Today, USPTO Director provided her first Post-Election speech that includes some thoughts on IP policy after Obama.
I believe the incoming administration must and will continue our effort to promote innovation fueled by a strong and robust IP system. Support for IP in the United States has a long history of bipartisanship, and there’s no reason to imagine that changing with a new president and a new Congress, both of whom have economic growth as a top priority. . . .
I’m optimistic the incoming administration will share our appreciation of the importance of intellectual property as a driver of economic growth. As I look ahead, I foresee legislative patent reform changes will continue to be discussed in Congress, though those conversations will likely occur later in the term after some of the other priorities including filling a Supreme Court vacancy, immigration and tax reform are addressed, and any legislative patent reform will likely be more targeted, rather than the comprehensive reforms we’ve seen in prior Congresses. I would hope any legislative proposal will take into account the numerous positive changes that have occurred recently in the patent system including: through the courts, including on attorneys fees, pleading requirements and discovery limits, and at the USPTO through the PTAB and the agency’s efforts to improve the quality of patents in our system. As far as issues, I predict legislative discussions may include venue reform and possibly changes to Section 101 and PTAB. On venue, with nearly half of the patent cases filed in 2015 filed in a single district out of 94 federal judicial districts, it is easy for critics to contend that plaintiffs seek out this district preferentially for the wrong reasons. And the mere perception that there are advantages to be gained by forum-shopping challenges the public’s faith in the patent system. So there will be continuing pressure for legislative (and likely judicial) action on the issue of venue. The scope of any legislative reform remains is to be determined, but I predict that the focus will be on more targeted, rather than comprehensive reform as we saw these past couple Congresses. Further, I anticipate that the USPTO’s work across the globe to ensure that other countries have strong IP protections adequate enforcement mechanisms and remedies, and appropriate technology transfer (or licensing and competition) policies, will continue in the next Administration particularly in such countries as China and others. This is a President-elect that has promised economic growth and job creation in our country, and IP will necessarily be a key piece to achieving that goal. . . .
I firmly believe that the USPTO is healthy, well-functioning and poised to successfully handle whatever challenges and opportunities lie ahead. . . . When President Obama was inaugurated in 2009, his focus was on leading this nation’s recovery from the Great Recession. One of his first acts was to ask the Smithsonian to provide for display in the Oval Office some patent models that demonstrated past American innovation that led to new jobs and new industries. The president said that throughout our history, Americans solved problems through innovation and IP. He wanted to see reminders of that every day as he encountered the challenges he faced. The Smithsonian provided him with three models: Samuel Morse’s telegraph (1849), John Peer’s gear cutter (1874), and Henry Williams’ steamboat wheel (1877). As I stood behind the President in the Oval Office earlier this year when he signed the Defend Trade Secrets Act, I couldn’t help but notice those three models along the wall to my left—still there almost eight years later—and feel extraordinarily humbled and honored. I feel that same honor and humility today standing before all of you and reflecting on just how much we have accomplished under this administration. I’ve been fortunate to lead the USPTO at a time when intellectual property issues have been front and center on the consciousness of the American public and President and to have had the opportunity to help guide the direction in a small way. My hope is that the President-elect keeps the patent models from Morse, Peer and Williams in his office as a reminder of the importance of intellectual property to the economic prosperity that I know he wants for our country.
Read the full remarks here.
This is like the Fox lecturing on the importance of chickens.
Almost like Fox Lee, Fox Google, and Chicken Small (non-wealthy) Innovator voting for what’s for dinner.
>>Dennis says: Unlike for Morse, Google’s patents do not seem to have been critical to its success.
I think this is an incredibly important issue. I think that this issue deserves an entire blog post. I think you are wrong. I think that the early Google patents were probably more valuable than any other patent in history.
You have had blog posts on here that have said they believe the early Google patents deserve protection.
Lee probably did not mention the Google patents because part of her judicial activism is to end protection for information processing patents.
So, the issue is what is reality? We know for sure that the Google patents are tied directly to 10’s of billions of dollars of revenue (the search still provides Google with 90 percent of its revenue.) We know for sure that patents encouraged the open development of the main Google technology. But, what is at issue is whether or not the Google patents helped Google exclude others from copying.
(Also, please try to control your paid blogger infestation. It is impossible to have any discussion that does not fit the template of an anti-patent agenda without being blasted. I’d go after the green things with four eyes and snakes coming out of their body first.)
I think MM and I are the only ones with the giant brains. But, his are evi1 and mine or good.
Well, one fact is certain, Stanford University, got close to a $1B in license revenue from google, and but for the google patent, google would have paid zero.
