Areas of Disuniformity in US Inventorship

By Dennis Crouch

The chart below uses the breakdown of patent documents into their various workgroups. As shown here, the workgroups are basically an intermediary classification that falls between the micro-art-units and the macro technology centers. Dividing into workgroups is especially useful for looking at Technology Center 3600 because that center examines perhaps the widest variety of technologies. For the chart below, I collected inventor information on all U.S. patents issued from January 2010 – August 2014 and simply displayed the percent of patents whose first-listed inventor claimed a U.S. residence in the application documents.

Today, just about half of newly issued patents are non-US originated. That datum is dramatically different from historical figures where U.S. inventors dominated the U.S. patent rolls. I have written before that this change likely signals a future shift in U.S. policy as the population is less likely to support foreign-owned patent rights blocking access or raising prices for goods and services. To the extent policymakers are relying upon this concern, the chart provides some additional insight because it points to areas of technology where U.S. inventors continue to dominate in the U.S. Patent market.

128 thoughts on “Areas of Disuniformity in US Inventorship

  1. link to money.cnn.com

    Zuckerman [who wrote the code for the first pop-up ad] works these days at MIT, where he’s the director of the Center for Civic Media and principal research scientist at the MIT Media Lab. He says he’d like to see the Internet evolve away from ad-supported businesses, perhaps through greater use of subscription models or direct “micropayments” to creators of content.

    “20 years [into] the ad-supported web, we can see that our current model is bad, broken, and corrosive,” Zuckerman writes

    Subscriptions — on a computer! This guy is onto something. He should file a patent. Promote the progress! So awesome.

    direct “micropayments” to creators of content.

    News flash: people have been directly paying other people for web content for a long, long time. Sometimes we call it “paying people for web content.” And yes some of those payments are very small. But omigod maybe some genius will write a patent claim to a broad method of “automating” payments using a POWERFUL COMPUTER BRAIN. Only then will we be saved.

    Also, I’m not sure what kind of bubble exists around the MIT these days but it didn’t take most of us 20 years to figure out that forcing people to deal with a pop-up ad was a sxcky, s k u m my way to operate a website. It took 2 seconds.

    1. Milly, he didn’t say he wanted to patent it, did he?

      And remember Milly that your fingers are being directed by Milly’s Math.

  2. Billy: business methods and software patents … are … MOST pro-american in their inventive aims *per the date presented at face value here

    The data presented here show that the business of filing US patents on s0-called “e-commerce” methods (!!) is dominated by Americans. As everyone knows, “e-commerce” methods include most of the lowest forms of innovation out there, basically time-worn methods of, e.g., collecting information from people so you can shove an ad in their face, or attracting people to a display/service so you can shove an ad in their face … all with the assistance of a computer that has been programmed (typically for the first time by someone other than the inventor) to achieve those illustrious goals.

    Whether American dominance in the securing of patents on such “innovations” (most of which are invalid or ineligible for patenting) is actually something to be proud or something to encourage is a completely separate question and the answer one gives is highly correlated with how directly one’s bank account is affected by the continued existence of such patents. Hence, the most vociferous and extreme proponents of “e-commerce” patenting are invariably patent attorneys who are prosecuting patents for weak-minded investors incapable of developing a successful business in a competitive, consumer-friendly environment, or patent attorneys who sit around concocting claims designed to hold productive businesses or entire industries hostage at some later date to be determined by the amount of money to be extorted.

    Ned seems eager to “talk a good game” about being pro-American, but … Ned leads the charge for Big Corp.

    Yet another attempt by a patent t e a b a g g e r to question the patriotism of anyone who doesn’t agree with them about some aspect of the patent system. Maybe later Billy will animate the corpses of those great proponents of e-commerce patents, George Washington and Abe Lincoln, for everyone to admire.

    One of the many funny things about the patent t e a b a g g e r s is their incessant slams against “Big Corp” when, in fact, so many of them depend on the existence of “Big Corp” for their livelihoods. It’s like a bunch of ticks on the prairie who never stop complaining about how nasty those buffalos are, then they spend all night dreaming about how marvelous it must be to be a buffalo.

    If Billy and his cohorts really cared about “Big Corp’s” abuse of the patent system, they might considr regularly pointing out the reams of ridiculous “e-commerce” j nk that “Big Corp” regularly seeks and obtains. Instead, they regularly trumpet the awesome innovations of “Big Corp” out of one side of their mouths while asserting out of the other side of their mouths that “Big Corp” doesn’t innovate.

    Go figure.

    1. That’s right Milly’s Math (MM) don’t bother responding to actual issues, but get up their on your soap box and spew forth the nonsense (all coming out of your math.)

  3. Dennis –

    With regard to “U.S. policy as the population is less likely to support foreign-owned patent rights blocking access or raising prices for goods and services. ”

    Unfortunately (for U.S. engineers and scientists) its a bit of a leap to go from Non – U.S. Citizen lead inventor to non-U.S. owned.

    I wouldn’t bet the farm, but I might bet the cows, that a good chunk of your non-U.S inventors work for and assigned those patents to U.S. or at least multinational corporations.

    1. I agree. The corporation is no longer a national entity but an international entity. The corporation doesn’t care about any one nation any longer.

      1. Bingo.

        This is a critical point.

