the physics module or english grammar module and learn with or without the aid of mentor. The days of some ph.d. sitting up in front of class with attitude is coming to a close because of information processing machines.
>>But the patent-to-R&D chain ends up being >>pretty powerful. If you’re a business lawyer >>advising clients every day about where to >>invest, invent, engineer, and sell stuff, man >>it’s amazing how little old patents can drive >>so much investment and commerce.
Exactly. And one should note that the nay sayers of patents are almost to a person completely ignorant of the driving force of patents and have never felt the powerful stream of investments patents create.
It is the fact that a prixe is there to be won. Just like the outcome of the Superbowl has many problems, the patent system has many problems, but in both cases there is a prize to incentivize people. Striving for the prize is where the incentives are.
But, as Noise Above the Law has said about MM-trollbot, persistent ignorance appears to be the norm among the patent detractors. We should force the academics in patent law to disclose where their research money comes from just as in medical research. (and include money for their university and law school and consulting money.)
JAOI, you write:
there was no basis for your condescension
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
but I think there was. Am I not allowed to write anything, unless it has the acronym “EPO” in it? Are you sure that all my contributions up to now have included “EPO”?
Of course my contributions nark. So would such contributions from an American patent attorney, on a European patent law blog. I like to think that they nark because they prompt additional thought, which is work.
You see my contributions as negative. Funny, because I see them as positive. I keep in mind Maggie Thatcher’s praise for her minister Lord Young, which went something like “The others bring me problems. I like David more, because he brings me solutions”
Dennis:
To your original musing (“I don’t really understand that argument.”), in addition to the worth of some (though definitely not all) of the others’ comments, which seem to mostly be very generalized and highly theoretical in nature; you might also consider the realities of the patent quality (and its likely enforcement difficulties) that many of the foreign applicants garner. (Just read a couple of the typical caliber Japanese corporate patents and you will get my point.) Also, the combination of the most valuable market along with the most powerful patent procurement and enforcement systems (even with the surfeit of problems afflicting both U.S. patent prosecution and litigation) make the presence in the U.S. of the R&D producing the innovations most likely to commercially succeed. Moreover, one further needs to note that most countries, including the U.S., have laws requiring pursuit of patent protection and foreign filing allowance in one’s home country before pursuing protection overseas, not to mention possible translation and dual-representation (home and foreign representatives) cost issues. This adds (sometimes substantial) time and cost penalties that foreign patent applicants must overcome which U.S. native applicants do not, at least to pursue patent protection in the U.S. (This issue can be seen to be even more substantial when one realizes that a primary reason to offshore production or R&D is to find a lower cost setting, which will also hence usually have a disadvantageous exchange rate when paying U.S. expenses, as well as often greatly lesser incomes, by U.S. standards.) If the U.S. loses its technology market value preeminence though, these considerations are likely to change significantly.
Anybody who thinks we can patent our way out of this economic mess is sadly mistaken. Our industrial base has been gutted in the name of “free trade” as a result of bad policies by the U.S. and other governments. Our economy is way overleveraged, with tens and possibly hundreds of trillions in OTC derivatives waiting to pop like a giant bubble. According to the Peterson Foundation, the real U.S. debt is 56.4 trillion. Part of the problem is that lawyers, MBAs, and fianciers have a higher professional status then engineers and scientists. Law and finance are more esteemed and have more political influence than manufacturing, transportation, energy, agriculture, or scientific research. This is reflected in that many patents are bought speculatively for suing potential infringers, and many patents are pledged as collateral before they even issue. Many patents have become financial instruments in a sense. W. Edwards Deming warned us about these types of problems many years ago. Most Americans, even college-educated ones, however, are economically, historically, and scientifically illiterate.
Dear curious,
Re: “Benjamin Franklin — Inventor, etc.
link to kalman.blogs.nytimes.com
„
The NYT article, dated today, which you posted above, was a real page turner – it got better and better as I scrolled down.
Most uplifting, and a must read for everyone here.
