- Today, the Antitrust & Competition Policy Blog is hosting a “Competition in Agriculture Blog Symposium.” Much of the focus will be on the interplay between antitrust and patent law in the world of genetically modified seeds.
- LegalZoom has brought low-cost legal forms and legal filings to the masses.
- LegalZoom offers a “provisional patent package” for $199. I have not tried their service, but the advertising indicates that the inventor completes a “simple online questionnaire” and LegalZoom then “create[s] your Provisional Application for Patent and file[s] it electronically with the U.S. Patent Office.” An extra $329 buys Attorney Review and Preparation.” Perhaps the most misleading aspect of their promotions is the discussion of “provisional patents.” Of course, there is no such thing as a provisional patent.
- LegalZoom also offers to prepare a utility patent application (up to four pages of specification and ten claims) for $3788 and a design patent for $899. In both cases, legal zoom relies on “expert patent professionals” to provide “expert review, advice and suggestions for improvement.” At the same time, LegalZoom makes clear (repeatedly) that LegalZoom is not acting as your attorney.
- In the past, Gene Quinn has written about LegalZoom alleging their unauthorized practice of law in both trademarks [here] and patents. Recently, LegalZoom has been sued in Missouri for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. That case, however is based upon LegalZoom’s preparation of a “customized last will and testament.”
- I would be interested in hearing comments regarding LegalZoom’s approach. Do any Patently-O readers work as patent attorneys for LegalZoom?
Have any of you actually seen what Gene Quinn is trying to patent? Seems like he wants to corner the market on creating a patent application through a computer. Seriously!
link to appft1.uspto.gov.IN.&OS=in/(Eugene+and+quinn)&RS=IN/(Eugene+AND+quinn)
Why is it that after the first 20-30 comments that are on topic people start to comment on each other?
I really like to know what other people think of the topic that is touched upon by Dennis Crouch, and I particularly can understand (or rather: can accept) that some people think differently than I do.
However some people that regularly comment on this blog seem to enjoy annoying each other. People, grow up!
Are you adult, civilized Americans? If you are representative for the patent field, I get an ugly taste in my mouth. As far as I know my fellow patent attorneys and examiners, they are all smart people who are worth listening to.
Let’s do that when discussing the issues here.
I am sorry if I offended you. I surely apologize if I did. Anyone being called a Mooney is clearly defined as ADHD. There is so much crap and role playing going on in another wise awesome blog. I feel poor Dennis wonders if he should change the name to kindergarten 101
And in your honor I will play Anita Bakers I apologize.
But the only thing I am guilty of is I am just like you. Maybe not as smart. But I too have a gift. Although mine is not found in books.
Sarah, I suspect that you have many gifts. One of them is the gift of perception. (But I’m not Mooney.) Have a nice weekend!
sockpuppetrousness
Now there’s a word I’m going to have to adopt. Fluffacious is pretty good, too.
Accusations of sockpuppetry are the product of tiny minds afraid to address the words of their opponent and fearful that they may be in the minority. Fluffacious attack comments are better characterized as trolling, and their sockpuppetrousness is irrelevant.
Calling someone a sockpuppet is Patently O’s own version of Godwin’s (L)aw.
Mooney, you missed out on the WE THE PEOPLE thread. It was quite hilarious.
Mooney if it was you making that not so nice statement. You connected a dot. I always like that game. So that is why I said Mooney for President. Not for the inference. Just for the dot.
You guys have to learn one thing. Women and Men say the same thing but mean different things.
You may have thought I liked what Mooney said. I only liked where Mooney led my train of thought.
And because of that Mooney I still think. MOONEY FOR PRESIDENT.
And by the way. I have been called a lot of things. But the only thing I am guilty of is I am just like you. Maybe not as smart. But I too have a gift. Although mine is not found in books.
Hey Beavis, she said “rack” heh heh heh
It’s still an improvement over three or four years ago when it was a virtual echo chamber of chicken littles swapping myths about the plot to destroy patents in the US.
