by Dennis Crouch
President Obama has announced his nomination of Merrick Garland to become the next Supreme Court Justice. Garland is Chief Judge of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and would bring tremendous intellectual firepower to the Court and is clearly more moderate many potential nominees. All indications indicate that President Obama is correct in his appraisal of Garland as “widely recognized not only as one of America’s sharpest legal minds, but someone who brings to his work a spirit of decency, modesty, integrity, even-handedness and excellence.” That said, there is little chance that Garland will be confirmed except perhaps after the election (assuming that a Democratic contender wins).
Samsung’s design patent case is looking like a strong contender for grant of certiorari. The court will again consider the case this week. We continue to await the views of the solicitor general in Life Tech v. Promega (whether an entity can “induce itself” under 271(f)(1)) (CVSG requested in October 2015).
The key new petition this fortnight is Versata v. SAP. Versata raises four questions stemming from the USPTO’s covered business method (CBM) review of its “hierarchical pricing engine” patents.
- Whether the phrase “covered business method patent”—and “financial product or service”—encompasses any patent claim that is “incidental to” or “complementary to a financial activity and relates to monetary matters.”
- Whether the Federal Circuit’s standard for identifying patents falling within the “technological inventions” exception departs from statutory text by looking to whether the patent is valid, as opposed to whether it is “technological.”
- Whether a software-related invention that improves the performance of computer operations is patent eligible subject matter.
- Whether, as this Court will decide in Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, No. 15-446, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board should give claim terms their broadest reasonable construction in post-grant adjudicatory proceedings, or should instead give them their best construction.
Jeff Lamkin and his MoloLamkin team filed the brief. [Versata Cert Petition]. SAP is on the hook for a $300+ million verdict if Versata is able to win this appeal.
The second new case is Tas v. Beach (written description requirement for new drug treatments). Tas is a Turkish researcher representing himself pro se in the interference case against Johns Hopkins. Interesting issues, but the case has no chance. No cases have been dismissed or denied.
I pulled up MPHJ’s response to Vermont’s petition (filed by Bryan Farney). The opening paragraph spells out the case:
This “groundbreaking” case, as Petitioner describes it, has been going on, unjustifiably and unconstitutionally, for nearly three years now – all because Petitioner has refused to admit or accept that its state law claims against MPHJ are preempted by federal law, barred by the First Amendment “right to petition” clause, and that Congress has decided that federal preemption questions involving the patent laws must be decided by the federal court system.
The big list:
1. Petitions Granted:
- Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., No. 14-1513 (enhanced damages) (February 23 Oral Arguments linked with Stryker)
- Stryker Corporation, et al. v. Zimmer, Inc., 14-1520 (enhanced damages) (linked to Halo)
- Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Michelle K. Lee, No. 15-446 (BRI construction in IPRs; institution decisions unreviewable)
2. Petitions Granted with immediate Vacatur and Remand (GVR)
- Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., et al. v. NuVasive, Inc., No. 15-85 (Commil re-hash – mens rea requirement for inducement)
3. Petitions for Writ of Certiorari Pending:
- Infringement by Joint Enterprise: Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 15-993 (can a defendant be held liable for the collective performance of method steps by multiple independent parties?)
- Post Grant Admin: Versata v. SAP, No. 15-1145 (scope of CBM review)
- Post Grant Admin: Cooper v. Lee, No. 15-955 (whether IPRs violate Separation of Powers; two amici now filed in support).
- Post Grant Admin: Click-to-Call Tech, LP v. Oracale Corp., No. 15-1014 (Same questions as Cuozzo and now-dismissed Achates v. Apple)
- Post Grant Admin: GEA Process Engineering, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc., No. 15-1075 (Flip-side of Cuozzo: Can there be no appeal when the PTAB exceeds its authority by terminating an instituted IPR proceeding?)
- Post Grant Admin: Interval Licensing LLC v. Michelle K. Lee, No. 15-716 (Can the Patent and Trademark Office appropriately apply the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard in construing patent claims in post-grant validity challenges?)
- Laches: Medinol Ltd. v. Cordis Corporation, et al., No. 15-998
- Laches: SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag, et al. v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC, et al., No. 15-927 (three amici filed in support)
- Biologics Notice of Commercial Marketing: Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc., et al., No. 15-1039 (Does the notice requirement of the BPCIA create an effective six-month exclusivity post-FDA approval?)
