Jon Dudas served as USPTO director for almost five years. He was appointed by President George W. Bush and left office as President Obama entered. The Foley firm today announced that Mr. Dudas has joined the firm as a partner in their DC office. He will work in their international enforcement practice. Anyone who has met Mr. Dudas knows that he will be very successful in his move to private practice. Best of luck!
Notes:
-
Tech Daily (Andrew Noyes) has more [LINK]
-
To avoid any confusion the "Foley" firm is Foley & Lardner, not Foley Hoag.
Foleys Firm is being SUED FOR OVERBILLING CLIENTS AND NOT REPRESENTING THEM? Dudas should have taken Harry Moatz and the OED staff with him. Moatz is fully qualified for fighting for the rights of those who overcharge and do nothing, in fact he puts his stamp of approval on it and even goes to the extent of degrading the victims. Grrrr
link to abajournal.com
To my earlier point, which was partially sarcasm about Dudas, can one get a reg number without passing the patent bar?
I think so.
Passing the regular state bar has nothing to do with being a lawyer either…ya, right.
I think it is embarrassing that the comments to Mr. Dudas’s employment have derailed into this same old broken record of an argument.
The point behind what MM proposes is what would the claim be for a non-technical invention? If the claim is written broadly and perhaps only claims a result without reciting how you get there, then a technical background would argubly be necessary.
1. A method for recommending movies comprising the steps of:
A. selecting a first movie
B. having a second movie be recommended in response to the selection of said first movie.
Obviously, there is no technical solution within the claim which indicates how such a method is performed. This claim essentially claims a result. Also, in view of 102/103 art, it would be unlikely that such a broad claim would be patentable.
Now, let’s add some meat to the claim.
2. A method for selecting movies comprising the steps of:
A. selecting a first movie for playback on a set top box;
B. conducting a statistical analysis using a hypermath probablity of said first movie selection wherein one of the variables used for said analysis considers at least one name of an actor in said movie and the year of said movie, while excluding the use of said title of said movie in said hpyermatch probability analysis;
c. determining a second movie title in response to said statistical analysis; and
d. playing back said second movie title on said set top box.
Ok, badly drafted claim, I acknowledge this, but assuming there was some legitimate part to method step b, this technical solution would probably not be something that the film student would know anything about.
Would this new claim be patentable in view of 101/102/103? Who knows, but I would bet that a non-technical person would not know how to argue around the 102/103 issues for this claim.
“Film recommendation methods actually involve fairly complicated math.”
LOL.
I must admit, though, I’ve seen my share of crp claims and applications for recommender systems.
What’s sad is that the inventor(s) is(are) brilliant — and did a bunch of amazing work, but someone like MM wrote the app. The patent drafter simply was not capable of understanding the invention, and it shows.
“I mean, for drafting claims for methods of recommending films and awesome $40 million dollar inventions like that.”
Your ignorance is simply stunning.
link to en.wikipedia.org
Also, scroll down to the external links (e.g., research groups, etc.).
Look, here’s a paper that your bro’ Raymond co-authored…on recommending a movie:
link to cs.utexas.edu
Hyperlink to the Netflix prize link to netflixprize.com was rmeoved from the above post. 🙁
“What about film studies majors? Is that a sufficient technical background? I mean, for drafting claims for methods of recommending films and awesome $40 million dollar inventions like that.”
No. Film recommendation methods actually involve fairly complicated math. If you think it’s easy, you can try for the . Good luck.
AWMM “That’s why user-centric design includes a small team of a couple users and a couple computer guys.”
And lots of cheetohs.
AWMM “If you don’t understand computer science, you will “design” something that is not computable.”
I think it’s possible to design something that is not computable regardless of your background. But it is undoubtedly true that a computer science degree is unnecessary to design a new “toolbar” functionality that is computable.
What about film studies majors? Is that a sufficient technical background? I mean, for drafting claims for methods of recommending films and awesome $40 million dollar inventions like that.
If he were good, the Obama administration would have asked him to stay. But, ….
“What “technical” background is necessary to conceive and describe a new “system” for organizing icons on a computer screen? Do I really need a bachelors degree in Applied Flowcharts?”
Yes. If you don’t understand computer science, you will “design” something that is not computable. I know this from hdard experience.
That’s why user-centric design includes a small team of a couple users and a couplue computer guys. Users tell the computer guys what they want, the computer guys tell them what is possible. After several iterations, you figure out what the users really want once they know what is possible.
