Today, the USPTO issued its 168,000th utility patent of calendar year 2010. I highlight that milestone because it surpasses the 167,350 mark for the entire 2009 calendar year. At the current pace, I project that the USPTO will grant at least 33% more utility patents in 2010 than it did in 2009 (36% more is a better estimate). The high-water mark for USPTO patent grants is 2006 — that year, the office issued 173,772 utility patents. At the current 2010 pace, that mark will be passed in the next two weeks.
This dramatic increase in the rate of granting patents is impressive — especially in light of the fact that during this time, the USPTO eliminated examiner overtime hours for an extended period of time and hired only a handful of new examiners.
Malcolm running and screaming naked in the rain is going to make some CEO happy?
Sorry, but those are not the types of jobs I want ta be creating.
Posted by: Cy Nical | Oct 09, 2010 at 10:37 PM:Thus forcing your old employer to lay off another 600 workers..
BTW Cy, why would a company lay off 600 people when they just acquired the exclusive rights to a process that will help them make more money? Seems to me they would not only keep those 600 but hire more to produce more products for more profit. Now that might make Malcolm run screaming naked in the rain but it would make a CEO very happy!
Jar Jar’s got nothin on Homey.
“Iza just happy that I can please so many peoples.
Are you a good troll or a bad troll?
Me? I’m not a troll at all.”
No. Apparently youza Jar Jar.
Iza just happy that I can please so many peoples.
Are you a good troll or a bad troll?
Me? I’m not a troll at all.
I will be glad to wipe the floor with you every time.
“Make those tiles sparkle, with new, improved Ping!”
I didn’t know I was in a debate. I guess it’s not surpising that I lost.
Posted by: Cy Nical | Oct 11, 2010 at 08:57 AM
Cy,
_________________
LOL, good one. Okay, Ping notwithstanding, you Cy, are the undisputed King of Snark! But don’t worry Dear Ping, you long ago surpassed Malcolm as the resident troll.
Anytime either one of you want to debate the FACT every patent earned by a new entrepreneur creates at least 1 new job, feel free! I will be glad to wipe the floor with you every time.
I love this country!! 😀
Cy,
Don’t be upset, you will always lose in the land of the Actual Inventer (cause it be next to the land of IMHO-Ned law), and such places always abide by the maxim of always declaring victory no matter what really happens.
Cy, rather than face he had lost a debate tried to start an irrelevant argument about Chinese stealing an Actual Inventor’s process patent, once it was published.
I didn’t know I was in a debate. I guess it’s not surpising that I lost.
“So what do you do when you have no logic, fact, and reason with which to debate?”
Nah, that’s just icing on the cake.
Ya might just realize that if ya bothered to read what I wrote, instead of just getting defensive. Iza not be saying anything about your sacred jobs position. Iza only be saying that your use of “trade secret” terminology just might be problematic.
I really don’t care if you spit into the wind, but your insistence that everything ya write is correct reminds me O the people that ya battle with. Spit away, Actual Spitter.
“To understand what’s being argued in the first place before drawing any mistaken conclusions”
Hey Actual Wackjob, I just just pointing out (since you are obviously not a patent pro) that ya gonna have problems with your so called Trade Secret based on the fact that you entered a program that will culminate in publishing of that “secret”.
_________
It stings eh Dear Ping? Cy, rather than face he had lost a debate tried to start an irrelevant argument about Chinese stealing an Actual Inventor’s process patent, once it was published. But of course that argument has no bearing on and does nothing to discredit the FACT that every patent earned by a “new” entrepreneur creates at least one “new” job”.
You pick up Cys argument and paddle further out to sea only to realize you too made a foolish mistake and don’t have an intellectual paddle to get back to shore with.
So what do you do when you have no logic, fact, and reason with which to debate?
AD HOMINEM ATTACK !!!
“To understand what’s being argued in the first place before drawing any mistaken conclusions”
Hey Actual Wackjob, I just just pointing out (since you are obviously not a patent pro) that ya gonna have problems with your so called Trade Secret based on the fact that you entered a program that will culminate in publishing of that “secret”.
Not sure if ya want to start enterin inta contracts and license arrangements that will either kill your trade secret, abrogate your patent or both.
But ya can always do that and still call it a win if ya like.
Dear Ping:It be far better to just fess up to making a mistake than making another mistake in trying to cover up the first mistake.