Funny the disconnect between MANY university incubator/innovation/licensing areas and the same university IP law teaching academics…
It is a total mystery who the misogynist white nationalist maniac elect will put in charge of the PTO. We can only look at who he’s been nominating to other positions and speculate.
Take Sid Miller, the current Texas agriculture commissioner, who is reportedly being considered for the position of Secretary of Agriculture.
Here’s a represenative tweet from good old rich white cowboy Sid:
link to 3.bp.blogspot.com
Lefties have an article full of wisdom for Lefty MM. But will MM ever learn?
link to vox.com
Rule #1: Never take advice from a misogynist l0 ser who supports a white nationalist maniac.
Rule #2: Never click on a link provided by 6.
Actually, I thought that the link provided by 6 was worded more in your favor and less in 6’s view, as the premise of the article is more in line with your views than his (and it was merely the “what to do about it” that differed in what you do).
It is very much worded in “his favor” it is written specifically by lefties to try to get lefties back to a position where they can win in 4 years. But MM doesn’t care about any of that. He’s perfectly happy letting the isms run rampant so that he’ll have plenty of victims to qq about.
I just learned something tonight that’s super interesting. The coiner of the term “feminism” was also a founding socialist. And an anti-semite. It’s a different Fourier from the mathematician.
link to en.wikipedia.org
The coiner of the term “feminism” was also a founding socialist. And an anti-semite.
Wow, that’s s00per interesting.
Tune in next time when 6 discovers where pee-pee comes from.
LOL – Malcolm only Accuses Others Of That Which Malcolm Does.
He never owns his own actions.
Ever.
News flash, kids: I read plenty.
You seem to be lab0ring under the impression that you just won some landslide election after a fair contest in which the issues were debated, and that because you won that somehow proves “you were right.”
That’s not what happened. What happened is that a racist mis0gynist self-absorbed narcissist path 0logical maniac was just elected to be President by a bunch of ign 0rant s x ckers and like-minded l0 wlifes (like you two). There are all kinds of ways to deal with that. One of them is to keep reminding people about what actually happened, and why.
“News flash, kids: I read plenty.”
Of gynocentric nonsense and self-reinforcing news media for good group-think. We know MM. You’re an old timer, or just about are, and it’s time to broaden your horizons and set down the gynocentrism.
“You seem to be lab0ring under the impression that you just won some landslide election”
What is it? 306 to 232? I mean, it looks like a landslide. It certainly wasn’t “down to the wire”. Though Obama did do better.
“after a fair contest”
It most certainly wasn’t a fair contest. Hillary had the media, their legion of brainwashed “muh victims”, the DNC, the RNC establisment, huge warchest, huge numbers of vag voters, huge numbers of lefty tw at-men, a gyn oce ntric society, the “firstness” of a woman pres, Obama and a hundred thou other shills, innumerable PACs, literal infiltr ators/sab oteurs/pro vocateurs, a hundred focus groups, and hundred retainers to dote on her, some minor email nonsense she insisted on hushing up etc. etc. etc.
Donald had some free media time he finangled for ratings, 22 opponents to blow through, a literal near admission to se x ual har assm ent on tape, half the war chest or less, practically no PACs, all the establishment republicans against him, meme magic, his fam and his balls.
You know who won. In a small landslide.
link to youtube.com
“That’s not what happened. What happened is that a racist mis0gynist self-absorbed narcissist path 0logical maniac was just elected to be President by a bunch of ign 0rant s x ckers and like-minded l0 wlifes (like you two). There are all kinds of ways to deal with that. One of them is to keep reminding people about what actually happened, and why.”
Everyone, including your own lefty buddies know that’s a lie though MM. Indeed, your comrade Bernie has denounced you. And they also know that “reminding” people isn’t going to do anything to stop the Trump train in 4 years.
link to youtube.com
The funny thing though, 6, is that Malcolm’s “swagger” is exactly the same when it comes to his feelings on patent issues.
Next time you find yourself in alignment with him on that topic, take a step back and think about that.
That IS the “swagger,” 6.
As I indicated, you need to pay better attention.
By the by, not only you, but Ned as well. Count the number of times that Malcolm has applied his “swagger” to Ned since the election…
I disagree there anon. If you knew what swagger is then you would as well. I don’t mind the way he does it, so to speak, I mind the subject upon which he is touching.
link to google.com..69i57j0l5.1543j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=0&ie=UTF-8
Part and parcel of the same thing, 6 – one does not come without the other.
Another Lord bends the knee to his King.
link to twitter.com
MM, I agree with 6 on this. I also believe that calling all Republicans racist is going to and probably already has had an effect. It has turned the Democratic Party in to a minority party.