* * * * *
Max,
And you wonder why readers are narked by almost every comment you make!
There was, of course, a sound basis for Barion’s sarcasm.
With all due respect, there was no basis for your condescension other than to be insulting. Giving your talent, why not compose a positive comment?, rather than be merely insulting.
In my book, sarcasm does not rate a condescending insult.
At least that’s my opinion, I like to be liked by those I like, but what do I know — I’m Just an ordinary inventor.
Benjamin Franklin — Inventor, etc.
link to kalman.blogs.nytimes.com
Good posting, Malcolm.
JAOI, zugegeben. It was because I was narked by his attempt at sarcasm that I responded as I did. Forgive me, will you?
“If you ask me, a strong university system has more of an effect on keeping/drawing R&D to the US than a strong patent system.”
California’s university system is in the process of being terminated by the Gropenator.
Dear Max,
Oh, come on – Barion was being sarcastic. And your question was patently condescending.
Hey Boss –
In making your argument in support of Mr. David Boundy’s missive explaining why a strong patent system is key to America’s continued premier success, greatest posterity, our proprietary leadership position in power, productivity and, in particular, our inventiveness, as well as equal human rights for all, as provided for in our Constitution and its Amendments, you forgot “financial” in your highly moving emotional plea above:
“… our children’s [financial] future has been factored”
by Bush, and now Obama, for want of principled leadership going back to blow-job Clinton’s administration.
Barion, no I didn’t forget. Mention of the EPO was not apt.
But I’m curious: how do you come to the idea that it was?
cc (above): Mr. David Boundy
Dear Mr. Boundy,
Your explanative talent certainly exceeds mine.
Perhaps you’ll take the time to help me connect the dots so that all readers can benefit from the virtues you have expounded upon — the virtues of a strong American patent system, and explain our need to protect, and reconstitute, our Constitution, and bolster our nation’s premier world leadership position for We the People and our Progeny. We in the IP community can get the ball rolling by insisting on putting the punch back in our patent system.
Max, you forgot to mention the EPO in that last comment.
Dear Prof. Crouch,
Re: “Innovation Alliance Video
… I don’t really understand that argument.”
Mr. David Boundy’s Jul 31, 2009 at 04:29 PM explanative missive responded brilliantly to your surprising fundamental lack of understanding.
Now you know. Now we all know crystal clear.
Now we all know why the Coalition for Patent Fairness, Cisco’s defunct Troll Tracker propaganda blog and other anti-patent deceitful lying lobbying efforts have damaged our nation’s patent system
– for the generation in which our children will grow up –
by infiltrating and negatively influencing all forms of media communications in our nation for the past several years
with their agenda of overt and covert troll-talk brainwashing propaganda.
We the People, as well as all three branches of our government, have been manipulated by multi-national conglomerates, and that manipulation is not limited to undermining our American patent system.
THESE SAME GLOBAL CONGLOMERATES ARE BEHIND THE SLOW BUT STEADY NULLIFICATION OF OUR CONSTITUTION!
The current and past Executive branch, from the oval office to its agencies, and Congress, certainly don’t abide the Constitution –for example, the Federal Reserve and Congressional Banking Committees have allowed our financial system to fall into chaos, and our children’s future has been factored. The Big Banks, lead by Goldman Sacks, are bleeding We the People and our Progeny dry.
Judging, for example, from Kelo v New London, we’ve no reason to think the US Supreme Court is mindful of the Constitution.
Steady lobbying pressure sponsored by Organized Big Business has taken its devastating toll on We the People.
I recall the CEO’s rant against Mr. Beal in “Network”:
“There are no nations, there are no peoples! … There is only one holistic system of systems. … [Euros] … Dollars … [Yuan] … Rubles … Pounds … It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet.”
link to youtube.com
I want you all to go to your windows and scream as loud as you can over and over –
I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore.
link to youtube.com
I urge you to watch these videos.
George Orwell’s 1984 is looming upon us.
