Remarks by Director Michelle K. Lee at the 2016 AIPLA Luncheon

USPTO Director Michelle Lee offered a set of Remarks at the October 28, 2016 AIPLA Luncheon.  As a presidential appointee, Director Lee is likely nearing the end of her term as USPTO Director.  Although the likely election of fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton suggests a smooth transition that could extend her term beyond January 2017, I expect that she will step-down prior to that point and that Deputy Director Russ Slifer will step-up as Acting Director.

The following are a few snippets from her speech:

Thank you, Denise, for the introduction.  And, good afternoon, everyone.  It’s a real pleasure to be here with you today. I always look forward to the AIPLA annual meeting. In fact, it is the third time I’ve had the honor to speak at this conference. I’m reminded of the first time I spoke at AIPLA, the mid-winter conference in Phoenix, AZ in January 2014. It was literally just a few weeks after I had moved from California to Washington and became acting head of the USPTO. At that conference you all welcomed me to my new role and we began our work together to strengthen and protect the intellectual property system that we know is so critical to our country’s continued economic success.

Almost three years have passed since that meeting, and I find myself honored and humbled every single day to serve in this role and to be a part of an amazing team at the USPTO. I feel it every time I’m at an international conference, seated behind a flag of the United States on the table in front of me, reflecting on how I’m a child of immigrant parents representing the United States of America.  And I feel it today, standing before you, reflecting on just how far the USPTO has come during this Administration.

Today, I’d like to share with you my views of the state of the United States Patent and Trademark Office and how this situates us to meet our future challenges. Back in January 2009, when our President was first sworn into office, the USPTO’s patent application backlog and pendency numbers were at all-time highs. Today, both our backlog and pendencies are now lower than they’ve been in more than a decade, and they continue to go down. That is hardly the only success story. But it’s emblematic of how much the USPTO has charged forward the last eight years, and how strongly it is positioned to face future challenges. This has been a team effort, with incredible work done by my predecessors, Congressional cooperation, the incredibly dedicated and talented staff at the USPTO, and all of you.

Together, we have put the Agency in a spot where we are ready to build on our successes. Today, we are financially more secure thanks to the America Invents Act, a milestone of this Administration, which gave us, among other things, fee setting authority. Additionally, we are more customer-service oriented and more responsive to stakeholder input than ever before. We’ve constantly welcomed—in fact solicited—feedback and input, and are willing to refine and improve where needed. We’ve had more RFC’s, Proposed Rules, and roundtables than ever before–and thank you for your input and patience responding to each. Whether you gave feedback on our EPQI, our 101 guidance, our PTAB implementation and refinements, and/or our transparency of patent ownership proposal, your input has been valuable.

We’ve also brought a broader range of services to support American innovators where and when needed, including: Through four regional offices across the country and over a dozen IP attaches across the globe. And, we’ve worked to provide you with more access to examiner interviews by training and promoting their benefits internally at the USPTO and externally, leading to an increase of 232% more interviewing hours in just eight years.

Finally, and importantly, the USPTO’s relationships with all of its partners is healthier and stronger than ever before–that’s with our users, our employees, our unions, Congress, and within the Administration. I want to take a brief moment on this topic, because I really do believe it is key to the Agency’s success – past and future. Thinking back to even just 10 years ago [under Jon Dudas], the relationship with our users was nowhere near as collaborative, transparent, or productive as it is today. The Agency often didn’t seek much public input on examiner guidance or implementation rules, and interviews weren’t encouraged as they are today. Together, we have changed that dynamic.

Second, we’ve strengthened our working relationship with our employees. All told, we have enjoyed some of the highest rankings in the Partnership for Public Service’s list of Best Places to Work in the Federal Government. And we all know, an engaged workforce produces better work product and services for all of you. Over the last eight years, our attrition rate has reduced significantly to the point where we compete favorably with some top companies in the private sector. Also, we’ve developed a productive relationship with our unions, allowing us to make better and faster improvements in important areas such as our production count system, patent quality, and our telework program.

We have also maintained a healthy working relationship with Congress on both policy proposals and operational issues. From the passage of AIA, to the Defend Trade Secrets Act, to technical assistance on various legislative proposals, we have engaged with our colleagues on the Hill in impactful ways and the USPTO’s voice is a respected one.