- Design Patents: Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc., No 15-777 (design patent scope and damages calculation)
- Design Patents: Systems, Inc. v. Nordock, Inc., No. 15-978 (design patent damage calculations – similar issues as Samsung v. Apple). []
- Inducement: Life Technologies Corporation, et al. v. Promega Corporation, No. 14-1538 (whether an entity can “induce itself” under 271(f)(1))(CVSG, awaiting government brief)
- Preclusion or Jurisdiction: BriarTek IP, Inc. v. DeLorme Publishing Company, Inc., et al., No. 15-1025 (Preclusive impact of ITC consent judgment).
- Preclusion or Jurisdiction: Vermont v. MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC, No. 15-838 (Federal court jurisdiction in anti-troll consumer protection case)
- Preclusion or Jurisdiction: Biogen MA, Inc. v. Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, et al., No. 15-607 (Whether AIA eliminated federal district courts’ jurisdiction over patent interference actions under 35 U.S.C. § 146.)
- Eligibility Challenges: Retirement Capital Access Management Company, LLC v. U.S. Bancorp, et al., No. 15-591 (Whether subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is a ground specified as a condition for patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b)(2))
- Eligibility Challenges: Hemopet v. Hill’s Pet Nutrition, Inc., No. 15-1062 (natural phenom case of tailoring a diet to a pet’s genomic characteristics)
- Eligibility Challenges: Joao Bock Transaction Systems, LLC v. Jack Henry & Associates, Inc., No. 15-974 (defining an abstract idea)
- Patent Term Adjustment Dispute: Daiichi Sankyo Company, Ltd. v. Michelle K. Lee, No. 15-652 (Patent Term Adjustment – whether the 180 day deadline applies; could bleed into admin law issues)
- Damages: Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entertainment, Inc., et al., No. 15-635 (Stryker/Halo follow-on – potential wait-and-see)
- Damages: WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corporation, No. 15-1085 (consequential lost-profit damages for infringement under Section 271(f))
- Jury Role: Parkervision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated, No. 15-1092 (“Whether and under what circumstances an inconsistency in expert testimony permits a court to set aside a jury verdict and grant the losing party judgment as a matter of law.”)
- Written Description: Tas v. Beach, No. 15-1089 (written description requirement for new drug treatments).
- Low Quality Brief: Morales v. Square, No. 15-896 (eligibility under Alice)
4. Petitions for Writ of Certiorari Denied or Dismissed:
- ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc., No. 15-639 (what happens with a finally-determined permanent injunction after PTO cancels the patent claim?)
- Media Rights Technologies, Inc. v. Capital One Financial Corporation, et al., No. 15-725 (Claim Construction: whether there a strong presumption against construing terms as subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112p6 that do not recite the term “means.”)
- Alexsam, Inc. v. The Gap, Inc., No. 15-736 (appellate jurisdiction over patents that were dropped from case pre-trial)
- Universal Lighting Technologies, Inc., v. Lighting Ballast Control LLC, No. 15-893 (intrinsic vs extrinsic evidence for claim construction).
- STC, Inc. v. Global Traffic Technologies, No. 15-592 (Whether marking the packaging of a patented article with patent notification satisfies the marking provision of 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) where the patented article itself is undisputedly capable of being marked.)
- Achates Reference Publishing, Inc. v. Apple Inc., et al., No. 15-842 (IPR institution decisions unreviewable, even when addressed in a final written decision by PTAB) [Note – This case was dismissed after being settled by the parties]
- Alps South, LLC v. The Ohio Willow Wood Company, No. 15-567
- Allvoice Developments US, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 15-538
- OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 15-642
- Fivetech Technology Inc. v. Southco, Inc., No. 15-381
- Tyco Healthcare Group LP, et al. v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., No. 15-115
- Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., No. 15-561
- Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd., et al. v. Eidos Display, LLC, et al., No. 15-288
- Kenneth Butler, Sr. v. Balkamp Inc., et al., No. 15-273
- Arthrex, Inc. v. KFx Medical Corporation, No. 15-291
- Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., et al., No. 15-559 (Commil re-hash – if actions were “not objectively unreasonable” can they constitute inducement?)
- Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., et al. v. Apotex Inc., No. 15-281
- Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Apotex Inc., No. 15-307
- Luv N’ Care, Ltd. v. Munchkin, Inc., No. 15-242
- Automated Merchandising Systems, Inc. v. Michelle K. Lee, Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office, No. 15-326
- I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL Inc., et al., No. 14-1358
- Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL Inc., et al., No. 14-1362
- Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, et al., No. 14-1473
- L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc., et al., No. 15-41
- NetAirus Technologies, LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 14-1353
- Muffin Faye Anderson v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, No. 14-10337
- MobileMedia Ideas LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 15-206
- SpeedTrack, Inc. v. Office Depot, Inc. et al., No. 15-461 (Kessler doctrine)
- Rodney K. Morgan, et al. v. Global Traffic Technologies LLC, No. 15-602
- Lakshmi Arunachalam v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., No. 15-691
5. Prior versions of this report:
Motion granted. Time to file petition extended to April 29.
MCM Portfolio LLC v. HP
link to supremecourt.gov
Issues: Whether PTO has constitutional authority to revoke a patent; whether a patent owner has a right to jury trial for invalidity; and whether a patent owner has a right to appeal the institution of an IPR in violation of 35 USC 315(b).
“right to appeal the institution of an IPR in violation of 35 USC 315(b).”
That is NOT the right question to ask about the institution decision.
Hilarious.
link to 717madisonplace.com
Various “anti’s” and their Echoes would be well advised to read and understand even this “gentle” reminder.
In light of Mr. Snyder’s efforts to separate himself from the crassness of said Echoes, I invite him too to follow the links (and read the CAFC decision within those links).
I remember the case from last year. You won’t like my take on it. Under my test, it should be ineligible from go because it’s an information result, consumed by a person.
Assuming eligibility (which is bad policy), there is no invention whatsoever. Anyone with an even basic understanding of web development could have, would have, (and did, no doubt any number of times) executed the same solution without ever documenting it, let alone attempting to patent it.
Kennedy could have had this “invention” in mind when he wrote:
“We build and create by bringing to the tangible and palpable reality around us new works based on instinct, simple logic, ordinary inferences, extraordinary ideas, and sometimes even genius. These advances, once part of our shared knowledge, define a new threshold from which innovation starts once more. And as progress beginning from higher levels of achievement is expected in the normal course, the results of ordinary innovation are not the subject of exclusive rights under the patent laws. Were it otherwise patents might stifle, rather than promote, the progress of useful arts”.
Your quote from Kennedy plays p00rly – for a different reason.
The attempt by the Court to fabricate some future “maybe if” only augments the brazen disregard for the (statutory) law – one of the limits of EVEN the Supreme Court is that there must be a present case or controversy – they “make it up” by attempting to portray the mere possibility (“might stifle“)
The score board is broken.
(plus your “test” is not the law – that’s rather important to keep in mind)
The Feds seem annoyed that the PTAB did not simply remand back to the examiner when they sustained the examiner based on grounds he did not rely upon and without allowing the patent owner due process.
Ned,
You of all people need to read that case again.
anon, twice the case has been before the Feds. Twice vacated, the first time because the PTAB did not designate its decision as a new grounds and itself remand. Instead of remanding, it did its printed matter thing.
I think the Feds were peeved.
Read.
The.
Decision.
(and stop making up new excuses)
To give credit where credit is due – explicitly to Mr. Snyder, who below states:
“Martin Snyder March 17, 2016 at 7:08 pm
Ned I agree 100% with your 5:10 PM comment.
MM, yes there is a lack of recognition of what Ned points out in the 5:10PM comment. You are happy with the policy outcome of Alice etc. and basically so am I- but I don’t think it rests on a solid foundation or goes far enough. Also I’m sorry for the hack comment, as for the swipe at anon.” (additional emphasis added).
First, he is showing a desire to actually proceed on merits – something missing from other LONG TERM “contributors” (if you want to call drive by monologues “contributions”).
Second, he is trying to elevate his own responses – that alone deserves kudos.
Third, he shows recognition of a desired ends NOT supported by proper means under the law, and innately finds this less than satisfying. STRONG Kudos here, as only too often those who should know better purposefully turn a blind eye to such a clear basis of trepidation.
Lastly, Mr. Snyder, let me again advise you to be careful of taking academic writings at their face value since such writings are unconstrained as to hewing to actual law. In particular, the writing you reference, while indeed meaty, makes a critical mistake in simply presuming without pause that the US patent system is a “technological arts” system as opposed to the broader “Useful Arts” system.