        It is also a subtle point in showing the hypocriticality of one Ned Heller, who actively sought Piro User Rights – which is a T001 of the Big Corp pan-nationalism that has achieved agency (and Congressional) capture.

        I am surprised that no one yet has made the overt comparison between Ned’s number one jihad against business methods and software patents and how those two very things are shown** to be MOST pro-american in their inventive aims.

        Ned seems eager to “talk a good game” about being pro-American, but when push comes to shove as to the categories of what most Americans are pursing when it comes to inventions and innovations, Ned leads the charge for Big Corp.

        Methinks such is no accident.

        **as per the date presented at face value here by Prof. Crouch.

        1. Methinks such is no accident.

          You’re suggesting that Ned is not American? I suppose you’ll be demanding long-form birth certificates next?

              1. Rather, and more to the point, Ned’s attempt to wrap himself in the flag as a patriot contrasts sharply with the avowed pursuit of his own agenda – which runs directly against the date as presented here.

                Once again, it is the irony that I point out – irony that exists quite apart form the fact that it is I that points it out – and delicious then the irony that ensues when the typical anti-anons charge at the red flag of “anon says.”

                Come on people – focus on the message and not the messenger.

        2. anon, I have explained in detail why prior user rights are very much an America’s interests.

          And, if I really were cynical, I would urge that business methods be banned in the United States but authorized everywhere else in the world so that Americans could get their business method patents in piles and heaps mulct the commerce of nations abroad.

          But I am not hypocritical at all.

  4. Now everyone notice this.

    Milly’s Math (MM) will not defend his position that automating manufacturing is different than automating commerce.

    This strikes to the heart of the arguments the anti’s are making. And strikes to the heart of the ignorance and intellectual dishonesty of the anti movement.

    Moreover, notice that Milly (MM) asserts that everything that does computation is math. Ergo Milly’s mind is math. Thus, the new name of Milly’s Math for Milly’s mind.

    Ned makes the same assertion. So, Neddles new name is Ned’s Math.

    The two of you are a joke. You are both paid bloggers to be making such ridiculous assertions.

    1. Notice too that machines automating information processing creates new methods never used and automating mental processes creates new methods.

      That is fact.

      The anti’s with such people as Lemley, Trananchula, Laurie, Gingsburg, R. Stern deny these facts. But, they cannot argue them in the light of day.

      And can their distorted minds make sense of the fact that they are information processors so by their logic they are nothing but math.

      1. Night, new machines are eligible. Old machines that do new things are eligible.

        No one disputes this.

        But then you quibble with us to say that one cannot patent math that is neither a new machine nor the use of an old machine.

        1. Ned, Ned, Ned, the same old games from you.

          So, according to you a computer configured with instructions to drive a car is ineligible unless the instructions are permanently burned into the circuit.

          And Ned riddle me this, a circuit configured to drive a car. But, Ned says this is also ineligible if it is not permanently burned into the circuit.

          Shameful nonsense Ned.

        2. And seriously Ned. The Church-Turning Thesis plus your nonsense means that you believe that you are math.

          1. Notice if you will NWPA, how none of the anti’s want to partake in a discussion of the (admittedly extreme) view that Everything is Maths.

            link to scientificamerican.com

            Notice too how none of the anti’s want to acknowledge the controlling difference between math and applied math that exists in patent law.

            Any real discussion on the merits will have to acknowledge and integrate key facts into the discussion.

            The baseline has been set – the line in the sand is clear.

            Those that want to have an honest discussion on the merits are those that recognize that facts that this reality have in place (and they are facts because they are facts and not facts merely because “anon said so” – so let’s avoid that game, shall we).

            It’s that same old crowd playing the same old anti-games.

            One only notes a lack of addressing the points that need to be addressed. Dismiss any nonsense that do not address theses points and let’s move the discussion forward on the merits remaining.

            1. That’s right anon. Just on this thread MM first says that automation isn’t changing commerce, and then refuses to engage in a debate on this issue. Of course, it is a ridiculous assertion on MM’s part.

              But, then we have Fed. Cir. judges and SCOTUS justices saying essentially the same thing.

              Somewhere along the way integrity has stopped meaning valuable.

            2. “http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/mathematical.html”

              Yeah he looks super professional.

              Though anon we’re all happy to discuss some theorylol you or he dreams up if you can offer some evidence.

              After reading his response to the critiques of his “theory” it appears like all he’s doing is playing linguistic games. He talks about not confusing the language of mathematics with the “structure” of mathematics. Though of course in the physical sense mathematics has no “structure”. However, one fellow by the name of anon happens to have elucidated what this is talking about here by having defined “structure” as “rules”. From what he says in his responses to critiques it appears that is all he means by “structure of mathematics”, aka “the rules of mathematics”.

              Bottom line is if he wants to say that everything must follow the “rules of mathematics” then sure. Np. Everyone is on board. But that doesn’t mean that everything “is” mathematics.