Finally, the USPTO is effectively fulfilling its role as principal advisor to the President and Administration on IP policy. I’ve been pleased with the confidence the President and the Secretary of Commerce have shown my team and I, allowing us to pursue policies and programs in the best interest of our innovators. All of this: the greater financial security, the increased customer service orientation and responsiveness, and  the better relationships with all of our stakeholders, has enabled us to make real progress on our priorities, and positions us for even greater success going forward.

There is strong evidence of this in a number of important areas, including patent backlog and pendencies, quality and policy. During this Administration, we have: Reduced the backlog of unexamined patent applications by ~30%, despite an average ~4% year-over-year increase in filings. Reduced our first action pendency by ~38% to 16.2 months, and reduced total pendency by ~25% to 25.3 months. This is due to numerous actions taken by the USPTO leadership team and my predecessors, and the hard work of our examining corps, and we will continue to do more.

Armed with greater finances and a shrinking backlog, we embarked on an unprecedented effort to enhance the quality of patents – a core goal of the Agency. There is a cost to society when the USPTO issues a patent that we should not issue, just as there is a cost to society when we don’t issue a patent that should issue. And just as there is a cost to society when there is a patent in the system that properly issued, but that may no longer be valid due to changes in the case law. Recognizing this, we have enhanced the quality of patents in our system, both before they leave our office through our Enhanced Patent Quality Initiative (led by a new Deputy Commissioner and a newly created department within the Patents organization solely focused on this effort); and after the patents return to the office through our PTAB and other post grant review proceedings (which double check the Office’s work and allow reconsideration in light of evolving case law or newly discovered prior art).

Addressing the second prong first, the new PTAB proceedings have significantly changed the patent landscape. With over 5,000 PTAB petitions now filed, we have one of the busiest dockets in the country. These proceedings are meeting our Congressional mandate of providing a faster, more cost efficient quality check on the patents in the system. With extensive input from all of you, we have worked hard to implement and conduct these proceedings as fairly and efficiently as possible. That’s why I asked my team to engage the public in a series of listening tours that led to a set of “quick fixes” in 2015 and then more substantive revised rules last April. That’s also why we took it upon ourselves to assess the frequency of motions to amend and the reasons for their grants or denial.  We’re applying your input to identify where we can do better. These PTAB proceedings have proven themselves a valuable check on patent quality, particularly in the later part of a patent’s lifecycle.

At this point, it makes sense to bring greater resources to bear if there are questions about a patent’s validity. The economics are different at the beginning of a patent’s lifecycle. The value of a patent is often not fully known at time of filing (perhaps due to the nascency of the technology, industry and/or market), and the time and resources afforded during examination are typically limited. Innovation isn’t served if the USPTO strives to issue very expensive, “bullet-proof” patents after many years of examination. Extensive time and expense would mean that innovators would file too few patent applications, given finite budgets. The purpose of the patent system—to incentivize disclosures to advance the progress of science and the useful arts—would be defeated because too few disclosures would be made. If over time the industry and the market determine that a piece of patented technology is valuable and the public believes it is not valid under current law or newly discovered art, then there is an economic incentive to expend greater resources to test the validity of the patent. And a panel of technically trained judges steeped in patent law is well-suited to perform this double-check quickly and efficiently.  In short, to best incentivize innovation. The USPTO needs to issue IP rights that are as certain, reliable and affordable as they can reasonably be, and offer post-grant proceedings that quickly, accurately and cost-effectively test the validity of certain patents proven to be of economic importance if questions of validity arise.

