By Dennis Crouch
President Obama provided a one-liner on patent law in his recent State of the Union address:
We know that the nation that goes all-in on innovation today will own the global economy tomorrow. This is an edge America cannot surrender. Federally-funded research helped lead to the ideas and inventions behind Google and smartphones. That’s why Congress should undo the damage done by last year’s cuts to basic research so we can unleash the next great American discovery – whether it’s vaccines that stay ahead of drug-resistant bacteria, or paper-thin material that’s stronger than steel. And let’s pass a patent reform bill that allows our businesses to stay focused on innovation, not costly, needless litigation.
The USPTO (as part of the Obama Administration) has already thrown its weight behind new patent reform efforts as well. The Goodlatte Innovation Act (H.R. 3309) has already passed in the house with a 325-91 vote. In the Senate, Judiciary Committee Chair Leahy has proposed the Patent Transparency and Improvement Act (S. 1720) and that proposal is currently in committee. The proposals would include a number of reforms designed to hamper patent enforcement; provide transparency of ownership; and force more targeted early disclosures in patent cases.
link to dailykos.com
All the Republican candidates running for Texas lieutenant governor agree: Creationism needs to be taught in schools.
At a statewide televised debate Monday, the four Republican candidates said they would like to see the religious theory taught in the classroom, according to videos of the event.
Just a coincidence that this is the state where the patent trolls love themselves a jury trial?
Sure it is.
Malcolm, do you believe that irrationality is inherently pro-patent?
I’d say that it’s pretty apparent, or rapidly becoming more apparent, from the available evidence that irrationality is inherently pro-patent-maximallization, or at least a necessarily condition therefor.
Given the tipping of the scales afforded by the presumption of validity, it certainly helps.
So why then, does current government policy punish the inventor? Like the artist, isn’t he or she entitled to a fair share?
So why then, does current government policy punish the inventor?
Good question. My neighbor is a garage inventor. He invented “a method of watching a movie on a cellphone, wherein the movie is produced by someone who has seen Barbara Streisand’s sideboob”. Next day some PTO agents swarmed his house. They took him away and I haven’t seen him since. It does seem unfair.
Any thoughts on …
link to ipnav.com
… or …
link to news.investors.com
?
Anything they pass will severely damage patents. It does this in multiple ways. See: link to beforeitsnews.com
Steve Jobs started Apple in his garage in Silicon Valley. Jeff Bezos founded Amazon in an apartment garage outside Seattle. Stanford students Sergey Brin and Larry Page got Google off the ground in a garage they rented south of San Francisco.
But a Senate bill supported by these companies and a handful of other deep-pocketed multinational corporations threatens to close the garage doors of small inventors forever. If enacted, it will stifle American innovation and destroy untold numbers of future jobs.
Oh noes! The mythical class of poor, suffering “garage inventors” who are solely responsible for the fact that we can buy stuff over the Internet! How will we ever hope to evolve if we don’t pander to the rich investors who refuse to share their billions unless it’s risk-free??
Seriously, according to this kind of inane “logic” we should be subsidizing small, independent labels because … Richard Branson! Or maybe we should be teaching more people how to be anti-semitic because … Henry Ford!
The reference to Amazon is especially galling. The “one-click” patent remains a poster child for junk patents and how to abuse them. Is that what we need to encourage more of? Give us a break.
Most people would be perfectly happy just to own a spare garage that they could start any kind of business with. And then when they do what’s going to happen? Oh right: they need to take a license from the guy in the garage down the street. How wonderful! God bless America.
“But a Senate bill supported by these companies and a handful of other deep-pocketed multinational corporations threatens to close the garage doors of small inventors forever”
First I was unaware that any of the programmers this article mentions were “inventing” in their garage. Certainly Bill Gates got no patents at that time.
Second, how does the new patent reform bill threaten to close their garage doors? The article never lays out how.