A non-sequitur I’m curious about: With discussions over the last few years, as well as sometimes actual changes in the law, around how to address the “troll problem” (take venue out of EDTX, cut back on patents on “abstract ideas,” the joinder change, post-grant challenges, etc), why am I hearing no discussion about a working requirement?
Rather than dancing around the issue, and causing all kinds of collateral damage to working companies’ portfolios, especially those whose innovations just happen to be software-implemented, why not just end the issue with a robust working requirement? Seems so simple.
What’s a “working requirement”?
It’s a requirement that you can only enforce a patent if you’re practicing the covered invention.
In India, if a patent isn’t worked, you can get a compulsory license.
The inability to get an injunction unless you practice the invention has some overlap, in effect, with a working requirement.
Wow, that would be a difficult one. You may have a defensive patent (where this is a patent you file so that someone can’t design around what you’re really making and patenting), for instance, that you could sue on. If a working requirement was the rule, then such patents could be useless. And, speaking as former in-house attorney, you might file on an application early in a design process that may ultimately not make it into the product. It’s still a good — even great — idea, but it’s not in your product. That patent is then useless.
Also, it’s very difficult to know exactly what is going to be important, especially for industries where it takes a while to get from idea to product. What you think is important on DAY 1 may not be important on DAY 567 or Day 793.
“Working requirements” show a lack of appreciation for understanding the basic nature of what a patent right is: a negative right and not a positive right.
Further, given that the vast majority of patented inventions are “improvement inventions” which can depend on items that the improver may have NO right in the first place to perform “positive” actions with, the call for such “working requirements” should be DOA.
That’s a good point on the negative right issue.
the basic nature of what a patent right is
The “basic nature” of “what a patent right is” is whatever Congress tells us it is.
There’s nothing at all preventing Congress from putting a “working requirement” into the U.S. patent system and there’s reasonable arguments out there for doing just that.
“ll preventing Congress from putting a “working requirement” into the U.S. patent system and there’s reasonable arguments out there for doing just that.”
Except for everything else I added, sure. Congress could even remove patents altogether.
But so what?
Congress could even remove patents altogether. So what?
You tell me. I didn’t bring up “Congress removing patents altogether”. You did.
My point was clear but here it is again since you seem to still be struggling:
Your statement that “Working requirements” show a lack of appreciation for understanding the basic nature of what a patent right is” is a complete load of baloney.
The “basic nature of what a patent right is” is something that Congress determines. In other words, there is no “basic nature” precluding a working requirement, therefore discussing “working requirements” does not show any “lack of appreciation of understanding” [sic] of this imaginary “basic nature.”
Get it? Of course you do. But go ahead and pretend otherwise. It’s what you do.
Your “point” was exceptionally wrong.
There is NO load of baloney in understanding what it means TODAY – RIGHT NOW-BASED ON EXISTING HISTORY exactly the things that I stated.
You are the one that interjected a future moving type of “well Congress can change things” to which my reply of yes they can, including the change of removing patents altogether directly addresses what you appear to want to say.
In other words, there IS a basic nature of what a patent right is.
Further, as I already mentioned, I added other considerations as to why a working requirement is fundamentally unworkable.
Your AccuseOthersOfWhatMalcolmDoes with “pretending otherwise” is especially apt for you.
What a chump.
there IS a basic nature of what a patent right is.
No, there isn’t.
But keep saying so! Maybe if you recite that script in all caps with bold it’ll magically become true. Then you can have a party for yourself.
“No, there isn’t”
LOL – you are so very clearly wrong.
Your statement as to what Congress may (in the future) do to CHANGE the basic nature of what a patent right is simply does not change the fact (or if you prefer FACT) that right now there IS a basic nature of what a patent right is.
There is no need to “have a party for myself” – there is a need for you to recognize reality.
Good luck with that.
MM, again, we do have the constitution and what it says.
1. Exclusive rights
2. For limited times.
we do have the constitution and what it says. 1. Exclusive rights 2. For limited times.1.
Gee, thanks, Ned. The Constitution says a bit more than that, of course but, hey … details!
Importantly, the Constitution lacks anything along the lines that “there shalt not be a working requirement for these legal instruments that Congress has the power to create if it wants”.
Nice try, though.
The “nice try” is yours.
Let me know when your future condition comes into being and CHANGES what IS right now.
Until that happens, you just might want to understand what IS right now.