The nihilist plot?
RWA “It doesn’t take a Columbo when you repeat the same message under different (“usual” or not, “rare” or not) pseudonyms.”
Can you show me some recent (last six months?) examples of one of these “same messages” being repeated by one of my alleged puppets? I’m not seeing them. I keep hearing about them, but I’m not seeing them.
On the other hand, I do see the usual sockpuppets demonstrating their usual obsessions with me, regardless of my comments (one sad sockpuppet couldn’t deal with the fact that I corrected an error in Dennis’ post).
Like I said, Dennis knows the score with the puppeteering. And it’s not my blog (as far as you know ;). If a bunch of whining patent teebagrs want to fill up every comment thread with false and/or unsupportable assertions and/or their sobbing about what an awful person I am for asking them to correct or explain their own comments, and Dennis is cool with that, then so be it.
Whatever. It’s still an improvement over three or four years ago when it was a virtual echo chamber of chicken littles swapping myths about the plot to destroy patents in the US.
You know I really didn’t see your unbendable manner. I didn’t realize how rigid you were, until I saw that dog on your blog.
Yikes! I thought I was being more discreet than that.
Have a great weekend, sarah! It’s been nice chatting with you.
“I think I know who does, though.”
Names, please.
mush much it’s all the same I don’t need to correct that type o
Good luck trying to even get close to the Rack.
You know I really didn’t see your unbendable manner. I didn’t realize how rigid you were, until I saw that dog on your blog. Then it all came rushing back.
And your advertisement you carry also tells me you repeated information that you were told.
You’re very perceptive, sarah. Some time ago I stopped having my own thoughts, since smarter people and I have already had better ones. So now I simply adopt other people’s thoughts. It saves time, but you’re right, it’s repititous. But usually innocuous.
I like your trade dress imagery, by the way. Very evocative – a beautiful, brown-eyed doe, and a gorgeous rack.
I’ve deduced two very important facts Hobbes. You are also Herman. And your advertisement you carry also tells me you repeated information that you were told.Although it was innocuos at best. And the advertisemant bites. It msde me see. And maybe a Sheep in Wolfs clothing.
And even a Rush Limbaugh style Sheep / Wolf at that.
I am not a Teabagger. But I am from MY newly formed DOE PARTY.
Deliverance
Of
Elected
And my Trade dress A full grown DOE with a full Grown STAG. And on the head of that STAG every point it could carry on it’s Gorgeous Rack, standing beside the DOE.
And it ain’t either or it is a continuos ebb and flow of those that serve as elected.And keep their promises. For the good of all people.
Coffee for me thank you
“It doesn’t take a Columbo when you repeat the same message under different (“usual” or not, “rare” or not) pseudonyms.”
Its a poetic reflection of Mooney’s own self absorption, that he doesn’t even realize that everyone can pretty much see the same angry little hack behind all of his puppet-posts, because he leaves the same snarky little fingerprints (which are also kind of sweaty and greasy too).
Thanks for joining the battle against obfuscation, sarah! We need all the help we can get, as the dark forces of nihilism and anti-patent obstructionism appear to be multiplying, at least via the magic of sockpuppetry. Your observation regarding the link between our ordained constitutional (R)ights and the Civil (R)ights that our forefathers struggled for is a most valuable one.
Hobbes you have a lot of information that is a repeat of other information. I do declare what you claim as constitutional, are in fact. and they are called Civil Rights. And they include Malcom, sock puppets, babbons, ignoramuses, people from all corners of the earth, includin you Dennis.
I meant to say “naysayers and obfuscationists,” of course. Sorry about that.