“When an American invents something useful, the only way he or she can protect that discovery and profit from it is to apply for a patent from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.”
Seems conclusory. I know many people who invent something and profit from it without patenting it. My dad did it this past year and he’ll likely do it again many years to come. My uncle has been associated with several companies of the last few years that invented an apparatus and were profiting from its use prior to patenting it while publicly disclosing it. The evidence just isn’t there to back up this article’s claim.
“Only true innovations are awarded patents”
Sounds like an outright lie. It is well known that many patent claims that are not “true innovations” are awarded a patent every year due to failures in the process, like failure of the office to find x art, failure of the Federal Circuit to correctly rule on the law, or any other number of things going wrong currently.
“But S.1720 and its counterpart in the House, H.R.3309, would go a long way toward tearing our patent system down. They would tilt the playing field in favor of large companies and their armies of lawyers by making it prohibitively expensive for small inventors to file legitimate legal claims against corporate copycats, closing the courts to little guys and encouraging patent infringement.”
It was either that or get rid of the non-useful arts in the patent system. You guys could have chosen the one, but instead you chose to have congress take mamby pamby half-measures that of course will not work fully.
“Unbelievably, these bills would even authorize the director of the patent office to create a national database of the patent-holders who defend their inventions most often — and then to develop a tax-funded program for “training” businesses on the best way to beat these innovators in court.”
As to the first one, yeah, so what? And as to the second one, I’m unaware of this program, perhaps he could point to it in the bill so we could all see what he is most likely mischaracterizing.
“Early this year, one prominent garage inventor even had to take the patent office itself to court.”
I’m not sure I’d call that particular guy a “garage inventor”.
“. All this inventor wants is a final determination from the patent office, even if it’s a denial of the applications.”
Also I’m pretty sure even that guy got a final rejection. That’s the office’s final determination on patentability, which is why it is called a “final” action.
Overall, the author appears dazed and confuzzled about the legislation and likewise uninformed about what the purpose behind each section is. Standard ‘Merican in that respect.
^thems my comments.
Section 3(a) of S. 1720 imposes an unrealistic and costly burden on any patent holder who tries to enforce a patent. It adds language to the end of 35 U.S.C. § 281 that requires any patentee who brings an infringement action to list everyone who the patentee knows to have either a financial interest of any kind in the patentee, the patent, or any party to the lawsuit.
It also requires the patentee to list any other kind of interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the lawsuit.
The source of the added language is odd. It is taken almost word-for-word from the statute that tells federal judges when they should recuse themselves from a lawsuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(4). The added language will require every patentee who brings a lawsuit to consider every person or entity that the patentee knows and ask the question, “If that person or entity were the judge deciding my lawsuit, should that person or entity recuse himself or itself?” If the answer is yes, that person or entity must be added to the list. This is potentially an extremely long list. It certainly includes every equity holder in the patentee and every equity holder in every other party to the lawsuit. According to 28 U.S.C. § 455, this includes ones who own a single share of stock or a single partnership unit.
The list may also include key employees, directors, and managers of the patentee and all of the other parties to the lawsuit. It may also include everyone’s key advisors, customers, vendors, licensees, and licensors.
Because the list is not limited to those who have actual “financial interests,” it may also include other alleged infringers who are not parties to the lawsuit, as well as their equity owners, employees, directors, managers, advisors, customers, vendors, licensees, and licensors.
Finally, the list may include everyone’s lenders, subcontractors, and other service providers.
Such a long list may make sense if the question really is, “Should a judge recuse herself?” We have long decided that we are best served if our judges avoid even relatively remote appearances of impropriety. Moreover, for an actual judge, the task is doable because a single judge has a finite number of financial interests which the judge can evaluate and determine whether one of them requires recusal.
