104 thoughts on “President Obama on Patent Reform and the Problem of Patent Trolls

  1. Oboma is again taking a stance on patent (trolls) patrollers that is based on the concept that they produce nothing and hijack the companys money. The reality is there legal partners in patent enforcement without which the incentive to create is destroyed and the stolen intellectual properties that the companys stole will cease to be created along with the jobs revenues and exports they produce. This man needs to think more progressively he has promised to create jobs but he is destroy the potential of them instead

  2. Truth be told Ned, what is a joke is your pedantic over-scrutiny on software. You should know tht most inventions can be crafted into more than one of the statutory classes. And yet you cannot let go of your white whale of ‘software.’

    Your agenda is showing.

  3. NWPA,

    LOL – It gets even better when I corner him into a discussion on third party influence postings, or force him down a legsal path contrary to those third party influences. Obfusctiaons, befuddlements, outrage, strawmen and simply not carrying on an adult conversation are the results.

    There is a reason that such is against the user policies here.

    A shame really that those policies have zero teeth.

    It’s a shame too, as I think Ned has some brains and some interesting viewpoints. But when things get really interesting, its just a shameful derailment.

  4. Instructions 12(a): do not provide answers to bloggers with views that do not fit our policy goals. The goal should be to wear the blogger down. Ask as many questions as possible and appear to be responsive to the blogger’s questions.

    (From the manual of paid bloggers.)

  5. Do you also realize that you are not doing any explaining and that you are only doing questioning?

    That’s no way to take care of the onus that is on your back from the 3:42 PM post, or do you too fell tha tyou are above giving answers and explanations….?

  6. I would like to see these kids invent new games and other applications and get patents on them. Then they can go on Shark Tank and score a couple million and start manufacturing and creating jobs for themselves and all their buddies and family. Then when the game goes big even more jobs will be created.

    Everyone has pony!!!

  7. The answer to all of your questions:

    It depends. What medium are you capturing the software on?

    You realize that you are still being pedantic, right?

  8. Why don’t you start.

    Because I asked you first.

    Let’s like the old knock-knock joke:

    Joker: “Hey, I got a great knock-knock joke, you start is.

    Sap: “OK, Knock-Knock

    Joker: “Who’ there?

    Sap: “Ummmmm

    No, Ned, don’t try to dodge what I posted at 3:42. Let’s hear you explain yourself.

    Should I hold my breath, or will this be another derail/run away situation?

    What’s the over/under odds…?

  9. Again, I ask you, if software is an article of manufacture, how much does a barrel of software weigh? If you were to pour software from a 10-gallon container into a bathtub of water containing 30 gallons, how much water is displaced? If you loaded software into your cannons and shot them, how much damage would the software do on impact? If you were to heat software with a match, at what temperature would it burn?

    Answer these questions credibly, and I will begin to agree that software is an article of manufacture.

  10. No one still wants to have a conversation about the actual facts….

    Where are all the techdirt people now? Where are all the anti-software patent people that frothed so quickly?

  11. We were talking eligibility and you then shift to patentability

    Um, no, I have not.

    But thanks for kicking up that dust, Ned.

    I notice that you want to make a distinction without a difference and yet, don’t answer the very straight forward question.

    Would you care to explain why they are “[n]ot the same thing” ? All I did was use your terminology “appropriately” (that is, in the same manner you used it) and expansively. Are you trying to say that what I said was incorrect? (which would be tantamount to saying that you yourself used it inappropriately). Please explain.

    And please explain how I used “eligible” in a non legal sense. Please provide my statement and an explanation of why that statement is “non legal.”

    I’m looking forward to this conversation.

  12. I know how DC works. Little brains think they can do anything. They skim and get on top of the wave. The problem is they can’t direct the wave and they can’t tell what type of wave it is.

    Tell us Dave, tell us how every mathematical equation is a natural law. Please just explain that to us. That came from one of your genius government lawyers.

  13. I would go one step further and tell you that I find it deeply offensive that someone without the 10 years experience practicing patent law and a strong scientific background would dare to think they could sit on the Federal Circuit.

    How offensive can you get. You think you can understand what we have taken half our lives to understand? Well, I can tell you from the opinions we get out of the Fed. Cir. the answer is you can’t.

  14. Anon, if software is part of the machine… But since your argument for eligibily hinges on software being component part, I assume you will also agree that the software must be claimed as part of the machine?

  15. What he said?

    See my post at Feb 15, 12:38 PM.

    It’s not vague at all. Sure, it’s shoots your particularized agenda all to h311, but oops, sorry.

  16. anon, notice the shift? We were talking eligibility and you then shift to patentability, fogging the issue.

    You say things like this: Software is eligible for patenting. I say software is not categorically eligible. You admonish me and say that nothing is categorically patentable. Not the same thing.