“…but this medium, this forum, has its battle code…”
And it is a battle well joined, my able and impassioned comrade in arms! Until the naysayers and obfuscations acknowledge the essential difference between (r)ight and (R)ight, until it is fully understood that WE THE PEOPLE have solemnly ordained the present patent system, even with its minor warts and blemishes, and until the nihilists and nincompoops masquerading as “reasoned” commentators, foreign patent agents, and the like, yield to the untrammeled and unrestrained hegemony of the United States patent regime, as conceived, defended, elucidated, and explained by Noise, AI, and other defenders of the faith (including, humbly, yours truly) – until that time the battle shall not be abandoned and we shall not retreat. For the retorts and snarks of “Malcolm” and his minions of sockpuppetry are but feeble blows in the face of the binding power of WE THE PEOPLE and the Constitution that we have ordained.
Point taken MaxDrei – but only up to a certain point.
If there is no rebuttal to the inanities spoken over and over again, the aphorism that you decline to finish much more easily reaches its actual conclusion.
The Trainwreck has, in part, its large readership because of the dynamic interaction – because there is a pronounced jousting. Sure, it does have its steak – but so do a lot of other patent sites – it’s the sizzle that sells.
I would also modify your “it takes one” aphorism by distinguishing “recognizing and combating” from “knowing”. While I have little use for straw (or rope), I will “sling” although not as crudely, but just as fiercely as Malcolm (which raises his ire and jealousy – as someone noted that it appears that Malcolm believes that such is HIS sole position to do), and it is in that sense I do recognize the danger of “knowing”. Such snark has carried into otherwise polite and genteel conversations. But I will not shy away from such tactics – you do not fight a guerrilla war by lining your troops in their bright red jackets in a nice orderly line.
There is indeed a war of ideals being waged. I prefer to fight for mine. As I mentioned to Mr. Hobbes, there is no shame in choosing not to do so, to limit your responses to the orderly and civil, but this medium, this forum, has its battle code. I’ll leave another aphorism for you to contemplate: All’s fair in Love and War.
same old games – now the key modifier of “usual”. I guess “rare” lost its impact.
As if Dennis telling means anything – so you use multiple computers or your dial in connection establishes a different “identity” every time you comment. It doesn’t take a Columbo when you repeat the same message under different (“usual” or not, “rare” or not) pseudonyms.
More misdirection – it was not required that you keep up with any discussions religiously, the point was that your comment about my absence was errant – like I said – same old Malcolm.
NAL, I don’t need to finish the “say it often enough” aphorism. Instead, I will repeat another one of my earlier offerings, namely: It takes one to know one.
Otherwise expressed: What people write about another very often reveals more about the writer than about the other.
That’s the primary reason why my unvarying pseudonym lobs a minimum of casual insults at other pseudonymous writers on this blog.
NAL: Must have been the “rare” occurance that Malcolm somehow missed the entire exchange on Constitutional (R)ights.
Oh yes, I keep up with those discussions religiously. They are so interesting. I’m sorry I missed your contributions. Did you “assail” JAOI or Actual Inventor?
Huhpuppet: Mooney. If anybody and their usual sockpuppets
As Dennis can tell you, I don’t have “usual” sockpuppets. I think I know who does, though.
“I personally have no opinion regarding whether or not you are a baboon. I honestly don’t think it’s relevant”
Objection, speculative.
(Satire) Rumor has it that LegalZoom has also released a beta version of a new product called BlogTroll. In it you can select which, of among a host of annoying and specialized characters such as Malcolm Mooney that you can automatically post under to specific URLs representing legal blogs in specified fields in an attempt to annoy real attorneys working in the specified field.
“What a pleasant relief it was earlier this week without NAL”
Must have been the “rare” occurance that Malcolm somehow missed the entire exchange on Constitutional (R)ights.
Malcolm is the epitome of “say it often enough…”
MaxDrei, please feel free to finish and explain.
Malcolm, just so that we keep the ranks of sockpuppetry clear, I will confess that “speculative, not hypothetical” is/was my sockpuppet, introduced merely to parody the paranoid fantasies of several (one?) other posters. I personally have no opinion regarding whether or not you are a baboon. I honestly don’t think it’s relevant.
