- [UPDATED] Hal Wegner Reports the Following:
-
- Phil Kiko of Foley Public Affairs reports that Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke has announced that he has chosen the next Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The chosen candidate, who is being vetted, was not named.
- Congress is Moving Forward with Patent Reform:
-
- April 30, 2009 hearing of the House Judiciary Committee.
- Here are some comments on the testimony:
-
- Jack Lasersohn (venture capitalist): Venture capital requires strong and certain patents. The damage reforms create potential problems because sometimes a relatively minor product innovation will dramatically change the market position. “A new coating on a solar cell , that increases it’s conversion efficiency just a little bit, can dramatically shift the market for entire multi-billion dollar solar energy plants. A better drug on a drug eluting stent can shift the entire stent market. In either case, the question is ‘who is entitled to the profits arising from the use of the invention, the inventor or the infringer’?”
- Dean Kamen (Inventor & Businessman): patents should be strong and policy should be directed to support small innovative organizations.
- David Simon (Intel): patents are meant to allow manufacturing companies to fight each other – not for non-manufacturing inventors or their assigns to slow-down manufacturers. [This is a very rough paraphrase of Simon’s 13 page rant against non-practising entities.]
- Philip Johnson (J&J) on behalf of the 21st Century Patent Reformers wants money for the PTO, international harmonization (first-to-file), expanded post-grant review (12–month window), no change to the current damages system, only a codification of Seagate, no changes to venue law.
- Jay Thomas (Georgetown) argues that patent infringement damages are too unpredictable and that additional rules of evidence and practice can help solve the problem.
- Mark Chandler (Cisco) supports the reforms to halt the problem of non-practising entities who demand licenses.
- Bernard Cassidy (Tessera): Please do not change the patent law in ways that hurt small companies. The courts have already done enough through eBay, KSR, Medimmune, Microsoft v. AT&T, Seagate, Bilski, and TS Tech.
- [WRITTEN TESTIMONY.zip (3794 KB)]
- Absent from this testimony: Any representative from the Patent Office. At least three candidates are rumored to have been interviewed for the post of PTO Director – including former PTO Director Todd Dickinson and IP Hall of Fame member Mike Kirk. [See updated news above]
No representatives from the patent office? That’s surprising
The PTO wanted people to stop filing patents, and now people have. Suddenly, the PTO has realized that perhaps that wasn’t such a good thing.
All this talk of NPE and even trolls is ridiculous.
As long as an invention is “patent worthy”, you should
be able to enforce it and reap the benefits!!
Companies (Intel, Cisco) would like
to steal profitable inventions with the blessing of Congress.
The purpose of the system is to entice inventors to reveal their
inventions so others can build on them. The purpose is not
to maximize profits of Cisco and others in the IT industry
that are really not very inventive on their own.
The granting of a patent does not grant monopoly rights. Correct and far from it because it lacks the monitization to develop or gain control over the market that it creates.Big business likes to exploit this by refusing to deal thereby making it worthless so it can be picked up free.although not a monopoly it grants the exclusive rights to manufacture to its creator without witch there would be no invention at all and therefor no one would enjoy the benefits of it.The consumers are not obligated to buy the product so they should not have any complaint about the patent rights given the inventor because it is his intellectual material and if they want patents they can get one on their own brilliant creations of there mind.
As for the notion that the exclusive rights provided by a US patent are somehow equivalent to monopoly rights, Judge Rich probably explains it best:
“Ask the average man whether ‘monopoly’ is bad and he will undoubtedly tell you it is. ‘Ask him why, and he will say that monopolies gouge the public. To talk of ‘patent monopoly’ weds patents to prejudice, which is not conducive to clear thinking.”
That is, from an economic perspective (Judge Rich was trained as an economist), the granting of a patent is not a grant of market power, and thus is not a grant of monopoly rights over any inventions defined by the claims of that patent. This is not to say that a patent owner can not gain market power, nor that a patent can not help them do so, but merely that the issuance of a patent does not convey market power, and thus not monopoly rights.