It won’t stop you from being an arse, but you might appear to know a thing more about this thing called a patent.
MM, OK then.
We are talking about not granting, or revoking, a patent if the patentee is not working. This is similar, in a way, to not granting the right to market a drug unless licensed. It is also similar to not giving damages unless the patentee marks his products.
The question is not really the power of Congress here, the question is whether the requirement of working includes not working because others have simply stolen the market like Microsoft or SAP did in i4i and Versata respectfully.
If by that you mean the inventor must present a working prototype to the patent office, its not practical and not necessary.
What if the invention is a 14 ton cold fusion reactor? How does one lug that into the examiner’s office?
Furthermore, the inventor might not have the funds to build such a prototype and might need the protection of a patent in order to pitch the invention to funding sources and to provide a level of security to the funders. This is one way Patents achieve their goal of promoting progress.
Additionally, there is no real point to the requirement. If an invention get patented that doesn’t really work, whats the harm. No one else will want to make it anyway. It doesn’t work.
It is decidedly an unAmerican concept, as the Quid Pro Quo has never included actually having the “positive” aspect (even if “models” may have once been ‘requested’).
unAmerican concept
ROTFLMAO
even if “models” may have once been ‘requested’
They were requested. In America. Oh noes!!!
You do realize the difference between a single model and the working requirement, right?
Or are you just Tr011img the post because it was made by “anon”…?
You do realize the difference between a single model and the working requirement,
Yes I do.
You do realize that “working requirements” aren’t “unAmerican”, right?
LOLOLOLOLOL
Wave that flag, Mr. Patriot. You’re totally not a Republican!
You mantra of “Republican” is most odd.
The anti-patent crowd never had any interest in fixing the system, but burning it down. Google and Lemley have gotten their way.
The anti-patent crowd never had any interest in fixing the system, but burning it down. Google and Lemley have gotten their way.
300,000 patent grants a year is “burnt down”?
You funny.
86% of business method claims invalidated. It takes time to burn down Rome.
Further,
He again makes the mistake of thinking that those to whom advantage would inure in making patents weak (to paraphrase the “burning down”) would not also STILL use the patent system WHILE they are seeking to “burn down” that very system.
As is evident (even though eyes remain tightly clenched) with the advocacy of the pejorative “Tr011” – emphasized first and most greatly by Big Corp – one must take a step back and T H I N K about who benefits most from a weaker patent system.
Hint: it is NOT the public.
It is merely those that would seek to compete on NON-innovation terms – who are afraid of the fact that innovation can include not merely incremental innovation but gut-wrenching disruptive innovation.
What is “funny” is that this implied dichotomy that Malcolm wishes to make fun of has been explained to him.
He
Just
Does
Not
Care
(and that is the type of “ec(h)osystem” that Malcolm aspires for)
NWPA 86% of business method claims invalidated.
Awesome.
It’ll be even more awesome when it’s 100%.
Non S, would this “working requirement” include circumstances such as found in i4i v. Microsoft or Versata v. SAP where software developer was driven out/prevented from operating by deliberate piracy?
Besides the already noted fact that we already have the eBay restriction on injunctions by NPEs, “working requirement” compulsory licensing would be unfair to university patent revenue, and universities alone have sufficient Congressional influence to preclude such an enactment.
In any case, “working requirement” compulsory licensing would still leave costly U.S.litigation over the % amount and/or total cost of the license. Most patent troll revenues have been from the vast majority of defendants making settlement payments to avoid litigation costs, especially before IPRs became available.
*eBay denial of an injunction is not the same as “working requirement” compulsory licensing because statutory enhanced damages can be available in the U.S. for far more.
Great points, Paul. Undoubtedly any sort of “working requirement” modifications to the system would be tailored to accomodate the participants whom the public deems are contributing to progress in a meaningful way. That would surely include universities doing R&D.
Licensees of patents describing innovations made by others (e.g., universities), where those licensees are doing nothing except generating lawsuits … that’s another class of participants entirely, as everyone knows.
Paul, I don’t believe we are taking here about a compulsory license for money. I think we are talking about revoking the patent for non working — that is exactly what happened in England when the Privy Council was still in charge.
Most modern patent working requirements I ran into, incl. some South American countries, do not revoke the patent for non-working, they just subject it to mandatory licensing.
Then, Paul, I assume the mandatory licensing is not royalty free.