              You can get a glimpse of this here:

              “Q: Aren’t you conflating the description with the described when saying that our physical reality *is* mathematical rather than just being *described* by math?
              A: This distinction (which I explore in detail in chapters 11 and 12) is crucial both in physics and in mathematics. Our language for describing the planet Neptune (which we obviously invent – we invented a different word for it in Swedish) is of course distinct from the planet itself. Similarly, we humans invent the language of mathematics (the symbols, our human names for the symbols, etc), but it’s important not to confuse this language with the structure of mathematics. For example, as mentioned above, any civilization interested in Platonic solids would discover that there are precisely 5 of them (the tetrahedron, cube, octahedron, dodecahedron and icosahedron). Whereas they’re free to invent whatever names they want for them, they’re *not* free to invent a 6th one – it simply doesn’t exist. It’s in the same sense that the mathematical structures that are popular in modern physics are discovered rather than invented, from 3+1-dimensional pseudo-Riemannian manifolds to Hilbert spaces. The possibility that I explore in the book is that one of the structures of mathematics (which we can discover but not invent) corresponds to the physical world (which we also discover rather than invent). ”

              See how he’s talking about “discovering” the “structure” of mathematics? All he is talking about is the relationships or rules of mathematics. And if he wants to say that the “relationships” or “rules” of mathematics “correspond” to the physical world then that is fine. Though it is much less of a bold statement than the one you ta rds constantly trumpet.

              Bottom line is, it appears like the entire theory is just a word game at heart.

              Funniest thing is this though:

              “Q: Isn’t the mathematical universe hypothesis unfalsifiable and hence unscientific?
              A: No, it makes the testable prediction that our cosmos has no non-mathematical properties, so if you can prove that some aspect of our cosmos can’t be described by mathematics, then you’ve falsified the hypothesis. ”

              Pre posterous nonsense.

              “Q: Is Max Tegmark a crackpot?
              A: That’s obviously not for me to answer – you’ll find a hilarious analysis of this question here and an even more hilarious classification system here. ”

              The answer to this one is: yes.

              1. 6, without commenting on what you wrote, you should know that Newton’s great genius was in realizing that he didn’t have to figure out the why, but only had to model it with math.

              2. 6,

                You quite miss the point of Tegmark, 6.

                Again, you focus far too much on the messenger and you miss the message.

                You seek to attribute to me, some type of thinking because I presented Tegamrk, as if I must believe what Tegmark is spooning out just because I presented the man and his views.

                What you miss in your errant jump is that many anti-software people claiming “Maths” thus not patent eligible are of the mindset of Tegmark.

                I love the fact that you think that since I presented Tegmark, that you think that I must think that Tegmark is right, so you proceed to attempt to belittle Tegmark, thus you proceed to belittle the slashdot/techdirt software is Maths crowds, not realizing that your own reaction – to the red cape of anon says – is a reaction to the belieb system that you follow lockstep marching up your lemming hill.

              3. “You seek to attribute to me, some type of thinking because I presented Tegamrk”

                You’ve already been spouting his “theory” on here before re re. Under the guise of your own name: anon.

                We’ve been hearing about it for months. Years maybe. From you.

                “as if I must believe what Tegmark is spooning out just because I presented the man and his views.”

                If you don’t belieb it, then kindly stop spreading it. Je sus, spreading psu edo-science around helps nobody bro.

                “What you miss in your errant jump is that many anti-software people claiming “Maths” thus not patent eligible are of the mindset of Tegmark.”

                That’s your assertion. And I’m sure there are some few of them. Nobody cares but you and other ta rds like yourself.

                “software is Maths ”

                Yes, software likely is “maths”. That software is likely maths has dck to do with everything in the universe being math like you and Tegmark belieb.

                You are a nutcase brosef. Plain and simple.

          2. Night, human brains are not math. However I will agree that if one learns a new skill, that the human being might be “re-patented” as the improved human being. However note that the new skill becomes a permanent part of the brain.

        3. No one disputes this.

          Eminently not true – given your continual denial of the holding of Alappat and your embrace of the “House/Morse” fallacy.

          Sorry Ned – you will eventually have to walk this path of honesty.

  5. I cannot help but point out that we have been systematically undermining US R&D for the last 20 years, but first extending prior invention rights to treaty partners, and then ending US prior invention rights altogether.

    If we as a nation were truly committed to promoting US R&D, we would undo all this nonsense. The people behind this have been large multi-national organizations who do not care about promoting US R&D. In fact, the people behind these “reforms” view rights given US inventors only as being opposed to their interests.

    It is about time we stop listening to these opponents of the US. And, need I point out, that the IPO and the AIPLA seem to be their greatest advocates. One has to ask why?

    1. Ned, I daresay we can all agree that what’s good for GM is not necessarily good for “the USA”. GM (and all other large multi-national corporations) pursue their business interests, regardless whether they are in the best interests of “the USA”. Like sovereign nations, corporations have no friends, only “interests”.

      Problem is, how to arrive at what is best for the gerieral welfare of “the USA”. It is relatively easy for a corporation to decide what is in its best interests. Much harder for a democracy to do. A good start would be to give every prospective voter as good an education as is humanly possible.

      1. Max, in the Adam Smith world, there are no economic barriers — capital will flow to where the profits are highest. It can be said that the people who oppose giving Americans any incentive to locate R&D in the US are true acolytes of Adam Smith, academic idealists/extremists.

        But I am an American and I see nothing at all wrong in giving American inventors a leg up.

          1. anon, we can grant reciprocal rights to countries so as to no discriminate:

            If a country will recognize US inventor”s prior invention rights, we will recognize their inventor’s prior invention rights.