“What a pleasant relief it was earlier this week without NAL and the usual sockpuppets clogging up every thread with their observations about yours truly.”
You tell ’em, Mooney. If anybody and their usual sockpuppets are gonna clog up every thread, it’s gonna be you.
*sigh*
What a pleasant relief it was earlier this week without NAL and the usual sockpuppets clogging up every thread with their observations about yours truly.
And then lo and behold they all return, nearly simultaneously.
“Malcolm Mooney = Gene Quinn”
No way, Gene is far better looking, and smelling.
Malcolm Mooney = Gene Quinn?
LOL.
Malcolm Mooney = Gene Quinn?
None of you will be asking Quinn anything, unless you’re, as Patent Hawk put it, one of his “registered supplicants.”
Does anyone really believe that Quinn shut down his comments (effectively) simply because someone called him “King of the Douchebxgs”? I assume he did it to keep tighter control over the blog contents while the lawsuit against him is pending.
Thomas, I’ve had many of those conversations as well. “I have an idea. I don’t want to pay you, but can you tell me…..”
Then it’s, “Well, I don’t want to risk the money, so where can I find an investor who won’t demand half of the rights?”
“So let me get this straight…. You want me to work for you without being compensated in any way, and then you want someone to risk their money for your benefit without any expectation of a return on the investment?”
“Yeah.”
“No.”
“Unfortunately, nobody advertises pro bono legal services for IP protection, so where else can they go when they can’t afford an attorney and can’t trust their potential investors?”
I’ve done some pro bono IP work for clients referred to me through my state’s bar association program for “low-wealth small businesses,” and I’ve enjoyed the work. The nice part is that the bar association does the preliminary screening for need and at least some chance of viability, and the bar association also makes it clear that the inventor has to come up with the government fees. Most of them don’t get past a search, however.
There is a difference, however, between “I can’t afford an attorney” and “I don’t want to take any personal risk but I’m not willing to share any of the potential rewards.” I get calls every week from inventors who want advice on how to find investors who will pay for the patent prosecution but won’t ask for anything in return. I tell them that I’d like one of those deals as well.
“Always the same chimps…”
I’ll have you know, sir, that I am a baboon not a chimp. Papio divolgatus to be specific.
I have seen a couple of LegalZoom applications, and they are about what you would expect for the money – definitely not something you would want to enforce on their own, but enough to establish a priority date. In my experience, that’s what many independent inventors are looking for – a way to plant their flag before getting into discussions with potential investors or licensees. Unfortunately, nobody advertises pro bono legal services for IP protection, so where else can they go when they can’t afford an attorney and can’t trust their potential investors?
“None of you will be asking Quinn anything, unless you’re, as Patent Hawk put it, one of his “registered supplicants.””
Huh. Am I the only one who finds it interesting that Patent Hawk’s name comes up in a discussion about the unauthorized practice of law?
“While you’re asking Gene Quinn”
None of you will be asking Quinn anything, unless you’re, as Patent Hawk put it, one of his “registered supplicants.”
Patented automation technology at that. Just ask Gene Quinn.
It’s not patented. While you’re asking Gene Quinn, ask him about Bilski. That’s what the examiner asked.
(hmmm – can a case be made that the absence of advice is a form of advice?).
Unauthorized practice of law, and negligence for failure to practice law? Ooh, I like it.
This leads to a discussion, a terse discussion at times, on why USPTO calls them Pre-Grant publications if they don’t intend to grant the patent.
Tell them it’s like pre-marital sex with a person you don’t intend to marry.
In that all it requires is disclosure of a preferred embodiment and payment of the prescribed fee.
“Legal Zoom and other services that “sell” prepackaged patent packages are taking advantage of improvements in automation technology that let them ask formula questions and then craft documents out of them.”
Patented automation technology at that. Just ask Gene Quinn.