Interesting article on gender at the PTO. Turns out lady inventors are suffering more at the hands of their fellow lady examiners. And of course the evil patriarchy is much better to lady inventors than the lady examiners are and even better still to their fellow patriarchs.
link to abovethelaw.com
So if you’re a female with a zillion dollar invention and you want to minimize the likelihood of getting tanked at the PTO (the excuse for all kinds of dubious attorney behavior), probably totally worth it to get gender reassignment surgery.
Or just change your first name to Harold.
Human nature is human nature.
However, an interesting study would see if there are trends over time as society as a whole becomes more accepting of women non traditional roles. I would think that the same study conducted in Saudi Arabia would produce significantly different results.
Human nature is human nature.
I think it’s a big leap to assume this data has anything to do with “human nature”, at least at the personal level between Examiners and inventors (who usually never interact with each other).
For example, at least some of the observed difference could be to the fact that, on average, women get paid less and are less likely to be CEOs or in authority positions within companies. As a result, their applications are less likely to be given “top shelf”/priority treatment, at both the drafting and prosecution stages.
“For example, at least some of the observed difference could be to the fact that, on average, women get paid less and are less likely to be CEOs or in authority positions within companies. As a result, their applications are less likely to be given “top shelf”/priority treatment, at both the drafting and prosecution stages.”
That seems like an extremely long shot.
6: That seems like an extremely long shot.
Relative to the weird “human nature” theory? I don’t think so at all.
Is it is a “long shot” that companies put more muscle/time behind patent applications that are deemed “more important” to the company (for whatever reason)? Nope, that’s just a fact.
Is it a “long shot” that “more important” innovations are likely to be attributed to higher paid researchers/developers as opposed to those on the bottom rungs? Nope. That’s just a fact.
Is it a “long shot” that women are statistically more likely to be on the lower tiers than men? Nope. That’s just a fact.
Is it a “long shot” that better-drafted and more forcefully argued applications are more likely to be allowed than some hastily drafted application scrabbled together to meet a quote? Nope. That’s just a fact.
If there’s a “long shot” here, it had better be the proposition that Examiners look at the inventor’s name and (consciously or not) change their standards based on the sex of that inventor. I mean, seriously??
“Is it a “long shot” that better-drafted and more forcefully argued applications are more likely to be allowed than some hastily drafted application scrabbled together to meet a quote? Nope. That’s just a fact.”
Nice straw – who was arguing otherwise….?
“Is it a “long shot” that women are statistically more likely to be on the lower tiers than men? ”
I’ve seen no evidence of this in the context of inventors.
And like I said, it’s a long shot. The reason is because even presuming all those things fall perfectly into place they’d only explain why women fair less well at the office period, as opposed to accounting for women inventors fairing even less well in front of women examiners in particular. Since the data breaks down differently (because of how well women fair in front of men examiners as opposed to female examiners) its fairly clear that your explanation might be a small piece of the puzzle, but it practically cannot be a dominant factor.
“Is it a “long shot” that better-drafted and more forcefully argued applications are more likely to be allowed than some hastily drafted application scrabbled together to meet a quote? Nope. That’s just a fact.”
That doesn’t seem to have have much to do with the inventor, that’s more attorney/agent stuff.
“If there’s a “long shot” here, it had better be the proposition that Examiners look at the inventor’s name and (consciously or not) change their standards based on the sex of that inventor.”
I agree that is also a long shot. A ridiculous long shot.
“as opposed to accounting for women inventors fairing even less well in front of women examiners in particular.”
I tried pointing that out to him and he went ballistic….
“Go figure”
“I tried pointing that out to him and he went ballistic….”
Gendered issues often do that to folks, especially if they’re even partly liberal.
6,
That is called being irrational.
For all the “fun” you have using labels of “meds” or “ill,” you sure seem slow to recognize when it is actually present.
“Is it a “long shot” that women are statistically more likely to be on the lower tiers than men? ”
6: I’ve seen no evidence of this in the context of inventors.
Gee, that’s nice. Unfortunately it doesn’t really matter what you’ve “seen”. Did you try looking for it, by the way?
Let’s save us all some time. The answer to the question is: “it’s not a long shot at all.”
If you have evidence showing that, on average, women working at “tech companies” or universities are paid equal or higher to men or have more responsibility then men, or they are in higher authority positions then men, I’d love to see that. But you don’t have the evidence because (surprise!!) it doesn’t exist.
