President Trump and the Patent Office

The question on everyone’s mind is how the patent office and patent system will be restructured once Donald Trump becomes president.   Trump has substantial personal experience protecting and enforcing his own trademarks, including attempts to protect more controversial marks such as ‘you’re fired.’   However his businesses have few if any patent rights and have relied on the perception of luxury rather than innovation for their successes.  An element of Trumps campaign was the recognition that he personally understands how to find an exploit loopholes in government regulation and that his experience make him uniquely qualified to fix the holes.  Question for the patent system is whether president Trump will see patent trolls, pharmaceutical pricing, and the Eastern  District  of Texas as exploitations needing to be fixed. It is unclear at this point who will manage the transition team but hope for a smooth transition from Outgoing Director Michelle Lee to the next USPTO leader. Democracy!

 

 

367 thoughts on “President Trump and the Patent Office

  1. The way to think about this properly is to understand the history of modern patents. Jimmy Carter went about creating the Fed. Cir. to end the great malaise. Ronald Reagan then signed the Bill that created the Fed. Cir.

    The national economy boomed and the great malaise ended due to patents.

    Now, Google and the likes of Lee have destroyed the patent system and we are at 1 percent growth and companies like Google saying that they can do all the innovation. That we should give them tax breaks and get out of the way of the “Moonshot” division so they can provide all the innovation that the country needs while still maintaining Google as a monopoly.

    Please.

    Let’s hope that Trump sees the way forward to greater economic growth as a much stronger patent system with the IPR repealed and directors like Lee a distance nightmare.

  2. I wonder if you guys heard, we’re either already have enough or need just one more state legislature to call a constitutional convention of the state’s reps where they can reign in the fed gov for the rest of our lives.

              1. “I wonder where u got the idea that it was”

                From your constant “isting”, posting nonsense articles (agitprop really just meant to stir people up) among other nonsense issuing forth from your fingers. You didn’t know that such paints you as a lefty idi ot nowadays? Swear to go d, you need to get out more, you’re like living in society 50 years ago.

        1. Which “Mericans” are those, 6? The frustrated racists or the frustrated misogynists? Or the just plain vanilla frustrated white guy? And whats your awesome solution? Tell everybody, 6! Stop beating around the bush. You don’t have to be PC anymore!

          1. “Which “Mericans” are those, 6?”

            All Mericans.

            Going to be a hoot if we can get this party started! I can’t wait. It’ll be one of the largest happenings of our time.

            ” The frustrated racists or the frustrated misogynists?”

            Everybody’s an IST! Lol, lefties.

            “And whats your awesome solution?”

            Mah awesome solution to wut? My solutions are kind of irrelevant tho, you’ll be getting the republican state lawmaker’s solutions.

            1. Malcolm is just a leftIST liberal elitIST still living in denial that the DNC candidate (with ties to the Banksters) did not ascend to her throne as scheduled.

              His bucket of tears runneth over.

                1. I wrote in Bernie and took the rest without regard to Red or Blue but instead based on merits.

                  Elephant CRP is still CRP.

                2. Yes but Trump needs the best bac kup he can get against the SJ W/femi n azi/progr essive hordes. And their ai n’t but 2 par ties (really).

                  Plus, bonus, if we get the state legislatures together we’re within spitting distance of ending a lot of the federal level nonsense bickering forever. If only a few more republicans get on board the constitutional convention wagon they could end the fed eral gov’s authority over many matters thro w ing them permanently to the states. Then our fed eral elec tions could concei vably become MU CH more bor ing (which for the lov e of go d would be amazing I’m sure all can agree). Let the people that really care battle out the really contentious stuff at the state level instead of trying to make feder al “righ ts” etc. out of everything by usur ping power for the fed eral gov.

  3. Maybe Trump can create a ton of new awesome jobs by encouraging the PTO to grant more patents that are offensive to ethnic groups and women! Here’s Trump’s new chief strategist, Steve Bannon:

    Among Bannon’s contributions to the media discourse: Declaring the Trump-opposing conservative Bill Kristol a “renegade Jew”; articles declaring that “birth control makes women unattractive and crazy”; advocating that women who receive online harassment should “log off”; support for public display of the confederate flag; multiple stories about “trannies” and “f@ggots”. During divorce proceedings against him, Gannon’s wife testified that he was aggressively anti-Semitic.

    Sounds like an awesome guy. But I bet he’s super serious and smart! It’s so “PC”, after all, to ign0re serious super civilized people like Steve Bannon. Oh, I can’t wait for all the awesome new jobs!