LegalZoom pumps their $199 “Provisional Patent” on TV, and on their website using a customer named Leo Croisetiere. His invention is a “bait launcher” for fishing, kind of a cross between a potato cannon and a beer cooler. He has his LegalZoom video up on his web site at link to fishbaitlauncher.com. In the video, he specifically says he obtained his “provisional patent” through LegalZoom.
A quick search shows that Croisetiere has a published application on his bait launcher, number 2009/0056193, published 3/5/2009. The invention is clearly the same one shown in the video. Thing is, it doesn’t claim priority to any provisional application. Straight NPA filing on 8/27/2007. So my questions are, if LegalZoom is so great for getting a “provisional patent,” and LZ is using Croisetiere to pump its product, and he says he got his provisional patent through LegalZoom, why wasn’t their provisional good enough to use in a priority claim? Or was it never filed in the first place?
Smells like the barrel of his bait launcher.
Legal Zoom and other services that “sell” prepackaged patent packages are taking advantage of improvements in automation technology that let them ask formula questions and then craft documents out of them. They also are making money by providing information that is freely available on the USPTO website. The problem is that the USPTO website is tortuously inadequate and difficult to navigate. Given USPTO’s budget woes and other automation priorities, this doesn’t look like it will change anytime soon.
The Legal Zoom form asks many of the same questions that universities ask their researchers and inventors to answer on Invention Disclosures and Report of Invention forms. To fill it out correctly you have to do the hard work required to define an invention. The problem is that most people who aren’t in professional R&D roles may not fully comprehend the nuances of defining a new invention or the depth of the answers required to answer the invention disclosure questions, let alone adding the correct punctuation to describe their invention in one sentence.
I cannot tell you how many times I have had to say a claim starts with a number and a capital letter and ends with a period. PERIOD.
Then lets add a little vocabulary sabotage which is rampant at USPTO and in the patent world.
The word “patent” is widely used within USPTO to describe both patents and applications. It’s a sort cut term widely understood by those “ordinarily skilled in the art” – patent examiners, patent attorneys, and IP professionals.
Consider the phrase, “pre-grant publication” for the PG Pubs program of publishing patent applications. I cannot tell you how many times I have had to explain to people who don’t live in the patent world every day that these are not patents that are about to be issued but applications that may be granted at some point that are published to let people know what’s already in the pipeline. This leads to a discussion, a terse discussion at times, on why USPTO calls them Pre-Grant publications if they don’t intend to grant the patent.
Then add to the equation that prior art researchers are often at odds on how to use the PGPubs applications. Imagine how a small company or inexperienced individual inventor deals with the daunting task of doing a prior art search and creating a well documented information disclosure statement when many don’t understand that the patent applications may or may not be appropriate prior art.
Then add that using terms like provisional patent without saying that this is nothing more than a place holder to give you time to complete your paperwork and no wonder people are confused.
And then everyone is unhappy that USPTO is disallowing 59% of the applications it gets. Is this surprising?
What is lacking here is information transparency. When you have blogs that are really fronts for getting individual inventors to pay for their services, and services like Legal Zoom that are simply repackaging publicly available information into a more usable form and charging for the service and blogs that are exclusively focused on the nuanced legal issues of innovation, it’s not surprising that people would turn to LegalZoom for support. After all LegalZoom ads feature an “inventor” in front of a blueprint that isn’t even in the format of a patent figure and its customers tell you can create a business using your Mom’s Toffee recipe or make a will for that adorable Chloe, so why can’t you create your own “patent”
The answer to improved patents and transaction velocity at USPTO and beyond is to improve information transparency.
Erez Gur,
That’s a good question as to what LegalZoom does or does not warn their clients about. I do not know the answer.
In fact, any such “warnings” may easily be construed to BE legal advice – no matter what disclaimer is offered (hmmm – can a case be made that the absence of advice is a form of advice?).
As to the email – I do not have one that I would make public. Perhaps I will create a temporary one. If I do I will post it.