With all of that said, it is essential that these post-grant proceedings are properly calibrated so that they provide a quality check but do not bar deserving patentees from enforcing their patent rights. It’s why some protections in the AIA are so important, such as restrictions on timing of challenges, thresholds petitioners must meet for institution, and strict estoppel provisions. It’s also why the Agency is committed to revising our rules as many times as needed so these proceedings are as fair and effective as possible within our Congressional mandate. It’s why it is critical, within this framework, the USPTO issue the very best quality patents possible. Patents that are issued correctly in accordance with the law, that are clear providing notice to the public of the patent’s boundaries, and that are issued consistently across the Patent Examination Corps. And, it’s why I launched the Enhanced Patent Quality Initiative in 2015, so patent owners can have greater confidence and certainty of their rights in this new environment. Today, we’ve got about a dozen initiatives underway that, we believe, will meaningfully move the needle on enhancing patent quality. This includes making sure we’re getting the most relevant prior art before our examiners as early as possible by: leveraging technology, making prior art cited in our PTAB proceedings available to the examiner handling a related pending child application, and transitioning our entire patent examination corps from the decades old, antiquated U.S. Patent Classification System to the updated, increasingly global Cooperative Patent Classification System. It also includes drilling down on best practices (such as clarity of the record) during examination coupled with targeted training. Developing new and better ways to measure our progress, like our Master Review Form and new Quality Metrics. And, providing a new after-final procedure that offers applicants the opportunity to make a presentation before a panel and receive a detailed write-up of the panel’s decision that  might resolve an issue without going to appeal, or even result in the application being allowed.

So, this is what we’re doing at a high level. But I’d like to share more specifics about one of our flagship programs—our “Clarity of the Record Initiative”–and some of the great progress we have been making on our Clarity of the Record pilot program. The goal of this program is to develop best practices on how much detail to include in certain key parts of the prosecution record, for example: Interview summaries, or reasons for allowance, or construction of 112(f) limitations. Regarding interview summaries: How many times have you reviewed a file history, noted the patent rejected and then seen the patent allowed after an examiner interview with minimal or no changes to the claims and little or no explanation for the allowance? In this pilot, we worked to provide more detailed summaries including the substance of the examiner’s position, details of any agreement reached, and a description of next steps following the interview. After the pilot concluded, we measured 22 data points focused on clarity, and found an average of 15% improvement in clarity between the pilot examiners and a control group.

On reasons for allowance: How many times have you reviewed a prosecution history, and there is nothing in the record to indicate why the claims were allowed by the examiner? Because it is at the discretion of the individual examiner to set forth reasons for allowance, those reasons have not always been included in every Notice of Allowance. As part of this pilot, participants were trained on setting forth reasons for allowance in every Notice of Allowance. At the conclusion of the pilot, we found a 25% improvement in the clarity of reasons for allowance between the pilot examiners and a control group. Through the pilot, we also found the following practices significantly improved overall clarity addressing each independent claim separately, particularly identifying the applicant’s persuasive arguments (wherever they may be in the record), and identifying the specific allowable subject matter of the claim rather than merely reciting the entire claim as the basis for allowance. This pilot also helped us review the best practices around claim interpretation.

On claim interpretation:  How many times have you seen a prosecution record where there was clearly an issue about how a claim was interpreted, but the record was devoid of any explanation of the claim’s interpretation? In the pilot, the examiners were given training on explicitly setting forth key claim interpretations to minimize ambiguities. For example: Explaining all Section 112(f) presumptions and whether the presumptions were overcome, identifying on the record the structure in the specification that performs the function, and when a prior art reference is used to reject multiple claims, clearly addressing specific limitations in each claim that provide the basis for the rejection.

With our trainings on interview summaries, reasons for allowance and claim interpretations, we saw a statistically significant improvement in clarity when examiners used these best practices. Perhaps the most telling indicator of progress from this pilot is that when these pilot examiners were examining applications not included in the pilot program, they continued to apply the pilot’s best practices. This is a strong indication of the success of our training. Also, the clarity of the record initiative furthers the goal of compact prosecution by encouraging the applicant to rebut the examiner’s on-the-record position promptly and directly if there is disagreement. In short, we are already taking steps to clarify the record and you will see our examiners doing so increasingly over time.