But you would know this if you weren’t so ignorant of Comp. Sci. Then again, you don’t understand what I mean by “not computable” because you think Turing is a town in Italy famous for its Shroud.
Max, it works for a few years and then quickly wears off. PTO turnover is so rapid, and your “friends” that stay there get tired of listening to your complaints, no matter how nicely you try to spin them. One has very limited influence.
However, I will admit that firms in some countries are mistakenly impressed with the PTO experience factor.
“Maybe the pro-patent peddlers around here…why a ‘technical background’ is necessary”
It’s a serious question. What is the point of a “technical” background if, as some believe, any process is patentable under 101?”
As we know, the technical requirements to represent others before the PTO is in the CFRs. It ain’t the law. The PTO made up the rules under 35 USC 2 and the PTO can change the rules.
If business methods (whatever that means) are to remain patentable, then certainly a business degree could show a person is “possessed of the necessary qualifications to render to applicants or other persons valuable service, advice, and assistance in the presentation or prosecution
of their applications or other business before the Office.” 35 USC 2(b)(D)
Alternatively, if the machine/transformation obtains then perhaps a business degree is not enough to provide such “valuable service.”
Cut him just a little slack. Rulemaking was a train-wreck, sure – but he did a lot for PTO funding, growing the examier corps, and slowing down Congress’s breathless rush to pass the most ill-conceived revisions to the Patent Act in over 50 years. There is actually something to be said for a Director who is a political creature and well-connected in Congress and the Administration – something to be kept in mind for the next Director…
Just a thought:
In many countries of the world, law firms that enjoy access to power can command higher fees. How many corporate clients outside the USA does the Foley have already? How many more will it attract, and at what fee scales, now that they have Mr Dudas, and with him the perception within corporations outside the USA that Mr Dudas knows exactly which powerful ear to whisper into? Raises the question what more Jon has to do for his new master, other than repeat when called upon to do so “Yes, I was the Commissioner but that was last year. I’m with the Foley firm now”.
anybody that thinks the patent system has improved over the last five years…
has not been practicing for the last five years.
dudas is yet another example of the bushoid’s total failure.
Going off the scale…
In other words, nobody really knows (or, most likely, cares) about your obscure references.
Kind of like the sword of Damocles hanging over your head. (one of Dennis’ personal favorites)
Dennis Miller that is.
Ironic, everyone making such negative comments about Dudas, he did head the USPTO and therefore, as indicated by Dennis, was the “top man” in the US for patents, for five years. And what have you all acheieved thus far in your careers?
Let’s be serious, the patent system has inmproved during his time at the office.
“If you don’t like the guy’s policies, that’s one thing, but there’s too much of this junior-high nonsense. The guy seemed competent to me. Too many practicioners live in their own little world.”
You’ve identified the problem with Dudas, in a nutshell, without even knowing it. Dudas shouldn’t have been trying to impose his own policy leanings on the USPTO. Implementing policies to change/improve the workings of the USPTO is OK, but he went way beyond that.
Put simply, under the guise of “backlog reduction” he was more than willing to trample upon long-standing rights of applicants. Moreover, he has turned a deaf ear to the patent bar, who will be dealing with the mess he left for years to come. The USPTO is a joke right now, and it became so under his watch.
“Malcolm may have a point – perhaps not just a technical background is needed – but also a business background. Sounds good to me – I have that.”
What was the line? “Princeton could use a guy like Joel.”
“Good riddance” please. Have some civility folks. If you don’t like the guy’s policies, that’s one thing, but there’s too much of this junior-high nonsense. The guy seemed competent to me. Too many practicioners live in their own little world.
hmm,
Malcolm may have a point – perhaps not just a technical background is needed – but also a business background.
Sounds good to me – I have that. Does Malcolm?
…claims drawn to methods of innovating…
The above is an interesting torture of language and logic that only Mooney could provide.
“Actually, Dudas does have a B.S. in Finance, so he would at least be qualified to know about financial models. ”
Exactly, which should be all you need if you intend to prosecute claims drawn to methods of innovating in the finance area.
Yet another contradiction! I’m sure those who are so troubled by Bilski will want to see this illogical restriction on applicants to the patent bar immediately lifted. No wonder so many “business method” claims are drafted so poorly: people with the necessary expertise to prosecute such claims are being systematically discriminated against.
“Knowing how to apply patent law … has nothing to do with having a Reg Number or not”
Excuse me? It has EVERYTHING to do with having a reg number. What do you think the patent bar examination is all about?