Posted by: ping | Oct 10, 2010 at 07:42 PM
__________
You know what’s even better than that? To understand what’s being argued in the first place before drawing any mistaken conclusions. Here, let me break it down for ya.
If an Actual Inventor has a Pat. Pend. thats kept as trade secret, and of course is not published, ( didn’t know I needed to point that out to a blog of patent pros) then there is no threat from the big, bad, Chinese boogey man of Cy’s nightmares stealing the invention.
And of course the fact remains, that every patent earned by a “new” entrepreneur creates at least one “new” job”.
To Wint and Cy, here is is some friendly advice, if ya don’t wanna lose a debate to an Actual Inventor, then you best not debate one. 😀
sarah,
Like I says – wasn’t me – not this ping. There may be another posing as me giving you copyright advise, but I am not he. As usual, the first rule of thumb is protect yourself.
AI,
I think ya gonna have a problem, even with a patent pending. First Iza (za za za) am thinking that you mean both patent pending and non-publication requested, dontcha?
Second, you know ya can’t get damages until after ya get a patent right? And then that blows your trade secret right? Also, there is a colorable argument that you failed the trade secret route by filing for patent, cause the publication would be an eventual outcome, which violates your trade secret requirements.
It be far better to just fess up to making a mistake than making another mistake in trying to cover up the first mistake. Ya look downright silly and outa your league.
Anyone else get the sense that AI has lost touch with reality?
Posted by: Willton | Oct 10, 2010 at 10:23 AM
_____________
Having failed with strawmen and non sequiturs, you now stoop to ad hominem. If you are not a Moonie/IANAE Sock Puppet, you should be!
Okay so if the real Crime is the case of the disappearing Design Patent, followed by the Case of the blue eyed baby. then why was Ping so adament of getting me to sign on to copy right problems?
No matter how I tried to get Hal to be upfront. he wouldn’t. This is a matter of the USPTO hiding my so called Design Patent for the LIAR Wenzel. This is all about RICO. And Ping was paid to confuse me. But, instead I am now down to the core issue. Only the USPTO can erase a Patent and list two that are mine to confuse me, but not the one I was truly given along with a fifteen year Sentance to protect a Liar.
And then after all that has been done to me. you have the Audacity to continue to threaten Jail!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Obviously what I posted is now being looked into. If they won’t give them up, I WILL!
Anyone else get the sense that AI has lost touch with reality?
AI: “All you gotta do is require licensees to keep the process a trade secret”
looking glass: contra
AI:Not if its patent pending. Sooo predictable Its getting too easy now.
“All you gotta do is require licensees to keep the process a trade secret”
contra
“doesn’t care about your US process patent”
W
T
F
while that Chinese company, which really doesn’t care about your US process patent, increases its imports.
________
Oh no prob Cy Baby! All you gotta do is require licensees to keep the process a trade secret and just use your advantage to beat the brains out the competition including the Chinese!
And with all that cash you will be making you can then lobby Congress to pass legislation that makes it illegal to import goods made by violating a valid US process patent!
That’s the power of an inventor nation where every patent earned by a new entrepreneur creates at least 1 new job!!
I love this country!! 😀
Thus forcing your old employer to lay off another 600 workers, while that Chinese company, which really doesn’t care about your US process patent, increases its imports.
You Gottta Love It! 😀
Posted by: Cy Nical | Oct 09, 2010 at 10:37 PM
________
Then those 600 workers can get trained by Obama’s Inventors Jobs Act, and start their own companies built around their own process patents! Thats the great thing about the qaumtum age of universal wealth, everyone can get rich! It’s awesome baby!!!
Obama are you listening???
What sweet revenge too. To come up with a better way to do the job you were laid off from and force your old employer to pay you millions to use it!
Thus forcing your old employer to lay off another 600 workers, while that Chinese company, which really doesn’t care about your US process patent, increases its imports.
You Gottta Love It! 😀
believe that this is sufficient evidence to refute AI’s claim.
Posted by: Willton | Oct 09, 2010 at 03:43 PM
You provided two examples of how you failed to help your clients. And while that may be sufficient evidence you are incompetent at your job, it in no way changes are discredits the fact that every patent earned by a “new” entrepreneur creates at least one “new” job”.
Imagine an entire nation of those new entrepreneurs licensing out their newly earned patented inventions and earning royalties!