Brosef, my lack of evidence against your position does not mean you have evidence for your position.
“Is it a “long shot” that better-drafted and more forcefully argued applications are more likely to be allowed than some hastily drafted application scrabbled together to meet a quote? Nope. That’s just a fact.”
That doesn’t seem to have have much to do with the inventor, that’s more attorney/agent stuff.
What? Try to follow the logic, 6. It’s not that difficult. Lower rung->less resources->worse application/lessforce->less allowance.
your explanation might be a small piece of the puzzle
Not “might be”. It is certainly a piece of the puzzle. And the only remaining piece is accounting for a small statistical difference among (allegedly) male examiners and (allegedly) female examiners who are examining applications of differing quality.
Love the comment about “going ballistic” by the way. You and “anon” make a funny team.
But you sure do know a lot about women! They must really love you.
LOL
“What? Try to follow the logic, 6. It’s not that difficult. Lower rung->less resources->worse application/lessforce->less allowance.”
Yeah I understand the “females as a victim” “logic”, its pretty easy to spot a mile away. I just don’t think that there is enough evidence to support the basic premise, nor do I think the logic necessarily is playing out in real life. A lot of things that could be happening would seem logical, for instance, more women getting married so as to increase their own and their family’s wealth, but just because it’s logical doesn’t mean it’s happening irl. Instead I prefer to observe the world around me and take a realistic view.
MM, assume you are right that the inventions of women are given less attention by their companies, then we do have a legitimate debate as to why that is. That is why I suggested that a study over time might be revealing showing a trend upwards as women in society are accepted.
A comparison study to other locations that are notorious for their non acceptance of women outside of traditional roles would also be of interest here.
Interesting to see the juxtaposition between Ned’s “might be revealing showing a trend upwards as women in society are accepted.” and 6’s “I daresay that we’re all maxed out on “acceptance” of women in non-traditional roles.”
However, remembering 6’s gen eral nature of misogyny, the difference is easily recognized.
Ned: assume you are right that the inventions of women are given less attention by their companies, then we do have a legitimate debate as to why that is.
There’s no “debate” and it has nothing to do with inventions of “women” and everything to do with inventions of people at companies who are less likely to higher on the corporate ladder. Statistically women are more likely to fall into that category, but so are minorities. In fact, you could do a study with “minority names” instead of female names and you’d likely come up a similar pattern. Would that reflect some kind of weird0 self-l0athing among “minority” examiners? Of course it wouldn’t.
“In fact, you could do a study with “minority names” instead of female names and you’d likely come up a similar pattern. ”
Actually probably not, which would also show why your “liberal logic” view likely falls apart, at least in large part. There are too many foreign folks applying for patents at the office (and thus would be “minority” people in the analysis) that the effect would likely be barely noticeable.
MM, on further consideration, I believe you are right about women inventors. This may also mean that women examiners may be more qualified than their male equivalents, leading to better examination on the average.
I daresay that we’re all maxed out on “acceptance” of women in non-traditional roles (both male and females actually, and of both male and females in different roles). I doubt this has anything much to do with that at all, if anything females probably get a little boost from pro-women acceptance in the field. Plus, practically nobody pays attention to who their applicant/examiner’s gender is. I’d hypothesize rather that this effect is likely dominated by how females and males get along with other people in this particular work environment. With that effect likely dragging down the success rate a bit regardless of which side the female is on. But it would be interesting to see further studies and what they reveal.
Interesting 6, but I think that your premise here is not the entire story. And for that matter, neither can Malcolm’s view be the entire story.
The point of the data is clear that their are “jumps” in the data – basically two of them.
Start with the the “boys club” of man dealing with man, which comes out at a certain level.
Take a first jump down to the “mixed club” – with both alternates of inventor/examiner genders of man and woman being swapped (“basically” being equal to each other).
Take a second jump down to the “girls club” – a jump slightly larger than the first – with woman dealing with woman.
This second jump is above and beyond any “gee there is a woman involved” which might implicate the things that you (and Malcolm) reference. Neither Malcolm’s external view, nor your internal view account for the second jump alone.
This second jump would seem to assert that there is something more.
Perhaps each of your views – in isolation – is correct in and of itself, and that second jump is merely additive of the two (separate) forces, and the two items that make up the first jump should not be confused by the similarity of resultant data.
Perhaps the author can speak to the separateness and apparent linear additive nature of the results…