    Also, notice that you use "eligible" in the non legal sense, confusing still more.

  17. the component has to bring new functionality to the machine

    You mean, just like software?

    Great point Ned.

    Thanks. This post will be archived.

  18. Dave Spevack,

    That is the problem isn’t it? They practice within the government and the court. They don’t practice patent law. We are seeing a very clear pattern of the best judges having actually practiced patent law. I believe that the vast majority of fed. dist. judges were prosecutors. That is because you want someone who actually practiced the type of law that the judge will be deciding cases for.

    Let’s get back to basics. Practice patent law for 10 years and then move into government. Sitting at he solicitor’s office is not practicing patent law.

    It just boggles my mind that President Obama would nominate two clearly unqualified candidates. We need judges who have strong science backgrounds who can sort through the scientific nonsense that is coming out in some of these opinions and judges that have actually practiced patent law so they have context to understand a patent application, an invention disclosure, an expert witness, a design around, a real company hiring because of patents, a real information processing invention, conducted real appeals before the USPTO, conducted real prosecution, discussed application with examiners, etc. All the things that a good judges needs.

    We don’t need psychotic nonsense. We don’t need Lemleys and Sterns neither of which ever practiced patent law.

  19. In what way are two attorneys who practice in the court daily unqualified? If you are insinuating it’s because they are Government employees, it may be you that is the problem.

    Dave S

  20. “categorically: versus “as a category”

    (sigh)

    The merry-go-round begins agains.

    Ned, would you agree that NOTHING, NOT A SINGLE THING is categorically patentable?

    If so, why do you single out the very particular things that you do single out?

    (hint: we have been down this path before, and when we got close to the answer, the conversation was tanked by Mr. Heller)

  21. Well Ned, since this discussion is about what he said, you might make an exception before you make your comments (at least on this thread).

  22. 101, then you would agree since software is not mentioned in the statutes that it is not per se eligible. A new machine, a new composition of matter, a new article manufacture, a new process all are in the statute.

    What is software?

  23. Anon, I rarely listen to political speeches, or watch the news about politics, I really care about what these politicians are saying. I do care that Obama do the right thing about patent law in particular, in the country in general. Therefore I watch what he does rather than what he says.

  24. The component of a patentable eligible machine, of course, is eligible itself. But the component has to bring new functionality to the machine, otherwise is a failure somewhere, either in 101, 112, or 102/103. If there is a failure, anon, where would you place the failure?

  25. I thought Obama had that one: something about digitzing money and transferring it to bank cards associated with dependent individuals with voting rights while simultaneously preventing voter identity checks.

  26. Ned, you don’t floor me. Your never ending paid advertisements are dull.

    Obama says AIA only did about half the job. Need to get more done. What’s he do? Appoint two unqualified judges to the Fed. Cir. That is not relevant? In a universe of paid bloggers maybe not.

  27. “I don’t see software as among the enumerated classes in section 101. Do you?”

    Yes. So what of it?

  28. Do you realize that you have completely gone off the tracks from what President Obama was saying – have you listened to the entire presentation yet before your frolic?

    Don’t you think it important to the discussion to have actually listened?

  29. I don’t see medical methods there either.

    I don’t see rivets, tires or bullets either.

    Oh, you mean the broad categories that include all the other ‘categories’ that you may want to quite silly not see.

    That’s just not a serious discussion point, is it.

  30. In context of a Practical application, a programmed computer can be a component part of that application. And if so I would agree that the sale or use of the software could be could be an infringement of such a patent On the application.

    Sent from iPhone

  31. I would like to see these kids invent new games and other applications and get patents on them. Then they can go on Shark Tank and score a couple million and start manufacturing and creating jobs for themselves and all their buddies and family. Then when the game goes big even more jobs will be created.

    Oh.wait..according to the anti patent crowd this would be very bad for the country!

    We need to be more like North Korea.

    Let kids work for dear leader for free and spend all day writing MM type anti patent manifestos.

  32. “presume that a programmed machine is a new machine.”

    Regardless of the outcome of that question, wouldn’t a programmed machine be a new use of an old machine?

    ::sound of little feet running away::

  33. “Software is not eligible.”

    Please cite the statute, or Court case that explicitly says Software is not eligible.

    ” Usual Silence”

  34. Ned,

    First, it’s not an assumption.

    Second, how would that even come into play with the rivet, tire and bullet quip?

    You do understand the components of a machine argument, right?

    Perhaps when bob finds and goes through the Great Race example, you would do likewise…?

    It would make for a good conversation.

  35. Whoa! Put those facts away before someone gets hurt.

    Does the same apply to the fact listed below at 12:38 PM?

  36. anon, there is a general problem of vague and indefinite claims. The Federal Circuit is to blame here. They really need to fix their own how or get the Supreme Court to fix it for them.