Had occasion to review a patent novelty search for a household article prepared by LegalZoom last year. We re-searched the art independently and concluded that LegalZoom’s search did include most of the closest prior art US patents. I can’t comment on whether LegalZoom should properly proceed with next steps in patent process. I note only that the particular client decided to hire a traditional law firm attorney to proceed further.
NAL,
You have pointed out one of the pitfalls in a less than properly written document.
The question is if services like LegalZoom warn their clients of these pitfalls.
By the way, do you have an email address I can ask you something about?
“Clearly it is better to do things properly”
Everything else after that is a calculated risk/reward business decision.
If you want full protection of the provisional date, your later non-provisional must find proper antecedent basis. If not – no date.
One of the biggest misconceptions concerning provisionals is that quality doesn’t matter – just throw something together. If you are going to depend on that date, think to yourself that you have to meet the Law at that date, for example, your provisional “dump” must enable.
Max,
I think that “real patent protection” is case-dependent and therefore can’t be defined any better than what you understand it.
I think that the scenarios I was thinking about generally arise from two fears:
someone else might file a patent application on the same or similar subject matter while you are doing a search or examining markets; and
word of your invention leaks-out as you discuss it with investors and engineers.
On the other hand, once you decide to really file for a patent you must do it properly.
Erez what does “real” mean here? Filing gives one a priority date which, if it pre-dates everybody else’s, is real enough.
If patents are, in 99% of situations, nothing more than a comfort blanket, and seldom litigated, then maybe having the boot on your foot before anybody else has got their legal boots on will give you the decisive advantage, in most business/investment/risk management situations short of actual litigation?
Which will usually be enough, for you to make your fortune, if your business idea is a good one, determinedly and imaginatively implemented.
caveat: This is the first I have heard of LegalZoom, I do not know the quality of the LegalZoom product and I do not know if the LegalZoom product is worth anything at all.
That said, I think there might be uses for limited and cheaply written documents roughly describing an invention and filed as provisional patent applications.
For instance, perhaps an Inventor wants to file something quickly before performing a prior art search, doing market research, engaging an engineer to actually implement the invention or seeking funds?
Clearly it is better to do things properly, but from a business strategy perspective it is hard to justify investing in a properly written patent application when two months later it is discarded because of prior art or because further research shows that the invention is not economically viable.
The biggest danger in this type of scheme is that the Applicant might mistakenly believe that this type of document provides them with “real” patent protection.
“The only way a claim can particularly point out the invention is if the attorney understands the prior art.”
100% wrong – “only” being the operative word simply makes this an absolutely false statement.
“Understanding an invention enough to compare it to prior art is easier than competently drafting a spec.”
The “invention” is defined by the claims, which “particularly point out and distinctly claim” the invention over the prior art. The only way a claim can particularly point out the invention is if the attorney understands the prior art. Attorneys who write claims without even looking at the prior art are leaving this task to the Examiner, which can be incredibly time consuming if the application has many, many meaningless dependent claims.
Once an attorney understands the prior art well enough to write claims that distinguish the invention over the prior art, the rest of the application tends to be fairly straight forward. The drawings illustrate the limitations of the claims, and the detailed description provides a description of the drawings.
If an attorney has no idea of the scope and content of the prior art, then writing the spec can take a long time because the attorney has no clear focus or direction for the spec. The spec (along with the claims) turns into a rambling stream of consciousness dissertation of any random thought that pops into the attorney’s head.
If all applications were allowed and done by large entities you might be closer to being correct.
I’ll give you a hint its closer to averaging to 3,800.
I didn’t imply anything, I laughed at you.
Wouldn’t say you were implying that my statement was in any way inaccurate?
Great, I’ll take your laughter as agreement, and assume I expressed myself in a particularly witty manner.
“6, do you mean to imply that one can competently draft a spec without understanding the invention enough to compare it to the prior art?”