There is no such public interest in requiring a patentee to list thousands or millions of people and entities. In some cases, the patentee’s customer list alone will number in the millions. The patentee’s burden bears no relationship to any public benefit. Even worse much of required information will be proprietary. Most businesses consider their customer lists, their vendor lists, and their licensee lists to be extremely proprietary. Many also consider the list of their equity owners to be proprietary as well. Many businesses also believe that the processes they use to make their product are trade secrets, and they are right, but if a patentee is required to list all of its licensees, that trade secret could be lost.
Any conceivable societal purpose behind Section 3(a) can be met by a complete registration and assignment system [which is already in existence and which is already being enhanced by Section 3(b) of S. 1720]. The only additional “benefit” of Section 3(a) is to put a giant hurdle in front of patentees who are trying to use the only path they have to enforce their legal rights.
The president’s conflicting statements cannot be reconciled … says he supports and wants more American innovation … at the same time he wants to weaken American patents and patent owners rights.
So in effect … innovation is great … as long as you don’t want to protect it … so others can have it for free.
Another politician talking out of both sides of his mouth …
The Nightmare Before Christmas politician.
he supports and wants more American innovation … at the same time he wants to weaken American patents and patent owners rights. So in effect … innovation is great … as long as you don’t want to protect it … so others can have it for free.
Thank you for providing the simpleton’s view. The adults in the audience understand, of course, that “more patents that are easier to enforce” does not cause “more innovation”. It causes more patents and more lawsuits.
Still, there are some patent attorneys in the audience who think that this result alone would be quite wonderful and helpful towards paying the mortgages on their summer homes. Their soft, smooth hands are clapping for you.
Enjoy.
The adults in the room understand that the U.S.A. is the greatest innovative country because of its patent system. The adults understand that all the countries in the world that have a strong innovation engine have a strong patent system. The adults in the room know that China is trying to build a patent system so they too can have innovation. The adults know that …
Well, you get the idea. Oh, we are talking about adult people not simians MM. That might be your point of confusion.
Take a nap Gramps.
If you look at the way that Obama prefaced his support for patent reform, he first called out how government research provided the smart phone, etc. Then he said that we need to pass patent reform.
Obama believes that innovation should come from government and this patent troll issue is a vehicle to get there. First eliminate where most innovation comes from (individuals and small businesses), then when innovation slows and China gets ahead, argue that we need government to fund innovation because free enterprise has failed.
He wins because he can direct innovation to where he wants it to go (green) and he gets a bigger government with more voters beholden to him and more control over the individual, which has been his trademark.
China gets ahead
Oh noes! Maybe we should bomb them.
Boy I read what Dennis posted and it sounded to me as if he was saying, a Patent should be held strong.
Like lets say someone invents a mouse trap. And then someone else ( sneaks in and devises) makes the same mouse trap but in a different way. It does the same thing. It looks very similar. The second one has a different core because it was taken from the first So why would a patent even be allowed on the same thing? It wouldn’t if things had been above board. It wouldn’t if the first one wasn’t hidden and it’s core switched. And the second one claims it was made 15 years before the first one? And I’m pretty sure the core of the second one was not even around in that time frame.
What the Prez is saying is, the first one should be strong enough to not even allow the second one to be even patented.
And is this why you are in China Mr. 12 hour? Did you get into it in 1996? And did you give something to GJL Jr. that you shouldn’t have?
Whatever O’Bummer said we can be sure it was from a politician. Clinton said that NAFTA was one way for the U.S.A. Not a single job would be lost according to Clinton. Tell that to Detroit.
I posted the below in the PAE thread and it was not entered. I am posting it here again to see if the problem is the post or the thread:
I do not doubt that PAEs are suing on a large number of patents against a large number of defendants. How is this possible? Are all these patents on pioneering inventions that were widely adopted by industry? I sincerely doubt it. But their presence, I submit, illustrates that their must be a fundamental flaw in our current patent system and I think it relates to broad patents on narrow inventions such that the claims literally cover results — any way of accomplishing a result regardless of whether the infringer is using the invention disclosed or it equivalent. (Other potential problems could be that the claims are covering the earlier inventions of others, or that we have late claiming run amok.)