Our Government and its Peers are serving up We the People to Growing Global Conglomerates.
The question is, is it too late to stem the tide?
Funny that the USA lacks its own word for “entreprenuerialism”. In my book, what generates success is a society that worships entrepreneurialism. I see such worship in the USA, but not elsewhere. Everything else (including strong patent rights) flows from that. Despite the venerable age of the US patent system, it was the worship that came first. Anybody disagree?
If you ask me, a strong university system has more of an effect on keeping/drawing R&D to the US than a strong patent system.
If patent protection is weak there will be less investment in R & D.
Hey, don’t bust his chops. Protecting marketable products is the “light side” of the Force. Sure beats the so-called promotion of science and the useful arts that so-called non-practicing entities put forward.
“I think a better statement of the argument is that weak US patents lead to companies not selling innovative products in the US,”
If that’s a better statement then that is a horrible argument. Horrible. Arse backwards in fact.
“Thus, strong patent rights don’t necessarily draw R&D towards a country, but weak patent rights drive it out because the domestic market is the most important market for most companies and weak patents make that market unprofitable.”
You have framed the question in a most awkward fashion. You seem to assume that all (or most) R&D can be “driven in” or “driven out”. That is only true if there are easy places for it to go, or to come from and if the person doing the research wants to/is able to go there. In the “majority” of cases, R&D is going nowhere real fast. Not coming here, not leaving here. Besides, what does it matter to the gov if the R&D happens here if we get free enabling disclosures from people outside the US? Do we want the tech or do we want to use patents not to “promote the useful arts” but rather to “promote joe’s job opportunities”?
Maybe we should just amend the constitution and add that in to just go ahead an make it legit.
“Patents are not about technology. Patents are about investment, and getting innovative products off the drawing boards and into consumers’ hands.
Inventions are worthless until they’re turned into products. The initial idea is usually cheap. But turning an idea into a product—proof-of-concept testing, identifying the best candidate out of a large genus, engineering, debugging, prototype-to-product engineering, ruggedizing and reliability engineering, testing for “safe and effective,” building a production facility, building a distribution and sales channel, marketing to develop demand—those steps are expensive. For a cutting edge, risky product, the idea-to-product process simply doesn’t happen unless investors—whether outside investors or top corporate management who has to make intra-company investment decisions—see a potential for above-market profit.
Patents are about taking risky, cutting edge ideas off the drawing board and getting them into marketable products. That happens because a patent gives an investor some level of comfort that after they commit the investment for idea-to-product, some knock-off guy can’t come in and take away the profits. Patents provide a little cocoon of protection against competitors. That tips the investment decision-maker’s scale just a little from “Let’s do this the safe way” to “Let’s do it the new but potentially-higher-payoff way.” That’s how patents turn ideas into useful products, and create value for your client and for society.”
R all that in my constitution?
“A couple of the inventors…make the argument that strong US patents preferentially generates R&D in the US. … US patents are available to inventors from around the world almost regardless of where the R&D took place. [A] strong US patent regime provides a global incentive to innovate products that will be valued in the US.”
I think a better statement of the argument is that weak US patents lead to companies not selling innovative products in the US, and if there is no domestic demand for a US company’s products then the company is more likely to lose profitability, move overseas, or not be formed in the first place.
Thus, strong patent rights don’t necessarily draw R&D towards a country, but weak patent rights drive it out because the domestic market is the most important market for most companies and weak patents make that market unprofitable.
There are, however, weak secondary effects that do draw R&D to a country with strong patent rights, such as the greater ease and efficiency of dealing with local patent counsel and the relative ease of influencing policymakers as a domestic company.
“What’s missing to answer your question?”
We don’t know how many reaching the board are from each of the respective curves.
If you have somehow divined the answer to the question from this data please provide the answer.
“There are no statistics published on this “rare occurrence” that I know of.”
That hasn’t actually been all that rare of an occurence for me. One out of like 10 isn’t that rare, and I have another that is just about to do the same.
rack em up rack em up rack em up.