    But other than 101 issue, software patents are the most prone to vague and indefinite claims. I read some of the c r * p that is published here by MM and wonder just how anyone reading such claim is place on notice of what the patent covers so they can avoid infringemnt.

    We need action. If not by the Courts, then by the O-man in conjunction with a new Director who hopely is appointed from the ranks of the victims of such vague and indefinite claiming.

  37. link to thinkprogress.org

    Earlier this month, the Facebook Inc. released its first “10-K” annual financial report since going public last year. Hidden in the report’s footnotes is an amazing admission: despite $1.1 billion in U.S. profits in 2012, Facebook did not pay even a dime in federal and state income taxes.

    Instead, Facebook says it will receive net tax refunds totaling $429 million.

    Help for the neediest! Thanks, America.

  38. And Leopold, even you have seen the need to post a definition for one of those “unorthodox” words: effectively.

  39. No. But the comments I post have a clear and unmistakable match to those in the briefs – down to the turns of phrase and other “unorthodox” material.

    If the problem is “me,” the government and AMA briefs suffer the same problem.

    Hey, that could happen, right?

  40. I think you missed the point that some rather prominent positions have been put forth by the government and the AMA that use my ideas. Clearly, what I say is not that difficult to understand, unless you don’t want to understand it.

    That’s interesting. Here’s a request for clarification: Are you saying that positions put forth by the government and/or AMA in this case are actually based on comments that you’ve published here or elsewhere?

  41. Ned,

    Yes, let’s put the attention on the proper persepctive here. See the comment below at 12:38 PM for that proper perspective.

    I know it’s less of a soundbyte, but we should focus on the correct problem, right?

  42. And when you are asked to clarify what you wrote

    Sorry, I usually don’t see “the request for clarification” or, “of what point in particular” is not understood.

    I usually see the twists and spins of misrepresentations, the same ones that you have opnely admitted to being perfectly willing to [shrug] and stand by.

    I think you missed the point that some rather prominent positions have been put forth by the government and the AMA that use my ideas. Clearly, what I say is not that difficult to understand, unless you don’t want to understand it.

    There’s a pattern alright. Just not the one you want to spin.

  43. A billion dollar verdict – that sounds like some valuable assests in play there. Shouldn’t we protect those types of things?

  44. Funny that you and Malcolm seem to like that rhetorical too

    It’s not our tool. It’s yours. A substantial fraction of your comments are very difficult to parse because the grammar and choice of words is … unorthodox. And when you are asked to clarify what you wrote, you often lash out and suggest that an attempt is being made to change the subject.

    It’s a pattern.

    people like the AMA nd the government had no problem in understanding the things I post as they have captured these thoughts in their briefs.

    Hmm. Are you suggesting that you have proposed some fresh way of looking at the issues in Myriad? I don’t recall that happening.

  45. At about 29:00, “programming” and game design leading to success through “vocational schools” and engaging kids in the act of creating and producing.

    Sound like something that should be promoted. Don’t we have a system for that?

  46. I’m riveted by this thought that machine components are not patentable on their own. I never tire of the pandering on this, and I can’t wait to see this bullet finally loaded into the gun of US Jurisprudence.

  47. President Obama: “This is true, by the way, across the board when it comes to hi tech issues.

    In other words, the true big picture does not single out software patents.

    But why let facts get in the way?

  48. if somebody can translate it to English for me.

    Really? and that is on point, how?

    Funny that you and Malcolm seem to like that rhetorical tool, even though people like the AMA nd the government had no problem in understanding the things I post as they have captured these thoughts in their briefs.

    Let me know if you have trouble and think those people also have English as a second language.

    Until then, please don’t project your incorrect assumptions. Thanks.

  49. the only sector of the US economy keeping us limping along

    Uh … no.

    I think it’s almost universally true that the hardest core pro-software patent people are Republicans (and/or conservative self-identifying “libertarians” with strong protectionist streaks) and they do not care about the “US economy”. They care about rich people and helping rich people stay as rich as possible.

    We’d be in a lot better shape right now if the government had pumped a lot more money into the hands of ordinary people who would then have some money to spend. But no, that’s impossible. The money needs to go into the hands of those “responsible” “job-creators” who screwed the country in the first place. You know, those real hard-working guys like Mitt Romney.

  50. I’m sorry, are you trying to press the logic of “but-for” as a requirement to partake inthe patent process?

    I’d love to answer that question, if somebody can translate it to English for me.

    If I had to guess, I’d probably say … “no”?

  51. are you speaking on behalf of a group that did not elect you as ambassador?

    Last I checked, no one has won that election. And yet, we have no shortage of those willing to assume that job.

  52. maybe possibly someday

    You are assuming that they are not.