            1. Ah Ned, Adam Smith: The father of economics. He of the Invisible Hand, Moral Sentiments and the Wealth of Nations. Good man! He who untiringly:

              “warned that a business-dominated political system would allow a conspiracy of businesses and industry against consumers”

              My glance to Wikipedia failed to locate a nice Smith quote about the necessity that business owners suffer the full consequences of any follies or mischief (or crime) performed in their name.

              Smith must be turning in his grave, when he contemplates limited liability, too big to fail and, most importantly post-2008, too big to sentence to gaol.

              But as an ordinary member of the public, what can one do? Vote? Yes, but who for?

            2. If a country will recognize US inventor”s prior invention rights, we will recognize their inventor’s prior invention rights.

              …in this country?

              Please explain – it sounds as if you have retreated fully from what you wanted (you do realize that your “can” should be replaced with “have done so”, right?)

    2. I am not sure that in this case the big corp is behind the appalling decline of research in the US. I think it is more like our bridges. But, it is all about money. People now buy everything in DC so that means that those projects that have no monnied advocates do not get funded.

      Sad. I was really hoping that Obama would have been more pro-active in funding university research. It is a national shame that our nuclear physics program is almost dead. Reagon killed our collider in Texas and it has been down hill ever since.

      In the patent world, we have big corp wanting to end patents and the SCOTUS making ridiculous case law. We have the AIA that has turned our system into a registration system.

      1. We have the AIA that has turned our system into a registration system.

        Again, not disagreeing with you per se NWPA, but I would add: if only.

        If only we went to an actual registration system.

        If we had, we would save the BILLION dollar+ innovator tax that now supports a corrupt and inept examiner union driven bloated bureaucracy.

        Either clean up that mess and re-engineer the examination system from top to bottom or scrap what has become an abomination.

  6. Really now, what is meant by patent rights (or any other type) “blocking access”?

    “Access” presupposes access to “something”, and presupposes an “accesser”.

    “Blocking access” implies the “accesser” has a right to the something, specifically “access” to it, and would access it “but for” the blocking.

    “Rights” prescribe freedoms from interference, and presuppose an individual possessing the rights and whatever entities in reality in connection therewith.

    If the rights of an individual, say the property rights of a baker to the bread he created in his bakery, are rights to non-interference or exclusion of others to act in connection with that bread, for example a person hungry for FBITMOTN, then alleging that a lock on the baker’s door is thereby “blocking access” (which presupposes both an accesser, and the right to access something) is a logical fallacy, there being NO VALID rights to the hungry person for ACCESS which has been blocked.

    Seems rather clear that “rights blocking access” is simply impossible.

    This is related to my comment/question below
    …..
    How would a patent “block access”? Is that like a baker’s installing locks on his doors “blocking access” to “free bread in the middle of the night” (FBITMOTN)??

    I shall confront my baker next time if ever I catch wind of such an “injustice”.

    1. “Seems rather clear that “rights blocking access” is simply impossible.”

      The problem usually arises mostly when you create imaginary “rights” to other people’s property in advance. And it isn’t “unpossible”.

      “How would a patent “block access”?”

      Someone might show up at the baker’s front door and claim that they owned the bakers bread (or the rights to make that kind of bread) via their patent rights and exclude him from making any more of that type of bread. Now the baker is stopped from doing anything with his bread (use make sell). And the public is blocked from buying his bread.

          1. 6 has another admission worthy to note (paraphrasing):

            “lawl is entirely subjective and totally in the mind, so making things ups and anything goes is perfectly acceptable”

            Of course, this mirrors his little circlemate’s views on attempts to hold “conversations” on a “mere blog”:

            “Intellectual honesty is not required of posts on a mere blog”

            Contrast this with the self-induced ethical requirement that affects all lawyers in their advocacy – yes, even advocacy to third parties on this wonderful new social media called a blog.

      1. Your reasoning is circular, and starts as soon as you say “his bread”.

        Although the baker did not know that the bread he was making was not “his” in full i.e. not his “right” to make, use, or sell, his not knowing he did not have rights to make, use, or sell the bread, has no bearing on whether he actually HAD the rights to make, use, or sell his bread. Ab initio, he actually never had “rights” to “access” the “bread”.

        1. Bingo.

          This comes from the fact that 6 lacks some key and basic understanding of patents and patent law.

          His very limited-lemming-repeated-nonsense cannot take the place of a truly informed discussion on the merits.

          We in the US do not recognize legal rights in the place of what becomes patent rights.

          Independent creation had NEVER been sufficient to supplant patent rights prior to the avowed limited time period and limited scope of PUR for business methods and then greatly expanded PUR across the board in the AIA.

          This is indeed one of the “evi1s” in the submarine nature of the now imposed legal “right” of Prior User Rights.

          Agency (and Congressional) capture has and will continue to wreak havoc on our innovation system.

        2. “Although the baker did not know that the bread he was making was not “his” in full i.e. not his “right” to make, use, or sell, his not knowing he did not have rights to make, use, or sell the bread, has no bearing on whether he actually HAD the rights to make, use, or sell his bread.”

          So in your mind our ownership of objects etc, in full, is simply something we can never really be sure about.

          Whoops! The baker didn’t actually own that bread he made! Whoopsie! A lawlyer and perhaps even the gov says otherwise!