I didn’t imply anything, I laughed at you.
“The median fees paid for a large entity is probably closer to $4,000”
Alright, more properly stated, incompetence taxes (for actions that often increase the PTO’s expenditures for an app) notwithstanding the PTO gets considerably less than 4k.
for which the PTO gets considerably less than $4k.
link to patentlyo.com
“The current prosecution fees for a large entity total to $2,900. This includes Filing, Search, Examination, Publication, and Issue Fees. Many applicants pay additional fees for late responses, appeals, petitions and RCEs. The median fees paid for a large entity is probably closer to $4,000”
And that’s about half of the pie. So let’s say the PTO gets ~$8k per application.
“JBC, you honestly think that it requires more time to read a well written piece than it does to understand, organize, and write a well written piece?”
Didn’t say that. You said that $4k barely covers you understanding the invention. I merely commented that examiners also have to understand the invention, plus do other time consuming things like search and write office actions, for which the PTO gets considerably less than $4k.
More Mooney comedy:
“Maybe not the case in art units where the spec is a flow chart with a couple pages of boiler plate and the claim is laden with freshly coined jargon designed to obscure its triviality”
Translation:
It’s so incomprehensible to me that I can’t even understand the words in the specification, much less understand what’s going on, but it’s clearly obvious because it includes a flow chart.
Another Examiner, thanks for the honest evaluation. Claim drafting is a skill that simply takes years of repitition to get good at, and it’s almost completely different from claim interpretation.
More than that though, simply telling the attorney what you’d like to see is very much appreciated. Even if you don’t know the claim language, just giving it to us in your plain English is more than enough. Besides, there are reasons why most attorneys had rather write their own claim language anyway. I prefer to do exactly that: have a conversation and get a little input, then propose some amendments (email or fax claim markups).
I think the most egregious error LegalZoom made was drafting one claim (just one) that included more than one sentence. There’s no way someone with a registration number wrote this.
To be fair, it’s a provisional so the claim really doesn’t matter at all. It doesn’t even have to be in there. If I’m getting paid $300 and change (minus the cut that LegalZoom presumably pockets) to do “review and preparation” of a four-page provisional spec, the claim is going to be exactly what the inventor answered on the questionnaire for “what do you want to claim as your invention?” Frankly, at these prices, I’m impressed the claim isn’t the exact same text as the abstract.
But yeah, someone with a registration number could at least replace the periods with semicolons and line breaks.
JBC, you honestly think that it requires more time to read a well written piece than it does to understand, organize, and write a well written piece? Grab a spec from IEEE, gather the major concepts, write some claims on them, and try your hand at writing a patent application just for practice.
I’m about to read another couple applications here. Let’s compare times at 5pm EST.
You’re not going to be done? That’s exactly the difference in price.
Always the same chimps hurling sh$#t at each other….{yawn}.
“Understanding an invention enough to compare it to prior art is easier than competently drafting a spec.”
Definitely true in the chem/bio field.
Maybe not the case in art units where the spec is a flow chart with a couple pages of boiler plate and the claim is laden with freshly coined jargon designed to obscure its triviality.
On those occasions when I’ve talked to the attorney about doing an Examiner’s Amendment to make something allowable, I’ve found it quite difficult to say how I think the claim should be written even though I know what’s allowable. Writing a spec/claims and examining them most likely require different parts of the brain (I’m not a neuroscientist or whatever, so I can’t say for sure). Don’t know why you’re laughing so hard, 6.
I think the most egregious error LegalZoom made was drafting one claim (just one) that included more than one sentence.
Wow. Just … wow.
If you care about having an enforceable patent, using LegalZoom is a foolish decision. On the other hand, if your budget is limited and you want “patent pending” for marketing purposes, maybe it makes sense. One thing I do know, it doesn’t make much sense for a patent attorney to affiliate with a program like that. The professional and/or ethical risk is simply too great. If you believe you need to affiliate with LegalZoom to avoid starvation, you probably need to re-evaluate your business approach.