“A patent does not of itself confer market power or a presumption thereof for purposes of the antitrust laws.” See Medimmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 427 F.3d 958 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (reversed on other grounds); C.R. Bard, Inc. v. M3 Sys., Inc., 157 F.3d 1340, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“It is not presumed that the patent-based right to exclude necessarily establishes market power in antitrust terms.”); Abbott Labs., 952 F.2d at 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“A patent does not of itself establish a presumption of market power in the antitrust sense.”); American Hoist & Derrick Co. v. Sowa & Sons, Inc., 725 F.2d 1350, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (“patent rights are not legal monopolies in the antitrust sense of the word”); Jefferson Parish Hosp. Dist. No. 2 v. Hyde, 466 U.S. 2, 18 (1984) (“any inquiry into the validity of a tying arrangement must focus on the market or markets in which the two products are sold, for that is where the anticompetitive forcing has its impact”); In re Independent Service Organizations Antitrust Litigation, 203 F.3d 1322, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“patent alone does not demonstrate market power”); Independent Ink, Inc. v. Illinois Tool Works, Inc. 396 F.3d 1342, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“the Supreme Court has held that there is a presumption of market power in patent tying cases”), cert. granted, 125 S. Ct. 2937 (June 20, 2005); Herbert Hovenkamp, Federal Antitrust Policy: The Law of Competition and its Practice §10.3 (3d ed. 2005) (“most patents confer absolutely no market power on their owners”).
Conrad Mazian says ” how many of you have done a study on patents? I have, and the vast majority (over 95%) are garbage, and should have never been issued.”
Conrad, please send us a link to your study report.
To conrad wile 95% are garbage the other 5% represent all of human advancement since we were esentially monkeys foraging through the woods looking for grubs and snakes and sleeping on the ground.All we see except ground sky and water is from 4inventors and many developers and workers.to co bloggers thanks I am trying to defeat this new proposal I think i will have to write the the new reform act bill myself to get a good one.I am e mailing and faxing the congressmen them but they dont respond.
Dera Conrad,
So says you. Stick it!, and have a nice day. Please see:
Judge Posner at the Federal Circuit: Patent on Sex Aid is Obvious
Heh. The simplest solution would be to abolish the patent system. There is enough evidence accumulating that the system slows innovation, that I think this would be a good idea.
Note that I do not expect this to be a popular stand, but how many of you have done a study on patents? I have, and the vast majority (over 95%) are garbage, and should have never been issued.
Dear Michael,
As Mr. Noise above Law noted, your posts are certainly improving.
Hay does anyone want to buy the worlds top patents Ive got all the worlds top unconcieved potentally and a dozen concieved on file.That is if your actually willing to pay for them.I have term to describe the opposite of nonpracticeing entities sipo stolen intellectual property owners or developer thefters not inventors.
Hey Anon,
And I’m in favor of increasing the terms of patents and halving the procurement cost.
Mind your own trash.
Sharon Barner is from Chicago, I presume.
Nick Godici mentioned Monday that a woman from Chicago has also been interviewed. Wonder if Windy City candidates have a leg up?
Interestingly, I note that on Tuesday, June 2 an address kicking off an LGBT exhibit at the USPTO will be given by Q. Todd Dickinson, former Director of the USPTO and member of the LGBT community, at 11:30 in the South auditorium of the Madison building. Perhaps Mr. Dickinson will be addressing the crowd as the Director-nominee?
Michael,
That must be your most cogent post ever.
Anon patent application grading on filing is the way to accomplish this raising filing fees only harms the little guy.Most of the filers will abandon a trash patent once they realize that its worthless.
Drilling: “It is a business/commercial/contract problem, and should be addressed within a different paradigm using market forces and existing legal and equitable tools.”
It seems to me that is exactly what’s happening here. It’s tempting to compare these provisions to so-called “tort reform”, which certainly was accompanied by a massive disinformation campaign and was driven primarily by corporate greed. In the case of “tort reform” however, it was more clearly an instance of corporate/business interests versus citizens (ableit citizens with attorneys, but ticks and bloodsuckers are impossible to remove from any of these equations).
That’s just not the case here. Here it’s corporate greed which is railing *against* patent reform. Sure, they may be smaller corporations but they are still corporations. The business model of these smaller corporations is just as transparent as that of the large corporations, except that the profits of the large corporations aren’t derived entirely or even mostly from licensing and/or litigation windfalls from other corporations.
You want to see a good example of “massive, biased, tinkering” in the favor of a well-heeled corporate interest group? Check this out:
link to youtube.com
I am in favor of halving the patent term and increasing filing fees by a factor of 10. That will clear out most of the trash applications.
Mooney–
I personally agree with you about the problem of crap patents. Period.