          If you can’t tell why this view of “ownership” you have adopted might not go over well with ordinary people or congress critters then you’re a fcking ta rd. And I don’t have more time to hold your hand through it.

          “Your reasoning is circular, and starts as soon as you say “his bread”.”

          First it wasn’t “reasoning”. It was a story. It illustrates for ta rds like yourself how a patent might block access so that your dum as might understand what is being discussed by people concerned about patents blocking access. But, even if it was “reasoning”, was circular, and it did start with me saying “his bread” the above is how patents can block access, which is what you asked at the beginning. You have been made aware of how they can block access, but you still sit round and argue.

          1. So in your mind our ownership of objects etc, in full, is simply something we can never really be sure about.

            That is simply NOT an accurate characterization 6.

            Try again.

          2. I respond, not for your benefit, nor directly for mine (this I take to be a waste of time), but I value others not being mislead or confused:

            “So in your mind our ownership of objects etc, in full, is simply something we can never really be sure about.”

            Nope. Not even close. I think ownership, i.e. the right to “property”, should be included with the rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. If you think my discussion of rights implies that I think what you have just said, you do not understand what rights are.

            “If you can’t tell why this view of “ownership” you have adopted might not go over well with ordinary people or congress critters then you’re a fcking ta rd. And I don’t have more time to hold your hand through it. ”

            If you understood rights, you would know rights apply to everyone including whomever you segregate/discriminate into your “ordinary people” category. Moreover, in a free country your rights are to be protected regardless of whomever they do or do not “go over well” with. And Miss, your profanity and tone is getting slightly hysterical/shrill, try to relax grrl.

            “First it wasn’t “reasoning”. It was a story. It illustrates for ta rds like yourself how a patent might block access so that your dum as might understand what is being discussed by people concerned about patents blocking access. But, even if it was “reasoning”, was circular, and it did start with me saying “his bread” the above is how patents can block access, which is what you asked at the beginning. You have been made aware of how they can block access, but you still sit round and argue.”

            I know, technically, it wasn’t “reasoning”. Circular logical fallacies fall under the category of “irrationality”, not reason. That aside, your illustration fails because patent rights are property rights and for a previously existing patent, the patent property right pre-exist any personal property right in the bread, which do not magically come into existence simply because the baker is unaware of the patent.

            I hope this keeps people (including your so called “ordinary people”) from being confused.

            1. “(this I take to be a waste of time”

              The whole conversation starter you posted was a waste of time. You apparently already knew exactly how patents block access.

              “If you understood rights,”

              Yes, if only I understood “rights” that would make your position less preposterous. And it would mean patents don’t block access! That’s it! Run with that!

              “I know, technically, it wasn’t “reasoning”.”

              Oh, so you already knew, you just said that it was “reasoning” because you’re a ta rd.

              Gotcha.

              It’s ok brosef, you’re a ta rd in good ta rded company on this website and in the patent space.

              “That aside, your illustration fails”

              Ahhhh, my illustration “fails”! You really are like anon! I wonder if you’re also OCPD as he is? Or if you’re just another of his personalities?

              “hat aside, your illustration fails because patent rights are property rights and for a previously existing patent, the patent property right pre-exist any personal property right in the bread, which do not magically come into existence simply because the baker is unaware of the patent.”

              See, now you get off into “property rights” and not ownership, and not how patents block access. Which is what the whole conversation was supposedly about. But you just keep on wasting everyone’s time because you’re so confused you can’t stick to one subject.

              It’s ok brosef, tar ds have to ta rd just like hat ers gotta ha te.

              “I hope this keeps people (including your so called “ordinary people”) from being confused.”

              Yes, I’m sure all your abstract nonsense will keep the baker from being “confused” when a lawlyer shows up at his door blocking his customers access to the bread.

              1. LOL – I warned you Anon2, 6 does not believe in objectivity, and if you attempt any distinction and try to stop him from his “anything goes” views, you will be labeled as mental.

                He does not want a critical (discerning) discussion – he wants to be merely able to get on his soapbox and have his fifteen minutes without any feedback of any kind (unless you agree with him). Of course, he will also want to be as denigrating as he wants (see the numerous ta rd references) and to be so without noticing that he his every bit as judgmental and right/wrong in his making such pronouncements.

                Not only is he a hypocrite, he is an unthinking, slovenly creature wed to a belieb system, and delusional as to even recognizing what is going on about him.

  7. I think address of first named inventor is poor proxy for whether the patent is a U.S. invention or not.

    But I also don’t have any good suggestions. Assignee?

    But that (assignee location) is also largely worthless given how many very large corps (with large numbers of US patents granting) may have a slough of US-based inventors working at the US-based affiliate, but have their IP owned by a Swiss or Irish affiliate.

    Or a corp can have large R&D contingents in EU or Asia, yet be a US company whose inventors assign to that US company.

  8. One possibility is that the art units where subject matter (business methods, treatment of the human body) is patentable ONLY in the USA are the very areas where US resident inventors dominate. Filers resident in other countries simply don’t come to the idea to file on matter that is in their jurisdiction ineligible. Inevitably then, they don’t follow up one year later with foreign filing in the USA.