Of course, patent quality also means applying the law accurately and clearly even in areas of the law that are evolving. Including, for example, the 101 jurisprudence on what is patent eligible subject matter. As many of you know, we’ve spent a fair amount of effort on this in recent years. Following major court rulings, we’ve revised our examination guidance, with input from all of you, multiple times and trained our examiners on the new guidance. Based upon input from our stakeholders, we also introduced training focused on clear drafting of 101 rejections and subsequent responses. And, we just announced in a Federal Register Notice two roundtables focused exclusively on the topic of patent eligible subject matter. At the first roundtable, we will discuss potential updates to our examination guidance, and at the second roundtable, we will discuss the impact of the current 101 jurisprudence on innovation, what changes might be considered to further support innovation, and whether such changes are best achieved legislatively, judicially or administratively. We thought it would be helpful to begin the public discussion, to create a record of where there is agreement or disagreement and what, if any, need for improvement. We welcome your participation on this important and complex issue.

As I hope you can see from this quick run-down of our initiatives, we are very excited about EPQI! It is an ambitious effort that is yielding results now and will yield many more in the long run. To learn more about our EPQI progress to date, please join us— mark your calendars—on December 13, at the USPTO, where we will spend a good part of the day sharing details of the results of each of the dozen or so EPQI.  We think you will like what you hear.

Turning now to some of our policy and other accomplishments over the course of this Administration, thanks to the AIA, we can now engage more directly with innovators—through our regional patent offices in Detroit, Denver, Silicon Valley, and Dallas. As you know, I started my tenure in public service as the Director of the Silicon Valley Regional Office. Having had the opportunity to help define the vision of these Offices, and stand up three of the four regional offices, I am very proud of this legacy to our IP system that will endure for generations to come. I’ve always said that, one day when my daughter is old enough, I can point to the Silicon Valley Regional Office in our hometown and say, “Your mom had a hand in opening that office.” And I’d feel very proud about my contribution to our community and society for that. Through these offices, we powerfully expand our ability to educate regional innovators about intellectual property and help small and large businesses and inventors directly access a wider range of services offered by the USPTO.

Additionally, one of the great privileges serving as head of the America’s Innovation Agency is that it is my job to increase opportunities and awareness about STEM, invention and intellectual property and, to me, this means across all geographic regions of this great country of ours and across all demographics. For example, when fewer than 15% of U.S. based inventors listed on a patent are women, it’s clear that we are leaving valuable inventive talent behind. This is something we cannot afford, especially as our companies cannot hire the technical talent they need, and  they are asking Congress to change our immigration laws to provide more flexibility in our visa and immigration system to ensure we can hire the best talent here in the U.S. We have the power to change this. We’ve called this our “All in STEM” campaign—and, true to the complex nature of the problem—it’s a multifaceted approach, including increasing awareness of the issue;

Getting girls interested in science, invention and IP early through efforts like our Girl Scout IP Patch and retaining and supporting women in STEM fields by mentoring, training and simply highlighting the female success stories through social media and inventors baseball trading cards for distribution to our school-aged children, so all our kids can see themselves as inventors! It’s not just a social imperative, it’s an economic imperative as we look compete in an increasingly global and competitive environment. 

And, it is no less an economic imperative to ensure that intellectual property beyond patents is properly calibrated to support creativity and entrepreneurship. We’ve advocated for significant modernizations of copyright law, beginning with our Green and White Papers on Copyright Policy, Creativity, and Innovation in the Digital Economy, where we made in the White Paper legislative recommendations on reforms to statutory damages for copyrights. We completed two historic copyright treaties and sent ratification packages to Congress—One on facilitating access to published works by the visually impaired, and another to expand copyrights for actors in audiovisual works.

On Trademarks, we’ve taken steps to improve the efficiency of our operations by adopting policies to encourage electronic filings of trademark applications which permitted fee reductions; and introducing the first major overhaul of rules at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board since 2007, and I was pleased to recently join the President in the Oval Office when he signed the Defend Trade Secrets Act, which created a new federal civil cause of action for trade secrets This provided much needed, additional protections to innovators of today, in an environment where confidential business information can be quickly transported or emailed over state—or international—lines. While modern trade secret protection is essential, we are mindful that inventors need to be able to have the choice to instead disclose their invention in exchange for the exclusivity guaranteed by a patent—through reliable patent protection here and abroad.