However, the problem “…of a patent being used to extract excessive amounts of money from product manufacturers…” is not a patent problem as such. It is a business/commercial/contract problem, and should be addressed within a different paradigm using market forces and existing legal and equitable tools.
Product manufacturers have no inherent right to exist, or to produce a particular product, absent specific government intervention and decree–at least not yet.
As the inventor of eBay, I also invented the package of improvements that are in the substance matter of this decision. I thought the improvements were a considerable improvement to eBay’s consumer attractiveness and that they were definitely non-obvious and significant. I’m sure they give eBay a decided advantage over its competition; therefore, they’re are valuable and in need of protection. Although don’t get me wrong, there are 275,000 patents per year that are total trash. Some of worst ones are submarine, thicket, and un-comprehensible. Assistance in solving this problem would be that the inventor must explain the purpose or usefulness of the invention. Chemical compound usages should be required for patentability. Plant patents should be denied when they represent an insignificant change or improvement on the existing. Marketability or Non-Marketability should be the determining factor. Another problem is Phishing Patents that are designed to jump on another person’s patent when actually they’ve only established a line of technical jargon that can be interpreted various ways (Layman Terms Requirement Needed).
“So would you agree that “the problem” is not with NPE’s per se, but with crap patents, regardless of who tries to assert them? ”
Pretty much. There is the also the problem generally, in the consumer electronics and computer-related fields, of a patent being used to extract excessive amounts of money from product manufacturers. eBay took care of that to some extent, but I think there is more that can and should be done. But it’s all part of the same problem: too many patents on trivial, obvious, abstact crap.
I certainly should be entitled to a chunk of that 42 million box office because I was the actual inventor of everything including the intermittent windshield wipers. Is there an attorney in the house? How about a movie producer?
Invention Thief:
I think you’re wrong on that. There’s of course the original inventor and the other invention thieves that stole it from me before you stole it from them.
According to rottentomatoes.com, the movie Flash Of Genius made $4234040 at the box office, so I don’t think members of the general public are grabbing any pitchforks over the plight of NPE’s and individual inventors. the patent bar needs to pick its battles very carefully.
Patents are for Big Companies to put Small Companies out of business. This way, we Big Companies thwart innovation and maintain an anticompetitive stranglehold on the market. Anyone who disagrees with me is a Patent Troll.
Sincerely,
The Invention Thief
The due diligence requirements and reduction to practice requirements of our present legislation are another method that allow big business to steal inventions from investors. This coupled with refusal to deal or partnership with the small inventors causes the theft of their intellectual materials by default. Conception intellectual property rights need to be extended to twenty years to combat this problem, otherwise the incentive to create in the first place is destroyed helping to cause a widening black hole in invention. Adding to these problems is that the government has no programs in place to compensate inventors for experiment and invention creation and promotes theft of the intellectual materials once they are created.
Patents are meant to allow manufacturing companies to fight each other.by truereform 8.53am. True story we need stronger inequitable conduct laws and compensation for wronged inventors.Statatory 15% minimum compensation for the conciever ensures just compensation.Absolute novelty is the only to correctly determine inventorship. First to file is not a first to file system with the allowance of 1 year discussion period before fileing. Its first to fuaud and the biggest pack of liars wins.
Mooney–
“The problem is the sheer number of crappy patents being filed and issuing to entities who do little but sit around and file crappy patents for the purpose of sueing people.
So would you agree that “the problem” is not with NPE’s per se, but with crap patents, regardless of who tries to assert them?
(The situation an NPE asserting a crap patent being particularly distasteful.)
“patents are meant to allow manufacturing companies to fight each other – not for non-manufacturing inventors or their assigns to slow-down manufacturers.”
in other words, you bake the cake and we’ll eat it.
Call it what you will…patent hoarder, patent troll, non-practicing entity, patent extortionist, etc. It all means one thing: “we’re using your patent and we’re not going to pay”.
for the truth about trolls please see http://truereform.piausa.org
Either Q. Todd Dickinson or Mike Kirk would be an excellent choice for Director for the USPTO. I would have a hard time choosing between these two. In fact, if they filled both the Director and Deputy Director spots, you would have perphaps the most dynamic management team in USPTO history.
… wonder what the new boss would make of this baby: 7,525,207
What is claimed is:
1. A system, comprising: a computer data center proximate to a body of water comprising a plurality of computing units; a sea-based electrical generator in electrical connection with the plurality of computing units; and one or more sea-water cooling units for providing cooling to the plurality of computing units.