I propose we make this full-employment-by-patent-issuance idea a four-year program. Let’s keep our goals modest – we’ll only seek to “newly” employ the unemployed – no “new” jobs for those who are already employed. So, we need about 14.8 million new patents issued over the next 4 years – a mere 1750% increase over the current rate.
6, you better plan on working Saturday nights as well.
Posted by: Cy Nical | Oct 09, 2010 at 09:16 AM
In the program there needs to be training for these unemployed to develop and exploit their imaginative creative genius. I think we should especially encourage innovations in processes that can improve quality, reduce cost and save time and money in industry.
Someone working on the assembly line in an auto plant for 20 years must have had plenty of great ideas for improvement but never had anyone encourage the development of those ideas let alone listen to them.
And it probably never crossed their minds they could get a process patent. Yup we need to teach them to reduce their new, novel ideas to practice and apply them to specific tasks and file for process patents!
What sweet revenge too. To come up with a better way to do the job you were laid off from and force your old employer to pay you millions to use it!
You Gottta Love It! 😀
As for evidence refuting AI’s claim, I’ll provide a few anecdotes:
Example 1: My firm represents an independent inventor who has a day job as an artist. Her invention is unrelated to her job. She applied for a patent directed to her invention over 4 years ago. Her application finally issued as a patent in July. To date, she has not sold one product directed to her invention, and despite her and our efforts, she has not been able to license out her patent since it issued. She still has her regular job as an artist, and I am unaware of any “new” job that she may have.
Example 2: My firm also represents a former engineering consultant turned entrepreneur. He started his company only last year, which in my mind qualifies him as a “new” entrepreneur. His invention is currently a top seller in shopping malls across the country. He and his coinventors filed a utility patent application directed to his invention in early 2009 before he started his company. The application will not likely see an Office Action until the summer of 2011. In the meantime, his invention is under no patent protection, and he’s still President of his company. If and when the patent application is allowed and a patent issues, his job as President of his company will likely not change, despite his status as a “new” entrepreneur.
I believe that this is sufficient evidence to refute AI’s claim.
Hey, I just had a patent issue in my name this past week. “New” job for me! YAY!!!
Posted by: Cy Nical | Oct 09, 2010 at 09:10 AM
________
It’s truly the greatest job in the world isn’t? A business of signatures and agreements that bring multIple streams of royalty income all while you sleep, eat, and make love. Which reminds me. Its time for pancakes and a nice nap on the beach. 😀
Hey, I just had a patent issue in my name this past week. “New” job for me! YAY!!!
Posted by: Cy Nical | Oct 09, 2010 at 09:10 AM
________
YAY!!! Cy!!! Congrats! Now go Inc and begin the licensing process, or if your patented new process, composition and/or thing, or new use thereof gives you an advantage over the competition just start clobbering the *& ^% and get rich! God I love America! 😀
Imagine an entire nation of those new entrepreneurs licensing out their newly earned patented inventions and earning royalties! New jobs for everyone, YAY!!! What a wonderful day that would be 😀
Great: a nation of tax collectors. Wonderful day indeed. [/eyeroll]
AI: True, but that does not change the fact that every patent earned by a “new” entrepreneur creates at least one “new” job”.
Willton: What “new” job?
AI: For starters the new job of Chairman/Chairwoman, CEO, President, or Sole Proprietor of the business built around the earned patent.
Willton: What job does the new entrepreneur have after obtaining the patent that he or she did not have prior to obtaining the patent?
AI: For starters the new job of Chairman/Chairwoman, CEO, President, or Sole Proprietor of the business built around the earned patent.
Ah, so you’re making a giant assumption that a “new entrepreneur” is one that has a “business built around the earned patent”. In that case, you have a very narrow definition of “new entrepreneur.” Most entrepreneurs I know have businesses that do not require the ownership of a patent in order to survive. In fact, I would say that the entrepreneurs whose businesses sink or swim based on the ownership of a patent likely have bad business models.
Willton: What magical power does this patent have that causes a new job to materialize?
AI: Patents don’t have magical powers Wilton so that question is a strawman argument.
Thank you, Captain Obvious. Actually, it’s not even an argument, let alone a strawman. It’s a hyperbolic statement that points out the lunacy of your purported “fact” that “every patent earned by a new entrepreneur creates at least one new job”.
Willton: A non-entrepreneur does not magically become a “new” entrepreneur by virtue of obtaining a patent.