As many of you know, there’s an entire department at the USPTO devoted to this very mission, complemented by IP attachés stationed in about a dozen countries across the globe. With this team, I have frequently represented the USPTO abroad, helping to ensure that a strong and equitable IP system does not stop at our nation’s borders.  One such trip—to China in 2015—stands out in my mind, both because of the importance of promoting strong IP rights in the second largest economy in the world, and because I experienced, on a personal level, the depth of opportunity offered by our country. As I articulated our positions on these critical IP policy issues with the Vice Premier in Zhongnanhai, Beijing, the central headquarters for the Chinese government, I thought for a moment of my parents back home in the Bay Area. When they bravely left their homeland in China to move to the United States to build a new life, did they ever imagine their daughter would one day be in such a meeting, in such a role? They understood America is the land for those willing to work hard and embrace its values.

I’ve had the honor and privilege of having many great opportunities over the last three years while leading the USPTO, and, I’ve capitalized on those opportunities for the benefit of innovators because, each and every day, I’ve been able to count on an amazing team of public servants at the USPTO working hard to best serve all of you. I firmly believe that the United States Patent and Trademark Office is healthy, well-functioning and poised to successfully handle whatever challenges and opportunities lie ahead.

Our issues are important, complex and nuanced. And while not everyone will always agree with all that the Agency does, we are well prepared to work together and with all of you to accomplish our top priorities and successfully address the challenges ahead. So, thank you for all your help. And thank you for all I know you will continue to do to ensure that our greatest inventions are yet to come.

About Dennis Crouch

Law Professor at the University of Missouri School of Law. Co-director of the Center for Intellectual Property and Entrepreneurship.

47 thoughts on “Remarks by Director Michelle K. Lee at the 2016 AIPLA Luncheon

  1. “And thank you for all I know you will continue to do to ensure that our greatest inventions are yet to come.”

    Pssst. Guess what … some of our greatest inventions are at this very moment being unfairly, unreasonably, and yes — unconstitutionally — 101-blocked by the very agency charged with providing their protection …

    The most important, most valuable, most legacy-insuring action she could take during what are likely her final days to do her part in ensuring our greatest inventions?

    Tear down this 101 wall, Ms. Lee!

    Tear down this wall!

    1. Hmmm.

      I wonder what would happen if the Executive Agency “called the bluff” of the Judicial Branch and refused to follow any re-writing of statutory law (i.e. case law that is clearly not interpretative of law written by Congress back in 1952)….

      Highly doubtful, mind you, but take a moment and parse through what Lee states: she mentions patents properly granted under the law but that she considers no longer valid because of CHANGES made by CASE law.

      If the top executive of the patent office stands by the validity – as granted – but only changed to invalid by a change in law (and this is an important legal point, so often hushed) that is statutory law and authority to write that law is with only one branch of the government (hint: not the judicial branch); does this not admit a breakdown of the separation of powers?

      The Executive top duty is to enforce the law.

      What if they enforced the actual law and not the ultra vires law…?

  2. “innovators would file too few patent applications, given finite budgets … The purpose of the patent system—to incentivize disclosures to advance the progress of science and the useful arts—would be defeated because too few disclosures would be made.”

    Wow, Wow, Wow. There is not enough time and space to describe just how wrong and deluded this woman is.

    Corporate patent budgets have nothing to do with corporate spending on R&D. What incentivizes investment in invention is a reliably enforceable patent. Even the likes of Apple would like their patent on key innovations to be more reliably enforceable.

    The way the system is now, patents cannot be reliably enforced. Patent prosecutors are a major source of the problem for their clients in any number of ways. But it is also true that if the PTAB is willing to institute IPR trials on 70% of challenged claims, in no no way can it be considered that the PTO is even coming close to providing reliable patents to applicants.

    We might also add here, that the standard of proof in an IPR simply has to be same as it is in court. Not presuming a patent valid is a primary reason patents are now unreliable and a primary reason patents are no longer doing the constitutional function.

    1. On who would appoint a Director that would not be so corporate client coddling, I simply cannot believe it would be the ultimate insider now running despite those who might assure us to the contrary. I think this ultimate insider would listen to Lee, and might even reappoint her.

        1. anon, one who has her entire career prostituted her position in power for financial gain is not likely to change upon being elected. The big bucks got us the AIA and the big bucks will keep it with HRC in power.