Accepted without a quibble:
“There are inventions in the field that provide similar functionality and/or have similar features, as the prior art of record shows. Applicant(s) invention differs from the prior art of record by the combination of its technical features, which include water motion generator [NOT EVEN RECITED IN CLAIM 1], cooling arrangement and computer data center, which in combination are performing as disclosed and claimed, and which examiner search failed to find”.
KSR? What’s that then?
I claim:
1. A bistable mode of operating a patent office comprising: rejecting everything during a first period of time and accepting anything during a second period of time.
Malcolm,
which point are you proving?
you are foolish
you are a hobgoblin
you have a little mind
or maybe all of the above?
Snake Fist, thank you. Apparently I couldn’t help but prove my own point: a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.
Mooney said: “The problem is the sheer number of crappy patents being filed…” and “…entities who do little but sit around and file crappy patents.”
On behalf of all the actual attorneys, I need to shame you for suggesting that patents are filed. Applications are filed. Patents are issued or granted.
Iirc the graph of tech articles published is always exponentially higher than patents filed. Because they encompass much more than just your academic papers etc. And patent filing hasn’t gone exponential. Yet. Thank god.
I wonder how the number of patent applications filed by U.S. inventors compares over time with the number of technical articles published by U.S. authors.
I’ll bet that the two graphs would be very similar.
“The PTO wanted people to stop filing patents, and now people have.”
First of all, on behalf of West Coast Guy, I need to shame you for suggesting that patents are filed. Applications are filed. Patents are issued or granted. And I promise to never behave like such a tightass again.
But more importantly, has the definition of “stop” changed recently? Because as far as I can tell the number of applications being filed each month is still ginormous from a historical viewpoint, albeit slightly down from the all-time record filing rates observed in the last year or two.
6,
“Formalities. And I announced the choosing before this post yesterday if you’d been reading.”
It’s the vetting process. The Obama administration doesn’t want to announce now and get burned later by finding out (or having the press finding out) that another nominee doesn’t pay all of the taxes due.
“http://www.pirate-party.us/”
Have you joined yet?
“Is the secretary of commerce keeping the undersecretary’s name a secret? Why even announce this Hal?”
Formalities. And I announced the choosing before this post yesterday if you’d been reading.
I vote for
Michael R. Thomas http://www.worldsonlyinventorofsignificancearguably.com
the only man qualified,
to run the PTO.
I believe the word is that the second pair of eyes nonsense is going away and that examiners are going to be encouraged to actually work with applicants to find patentable subject matter.
The PTO wanted people to stop filing patents, and now people have. Suddenly, the PTO has realized that perhaps that wasn’t such a good thing.
Let the dust settle after KSR and Bilski and the PTO’s “second pair of eyes” before changing the patent statutes.
Is the secretary of commerce keeping the undersecretary’s name a secret? Why even announce this Hal?
There is little that can be done about low quality patents.185000 per year are trash because of the inability of the inventors to conceive high quality patents (there incapable of it).Of the few that are marketable there all fought over with all of them going into the wrong name.Until we improve inventorship determination methods there is no sense in the few? good inventors of filing anything.
MM says: “The problem is the sheer number of crappy patents”
The way to fix this is with improving the PTO. It can be done. If people sitting around on webblogs can 102 all these patents, then the PTO can be fixed. The problem is the PTO.
any time you have invention stiffeling proposals such as (trolls) patent litigation partner elimination inventors dont have the potential of getting paid. Companies will refuse to deal with independant inventors and try to hire so they can get a slavery employment agreement so they can also refuse to deal and steal everything from the inventor.If this doesent work then they can exploit his lack of ability to finance and steal inventions by his inability to reduce to practice.The non-invention practiceing inventor is vital to human advancement because those inventions cant be concieved elsewhere we need to keep them busy in patent writing.
“Restrictions on non-practicing entities could have unintended consequences.”
There are always unintended consequences.
But, more importantly, restricting the filing of lawsuits or the granting of patents to non-practicing entites is a very silly way of fixing the problem.
The problem is the sheer number of crappy patents being filed and issuing to entities who do little but sit around and file crappy patents for the purpose of sueing people. The crap can be taken care of at the PTO or it can be taken care of in courts but the volume of crappy patents is the problem. The occasional windfalls awarded to people who assert the crappy patents is just gasoline on the fire.