🙂
“In my personal experience, about half of the “proceed to the Board” panel decisions that I receive get re-opened after I file the brief.”
Yeah sounds about right probably. One can only take so much of the appeals process. A prima facie case can only take so much of the appeals process 🙁
But thanks for your thoughts on the issue and the info. Sounds about right, but I could have sworn we saw something about this on here.
Dennis –
You asked why strong U.S. patents mean good U.S. R&D jobs.
In a world of zero transportation or other distance-related costs, anything that happens anywhere would indeed flow everywhere.
But we don’t live is such a world. So locality of profits, sales, manufacturing, distribution, market, and R&D relative to each other matters.
Let’s go back to first principles – what are patents about?
Patents are not about technology. Patents are about investment, and getting innovative products off the drawing boards and into consumers’ hands.
Inventions are worthless until they’re turned into products. The initial idea is usually cheap. But turning an idea into a product—proof-of-concept testing, identifying the best candidate out of a large genus, engineering, debugging, prototype-to-product engineering, ruggedizing and reliability engineering, testing for “safe and effective,” building a production facility, building a distribution and sales channel, marketing to develop demand—those steps are expensive. For a cutting edge, risky product, the idea-to-product process simply doesn’t happen unless investors—whether outside investors or top corporate management who has to make intra-company investment decisions—see a potential for above-market profit.
Patents are about taking risky, cutting edge ideas off the drawing board and getting them into marketable products. That happens because a patent gives an investor some level of comfort that after they commit the investment for idea-to-product, some knock-off guy can’t come in and take away the profits. Patents provide a little cocoon of protection against competitors. That tips the investment decision-maker’s scale just a little from “Let’s do this the safe way” to “Let’s do it the new but potentially-higher-payoff way.” That’s how patents turn ideas into useful products, and create value for your client and for society.
In order for a patent to fill its role as a business asset, it must first be a strong—preferably intimidatingly strong—legal asset.
So the practical economic reality is that products get sold where the profits are. As a general rule, it’s cheaper and more effective to do the R&D where the sales are – the better you understand your customers, the better-tailored the R&D is to their needs.
So the chain is several links long. None of the links is 100%-cause-and-effect; like all other economic issues, the patent system is just playing with the probabilities and margins, and trying to tip a few critical factors by a few percent, hoping to drive much bigger outcomes.
But the patent-to-R&D chain ends up being pretty powerful. If you’re a business lawyer advising clients every day about where to invest, invent, engineer, and sell stuff, man it’s amazing how little old patents can drive so much investment and commerce.
“Uhm, haven’t you seen the posts from all the newbie examiners who claim, all wide eyed and innocent, “Well, golly gee, the applicant filed an RCE, so my rejection musta been solid. Right?”
That’s why.
Feeding crack to crack addicts doesn’t cure crack addicts.
Feeding RCE’s to RCE addicts doesn’t cure RCE addicts.
Get it?
”
Yeah, you don’t feed RCE’s to a bad rejection normally. However, there are a few cases where that did work out for the applicant as I got better at searching like you posit. It is a valid option, costs less than appeal and it very well may work. But, it very well may not. What I recommend is an interview for you to judge the examiner’s feelings on his rejection. Judge how strongly you think he feels like it is solid. If he doesn’t think it is solid he’ll probably search it again, and do a good job, he might find something or he might not.
“It makes me wonder, why don’t applicants weight their options a little better? For example, look up the employee number of the examiner (it signifies seniority like the practitioner registration number), and look at the patents that examiner has issued. If the examiner is new, wouldn’t it be a good decision to file an RCE instead?”
Uhm, haven’t you seen the posts from all the newbie examiners who claim, all wide eyed and innocent, “Well, golly gee, the applicant filed an RCE, so my rejection musta been solid. Right?”
That’s why.
Feeding crack to crack addicts doesn’t cure crack addicts.
Feeding RCE’s to RCE addicts doesn’t cure RCE addicts.
Get it?