Let me illustrate why I think the problem relates to overbroad claims. Take the Selden patent as an example. link to en.wikipedia.org. According to the Second Circuit, the art had long desired a land locomotive, the problem being the weight of the engine. Selden observed a Brayton gasoline engine at a trade show. But even it was too big for a land vehicle. Selden adapted the engine to be smaller and lighter, and filed an application to cover a land locomotive having a liquid hydro-carbon engine. After 16 years of pendency, the patent issued in 1895, well after the car industry had been established, but using a different kind of engine invented in Germany. link to google.com
Henry Ford challenged the patent. The district court held the patent to cover every gasoline-engine powered car. The second circuit overruled, confining the scope of the patent to the particular engine disclosed regardless of the broad claim language.
The public reacted with disgust that the patent office would issue such a broad patent on such little disclosure, but I submit, with non-chemical patents, it is the rule today that one can broadly with very little disclosure. The problem of the Selden patent is pandemic, and its results are seen in the growing PAE problem.
But in the end, what is the difference between a combination claim to a gasoline engine and other elements defining a car and combination claim that claims any engine using gasoline in combination with the other elements. Clearly, the vice in Selden claim was that it was functional at the point of novelty and the remedy was the narrow construction. Today, we recognize the vice as functionality at the point of novelty and the solution as 112(f).
But now let’s pause and consider that the Federal Circuit has been chary about consider claim covered by 112(f) when the magic words are not chosen. May I make a suggestion and it is this: treat all claims functional at the point of novelty as covered by 112(f), and functional would include broad, generic terms that cover more than what was disclosed.
This would not totally solve the problem of broadly worded claims that have very small scope. Such claims create a zone of uncertainty all by themselves just as Halliburton described. We need to stop issuing such claims regardless of 112(f), and that is one of the reasons that I would like to repeal 112(f). I would prefer claims broader than the disclosure that cover the independent inventions of others, to be invalid under 112(b). Such a change would, over time, all but eliminate the PAE problem.
Your lot was easier to deal with when you were telling us that instructions to a computer was really a natural law.
Now you want to not recognize that the scope of the claims should be the scope of enablement. And, that scope depends on how a person of ordinary skill would read the claims.
If claims are limited to disclosed embodiments, then the patent system is effectively dead for most art units. It would take 1000’s of pages to describe all the embodiments that an person of ordinary skill knows how to do.
NWPA: “Now you want to not recognize that the scope of the claims should be the scope of enablement.”
The scope of the patent protection has always been the structure that the applicant invented. Enablement of that structure is only one requirement. Others are description and definiteness. Morse had enabled all ranged printing via electro-magnetism, why was claim 8 struck? It seemed as if the court was worried he was trying to claim the functionality no matter what machine it appeared in. How is a computer claim to a function (citing only a processor) any different?
I think you’re the one confused about what constitutes an invention…we don’t just give people what they, in their subjective view, think they have invented.
“If claims are limited to disclosed embodiments, then the patent system is effectively dead for most art units. It would take 1000′s of pages to describe all the embodiments that an person of ordinary skill knows how to do.”
The courts have never held that the disclosure of other embodiments needs to be in the same detail as the first description. Besides the rule you’re decrying was the rule for what? at least 80 years? And yet the patent system survived.
And now back for some more random nonsense: “The scope of the patent protection has always been the structure that the applicant invented.“
RandomGuy: what do you do for a living? Before I take any time educating you, I want to know so that I am not wasting my time with a policy paper paid blogger.
Scope of enablement. Think about what you wrote RandomGuy. Do some real life thought experiments. Read Deener and other SCOTUS cases before 1950 when much of system became politicized.
” the scope of the claims should be the scope of enablement. ”
That’s your personal opinion brosef. It’s not like “set in stone”.