The solution is “stronger patents” only to the extent that if the crap is eliminated or dramatically reduced (e.g., the level of filing drops to a quarter of what it is now, at least) then, in theory, the patents that remain will be more likely to be valid (well-searched and examined and supported and, in many cases limited to, proven working examples).
“””””patents are meant to allow manufacturing companies to fight each other – not for non-manufacturing inventors or their assigns to slow-down manufacturers.”””””
Why all the sugar coating?
The concept these people are successfully forming is that patents are not for inventors. Patents are for corporations.
Further, patents are for corporations that are “competing” with product.
Patents are not for inventors.
If you are just some guy with a great invention, don’t bother with the patent unless you can commercialize it or unless you sell it.
Corporations are parasites.
On the bright side, they are about to economically kill their hosts.
Quick Answer on NPE’s in Europe (is there the same debate?) to Punches, from MaxDrei.
No. Because quantum of damages isn’t as high and unpredictable as it is in the US.
Malcolm Mooney,
“The issue of “stronger patents” is a red herring.”
I agree. It’s a euphemism.
“people like you are really corp. attorneys for mega corporations”
I can understand why some might suspect that and I must admit that finding myself on the “same side” of a megacorp in any context is always disturbing and cause for reflection.
But in fact I’m not on “their side” and I would like to see most of their garbage patents busted and invalidated and their applications tanked at the PTO.
The issue of “stronger patents” is a red herring. What is needed are better inventions and issued patents that are limited to those inventions (and not abstract ideas or collections of desired “functions”). Presently vast amounts of money is wasted on garbage, both in terms of prosecuting the garbage and in terms of dealing with the invalid garbage that gets issued every week. It’s obviously not “wasted” from the perspective of the attorneys and business people invested in the system of moving that paper around, but it is wasted when you consider that these brilliant venture capitalists (trying not laugh) could be investing in something more substantial than the opportunity to extort money from a megacorp or sucker them into buying a pile of crap.
Malcolm Mooney,
“Uh … yes. Because they are (to the extent there is such a thing as a free market).”
“Yes. A house creates a barrier around property for the exclusive use of the owner but it is also part of the free market.”
Malcolm, Just checking with you. Given your comments, I wasn’t sure if you knew this characteristic of patents.
Restrictions on non-practicing entities could have unintended consequences. For example, consider an inventor or a firm that would like to practice, but is having trouble raising capital. At some point their invention would become depreciated and therefore worthless.
For that matter, a “practicing entity” that drops a product based upon an invention would presumably lose the rights to reuse that invention later if they want to pick it up again.
Also — “reduction to practice” is a bit in the eye of the beholder. Making this a requirement would stimulate endless litigation as to what exactly “reduction to practice” is. Great for us, perhaps, but not so good for society.
MM: How clever.
But, what is your interest? From our experiences, it often turns out people like you are really corp. attorneys for mega corporations. What about it MM?
“Too bad Romney didn’t get elected.”
He’ll never be elected. But I sure hope he runs again and gets the Republican nomination. And I hope he runs on the platform of “stronger patents.” And also on a platform of amending the Constitution so that pregnant women are forced to stay that way until their babies are delivered.
I can’t think of anything more important for America’s future prosperity. Oh, except maybe for more torturing and a giant fence to keep the Mexicans out.
>>Is Jack Lasersohn a “little guy”? What about >>Scott Harris? Is he a “little guy”?
The fact is MM that Lasersohn and Harris are tied to the little guy. They make or lose money with the little guy. They are people that facilitate the little guy. People like VCs and attorneys that work with small companies (some of harris’s work was for equity stakes) are some of the best voices for the small guy and some of the best people that understand innovation.
MM, what is your interest in spending so much time on this board harassing people that support strong patents?
I agree that reform should wait. Maybe we will get lucky and someone who understands innovation will be appointed as the director of the PTO. And, maybe we will even get luckier and they will actually be a patent attorney who understands most of problems can be fixed with better prosecution.
Too bad Romney didn’t get elected. He actually understands that without strong patents our innovation engine is going to crash.
The actual reduction to practice before issuance of a patent is a good idea.
To remedy the problems associated with NPEs: What about requiring an “actual reduction to practice” before the patent can be asserted against an infringer? This would make sure that at least one of the patent owners in the chain of title would be more likely to be a participant in the marketplace. Also, it would allow the individual inventors to avoid being trampled on by large corporations, too.