AI: Umm, okay but that statement does not address the original argument which makes said statement a classic non sequitur.
Willton: Likewise, an entrepreneur does not gain his title by having a patent, and nor does the patent give him a new title.
AI: Umm, oooookay but once again that statement does not address the original argument which makes said statement a classic non sequitur.
Willton: A patent merely gives the new entrepreneur a right to exclude, with which he may drive out competitors.
AI: Ummmm riiiiight, but once again that statement does not address the original argument which makes said statement a classic non sequitur. Do you see a pattern emerging here Willton?
I do: I’m asking you to explain or defend your “fact,” and you’re being evasive. It appears that you are unable to support your own purported “fact,” so instead you dodge the question by calling my statements non sequiturs.
Willton: A patent is not the key to starting a business; a business model is. A patent may be helpful in strengthening a business, and the business model may utilize patents, but the business model itself must come first. It is the business model, not the patent, that creates the “at least one new job” for an entrepreneur.
AI: The above theory and conclusion does not logically address the original argument and therefore in it’s totality is a mother of all non sequiturs!! In beginners terms. I did not address or argue for or against your statement, theory and conclusion and it’s therefore all irrelevant. :-/
Then you’re clearly missing the point. You claim that every time a new entrepreneur obtains a patent, the new entrepreneur therefore obtains a new job. I am telling you that you are wrong. Patents are only circumstantially related to creating new jobs, even when said patents are in the hands of new entrepreneurs. Business models are the true vehicle for creating new jobs for entrepreneurs.
Willton: Stop claiming to speak of “facts”.
AI: But I have stated a fact that has never been successfully refuted by anyone on this blog therefore the fact remains, that every patent earned by a “new” entrepreneur creates at least one “new” job”.
If you honestly believe that your statement is a fact, then I suggest that you come up with some evidence to support this “fact.”
Imagine an entire nation of those new entrepreneurs licensing out their newly earned patented inventions and earning royalties!
I propose we make this full-employment-by-patent-issuance idea a four-year program. Let’s keep our goals modest – we’ll only seek to “newly” employ the unemployed – no “new” jobs for those who are already employed. So, we need about 14.8 million new patents issued over the next 4 years – a mere 1750% increase over the current rate.
6, you better plan on working Saturday nights as well.
Imagine an entire nation of those new entrepreneurs licensing out their newly earned patented inventions and earning royalties! New jobs for everyone, YAY!!! What a wonderful day that would be 😀
Hey, I just had a patent issue in my name this past week. “New” job for me! YAY!!!
ANON: Just because a patent takes money to obtain does not make it an expense. A patent is an asset.
IANAE: It’s both, actually. But unless your business is licensing out patented technology, that patent didn’t create your business or anybody’s job.
AI: Right, because licensing out patented technology IS making sales, and making sales is what makes you truly a business/entrepreneur with a job. No sales, no pay, no job! Which just goes to underscore the FACT that every patent earned by a “new” entrepreneur creates at least one “new” job”.
Imagine an entire nation of those new entrepreneurs licensing out their newly earned patented inventions and earning royalties! New jobs for everyone, YAY!!! What a wonderful day that would be 😀
AI: True, but that does not change the fact that every patent earned by a “new” entrepreneur creates at least one “new” job”.
Willton: What “new” job?
AI: For starters the new job of Chairman/Chairwoman, CEO, President, or Sole Proprietor of the business built around the earned patent.
Willton: What job does the new entrepreneur have after obtaining the patent that he or she did not have prior to obtaining the patent?
AI: For starters the new job of Chairman/Chairwoman, CEO, President, or Sole Proprietor of the business built around the earned patent.
Willton: What magical power does this patent have that causes a new job to materialize?
AI: Patents don’t have magical powers Wilton so that question is a strawman argument.
Willton: A non-entrepreneur does not magically become a “new” entrepreneur by virtue of obtaining a patent.
AI: Umm, okay but that statement does not address the original argument which makes said statement a classic non sequitur.
Willton: Likewise, an entrepreneur does not gain his title by having a patent, and nor does the patent give him a new title.
AI: Umm, oooookay but once again that statement does not address the original argument which makes said statement a classic non sequitur.
Willton: A patent merely gives the new entrepreneur a right to exclude, with which he may drive out competitors.
AI: Ummmm riiiiight, but once again that statement does not address the original argument which makes said statement a classic non sequitur. Do you see a pattern emerging here Willton?