    2. We might also add here, that the standard of proof in an IPR simply has to be same as it is in court.

      Have to point this out, Ned, but once again you whine about something that you have refused to recognize as one of the sticks in the bundle of property rights that is a granted patent.

      I know that you realize that you will NOT be the champion of “patents are property,” but you should at least take the opportunity in the interim to understand basic property and takings law.

    3. While I have a hard time reading the relatively worthless hagiography – “how great we are” – please exercise a bit of decorum as to the “woman” being (i) a woman and (ii) a minority. My question: Why was someone from a global monopoly selected? Possible answer: Because they understand the threats to such monopolies that are posed by the US patent system, or what’s left of it.

    4. “But it is also true that if the PTAB is willing to institute IPR trials on 70% of challenged claims”

      That’s a somewhat self-selected group there Ned.

      1. 6, I do not think that patent owners assert patents they know to be invalid over the prior art. What we are finding here is that, even when patent owners believe their patents are valid, they are being invalidated at the rate of around 70% by the PTO.

        Now, with regard to the other patents that are not being asserted, are we to believe that there are even more valid than the ones asserted when the ones asserted are thought to be valid?

  3. “For example, when fewer than 15% of U.S. based inventors listed on a patent are women, it’s clear that we are leaving valuable inventive talent behind. ”

    I loled @ the presumption.

    “Getting girls interested in science, invention and IP early through efforts like our Girl Scout IP Patch and retaining and supporting women in STEM fields by mentoring, training and simply highlighting the female success stories through social media and inventors baseball trading cards for distribution to our school-aged children, so all our kids can see themselves as inventors!”

    ^Attempting to socially engineer girls to not have babies. Sad that she’s so anti-society. Not that I’m against any girls that want to go into it being in it, but adults plotting to “put them there because we think they should be there (and we want them to have power and prestige to further our female supremacy movement)” is evil indeed.

    “It’s not just a social imperative,”

    Right, it’s social engineering.

    1. Love how any policy that acknowledges that white guys really don’t need much more help from the gubment is “evil social engineering.” Too funny.

      1. I think that you (badly) missed the point here AAA JJ.

        This is not about “white guys” NOT needing help.

        Funny how that notion of “white privilege” leaks in and is indistinguishable from the discrimination being sought to be quashed…

        1. This is not about “white guys” NOT needing help.

          Right. It’s about two guys named 6 and “anon” who need a whole lot of help.

          that notion of “white privilege” leaks in

          It really is odd, isn’t it? What is the deal with America and this omnipresent notion of “white privilege”? It’s almost as if dark skinned people were treated like second class citizens until relatively recently. But surely that can’t be true. Not in “the land of the free”. No true patriot would ever suggest otherwise.

          1. You rather miss the point (and badly as well) that ANY discrimination is (gasp) discrimination.

            You cannot fight an E V I L (and make no mistake, discrimination IS E V I L – even as I refuse to buy into the liberal “political correctness” CRP) with the same E V I L.

            1. I refuse to buy into the liberal “political correctness” CRP)

              ROTFLMAO. Remember, folks: this guy tried to pass himself off as a Bernie Sanders supporter. But he’s a very serious person! We all have to pay attention to him. And we all know that everyone who gets their knickers twisted up over “political correctness” is very, very serious indeed.

              ANY discrimination is (gasp) discrimination.

              Deep, deep stuff. In the shallow simplistic way that you preach it, it does kinda sound like an excuse to keep white men from benefitting from hundreds of years of some of the most extreme racist and misogynist behavior ever documented but they probably had a great excuse for that right? Certainly better than “correcting past discrimination.” Right? Let everybody know, “anon.” You’re a sincere person with a really sensitive art. I’m sure you’ve thought about this a whole lot while you listened to your favorite AM radio station.

              You cannot fight an E V I L with the same E V I L.

              And nothing is more evil than making sure that girls are informed about the existence of woman innovators! We’re so glad you’re “on the watch”, “anon”! Keep fighting for white men (and orange men, too)! It’d be such a shame if anyone forgot about their awesomeness for two seconds. Thankfully we know that won’t happen as long as you’re around.