Your jeering just never ends. I remember when you were telling us how HRC was going to whip some serious a$$.
Please just admit you are a paid blogger.
Bye bye Comrade Lee. Patent owners are cheering everywhere.
my practice is contingency and hybrid fee patent infringement litigation, licensing, and monetization throughout the United States
B0ttom-feeders rejoice!
Because all of those things tied directly to value from engaging the patent process are what? Somehow innately “bad”…?
Get into a profession in which you can believe in the work product produced (and yes, monitored).
“Monitored” ==> “monitized”
Any other awesome side effects from the election of this misogynist incompetent white nationalist maniac, Peter?
I mean, other than your big f@t tax break which you totally need because, hey, you’re s00per important.
Hey, Peter, whatever happened to this junk?
link to pacermonitor.com
1. A method of browsing a corpus of documents, each document of the corpus having a rank generated in response to a query of a computer user, the method using a processor executing instructions stored in a memory the method comprising the steps of:
a) ordering the corpus into a plurality of clusters, each cluster including at least one document;
b) determining a rank of each cluster based upon the rank of a one of the documents in the cluster; and
c) presenting the clusters to the computer user in an order based upon cluster rank.
Did you run out of people to threaten with this junk, Peter? How much money did you make for the awesome “services” you provided here?
the present method relates to a method of logically ordering document clusters for presentation to a computer user given some indication of the user’s interests
But the patent maximalists keep telling us that software isn’t logic! Oh, but they’re such serious people. Deep thinkers, totally not hypocrites or self-absorbed greedy shills who will do and say anything if it sounds good to their own ears.
How is your ability to copyright logic coming along?
How’s your ability to leap to the defense of the worst b0tt0m feederz in the history of law?
Answer: spectactular.
Once again you mistake my ripping apart your “arguments” with some type of “defense.”
Here’s a hint: use actual arguments and not your usual dross.
When reading Lee’s statement on patents –> I just can’t help picturing a fox lecturing on the importance of chickens with some feathers still swirling about.
Maybe Trump will nominate “award winning” biologist Peter Duesberg as head of the PTO. Seems like the perfect mix of Trumpian hubris and incompetence. Plus the added bonus of ticking off his “enemies”, which — as everyone knows — is one of the major driving forces of Trump and his party.
Read all about him here:
link to en.wikipedia.org
Duesberg’s views are cited as major influences on South African HIV/AIDS policy under the administration of Thabo Mbeki, which embraced AIDS denialism. Duesberg served on an advisory panel to Mbeki, convened in 2000. The Mbeki administration’s failure to provide antiretroviral drugs in a timely manner, due in part to the influence of AIDS denialism, is thought to be responsible for hundreds of thousands of preventable AIDS deaths and HIV infections in South Africa.[12][13] Duesberg disputed these findings in an article in the journal Medical Hypotheses,[14] but the journal’s publisher, Elsevier, later retracted Duesberg’s article over accuracy and ethics concerns
Oh, and if you want, you can find a description of Duesberg as “one of the premier scientists of our age” over at Trump’s white nationalist fever swamp propaganda outlet.
Duesberg, after all, was just “guilty of wrongthink”. So unfair!
“Oh, and if you want, you can find a description of Duesberg as “one of the premier scientists of our age” over at Trump’s white nationalist fever swamp propaganda outlet.”
I see you’ve taken a liking to Breitbart there MM. You didn’t post a link, so I looked up the “article” or “publication” that makes this assertion. It turns out this is just a random comment by a random id iot that MM is attributing to the publication. Nothing to see here folks.
a random comment
LOL
Totally random.
Right.
Shall we impugn your own biases Malcolm to Prof. Crouch, just as you so readily do with your latest P-match with 6…?
(or is that just one of the “features” of the “ecosystem”…?)
Shall we impugn your own biases Malcolm to Prof. Crouch
You do that already, shmuck.
And your post doing the same here does what… exactly?
And let me add a distinguishing factor: these comment pages are edited for content, shaping the message given by the blog.
Can you say the same for your direct statement?
Also: it continues to amuse that you keep rushing in to shield this misogynist white nationalist maniac from criticism. I thought you h@ted him? He’s cr@p, remember? You voted for Bernie Sanders, remember?
LOL
I did vote for Bernie by writing him in in the national election.
You confuse my ripping YOU apart with some type of non-existent “defense.”
That’s just more of your ego-driven bucketing.
my ripping YOU apart
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
It is pretty funny that you clench tight your eyes (and continue from your short script ad infinitum and ad nauseum).
Funny in that sad and pa the t1c sense.