Willton: A patent is not the key to starting a business; a business model is. A patent may be helpful in strengthening a business, and the business model may utilize patents, but the business model itself must come first. It is the business model, not the patent, that creates the “at least one new job” for an entrepreneur.
AI: The above theory and conclusion does not logically address the original argument and therefore in it’s totality is a mother of all non sequiturs!! In beginners terms. I did not address or argue for or against your statement, theory and conclusion and it’s therefore all irrelevant. :-/
Willton: Stop claiming to speak of “facts”.
AI: But I have stated a fact that has never been successfully refuted by anyone on this blog therefore the fact remains, that every patent earned by a “new” entrepreneur creates at least one “new” job”.
Willton: You’re merely spouting theories, and faulty ones at that.
AI: Actually your entire statement in this post is a theory and whether its faulty or not is irrelevant since your theory is a…….
drum roll please….
you guessed it!
NON SEQUITUR!!
Please don’t feel bad or get frustrated Willton. See we already had this debate long ago and the Actual Inventors won. And as IANAE will tell you, we always win 😀
AI: True, but that does not change the fact that every patent earned by a “new” entrepreneur creates at least one “new” job”.
What “new” job? What job does the new entrepreneur have after obtaining the patent that he or she did not have prior to obtaining the patent? What magical power does this patent have that causes a new job to materialize?
The answer is none. A non-entrepreneur does not magically become a “new” entrepreneur by virtue of obtaining a patent. Likewise, an entrepreneur does not gain his title by having a patent, and nor does the patent give him a new title. A patent merely gives the new entrepreneur a right to exclude, with which he may drive out competitors.
A patent is not the key to starting a business; a business model is. A patent may be helpful in strengthening a business, and the business model may utilize patents, but the business model itself must come first. It is the business model, not the patent, that creates the “at least one new job” for an entrepreneur.
Stop claiming to speak of “facts”. You’re merely spouting theories, and faulty ones at that.
LOL yourself donk ey.
The one famous for the line about sexual acts with a dead president is gonna lecture me about integrity?
Seriously?
Keep wondering Sunshine, and while you be wondering, take that one step backwards from the rye fields ya picture yourself in.
trying to bully me
LOL. Just wondering if you had any integrity, ping. Resume your trolling and I’ll just assume you’re a disciple of AI. Or maybe just a close relative …
“Step up, coward.”
LOL right atcha Malcolm.
Does this follow from your comment that I should be paranoid?
Should I whine like a little sissy to the big D that you are threatening me and trying to bully me?
Grow up tough guy.
IANAE, you have a business built around parking tickets?
Posted by: ping
ping, if you disagree with AI’s claims about each patent creating a new job, just say so. otherwise, we’ll assume you agree with AI because why else would you be jerking off here?
Step up, coward.
Just because a patent takes money to obtain does not make it an expense.
A patent is an asset.
It’s both, actually. But unless your business is licensing out patented technology, that patent didn’t create your business or anybody’s job.
The real non sequitur is AI’s connection between the patent and the “new job”. People aren’t waiting on patent grants to start their businesses, and in any event the lack of a patent isn’t stopping them. All he did was define an “entrepreneur” as “a person who creates a job for himself when he gets a patent” and “new job” as “a job that’s created by an entrepreneur after getting a patent”. That means his statement is pretty obviously true, and just as obviously pointless, because (1) his definition excludes all the useless patents that don’t create or help any jobs or businesses, (2) it still doesn’t mean the “entrepreneur” is making any money from the company he created, just that he’s busy, and (3) for all we know his definition might not include any patents at all, in which case we’d be looking at exactly zero jobs created.
So, great. A tautology is true, therefore patents are good. Big deal. Color me unimpressed.
IANAE,
Did you flunk business?
Just because a patent takes money to obtain does not make it an expense.
A patent is an asset.
The with or without portion is a non-sequitur to what Actual Inventor is talking about.
IANAE, you have a business built around parking tickets?
But it don’t think it counts with the BLS if you don’t earn an income/produce revenue.
Ah, you’ve finally spotted the problem.
A patent isn’t revenue either. It’s an expense. The same person could start the same business with or without the patent. All of your logic applies just as well if you replace “patent” with “parking ticket”. It’s simply an elaborate statement that everybody who starts their own business has something to do.
IANAE I can incorporate a dozen companies this afternoon and create a dozen new “jobs” for myself.