              1. Its funny that you want both “deep” and “shallow” at the same time…

                And yet, you cannot (and do not) really say anything against my actual position, now can you (or do you)…?

                All we have is your usual arseness.

                1. And yes Malcolm, not only did I want Bernie Sanders (who is better than either of the remaining CRP sandwiches left to munch on), I am still going to write him in.

                  Your mind seems unable to wrap itself around that.

                  (clearly, your “and orange men” comment is wrong – you also have a serious problem lumping anyone who disagrees with you into one group)

                2. “And yet, you cannot (and do not) really say anything against my actual position, now can you (or do you)…?”

                  That’s because your “actual position” is that affirmative action is “the same E V I L” as Jim Crow, and slavery. Which is so wrongheaded that it practically defies reasoned debate.

                3. From 3.2.1.1.1

                  “You cannot fight an E V I L (and make no mistake, discrimination IS E V I L – even as I refuse to buy into the liberal “political correctness” CRP) with the same E V I L.”

                  Your actual position is that affirmative action is “the same E V I L” as Jim Crow and slavery. Which is exactly what I said.

                4. Again, AAA JJ, you jump to an over gen eralization from my stated position.

                  Let me put it succinctly:

                  Discrimination is E V I L.

                  You want to play with that E V I L and do so with some desired End in mind, thinking that THAT End justifies the Means of engaging in E V I L. You then want to confuse the Ends and the Means and say that the Ends are E V I L, while my position remains the direct statement of:

                  Discrimination is E V I L.

                  Wake up son.

              2. “Deep, deep stuff. In the shallow simplistic way that you preach it, it does kinda sound like an excuse to keep white men from benefitting from hundreds of years of some of the most extreme racist and misogynist behavior ever documented but they probably had a great excuse for that right?”

                You’ve literally got to be shting me right? I can tell you have a lot of sht clogging your brain put there by feminazis. Are you truly so ignorant that you think that modern white people in the last 300 years, even the worst of their men, are even a fraction, on the whole, of how “MMMMMMMMMYSOGYNOISCITCAL” men had been 1000 years ago? Have you even read the bible? The Illiad? That’s a beginners intro to mysogynositical happenings of yesteryear. Factually speaking, modern white men in the last few hundred years are some of the least MMMYSOGINIYCSITCALISMed men ever to roam the face of the planet. Who first gave, and still gives, women the right to vote (while not having the same responsibilities to the country)? White mans. Who gave, and still gives, women ridiculously broad property rights compared to those historically enjoyed? White mans. Who does all this while still being ridiculously gynocentric (a holdover from yesteryear) overall and offering the woman the “option” to just go home and have some kids? White mans. Who does all this while underwriting the female voter implemented nanny state? White mans. Who does all this and gave, and still gives, women fantastical divorce/custody/child support laws? White mans. Who does all this and watches more or less silently as they degenerate the country by chasing yonder alphas during fertile years, declining to even have babies and voting in “compassion” for brains? White mans.

                “extreme racist”

                If you think Merican highly regulated slavery was bad you need to actually go read up on slavery throughout history. I don’t have time to hold your hand through the arab-white slave trade (much larger than white-african slave trade ever was, and more brutal by far) or the slavery of yester-yester-yesteryear. But suffice to say if you think the “horrors” of Merican slavery were bad, you’re in for some real “progressive disgust” treats learning the actual history of slavery. I’ll post you links if you’re too lazy to actually do some learning some facts before you spout off crazy nonsense.

              3. “And nothing is more evil than making sure that girls are informed about the existence of woman innovators! ”

                If “informing” them about “the existence” of women innovators was the goal then that would be fine. That isn’t the goal. Nor is “aggrandizement” of white men anon or anyone else’s goal. Both of these things you already know, but you just sit around gleefully cluelessly gynocentrically thinking. But don’t worry, I “empathize” with you (lol gynocentrically), you have after all been brain washed/conditioned since you were young to think that way.

          2. MM, back in the day when I was a member of the board of the National Inventors Hall of fame, we actively looked for black inventors to honor principally to change stereotypes, etc.

            Lee is on solid grounds here.

              1. I suggest you read Dr. King’s writings, especially “Where do We Go from Here.”

                MLK actively supported affirmative action and similar policies, believing such social equality would only be possible through increased economic equality.