When this incompetent misogynist white nationalist maniac gets impeached, what happens to his crony incompetent administrative appointments? Do they get to hang on and continue to screw up the country while they shovel cash into their pockets?
They’re all RAYCIST, AND SEXIST, AND MYSOGYNISTS (and any other ists you can think of). Opps I accidentally white people’s votes with ma RAYCISM.
link to newsmax.com
A better explanation of Webb’s comments.
link to foxnews.com
>>Dennis says: Unlike for Morse, Google’s patents do not seem to have been critical to its success.
I think this is an incredibly important issue. I think that this issue deserves an entire blog post. I think you are wrong. I think that the early Google patents were probably more valuable than any other patent in history.
You have had blog posts on here that have said they believe the early Google patents deserve protection.
Lee probably did not mention the Google patents because part of her judicial activism is to end protection for information processing patents.
So, the issue is what is reality? We know for sure that the Google patents are tied directly to 10’s of billions of dollars of revenue (the search still provides Google with 90 percent of its revenue.) We know for sure that patents encouraged the open development of the main Google technology. But, what is at issue is whether or not the Google patents helped Google exclude others from copying.
(Also, please try to control your paid blogger infestation. It is impossible to have any discussion that does not fit the template of an anti-patent agenda without being blasted.)
Who said it (at yesterday’s Roundtable):
[The USPTO’s] Weakening [of] patents, particularly in the emerging areas, by narrowly redefining eligibility is going to crush US innovation and push research in biotech and software invention to other shores. Already patent applications are being allowed in Europe and China on claims that have been denied in the US.
Already patent applications are being allowed in Europe and China on claims that have been denied in the US.
LOL
That’s easily the silliest “argument” for maximizing the patenting of junk that I’ve read in a long time. Which of the professional entitled whiners driveled that nonsense out?
You can get some really, really, really broad claims in Africa and the Middle East, too. Beware! Beware!
Lee has always been careful and cagey with her comments.
No surprise that she slices the balognia thin here.
The purpose of the USPTO Roundtables is not much different than what GM director Lopez did prior to jumping ship to VW on the eve of being appointed General Motors’ chief of North American operations. Heard that he visited many of GM’s European facilities to gain the freshest information.
Lee will likely use the information gleaned from the USPTO Roundtables, just months prior to her departure, to hone her lobbying efforts to legislate the strictest anti-patent standards under Section 101.
Lopez faced criminal charges. In contrast, the Revolving Door rewards those that rob the public.
I love keeping you engaged in the Patently O blog, because it keeps you off the streets. We are like a sticky spiderweb, catching the unsuspecting trolls in the fantasy world of cyberspace so they don’t wander off and do real damage 🙂
the Revolving Door rewards those that rob the public.
Like the lobbyist David Kappos.
Remember him? Somehow you manage to keep your mouf shut when it comes to youur rich white patent maximalist daddy benefitting from that door. Go figure.
Not the same anon, Malcolm.
I can see that now. I can also see that I’ve got incredible vision and a huge brain coming out of my head. You’ve got one eye and some kind of worm infestation. Just sayin’. 😉
Are those snakes coming out of your head as well…?
Ned has one eye as well.
He must be a “cohort.”
I admit it: you made me laugh with that one.
It was an odd edit to remove the shortened reply.
…and Night Writer also has those overflowing brains (but without snakes)…
rob the public.
Because turning the grant rate up to 11, unleashing millions of junky patent that diminish everyone’s rights, all the while stuffing tons of cash in your own pocket before, during and after is totally not robbing the public.
Got it.
Funny – the recent graphs from Prof. Crouch showed no “11”…
As for “diminishing everyone’s rights”, there is this thing called Quid Pro Quo.
Maybe you have heard of it…
(Do you still think that [Old Box] has ALL future improvements “already in there”…?)
, there is this thing called Quid Pro Quo.
Oh, right.
That’s Latin for “Disclose the function and get an entitlement to every method of achieving it.”
LOL
Not quite, but the “scrivening” is gen erally in line with statutory requirements as set forth by Congress.
I believe the incoming administration must and will continue our effort to promote innovation fueled by a strong and robust IP system. [that favors illegal monopolies over the legal monopolies guaranteed by the US Constitution as the USPTO, per our efforts, becomes increasingly the “non-patent” office].
As far as issues, I predict legislative discussions may include venue reform and possibly changes to Section 101 and PTAB. [As I revolve through the door to work as a lobbyist that proposes changes to Section 101 to assure that the USPTO becomes increasingly the “non-patent” office].
The Roundtable yesterday was quite telling as to what we already know.