This is an issue that could be addressed during litigation along with invalidity and infringement. Issuance of the patent would not be contingent upon the actual reduction to practice, but if the applicant presented adequate evidence, the patent could receive some special certification. This way, an individual inventor could still get a patent even if cannot initially afford to actually reduce his invention to practice.
West Coast Guy: “Your statement assumes that patents are part of the free market, doesn’t it?”
Uh … yes. Because they are (to the extent there is such a thing as a free market).
“Don’t patents create monopolies”
Yes. A house creates a barrier around property for the exclusive use of the owner but it is also part of the free market.
Please, WCG. Step up the game.
Now is the time for Congress to show its true mettle by not simply logrolling, but by forging a compromise that reflects the underlying dynamics of innovation that patents are meant to promote:
link to brokensymmetry.typepad.com
Malcolm Mooney,
“Gosh, Jack, it seems to me that the “free market” should be able to figure out where to invest its money regardless of how the damages provision plays out.”
Your statement assumes that patents are part of the free market, doesn’t it? Don’t patents create monopolies which are the antitheses of the free market? Doesn’t an inventor wish either to monopolize part of the market or capitalize from it by being the only player? Xerox enjoyed the fruits of its monopoly by eliminating the free market for copy machines, didn’t it?
Of course nobody wants to touch the third rail: this isn’t about the death of “small companies” who are trying to develop products and sell them. This is about the death of “small companies” who manufacture patent applications and very little else.
That’s what at stake: the business of manufacturing and selling patent applications. While the PTO and the courts have been doing their best to slowly release the air from the bubble, those most deeply invested in this business (primarily trolls in the electronics and computer industry) do their best to convince others that it should be re-inflated.
The fact that these trolls attempt to frame this problem as a “little guy” versus “big guy” issue is laughable.
Is Jack Lasersohn a “little guy”? What about Scott Harris? Is he a “little guy”?
““A new coating on a solar cell , that increases it’s conversion efficiency just a little bit, can dramatically shift the market for entire multi-billion dollar solar energy plants. A better drug on a drug eluting stent can shift the entire stent market. In either case, the question is ‘who is entitled to the profits arising from the use of the invention, the inventor or the infringer’?””
Gosh, Jack, it seems to me that the “free market” should be able to figure out where to invest its money regardless of how the damages provision plays out.
Jack almost seems to be suggesting that the patent lottery might not be as fun to play if the odds of a “megawinner” were diminished.
But surely Jack couldn’t be suggesting that. Could he?
1)
Not surprising that the ones supporting the “reform”:
Chandler, Cisco
Simon, Intel
Johnson, J&J
Thomas, legal-egghead from Georgetown
are either corporate cronies WHO ALREADY HAVE DEFACTO MONOPOLIES by being the biggest market player OR their Law Professor “Yes-man” (or yes-women -Arthi Rai)
2)
and those proceeding with caution on this “reform”:
Lasersohn, VC – (got to love that he has LASER in his name)
Kamen, inventor (guy’s awesome on so many levels)
Cassidy, Tessera (who cites all the relevant cases that are a result of the unholy alliance between law professors, big firms, and big corps)
Read between the lines… the cases cited by Cassidy clearly point to massive, biased, tinkering in one policy direction (I will let you guess at it).
In my opinion, Congress should wait a couple of years until the dust has settled following eBay, KSR, Medimmune, Microsoft v. AT&T, Seagate, Bilski, and TS Tech, and after a new PTO Director has been in place.
Question for MaxDrei–
Is there a similar debate in europe concerning NPE’s and smaller entities?
You must be kidding,
“I honestly hope that is just bad paraphrasing…”
Seems to me he doesn’t care too highly for trolls — the entities to who “non-manufacturing inventors or their assigns” refer.
“David Simon (Intel): patents are meant to allow manufacturing companies to fight each other – not for non-manufacturing inventors or their assigns to slow-down manufacturers.”
That is hilarious. It makes me want to run straight to the store and pick up an AMD based laptop. I honestly hope that is just bad paraphrasing…
“David Simon (Intel): patents are meant to allow manufacturing companies to fight each other – not for non-manufacturing inventors or their assigns to slow-down manufacturers.”
And here I though that patents were meant “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.” Stupid me. Turns out they are really only supposed to be for large corporations.
Comments are closed.