    1. How would a patent be offensive to ethnic groups or women?

      The veneer of mentioning “patent” does not hide the political sniping.

      The attempt itself only speaks of arseness.

      Yay ecosystem!

      1. How would a patent be offensive to ethnic groups or women?

        Try to believe it, folks.

        Remember: “anon” is an expert! He knows all about the stuff that people patent (in theory).

        But he’s totally stumped by the idea of an offensive patent.

        Still, he’s very serious. We have to pay attention to him! Otherwise we’ll end up like the Amish.

        1. Why on earth are you so concerned about “offensive” patents?

          A. who the fck cares about subjectively, or even objectively, “offensive” patents?

          B. what makes you think such things are all of a sudden becoming the norm or even more than a triffle? Or for that matter even a triffle?

        2. Anybody want to help Malcolm out?

          I had asked Malcolm: How would a patent be offensive to ethnic groups or women?

          And all that he could reply was:

          Try to believe it, folks.

          Somehow, and with no examples, he seems to feel that patents can be offensive to women or minorities. He even thinks that such would be SO obvious as to warrant his “Folks” meme.

          Anybody out there with any examples of such nefarious items?

          We all can be sure that Malcolm has none to share.

    2. MM just fyi most of those articles are by Milo (who might get press secretary position) not Bannon, Milo writes whatever he wants to. Milo also is a Jew who works for Mr. “antisemitical” Bannon.

      Keep on believing your misleading press that don’t know their ar se from a Jew, an author or a fact.

      1. Nobody could have predicted that 6 gulps down Breitbart content like it’s kool-aid.

        Keep on believing your misleading press

        And there you have it, folks: Steve Bannon is just a regular guy, reminding people about how birth control makes women unattractive and crazy. Which is something we all really know to be true, right? But only 6 and Steve Bannon have the guts to just put it out there. And these guys know a lot about women. You can tell!

        LOL

        1. I read Milo’s stuff before I even knew what “brietbart” was as an org. It’s good stuff.

          ” Steve Bannon is just a regular guy, ”

          Hardly, he’s a top guy at Breitbart. Maybe Milo’s boss. But allegedly Milo just runs wild and has total freedom.

          “reminding people about how birth control makes women unattractive and crazy”

          Again, that’s from Milo. Bannon likely cares very little about the topic, he’s more into actual politics as I understand it. More of an actual conservative republican than Milo will ever be.

          “But only 6 and Steve Bannon have the guts to just put it out there.”

          That article has been shared like a million times. And again, for the 100000000th time, it’s by Milo, not Bannon. I know your lefty brain can’t hardly comprehend two separate people existing in the world, but they do.

          1. that’s from Milo. Bannon [Milo’s boss; the guy who pays Milo] likely cares very little about the topic

            Everybody following along? 6 is making a super deep point here! And he’s a very serious person.

            1. In other words MM doesn’t know how Breitbart works, who Milo is, or who Bannon is, and is just now joining in completely clueless and doesn’t think that anything makes any sense or is supar srs. It’s all an evil plan and managed by the top guy to make Milo write crazy sht that Milo talks about nonstop all day every day! It’s all Bannon I say! Milo totally wasn’t writing about such craziness before he got on at Breitbart writing about a variety of topics not that relevant to politics! It simply must be evidence of “MUH EVIL ISMS!”

              Lulz. You lefties and your isms. They literally rule your everyday life. Meanwhile most of Merica has moved on from ur isms.

          2. know your lefty brain can’t hardly comprehend two separate people existing in the world, but they do.

            LOL – that’s just Malcolm’s old ploy of wanting to smear anyone who disagrees with him with anything that anyone else has ever said.

            Being actually accurate with the particular views that they hold is just “too much work” for Malcolm, and is not on his precious little script.

            Note the rampant poker tells of “super deep” and “very serious” – Malcolm is W A Y over his head here, drowning in his little bucket of Wah.

          1. these guys know ….more [about women] than you do.

            LOL

            I haven’t relied on a guy to tell me about women since I was, g0sh, nine years old maybe? But maybe that’s because I can just talk to women directly about women. And I know a lot of real smart ones.

            30% of women of reproductive age take birth control pills. Are those the cr@zy unattractive women? Rhetorical question, of course.

            When are you going to come out again as the shameless g@y-bashing a h0le that we know you to be, 6? My memory is pretty good. You should feel safe now. Let it all out (again). Because you’re a very serious person. Freedom! Go for it, 6.

            Or just tell us more about women. Share your favorite articles with us.