AI: On paper yes. But it don’t think it counts with the BLS if you don’t earn an income/produce revenue.
IANAE: I don’t even need a single patent to do it.
AI: True, but then you would not be earning money from a job as the result of earning a patent.
IANAE: Getting a patent would probably be a distraction and an unnecessary expense anyway.
AI: Maybe for you. But for the new entrepreneur, that earned a patent and built a business around it, and thus created at least one new job for him/herself and possibly others, it would be a pure delight!
IANAE: Why hasn’t Obama thought of this?
AI: Because I already did? Although i hope and pray for all our sakes that he and/or his people take this idea and run with it as fast as possible. Remedial class dismissed for you IANAE. Next?
AI: True, but that does not change the fact that every patent earned by a “new” entrepreneur creates at least one “new” job”.
Breathtaking. Well done, AI.
Willton: Back up. When did “every patent earned by a new entrepreneur creates at least one new job” become a fact? Last I checked, one did not need a patent in order to be an entrepreneur.
AI: True, but that does not change or discredit said fact. Next?
Willton: The entrepreneur would be an entrepreneur regardless of whether he obtained a patent or not.
AI: True, but that does not change the fact that every patent earned by a “new” entrepreneur creates at least one “new” job”.
Back to square one for you Wilton. Class dismissed for today 😉
LOL atcha Sunshine.
I should be paranoid? Not likely and especially not if your other tools are as dull as the ones ya show here.
ping tilting at windmills and be otching on mere message boards.
You wish, ping. My efforts are not concentrated here. Blog commenting is just another tool in the toolkit. You should be paranoid.
AI Since I am Incorporated it’s called looking out for my own interest.
Thanks for the admission, but we’ve long ago realized that your wanking is self-interested, AI.
Willton: Back up. When did “every patent earned by a new entrepreneur creates at least one new job” become a fact? Last I checked, one did not need a patent in order to be an entrepreneur.
AI: True, but that does not change or discredit said fact. Next?
Yes it does. The entrepreneur would be an entrepreneur regardless of whether he obtained a patent or not. A patent is not a magical key that allows an entrepreneur to start selling stuff; all it does is allow the entrepreneur to stifle competition with regard to a particular invention. If the person was an entrepreneur before the patent, then no new job has been created by virtue of him receiving a patent.
Willton: I also know that even a new entrepreneur can obtain multiple patents that do not affect said entrepreneur’s ability to employ people.
AI: True, but that does not change the fact that the new entrepreneur created at least one new job when he/she became Chairman, Chairwoman, CEO, President or Sole Proprietor of his/her own business.
Again, no s/he did not. The entrepreneur who becomes a “Chairman, Chairwoman, CEO, President or Sole Proprietor of his/her own business” does so regardless of how much intellectual property he or she owns. Whether or not the entrepreneur has 1 or 100 patents to his or her name has no effect on the entrepreneur’s status as the chief executive of his or her business.
Once again, your “fact” lacks a logical basis, and it certainly lacks an evidentiary basis.
AI: True, but that does not change the fact that the new entrepreneur created at least one new job when he/she became Chairman, Chairwoman, CEO, President or Sole Proprietor of his/her own business.
I can incorporate a dozen companies this afternoon and create a dozen new “jobs” for myself. I don’t even need a single patent to do it. Getting a patent would probably be a distraction and an unnecessary expense anyway.
Why hasn’t Obama thought of this? He could have achieved full employment overnight.
Malcolm’s interests are in being pushed off the cliff at the edge of the rye fields by examiners and in being coddled by flitty old professors.
And tilting at windmills and be otching on mere message boards.
and when it comes to sxcking up to corporate interests, AI has you beat by a mile.
Posted by: Malcolm Mooney | Oct 06, 2010 at 06:21 PM
____________
Since I am Incorporated it’s called looking out for my own interest. Besides being the comedy relief of the online patent world, what are your interests Mooney?
Willton: Back up. When did “every patent earned by a new entrepreneur creates at least one new job” become a fact? Last I checked, one did not need a patent in order to be an entrepreneur.
AI: True, but that does not change or discredit said fact. Next?
Willton: I also know that even a new entrepreneur can obtain multiple patents that do not affect said entrepreneur’s ability to employ people.
AI: True, but that does not change the fact that the new entrepreneur created at least one new job when he/she became Chairman, Chairwoman, CEO, President or Sole Proprietor of his/her own business.
