Apart from the two positions that require Senate confirmation (Secretary and Deputy), the only top commerce department position not filled by either an acting chief or appointee is Undersecretary of Intellectual Property and USPTO Director.
Apart from the two positions that require Senate confirmation (Secretary and Deputy), the only top commerce department position not filled by either an acting chief or appointee is Undersecretary of Intellectual Property and USPTO Director.
Emperor Drumpf’s chief strategist, the white supremacist Steve Bannon: Lenin, […] wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.
So maybe nobody in the administration really cares about the PTO. After all, there’s a little bit of science involved and you know what means: liberal bias!
On the other hand, the opportunity to shovel some bucketful’s of cash into the pockets of the usual suspects will be extremely difficult to resist.
Maybe we’ll see the spigot turned up to 11 again. And an “executive order” declaring that Texas is a tremendous venue. What could possibly go wrong?
Oh, we shouldn’t even speculate about these things.
The rather odd – and officious – editing mode has kicked in again I see.
Never mind that the blight remains nearing 11 years, but pointing out the strawman of “science involved and you know what means: liberal bias! mustn’t see the light of day!
Hey, “anon”, since you consider yourself some s00per d00per serious expert on the Constitution: what does the Constitution say about a President who, on behalf of an advisor who has stated he wants to “destroy the state”, issues twenty executive orders a day demanding agencies behave in toxic ways and firing everyone who disagrees (because, e.g., they believe the orders are illegal or unconstitutional) causes chaos and suffering for hundreds of thousands or millions of people but pleasing his advisor and generally benefitting only the richest of the richest people in the country (and the world, i.e., the President and his partners).
Is this what the Framers intended?
Tell everyone. You’re a very serious person! And you h@ te this guy (or so you bragged to everyone, when you bragged about your “protest vote” for Bernie Sanders).
So tell everyone what you think, “anon.” Ask your super serious friends to help you if the cat’s got your tongue. Now would be a good time to hear your deep, deep thoughts. C’mon, man. Step up.
?
PTAB dudes must be fired immediately or even jailed for some time for abuse of office
Fresh from Emperor Tangerine’s Patent Maximalist Depot.
Your 0bsess10n continues unabated.
Just documenting the facts, “anon.”
I know it’s painful for you because they’re inconsistent with your (LOL) “alternate facts.”
I will keep doing this so get used to it.
I have no such “alternative facts” so your reply is nonsense.
Maybe try again without the nonsense…?
Remember that you read it here first: the great news is that Justice Kennedy is sleeping better because he doesn’t have to worry about all those lawsuits over Hillary’s email server.
That was some very serious stuff from the same very serious people who told us that judges should be impeached if they use the term “monopoly” in a patent opinion.
But let’s hear their suggestions for PTO director! I’m sure they’re very thoughtful. Because they’re really deep and thoughtful people and they only wish the best for everybody who looks just like them.
?
It’s apparently really difficult for a certain class of slow-moving patent maximalists (you know who I’m talking about: the Constitution-hmpers who sit on their hands and tell everyone to stop cmplaining while their favorite “preznit” proposes religi0us tests for refugee admission and flushes the country down the t 0 i let) to understand the distinction between (1) per petual whiners and self-dealers like themselves who never saw a junk patent they couldn’t defend and (2) gr0wn-up patent attorneys who can actually tell the difference.
Well, whoever they get as the new Director, I hope that they have 10 years of patent prosecution experience and understand how to improve the quality of patent prosecution and the PTAB.
One of the big lies is that patent practitioners don’t want to improve the patent quality as if that is good for our business. Nothing could be further from the truth. Better quality means it takes more skill to get a patent which favors the patent attorneys. Part of the big burn down was that Lee not only pushed policies to burn the system down, but was incompetent at fixing the problems the current system has.
#leewillgether20millfromgoogle
Bizarro supression by the blog c3ns0rs
One of the big lies is that patent practitioners don’t want to improve the patent quality as if that is good for our business… Better quality means it takes more skill to get a patent which favors the patent attorneys.
This is a good point, and totally accurate as far as I know. I would say, however, that it is not totally clear that it matters what patent prosecutors prefer. We do not decide whether to file an application—our clients decide whether to file an application. We do not pay the fees that keep the lights on in the PTO—our clients pay those fees. Therefore, there is little institutional incentive for the PTO to respond the preferences of patent attorneys. There is quite a lot of incentive for the PTO to respond to the preferences of our clients.
I am not sure that merely putting someone in office who has a lot of experience prosecuting patents is going to change the powerful financial incentives that encourage the PTO to be comparatively lax on the front end with examiners granting patents, and then comparatively strict on the back end with the PTAB canceling claims in IPRs. At the end of the day, the PTO director has to make income match outflow, and the lax-at-the-front, strict-in-the-end approach is the way to maximize fees that the PTO collects.
That’s because “we” (assuredly the Royal We) allow the condition of the Office not doing their Fn job right the first time.
A non-answer in line with this non-update:
link to patentlyo.com
Comments are closed.