    This disconformity has the makings of a nice laboratory experiment. Do patents on business methods and methods of treatment of the human body promote the progress in useful arts? In 20 years we might have a better idea.

    Unless, that is, current moves in the USA to stop the patenting of business methods proceed apace.

    1. In 20 years we might have a better idea.

      LOL – you don’t have to wait twenty years pumpkin – the evidence is already in.

      Why don’t you check backwards in time MaxDrei to when business methods starting receiving scientific method treatment. The US literature is steeped in such resources. Start with Deming.

      1. Billy: Why don’t you check backwards in time MaxDrei to when business methods starting receiving scientific method treatment. The US literature is steeped in such resources. Start with Deming

        Or you could just tell everyone your answer, Billy, and your assumptions.

        You know: like a grown-up instead of an effed up mental case.

        Good luck.

        1. Not sure what “answer” you are looking for except the plain one already stated: we don’t have to wait twenty years.

          I love the fact that your self-FAIL mechanism kicks in and you want to comment here. After all it is fitting since you tried to be all cute and ask for the scientific method as some type of patent eligibility gauge, and my response to you to check out Deming shot you all to pieces.

          Good times.

          1. “and my response to you to check out Deming shot you all to pieces.’

            It shot him all to pieces!

            Oh anon. So funny. So mental.

            “Not sure what “answer” you are looking for”

            You could say yes or no.

            1. 6, you know, one shouldn’t laugh at the afflicted. The postings here by “anon”, at PatentDocs by “Skeptical” and at Patent Watchdog by “Anon”, and the protestations by each of these that they are not the same person, is another reason for concern for the mental state of the poster we know as “Billy” who assures himself that:

              “my response……shot you all to pieces”

              and that the winner is always the one who posts last.

              link to patentdocs.org

              1. LOL

                No wait,

                LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL .

                Ah,

                From the one who runs and hides at the slightest hint of being “offended” – who no doubt is hte one who whines to Ipkat and has attemtped numerous times the Crybaby Veto here, the lady doth protest too much, methinks.

                GROW A PAIR MaxDrei – and please try to stop hiding from the points presented and your poor poor feelings being hurt because the language is a bit rough when your soapbox is kicked out from under you.

              2. Yeah looks like skeptical finally fed up and confirmed he is anon.

                But what did googling AOOTWMD or whatever reveal to you MD? It didn’t show me anything other than anon’s posts on PO. Was that all you referred to?

                “As to MaxDrei, the TM was out of “respect” for another’s coinage”

                Lulz, anon, so funny. Thinking that someone else would take your psychopathism and use it.

                MD tho for reals, we must not discount the possibility that he has multiple personalities.

                Also anon, re your loling below, nice copying me brosef.

              3. Yeah looks like skeptical finally fed up and confirmed he is anon.

                You think? I wonder if I could stomach MaxDrei’s mewling whining and be that polite.

                Could possibly be – after all, anything goes ™, right? ;-)

            2. 6, you ask what I got from Googling “AOOTWMD”. Indeed, all I got (in spades though) was anon on this channel. Thus, when Skeptical on PatentDocs cautions us, that AOOTWMD is a trademark, that confirms to me that Skeptical and anon are one and the same.

              Like you, I doubt that Tegmark advances the age-old debate about determinism:

              link to en.wikipedia.org

              I suspect his angle is more about advancing his career in academia than advancing the sum of human knowledge. Of the universe’s electro-magnetic spectrum we humans can discern only a tiny part, and the only tool we have, to inform ourselves about reality, is the human brain, limited by its being a part of that which we seek to understand, which will always prevent our consciousness acquiring a full visualisation of the universe. I mean, I can’t even fathom any of anon’s multiple personalities, never mind the universe. We just have to get used to it, I guess.

              But hey. So what. Why do they need to get into all this difficult stuff (unless it’s to bamboozle themselves, or the patent judges, or both)?

              1. I do not see why determinism is being introduced into the conversation – “Many” is not all and thus there can be easily seen that some math models are not deterministic.

                To be or not to be (deterministic) is a non sequitur to the Maths point.

                As to bamboozling “themselves” – um, that’s an odd thing to say, isn’t it? Of course, just like 6, you seem to miss the point of introducing Tegmark, as Tegmark aligns with the anti-software people and their view of “Maths” – as opposed to the messenger that you are reacting towards.

              2. “I do not see why determinism is being introduced into the conversation – ”

                Because you don’t understand any of the conversation once it got past my post.

                ““Many” is not all and thus there can be easily seen that some math models are not deterministic.”

                No kidding?

                “To be or not to be (deterministic) is a non sequitur to the Maths point.”

                But it isn’t to my post. Which you would know if you had formal scientific training.

                “As to bamboozling “themselves” – um, that’s an odd thing to say, isn’t it? ”

                Not odd at all.

                “Of course, just like 6, you seem to miss the point of introducing Tegmark, as Tegmark aligns with the anti-software people and their view of “Maths” – as opposed to the messenger that you are reacting towards.”

                No, he doesn’t anon. You just think he does because you’re a ta rd with no formal training.

                Let me put it in kindergarten speak for you.

                Software is maths people simply think software is maths.

                This ta rd thinks that everything, tables, the sun, etc. are math.

                There’s a difference. But you don’t see it.