I have both examined and prepared patent applications in my career — I was a primary examiner with 8 years experience, and I have been a patent attorney for 20 years now. Not to diminish the job of examining applications, but it definitely takes a lot more effort and time to prepare the average application than to examine it. Back in the day, most primary examiners I knew barely read the spec. They read the claims, diagrammed them, reviewed the spec. to the extent necessary to understand the terminology, then hit the shoes. The theory was that reading the spec. caused you to unduly narrow your focus, whereas if you just read the claims you could strategize the examination more broadly.
Having read the patent application written by LegalZoom and posted by Priorsmart, I think the most egregious error LegalZoom made was drafting one claim (just one) that included more than one sentence. There’s no way someone with a registration number wrote this.
Hobbes I don’t think it’s necessarily very difficult. Especially if those “useful and non-anticipated” methods are obvious.
Oh, once I load up the claim with a bunch of non-“limitations” using some new terms that I made up, the noob Examiner won’t want to spend time making a complicated obviousness argument. And if he does, I’ll make his/her life a hell.
/”ordinary” inventor, just trying to feed my kids, off
“You think it’s difficult to dream up “useful and non-anticipated” methods using those means? Seriously?”
I don’t think it’s necessarily very difficult. Especially if those “useful and non-anticipated” methods are obvious. But “difficult” and “obvious” are not antonyms in patent law.
35 U.S.C. 100 Definitions.
When used in this title unless the context otherwise indicates –
…
(b) The term “process” means process, art, or method, and includes a new use of a known process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or material.
enjoy
love how you admit that it’s far too complex for you
On the contrary, what’s most disturbing about the garrbage filed (and issued!) by the computer-implemented art unit(s) is how much of it is non-technical and obvious even to a “non-expert.”
Again, anyone can invent a new “app”. You’ve got your means for storage, your means for receiving and transmitting information, and your means for “processing” information and “determining” stuff. All the rest is gravy.
You think it’s difficult to dream up “useful and non-anticipated” methods using those means? Seriously?
6, do you mean to imply that one can competently draft a spec without understanding the invention enough to compare it to the prior art?
Because I did say “competently”. I wasn’t talking about LegalZoom in that instance.
“Understanding an invention enough to compare it to prior art is easier than competently drafting a spec.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
Wait wait.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
*Filed* by LegalZoom.
Oh sure, you laugh at their expense, but who knows whether this application would have made it to the patent office without LegalZoom’s expert services.
Thanks to LegalZoom, watersports enthusiasts no longer have to reluctantly risk the lives of their costly garments. (paragraph [0006])
And yet, there are those around here who expect the PTO to understand the invention, search the invention, and tell the applicant what’s allowable for $1k.
Understanding an invention enough to compare it to prior art is easier than competently drafting a spec.
Plus, if you want to argue that PTO fees correlate to examiner effort, you need to (1) include issue and maintenance fees in your calculation, and (2) explain why the PTO is spending less time on small entity filings.
“Someone’s going to lose some money on this deal, and it’s going to be the attorney who agreed to do a whole case for 4k. That’s hardly enough time to dig in and understand the invention”
And yet, there are those around here who expect the PTO to understand the invention, search the invention, and tell the applicant what’s allowable for $1k.
[/b]
Here is an example “provisional patent” from them (full file wrapper) — 60/911,234: link to scribd.com
4 page spec exactly!!! Like high school homework — is that verdana 14pt font?!
See link to priorsmart.com which says:
[0001]This application claims the benefit of PPA EFS ID: 1674987–Application No. 60,911,234 filed 11 Apr. 2007 by “LegalZoom” on behalf the Inventor/Applicant named Michael John Mulderig. The first of the PPA reading as follows: “My invention relates to the drying and storage of water sport garments and accessories, most specifically (though not exclusively), wetsuits and booties.”
*Filed* by LegalZoom.