Actually, Dudas does have a B.S. in Finance, so he would at least be qualified to know about financial models.
Knowing how to apply patent law, or conduct an examination is another matter, which has nothing to do with having a Reg Number or not.
incidentally Mooney…pro se applicants, like your buddy Michael R. Thomas, don’t need a registration number.
“Its a serious question…”
…why does a police officer have to train in firearms to hand out traffic tickets?
It’s a serious question. What is the point of a “technical” background if, as some believe, any process is patentable under 101?
What “technical” background is necessary to conceive and describe a new “system” for organizing icons on a computer screen? Do I really need a bachelors degree in Applied Flowcharts?
“Maybe the pro-patent peddlers around here…why a ‘technical background’ is necessary”
It tends to discourage anti-patent hacks like you Mooney from entering the profession.
“Dudas does not have the technical background to get a reg. number.”
Maybe the pro-patent peddlers around here can tell us why a “technical background” is necessary to patent methods of maximizing profits.
Dudas does not have the technical background to get a reg. number.
And if FL doesn’t work out, I believe people heard him say in his best Arnie voice, “Ahl Be Bach”.
“Hey, Jon, can you help us figure out who to lay off here?”
…starting with Mooney of course. Oh wait, he is already sitting on the couch eating Doritos and watching Oprah. His posts always have this annoying orange residue.
patent leather: “he’d have to get a registration number first”
That would be funny, I bet it would be a really high number… like 65,000 or something.
snake: “Isn’t this the firm that is being sued by two separate clients for negligence? Seems like a perfect fit!”
That was low class and unprofessional. I have no association with Foley.
no matter the salary, he is overpaid.
The (Anti-)Patentator: “I’ll be back”. Oh-oh.
or the “Anti-Patentator”
Interesting news:
John Love Retirement Luncheon – On March 1, John J. Love, Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy, is retiring from the federal government after 40 years of service at the USPTO. A buffet luncheon will be held in his honor at 11:30 a.m. on Thursday, February 26 in the Madison Auditorium. Get additional information.
Dudas will probably help Foley more with their foreign clients than their domestic clients
I’m sure Foley wanted the prestige of adding a former PTO Director to their ranks and offered him a non-equity partnership. He is probably making $250k/year or so (just a guess, I have no info). Now it would be true justice if they got him to prosecute patents! He’d have to get a registration number first, though.
“Anyone who has met Mr. Dudas knows that he will be very successful in his move to private practice.”
I, in contrast never having met the man, cannot understand why Foley – I thought a respectable firm – would hire him. This is one firm I know I will not use. And I actually used to think that it was a well-regarded firm.
>>wish I’d known earlier that he looks at least
>>marginally like Arnold Schwartzenegger. I >>could’ve spent the past six years calling him >>the Patentator.
That is pretty funny David!
I wish I’d known earlier that he looks at least marginally like Arnold Schwartzenegger. I could’ve spent the past six years calling him the Patentator.
– David Stein
“If he were given a honest job, I bet he would be pretty effective and probably well liked.”
Hey, Jon, can you help us figure out who to lay off here?
I used to have respect for this firm…
I would think he would be a great asset to Foley. He was very effective at the PTO. The problem is that he operated from bad faith–in my opinion–and his goal was to disable the patent system.
If he were given a honest job, I bet he would be pretty effective and probably well liked.
he is an asset to Foley?
The PTO Director who does not practice patent law – any one surprised?
Best of luck to Jon. He’s a good man and should be a good fit for Foley
“The Foley firm”? WTF? Was it really easier to write that rather than “Foley & Lardner”?
I was going to say it, but someone already did… good riddance! He tried to push on us lousy rules to decrease workload rather than increase quality. If they provided quality rejections, it would be much more difficult to get bad patent through.
Isn’t this the firm that is being sued by two separate clients for negligence? Seems like a perfect fit!
It will be interesting to see how Dudas does in “international enforcement practice” (whatever that means) at Foley. His ability to appropriately manage the USPTO as Director was definitely and unfortunately lacking.
Foley & Lardner. Isn’t that where Hal Wegner works? What’s up with this?
From Shakespeare’s Troilus and Cressida, 1609:
THERSITES I will see you hanged, like clotpoles, ere I come any more to your tents: I will keep where there is wit stirring and leave the faction of fools.
PATROCLUS: A good riddance.
good riddance!