“If claims are limited to disclosed embodiments, then the patent system is effectively dead for most art units.”
Oh horse sht.
6, read LizardTech.
Telling 6 to read is not enough.
He has to understand.
To do that, he would need to put aside his belief system as that is blocking his acceptance of such basic notions as the ladders of abstraction and the doctrine of equivalence (in substantive legal matters) and the reasons why we have a patent system to begin with (as set forth in a policy manner by the Founding Fathers).
His refusal to accept these First Principles means that merely reading (or what passes for reading in 6’s world) will never be good enough.
I have and decline to reread it.
All those that wish to burn the patent system down should consider Motorola. Without patents it would have been worth nearly nothing. So, because of the value of those patents we can count on companies to continue to invest in research and patents–not just taking other people stuff.
The shameful part is that the Obama administration FTC person came out and read the situation in the reverse. Totally ignorant little toad with no real experience.
Scope of enablment my hirsuit howling friends. Full stop. It is SCOPE OF ENABLEMENT.
Worth repeating:
So, because of the value of those patents we can count on companies to continue to invest in research and patents–not just taking other people stuff.
That’s exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they created the patent system and made – from day one – the patent to be perfectly and fully alienable property.
“All those that wish to burn the patent system down should consider Motorola. Without patents it would have been worth nearly nothing.”
Oh noes! Another company that failed is worth nearly nothing when it fails! Oh noes! Oh noes!
And, Ned, it is very hard to give you any credibility when your arguments for information processing is basically: you can have whatever you want as long as it includes a ROM so your patent is worthless to enforce.
By the way, that is basically the same ploy the Chinese patent office uses.
My recommendation would be to simply reform the standard for declaratory judgement actions.
As result of recent case law, there is too much DJ risk for small businesses or independent inventors trying to monetize patents. Accordingly, more patents flowing to NPEs designed to monetize and their current strategy is “file first, negotiate later”.
Reform the DJ standard to allow the patent owner to communicate with alleged infringers without triggering DJ actions.
We went from one extreme (too high a hurdle for DJ actions) to another extreme.
Fixing that is low hanging fruit.
Leopold,
Legal realism tends to be like that.
I don’t mind remedying that DJ stuff. I mean, they should be able to discuss the patent both without putting the other person on notice for triple damages and without outright threatening them with the patent and be aight.
The strange thing about the patent teabaggers and their silly “David and Goliath” mythology is that it somehow never occurs to them that the people they accuse of protecting “big business” are not fans of “big business” at all. On the contrary, most people I know are dismayed by patent trolls and junk patents as well as the crappy behavior of businesses like Google, Apple, Cisco, etc.
But nobody except the teabaggers themselve believes that there is some horrible scourge of “patent squatting” that is dragging the country down. That’s because (1) there isn’t one and (2) everybody knows that if you give the crybaby attorney jerks who cry about “patent squatting” more patent rights that you’ll eventually end up getting reamed yourself. Who wants that?
The reason for the teabaggers’ blindness in this regard is simple: they don’t give a rats xxx about the crappy behavior of “big corporations”. All they care about is funneling as much money as they can into their own bank accounts by whatever means are available and screw anyone who tries to stop ’em. Grifters gonna grift. It’s what they do.
Class,
Today’s lesson in Malcolm rhetoric:
Malcolm states: “The strange thing about the patent teabaggers…,”
Class reply: Malcolm, you provided no facts independent studies or certified polls, therefore your statement is poopoo.
Why? Because Malcolm says so, damnit Gumby.
Thus ends the RQ/HD lesson for the day.
Don’t forget that Malcolm blows sMMoke and is a ba$$oon.
Did you just call MM a bassoon?
I figured you’d consider him more of a snare. Or an axe for you to grind. Or perhaps a cymbal of your oppression.