    Again, an incorrect and misleading statement…

    How exactly is this a huge threat to the software business?

    I’m sorry, are you trying to press the logic of “but-for” as a requirement to partake inthe patent process? Is this some kind of new “applying the existing patent laws?”

    Just trying to understand the basis for your opinions…

  53. These guys have been on the scene since 2006, and you STILL haven’t caught on to their games?

    Some “games”.

    You want “games”?

    Two words: Jeff Gannon.

    Or should I say “James Dale Guckert”?

    link to en.wikipedia.org

    Gannon first gained national attention during a presidential press conference on January 26, 2005, when he asked United States President George W. Bush a question that some in the press corps considered “so friendly it might have been planted” (“How are you going to work with [Senate Democratic leaders] who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?”).

    Gannon routinely obtained daily passes to White House briefings, attending four Bush press conferences and appearing regularly at White House press briefings.

    Although he did not qualify for a Congressional press pass, Gannon was given daily passes to White House press briefings “after supplying his real name, date of birth and Social Security number.” Gannon came under public scrutiny for his lack of a journalistic background prior to his work with Talon and his involvement with various homosexual escort service websites using the professional name “Bulldog.”

    Good times. Whatever happened to that awesome President? He was much beloved and greatly defended by certain televised amusement networks, in spite of the fact that his approval ratings were in the t—let for much of his sad tenure. But for some reason he doesn’t get the kind of love he used to get:

    A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can’t get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile. Hyperbolic? Well, maybe

    – John Hindrocket, Powerline (Time Magazine’s “2004 Blog of the Year”) <—–ROTFLMAO

  54. Are you defining a person “who understands hardware and software” as someone who also “knows that software systems are patentable”? Conversely, are you speaking on behalf of a group that did not elect you as ambassador?

    In any case, it is a pretty big leap to declare that not having software patents will destroy the software sector.

  55. destroying the [software] sector of the US economy

    They’re only talking about maybe possibly someday applying the existing patent laws to software. They’re not executing programmers on sight or anything.

    How exactly is this a huge threat to the software business?

  56. I’m sure that’s entirely accurate. But that doesn’t mean that the white house didn’t give Google a list of questions that they’d like pre-selected.

    Okay, I admit it. I saw the questions before the event. Everybody on Lord Soros’ secret mailing list saw them and helped prepare the answers.

  57. Obama wants to keep jobs in United States. Why not then impose a tariff on all imports that would essentially recapture the difference between statutory minimum wage in the United States and the statutory minimum wage in the country of origin of the goods.

  58. Have good day Comrade.

    But to your point, it’s because everyone who understands hardware and software knows that software systems are patentable. Further, destroying the only sector of the US economy keeping us limping along is generally considered a poor idea.

  59. Night, you floor me.

    The problem identified are software patents. You are one of the biggest advocate of software patents.

    Why do you divert attention to appointments?

    Stop it.

    Acknowledge that you are part of the problem and not part of the solution.

  60. How often do you let people get over on you this easily?

    “These questions were not previously given…”

    I’m sure that’s entirely accurate. But that doesn’t mean that the white house didn’t give Google a list of questions that they’d like pre-selected.

    These guys have been on the scene since 2006, and you STILL haven’t caught on to their games?

  61. If you listen to the introduction, you will hear Google Plus clearly stating that these questions were not previously given to the President or the White House.

  62. Although that was not the subject here, if you mean Fed. Cir. appointment of attorneys who did not practice patent law, that is a long bi-partisan tradition, rationalized by the non-patent portion of the Fed. Cir. docket. At least they are no longer giving jobs to retired or losing politicians as they did at times on the predecessor CCPA, and getting more judges with trial experience.

  63. And besides Paul, is it really that impressive? How long would it take a well educated person to be briefed on these issues and know what sound bits to spit out? Maybe 30 minutes.

    This illustrates the entire problem we have with our country. What we should value is not oil slick politicians of which Obama is one of the best we have ever had, but rather real solutions and deep thinking that can only be generated from people with real experience.

  64. IMHO: the problem is that the AIA did not put enough teeth into the post-grant review.

    Paul: Yeah, Obama is very impressive in his ability to manipulate words in his head. I just don’t think he has an actual working model in his of the system. He has sound bites. But, fails when it comes to actually addressing the real problems. That is the great tragedy of Obama–a could of been savior.

    His first two new appointments illustrate that he is a total failure and should go to other people to get solutions. And, not his usual beltway bandits.

  65. It is impressive that in this un-rehersed interview with unexpected questions [most of them on far bigger topics] that the President actually knew: what NPE patent troll litigation is, why that is a problem for many companies, that the AIA did not adequately address it, and why it is difficult to change patent law yet still adequately protect and incent intellectual property.

Comments are closed.