              3. But it isn’t to my post. Which you would know if you had formal scientific training.

                From the one who cannot grasp why the point is made, this is a lovely AOOTWMD.

              4. “From the one who cannot grasp why the point is made, this is a lovely AOOTWMD.”

                Ahhhh, I can’t grasp why “the point” is made. Whatever point you’re talking about lulz.

                I can’t grasp it! I grasp why it was made!

                Lulz so dum.

      2. The evidence that patents on business methods promote the progress of useful arts is already “in”, you report, anon. Really? In where? And what “evidence” have you in mind?

        You see, your post seems to ber just another riff on your obsession that business methods are rightfully included within the ambit of “useful arts”. Even if some of them are shoe-hornable into the frame, such as by skilled EPO scriveners, so what? That is still no answer to my proposition.

          1. That would be all those Deming-patented inventions, would it, anon?

            Because if Deming did not patent, your remark tells us that the progress you so laud happened even though Deming’s theories were NOT patented. The issue is, would this laudable progress have been faster, if Deming had patented his inventions.

            I agree that adoption of management innovation promotes the progress of business. The national economy of the USA depends crucially on management innovation. So, try again. Where is the evidence that patents on management innovations promote progress in the useful arts? The default is that patents are a restraint of trade. So, they can be justified only when the price they exact is worth it, for the progress they bring, in the useful arts. Evidence please.

          2. world wide adoption of management innovations

            Let’s pretend these alleged “management innovations” represent “progress” according to some definition of “progress” that Billy will likely never share with us.

            Where is your evidence, Billy, that without patents in “business management” we’d not have seen these alleged “innovations” in business management?

            Seems to me that “progress” in business management is promoted rather perfectly in the US by this widely revered system known as “capitalism”. But perhaps you can explain to all of us why making money rather than losing it isn’t sufficient motivation to improve the manner in which you manage your business (the purpose of which is to … wait for it … make money).

            Go ahead, Billy.

            1. Ah, I see both MaxDrei and Malcolm retreat to the logical fallacy of ‘but for.’

              Sorry guys – I need not present any ‘but for’ fallacy type of evidence.

              It’s a pretty strawman though.

          1. It has this to do with it. It is getting in first, before you start indulging your obsession with the (irrelevant) difference you perceive, between “technical character” and “useful arts”.

            Why did SCOTUS take care not to declare business methods sui generis ineligible? Because everybody knows that within the “useful arts” are some inventions that can be held out to be a “business method” invention. But that alone isn’t enough to render all business method claims eligible willy-nilly. Indeed, with cases like Alice, we are now learning which business methods are eligible and which are not.

            1. (irrelevant) difference you perceive, between “technical character” and “useful arts”.

              You jump to an ASSumption without any backing.

              Man, you really h@ te that patent law is distinct per sovereign, don’tcha?

              1. Backing? I just got me some serious reinforcement. See the per curiam 101 Fed Ct decision in the latest thread. If you choose to persist with your increasingly forlorn “there is no technology test in the patent law of the USA” mantra, that’s up to you.

                And BTW, I like differences between sovereign States. The more differences there are, the more grateful clients are, for my advice. That’s something I enjoy.

              2. A bullied and worn down member of the CAFC….?

                LOL – yeas, I would imagine that is some feather in your cap, there.

                You kind of miss why those who know and respect law are upset with the Supremes – they have changed something that they do not have authority to change. And in particular here, you rely on one Judge who is NOT properly following the Alice decision, as he is following the view of a minority – that business methods – PER SE – are not patent eligible.

                Funny that you choose to celebrate the lawless, isn’t it?

              3. And BTW, I like differences between sovereign States. The more differences there are, the more grateful clients are, for my advice. That’s something I enjoy.

                You say it in words here, but your posts scream a different message: EP uber alles.

              4. …and to borrow Random Examiner’s “scoreboard” meme, notice please that the concurrence is the voice of one – un-joined by the other two judges who did not feel as Judge Mayer did and refused to sign up to the lone voice of malarky that you want to use as “backing.”

                It appears that the anti’s lack the ability to use simple ‘maths’ such as counting.

  9. Dennis: this change likely signals a future shift in U.S. policy as the population is less likely to support foreign-owned patent rights blocking access or raising prices for goods and services.

    No doubt.

  10. You should adjust your figures. If about 60 percent of patent applications issue, and then only 1/3 survive through IPR (and CBM and PGR), then the real grant rate is 20 percent. The real cost to have your application examined is about $550,000.

    Very sad performance by the federal government.

    1. But, one thing to notice is that all of these cases Alice, KSR, etc. all feed the beast. All of them require MORE examiners and more judges. More and more to say ’cause.

  11. Interesting that the area most dominated by US inventors, Electronic Commerce, is the very area that liberal courts and liberal commentators are stifling patent protection.

    1. liberal courts

      That’s funny stuff right there.

      the area most dominated by US inventors, Electronic Commerce

      Nobody can beat the US when it comes to b0 tt0m-feeding! Hooray!

      Now watch this advertisement that was “determined” by a POWERFUL COMPUTER BRAIN to be the “most appropriate” one for you to watch “based on your commenting profile”. LOL.

      1. Gee Milly Math, do you think Milly that your math is better than the math of the COMPUTER BRAIN? Why do you call it a computer “brain”?

        You say that all are math. So, are you math?