Of course I would have typed in his full simian name, but he cried and whined to Dennis so that I am no longer permitted to use his name anymore. Leave it to IANAE to not be able to figure out the obvious. I do wish you had an extra 50 IQ points so that you would be interesting to blog with.
Actually that was one of the better posts by IANAE.
Lord knows, any posts pretending to actually address legal matters won’t be worth a d@m.
…and not to sound too sour of a note, but everyone knows that the RQ/HD is really just a poster boy for how NOT to engage in a substantive legal discussion.
I figured you’d consider him more of a snare. Or an axe for you to grind. Or perhaps a cymbal of your oppression.
Well played.
“designed to hamper patent enforcement”
Um,…. if we hamper patent enforcement, then patents are worth less…
We need to be making enforcement better swifter cheaper and more thorough in order to build patent strength.
We need to be making enforcement better swifter cheaper and more thorough in order to build patent strength.
Yummy kool-aid!
Maybe you should step outside of your echo chamber and do some poll testing about what most people want. Start by going to the street in your town where most of the town’s businesses are located and ask the owners if they think that “we need to make it easier” for people to sue them and obtain judgments.
Be sure to inform them of the number of patents that are being granted every year and where that trend is heading so they have some understanding of what they’re dealing with.
Or maybe you think that Dennis made that graph up on behalf of some company whose stock appears in his 401K (“the causal relation”)? Let everybody know, TB.
Nice non-sequiturs RQ/HD !
“Um,…. if we hamper patent enforcement, then patents are worth less…”
OMG that means prezzy o is anti-patent! OMG! OMG!
Um,…
You are just now figuring that out 6?
Not too quick on the uptake, are you?
Please amend my former post with: (sarcasm). For the reading impaired.
Why are you trying to be sarcastic to the President, 6?
I’m not trying to be sarcastic “to the president”. I’m trying to be sarcastic to the reading impaired ta rds that think people with an eye to reforming the patent system to shape it up before we have to ship it on outta existence are “anti-patent”.
To borrow a rather pithy phrase, curing the patient does not mean killing him.
Wake up 6. Pay attention. Your type of ‘friend of the patent system’ is worse than any overt enemy.
You personally are just way too much of a lemming to understand what is going on about you.
I would think it great that the President is interested in patents. The problem is ignorance and Obama listening to the liberal elite intellectuals about what they think should happen. We see Obama’s recent appointments to the Federal Circuit. Liberal arts majors and a government attorney. His new director–a sideways appointment. Don’t forget that this is how Clinton gave us 2008 by repealing Glass-Steagall and NAFTA and China into the WTO.
Another disaster in the making as the issues don’t get debated in the light of day and ignorant people make policy.
“Clinton gave us 2008 by repealing Glass-Steagal”
Wait – another democrat president serving the Big Business needs…?
Which definition of “is” is in play…?
Chomsky says that Obama is about the same as Reagon politically. That Obama is really a moderate Republican.
Chomsky says that Obama is about the same as Reagon politically. That Obama is really a moderate Republican.
More accurately, it’s been observed by many that the modern Republican Party would never support Reagan as a candidate for President because he was too liberal. That’s consistent with the precipitious drop in the party’s references to Reagan since the teabaggers came to roost.
I’m not aware of any “moderate” Republicans whose “platform” could be confused with Obama’s. Possibly there’s one or two running on fumes in some really liberal parts of the country.
What you said is not more accurately. Maybe more informative.
Chomsky meant the Republican party of Reagon’s time of course. So, had Obama been a politician at the time of Reagon, his policies would make him a moderate Republican at that time.
had Obama been a politician at the time of Reagon, his policies would make him a moderate Republican at that time.
Ah, that makes more sense.
I would think it great that the President is interested in patents. The problem is ignorance and Obama listening to the liberal elite intellectuals about what they think should happen.