So, unless said “new job” belongs to a lawyer or patent agent, I don’t see how your purported fact has any logical basis, let alone any evidentiary basis.
AI: Please see above.
Willton, Welcome to class. See you next time 😉
Spam always sunny, with you!
The morning is a good start, The night is worrying over, Sunny day brings you all happy, Rainy days you all sad, shower, No matter whether the morning rain at night, Happiness always sunny, with you!
“reasonable arguments”
S n i f f
Malcolm, check your shoes.
“It’s the comment section of a blog.”
And since you still don’t seem to get it, ping, it means that I don’t have to provide cites for mundane, non-controversial propositions (although I understand this is a prosecution strategy for a certain breed of attorney/agent).
As a result, implicit or explicit reasonable arguments for invalidity resting in whole or in part on such mundane, non-controversial propositions remain reasonable, with or without the cite. Of course that is not going mean anything to your patent texbagger friends who choose to stick their heads in the sand and discriminately genuflect only before the PTO’s decisions that lead to a granted patent, while disparaging all else.
Mooney is the Caulfield to all the examiners running through the rye.
Lol,
Malcolm,
I guess my rebuke was a tad bit too harsh for the site’s filter system (even though I used appropriate symbols).
Let’s just summarize by comparing your grand-and-glorious-ever-so-noble-rid-the-world-of-evil-software-and-business-method-patents with your own quote:
“It’s the comment section of a blog.”
We’ll just leave it at that.
for now.
And since it’s a fact that every patent earned by a new entrepreneur creates at least one new job the middle class can’t get started soon enough.
Back up. When did “every patent earned by a new entrepreneur creates at least one new job” become a fact? Last I checked, one did not need a patent in order to be an entrepreneur. I also know that even a new entrepreneur can obtain multiple patents that do not affect said entrepreneur’s ability to employ people. So, unless said “new job” belongs to a lawyer or patent agent, I don’t see how your purported fact has any logical basis, let alone any evidentiary basis.
Even though we cannot describe comment on the Bilski question, I think the most important question remaining from Bilski is why the Bilski claims are abstract. The court never seemed to answer the very issue on appeal except by stating the result.
Everyone noticed this. Bilski essentially resolved nothing at all. A major waste of everyone’s time.
worthless Quixote adventure
Cataloguing the Wurst of the PTO is hardly a worthless endeavor. If nothing else, it’s a handy reference for those seeking to demonstrate the rank incompetence of the PTO when it comes to examining certain software and “business” methods.
Contrast my endeavor with whatever it is you think you’re doing, ping. You’re not a very good referee, you’re not amusing, and when it comes to sxcking up to corporate interests, AI has you beat by a mile.
“Except you provide no examples of such a “nuanced” word in any of the claims I posted. Nice try, ping. Keep flailing.”
Except nothing pinhead – like I said – I never started.
Any time you spend on this worthless Quixote adventure of yours is entirely too much time Sunshine.
If it suits your jollies – great – just don’t confuse things like you try to be doin and ASSuming (to steal the pun) that I be playin your game.
ping What might look like an ordinary word to you or I may have a nuanced meaning for others.
Except you provide no examples of such a “nuanced” word in any of the claims I posted. Nice try, ping. Keep flailing. And don’t forget when you start lookin like a total jxckxss, you can always throw on a new sock.
I think ya waste a lotta time getting and posting that stuff.
It took me very little time, ping. You really don’t pay attention, do you? The stripes are on your referee outfit are starting to run.
“Anyway, glad to see you and TINLA have given up trying to defend the crxp claims I posted above.”
C’mon Sunshine – I aint given up – I never started.
Ya gotta be careful with that straw of yours – that be flammible stuff ya know.
As for the tech jargon – ya gotta know that the spec and art field influence the jargon. What might look like an ordinary word to you or I may have a nuanced meaning for others.
Personally, I think ya waste a lotta time getting and posting that stuff. It’s not like anyone cares what you think and whether a handful of claims posted here without context really really show the Office puts out crrp patents. I am sure if I cared (at all) I would have no problem delving into your beloved art field and posting all kinds of crrp patents.
Sides which – it detracts from the real chuckle posts of yours.
ping to think of it, he don’t provide citations all that often at all anymore.
Why are citations needed when all parties agree that a statement is “common knowledge.”