                1. B-b-b-b-but policies that require the inclusion of minorities are “THE SAME E V I L” as policies that require their exclusion. Or turn them into chattel.

                  Can’t you see that?!

                2. “MLK actively supported affirmative action”

                  Yes, as did most people of his day as a “temporary measure” for black people (mostly they had in mind black men but also a bit for black women needing work, check your history). Which white women then subverted and ensured would remain in perpetuity to benefit them more than it does black people by a long shot. Again, check your history.

                  If King had lived to see that program subverted to what it is today (with white women far and away at the top of the AA pyramid), or even to see it in existence today, I doubt very much so that he’d be a happy man. Appalled more like it.

          3. “Right. It’s about two guys named 6 and “anon” who need a whole lot of help.”

            >They need “help” you guys! They need “help”! They’re helpless little babies! (I”M CURRENTLY SCREAMING THAT I”M GYNOCENTRIC YOU GUYS, DO YOU HEAR ME?!?!?!!?! HAVE I MADE IT CLEAR ENOUGH THAT I”M GYNOCENTRIC?!?!?!?!)

            “It really is odd, isn’t it?”

            Not really, it’s the current “victim of the day/decade” topic floating around our gynocentric culture. Where everyone should treat POC’s (don’t forget other people other than blacks/”dark skinned” people you naughty progressive shtlord!) as if they are their very own mother-infant pair bonded infant. Literally I just found out yesterday that’s why you and yours give so much of a fck about this sort of thing. It’s all just you emulating the relationship of a mother with a newborn infant thanks to a bunch of women telling you that you should and you bending right over for them. It’s interesting what the ol social sciences people who aren’t SJW’s come up with, you know, when actual research is done.

      2. “Love how any policy that acknowledges that white guys really don’t need much more help from the gubment is “evil social engineering.” Too funny.”

        White guys are not at issue in her statement brusefuselous. What is at issue is her “policy” of socially engineering society and the resulting lack of babies. Here, let me use social gynocentric terms for you, since you’re gynocentric and like to try to throw everything onto white guys: this social engineering is a “social evil”.

        1. So any policy that results in a “lack of babies” (lulz) is a “social evil”?

          Wow. I didn’t realize the planet was facing such dire population decline.

      1. Yeah I’d meant to see that movie, probably a good movie. Though that might be the one where she goes a bit “gangsta” which obviously would probably just get you killed irl.

  4. Extensive time and expense would mean that innovators would file too few patent applications, given finite budgets. The purpose of the patent system—to incentivize disclosures to advance the progress of science and the useful arts—would be defeated because too few disclosures would be made.

    Wow. Was this speech made in some alternate universe where there is a shortage of patents?

    the Agency is committed to revising our rules as many times as needed so these proceedings are as fair and effective as possible within our Congressional mandate.

    ROTFLMAO
    Translation: “We will do everything we can to undercut the effectiveness of IPRs because nothing is more irritating than a big f@t rich crying baby whose junk patent just got tanked.”

    Regarding interview summaries: How many times have you reviewed a file history, noted the patent rejected and then seen the patent allowed after an examiner interview with minimal or no changes to the claims and little or no explanation for the allowance? In this pilot, we ….

    “… chose to pretend that it’s still 1990 and there is no cheap way to create and store audio files of interviews. Why did we do that? Because we at the PTO only pay lip service to the public and concerns about junky patents. Everybody else can pretty much take a flying leap.”

    Thinking back to even just 10 years ago, the relationship with our users was nowhere near as collaborative, transparent, or productive as it is today.

    Translation: “Ten years ago we used to listen to what three or four different patent attorneys and corporate representatives had to say, and we pretty much did whatever they asked. Now we listen to about two dozen patent attorneys and twenty corporate representatives and we do pretty much whatever they ask.”

    101 jurisprudence on what is patent eligible subject matter. As many of you know, we’ve spent a fair amount of effort on this in recent years …

    “… which is to say that we avoided thinking about it all until it was too late. Oops! Don’t worry, though. We’ll catch up to reality by 2025, if you’re lucky.”

Comments are closed.