Don’t give POTUS too much (or too little) credit regarding the issue. I doubt very much he really cares much one way or another. Like many political battles, this is between the haves and the haves not. The haves not want what the haves have and the haves want to keep what they have. In this case both sides are haves and haves not. Those with patents want to keep their patents strong and want money from the other side (for using their technology), and the other side wants to use the technology but doesn’t want to pay for it.
Many of the larger technology companies (think Facebook, Google, etc.) are based upon using other people’s technology. Some of that technology is patented and now they (among many others) are feeling the pain. While these companies have begun significant patent acquisition campaigns, they are still behind the curve as compared to many of the more well-established companies. As such, one of their alternative strategies (besides patent acquisition) is to reduce the effectiveness of patents.
You have to realize that the people doing the lobbying don’t care about incentivizing innovation or the long-term effects of a stronger/weaker patent system. The people doing the lobbying only care about the bottom line. As such, it is entirely expected for them to lobby for patent policies in a way that they perceive will enhance their bottom line.
As also to be expected, there will always be a class of individuals that will attempt to game the system — no matter the system. While their are many legitimate NPEs, there are also NPEs that engage in tactics that even a pro-patent person finds questionable. Again, to be expected, those parties with real skin in the game will point to the excesses of a few and hold them up as examples as to how the entire system is a failure and use them in their campaign against the system.
With regard to intellectual property as a whole, there is a another class of individuals — the ideologicals who are against patents and copyrights because they believe that “information should be free.” Again, as to be expected, those parties with real skin in the game go out of their way to support and nourish this computer-literate and very vocal crowd.
In sum, while there may be a few individuals that dislike intellectual property out of principle, the real players are merely looking out for their bottom line and will lobby for whatever provisions they believe will positively impact that bottom line. The vast majority (including, IMHO, POTUS) don’t really care about the issue because it doesn’t appreciable impact their lives(money getting transferred from one company to another is not personal to most).
As far back as I can remember, the Republican Party has championed litigation reform of one type or another to reduce harassment of business. We expect that of Republicans.
Democrats historically have resisted, seeing the value of litigation to champion the rights of the small guy.
Never would I have imagined a Democrat president backing business interests against the small patent owner. Never. Never.
Never.
Don’t be so surprised – When the Left and Right conspire to attack the patent system, one should expect such strange bedfellows.
It are a conspiracy!
Even under your bridge in the city of Washington DC you should have heard the phrase “Politics makes strange bedfellows”
You might try to figure out what that means.
This really comes down to four little letters: MPHJ.
Once they started going around attempting to milk small businesses for infringement on those scan-to-email patents, a new round of patent reform became something that most people in Congress could get behind. In politics, small business is big business.
Of course you always have the lowest common denominator to blame. But that doesn’t mean that the next to lowest folks aren’t nearly as much to blame.
Never would I have imagined a Democrat president backing business interests against the small patent owner.
But suddenly you are imagining it. Why is that, Ned?
I’ll take a guess: like many people wrapped up in the world of patent law you easily forget that the overwhelming majority of “business interests” in this country quite reasonably have absolutely no use for patents and no interest in them.
Of course, here we have seen commenters argue that everybody should be thinking about patents all the time and everybody should just accept patent infringement and licensing as a cost of doing business.
Guess what? The vast majority of Obama’s constituents think that such commenters are, at best, self-interested shills looking to grift off the hard work of other people. And they’re right! I’m one of those constituents, of course. So are all of my friends, almost all of whom are “business concerns”. I have some die-hard Republicans in my family and they also agree with me.
This may come as a huuuuuuuge surprise to you, Ned, but generally people aren’t impressed by bottom-feeding grifting attorneys.
The trolls made their bed. Now they can lay in it. Boo hoo hoo hoo.
RQ/HD states “quite reasonably have absolutely no use for patents and no interest in them.”
Get out.
Get into a field in which you can believe in the work product.
Seriously – you (and everyone else) will be much happier.
Get into a field in which you can believe in the work product.
LOL. You are a clueless freak.