Anyway, glad to see you and TINLA have given up trying to defend the crxp claims I posted above. More to come next week. Or do you think this week was an aberration? I didn’t spend much time looking but I can spend a bit more if you need further evidence of the PTO’s shortcomings.
Consider the following: there is very little technical jargon recited in these claims. And yet the PTO still couldn’t deal with them properly. Do you think claims with a lot of technical jargon would be examined *more* carefully by the same Examiners (or by Examiners with the same level of education and experience as the Examiners who handled these applications)?
Dennis (or anyone else), how much USPTO maintenance fee revenue is estimated that “33% more utility patents in 2010 than it did in 2009” bring into the USPTO at each of the maintenance fee due dates?
Just about all the USPTO problems in the past few years stemmed from a lack of money (kept within the USPTO). Glad to see the USPTO finally wised up at about the same time there was a change in leadership. Ya think there is a connection between the two?
“Hey Malcolm, ya forgot to call someone a putz for not reading something today. What’s up with that?”
Just let Malcolm go on and on in his self-refuting diatribe. If I were trying to sell a product, I’d hire Malcolm to complain about it.
/thanks Malcolm profusely
“Try asking ping for a helping hand”
I done made it clear (and convincing) that Homey don’t do answers, Sunshine.
Maybe ya can ask Ned, cepts he aint been doin his homework lately. Come to think of it, he don’t provide citations all that often at all anymore. I guess when yours truly makes such insightful observations that rip those citations to shreds, Ol Ned just don’t wanna play no more.
Hey Malcolm, ya forgot to call someone a putz for not reading something today. What’s up with that?
“It’s the comment section of a blog.”
Don’t we know it – look at the people they let in here.
It’s the comment section of a blog.
Still, you’ll have to do better than that. Since when does something that’s been commonly known to everybody for as long as anyone can remember count as prior art?
You didn’t cite to anything beyond common knowledge.
It’s the comment section of a blog.
Glad to hear you admit that it’s common knowledge that methods of depositing funds, making a wager and playing a game of chance are old.
So why is the claim patentable, sockie? Because the USPTO said so? LOL. Try asking ping for a helping hand. And good luck.
“to create some type of computer script to spout your nonsense even after you are gone.”
Natch – with a great computer brain…
“I did articulate a legitimate reason. So did IANAE.”
You articulated cr@p. You didn’t cite to anything beyond common knowledge. Your inability to even attempt to understand what is being claimed beyond some generic concept is a sad commentary on your legal skills. FYI — you have to read the f&*king claims. You didn’t even attempt to construe the language of the claims.
If you think that “common knowledge” is all that is necessary to invalidate a patent, you are going to be ranting and raving about ‘dubious’ patents on this blog until the day they put you into the ground. Scratch that, given the lack of complexity to your arguments, it should be fairly easy to create some type of computer script to spout your nonsense even after you are gone.
Patent Reform needs to begin at the PTO not in Marshall. Quantity does not equal quality. Thank you Professor for pointing out a problematic statistic that might otherwise go unnoticed.
“Says the Master of Sockpuppets. Ironic.”
Deflect Reflect
Everyones Vilified, its IlLogical.
My post got eaten. But it went something like this. I remember hearing someone say, first thing is not to hurt myself.
Do you think I didn’t know what you were trying to do? But I tried to tell you.
I have so much more to share. Did you get your million. Or was it denied on default?
“You too, ping? You seem hung up on as well. Try defending 7,806,329.”
Nah, I aint hung up at all – Even minding Homey don’t do answers, I just don’t care enough to bother with the claims and spec (there be a good point about needing to read the spec too Sunshine). Iza just getting my chuckles on your posting style.
it takes somebody with a little intelligence to articulate a legitimate reason why.
I did articulate a legitimate reason. So did IANAE.
It’s not my problem if you can’t read and/or you refuse to accept that a granted patent claim isn’t as wonderful as you belive it is.
And again: if you disagree that methods of accepting money and placing wagers to play a game of chance aren’t very old, then just say so. I’m happy to educate you provided that you need the education and give me an idea as to just how remedial the education needs to be.
Let’s hear it. You too, ping? You seem hung up on as well. Try defending 7,806,329.
It’s an innovation banana.
AI: If not Kappos has done his job.
MM: I seem to recall another statute. 103 or something?
AI: Oh yeah? Where is the prior art? Can’t produce as usual. Maybe you should check in your ASSume.