        I guess Milly likes non-targeted advertising.

      2. eCommerce technology drives billions if not trillions of dollars of economic benefit, just ask the billionaires and millionaires about advertising, which you irrationally dismiss. One thing I have noticed about liberals is that they have an inability to self-evaluate. They all think their centrists. That’s why they think centrists are far right.

        1. irrational…

          inability to self-evaluate….

          Just throw in a massive amount of AOOTWMD and a disdain of the very work that you profess to do (gasp, create property rights for those grifters in the lottery,um, patent system), and you have your Malcolm.

  12. By the way, Dennis, TC 2600 isn’t divided that way anymore. Each individual number in the old system was a separate art area roughly the size of a workgroup, but they changed it so that each number was an art unit, and several art units all work on the same area of art. I don’t remember exactly when it changed, but it happened in the middle of the time period displayed in this graph. The uspto.gov listing still hasn’t been updated. From the internal directory:

    2610 Computer Graphic Processing, 3D Animation, Display Color Attribute, Object Processing, Hardware and Memory

    2620 Selective Visual Display Systems

    2630 Digital Communications, Optical Communications

    2640 Analog Radio Telephone, Satellite & Power Control, Transceivers, Measuring & Testing, Bluetooth, Receivers & Transmitters

    2650 Videophones & Telephonic Communications, Audio Signals, Digital Audio Data Processing, Linguistics, Speech Processing, Audio Compression

    2660 Digital Cameras, Image Analysis: Applications, Pattern Recognition, Color & compression, Enhancement & Transformation

    2670 Facsimile, Printer, Color, Halftone, Scanner

    2680 Telemetry & Code Generation, Alarms – Vehicles & Systems, Selective Communication, Dynamic Storage Systems

    2690 Selective Visual Display Systems

    1. Milly’s Math is spouting nonsense again. Get your matrixes checked!

      Insert into your maths that the nature of anything can change through automation. Of do you believe that cars are assembled exactly as they would be without machines? One example of many, many.

      Please Milly adjust your math.

      1. do you believe that cars are assembled exactly as they would be without machines

        You really need a vacation, Night Wiper.

        1. Tell us Milly’s Math why machines automating construction and machines automating commerce is not a good analogy.

          Tell us. Guess what Milly’s Math, you can’t. You post your j unk posts on here all the time but you can’t back up any of your nonsense.

            1. Milly never continues the argument when he loses. Milly’s Math runs. Run Milly’s Math, run.

              Gee Milly you really think that machines don’t change the nature of commerce by automating it? I think that anyone would make that assertion –which you have many times– is either very ignorant or a paid blogger.

    2. The patent system on which you make money is a joke only to the extent of the perfidious, intellectually dishonest hypocrites that are part of it.

      So if you want to improve the system, retire. Based on your Luddite understanding of tech, my guess is you are well past the minimum age to do so.

    3. MM, e-commerce, mostly Americans. One can see why so many US patent attorney are worried about the demise of computer implemented business methods. That is what they do for a living.

      1. I neither make in living on e-commerce patents (although I have made inventors literally millions on them) nor seek to undermine the patent system.

        I suspect you could own to one, but not both, of the two.

        1. Tour, the chart does suggest that most e-commerce patents are filed by Americans. It seems that outside the US, such patents are not patentable subject matter for one reason or another.

          After Bilski/Alice, they are no longer patentable in the US either.

          1. After Bilski/Alice, they are no longer patentable in the US either.

            3, the new 4, is STILL not 5.

            I note too that you choose to use the obfuscating word of “patentable” instead of the correct phrase of patent eligible.

            This too, is no accident.
            This too, is a shallow – and dishonest – ploy.

            You will eventually have to walk the path of honesty Ned Heller.

  13. I have written before that this change likely signals a future shift in U.S. policy as the population is less likely to support foreign-owned patent rights blocking access or raising prices for goods and services.
    Except that many US companies employ foreign employees/inventors, and many foreign companies have (substantial) presences in the US.

    What about foreign companies owned, in part, by US shareholders?
    What about US companies owned, in part, by foreign shareholders?

    Considering today’s global market/workforce, I think the distinctions between US and foreign are becoming less and less relevant to the public (and hence, US policy).

    1. For that matter, I’ve seen quite a few applications assigned to US companies but with some or all of the inventors listed as living in another country.

    2. For that matter, one must be careful as what one calls a US company.

      Big Corp for all intents and purposes is not US in the traditional sense, and any company that is even nominally “US” but that shifts significant cost factors overseas should be considered non-US for the herein mentioned “policy” concerns.

      1. You make a good point. Many large companies are alternately American, Irish, or Chinese depending on whether you’re talking about a sales, taxation, or workforce context.

      1. While perhaps witty, I think that your reply misses the mark.

        The US Useful Arts is more than ROW ‘technical’ or ‘technologies’ that would be affected by treaty obligations. That we allow CBM then can be seen as beyond treaty coverage.

    1. How would a patent “block access”? Is that like a baker’s installing locks on his doors “blocking access” to “free bread in the middle of the night” (FBITMOTN)??

      I shall confront my baker next time if ever I catch wind of such an “injustice”.

      So the new US will become the old China… (but not too old… the warm and fuzzy most comm-fy China)

Comments are closed.