            1. “I haven’t relied on a guy to tell me about women since I was, g0sh, nine years old maybe?”

              In other words you’re still as clueless as you were when you were 9.

              “But maybe that’s because I can just talk to women directly about women.”

              Oh wait, except for absorbing that clueless gynocentric worldview directly from the source! Who could have guessed this is how MM came by his awesome and deep gynocentric worldview? As he likes to say: Nobody could have predicted!

              “And I know a lot of real smart ones.”

              And most of them don’t have babies thanks to your generation’s gynocentrism. Congratulations! Really super smart women! Elite one might even say…

              “Are those the cr@zy unattractive women?”

              Not necessarily. Going on (or off for that matter) will definitely affect the way the girl behaves in my experience (and in the experience of thousands of people reporting such including irl, gasp, grils). And, if you were attracted to the girl before that change, yes, they may well have have become now a less attractive woman thanks to the change. Some small weight gain is also definitely a potential side effect observed at least a small amount of the time irl, but I haven’t seen that to be such a big issue in my experience.

              See a whole host of journal articles that Milo didn’t get around to citing for your dmbas.

              Stu pid ol scientryists! Link to 5 second googled actual journal inside. From the linked to actual article inside: “In this article we summarize the sparse findings, describing brain structural, functional and behavioral findings from the literature and suggest that synthetic steroids may contribute to masculinizing as well as feminizing effects on brain and behavior.” Plenty more where this comes from. They’re all over of late. But of course you i di ots from yesteryear don’t care about such trivalities as fcking with society, as long as women are “free” (muh gynocentrissssssmmmm!)!

              link to lifesitenews.com

              BTW, rumor is that modern birth control for women couldn’t even pass FDA approval if it were to go through trials these days. But thanks to the laxness of yesteryear and modern politics we’re blessed with this grand social experiment on millions of women even today.

              “g@y-bashing”

              Why would I bash Milo? You’re the one “bashing” his work and his boss. You hom ophobe!

                1. Dennis you’ve got some real cleaning up to do now.

                  The irony is stultifying.

                  Oh, it’s going to be so much fun.

                  a new throw away phrase added to Malcolm’s short script – yay ecosystem.

  4. Trump’s l ying mouthpiece Kellyanne Conway: [Journalist who criticized Trump] should be very careful about characterizing somebody in a legal sense. He thinks — he thinks he’s just being some kind of political pundit there, but I would say be very careful about the way you characterize it.”

    That didn’t take long!

    And there we have some more insight into how the Maniac-in-Chief may change the patent system: we’ll have to be more “careful” about we criticize it! Won’t that be awesome?

    Nothing would be a certain tiny tiny group of well-heeled entitled junk patent lovers happier.

      1. your media

        LOL What?

        Conway was referring to Harry Reid not the journalist

        That was my mistake. Not that it makes any difference whatsoever. if anything it makes Conway look like an even bigger idi0t.

        1. “That was my mistake. ”

          It was a mistake that you made thanks to terrible ignorant reporting that is a plague on this nation these last 3 or so years. And probably a little bit of gynocentrism played a tiny bit of a part since it already had you biased against Conway (yes, even though she is a woman, gynocentrism demands that you not like her because she is a woman with the “wrong” opinions on women, at least according to the media narrative of her).

          “Not that it makes any difference whatsoever.”

          It does make a difference whatsoever. It shows the terrible state of media reporting of late. And also a shade of gynocentrism. Though to be fair, gynocentrism taints nearly everything about modern life (esp in your area of the country I’m sure) so I mean, yes, it’s hard for the not so discerning eye to pick it out.

          “if anything it makes Conway look like an even bigger idi0t.”

          Hardly. Her and Trump appreciate the need to hold people (usually but not always lefties) spouting off about “bigotry” and the “isms” to account for the rampant defamation plaguing the land. Though this may need to happen at the state level. If Harry was implicating Trump in the legal sense he should be brought to trial the same as any other lefty (like yourself) to adjudicate defamation. For too long has this plague run rampant and tainted the political sphere. Republicans want to cut down on election fraud, democrats shout RAYCIST. Republicans want babies to pop out, democrats should SEXIST. Republicans want nice everyday marriages to benefit people trying to support the state through their unions, democrats shout PHOBIA. Republicans want xyz, democrats shout ISMS and PHOBIAS. Time for some consequences for your gamesmanship. You know, beyond republicans controlling nearly your whole gov. I, like many of my generation, tire of hearing your constant slanders of the other side and seeing them get “news” time because the media supports such happening. But I’m sure you’d be happy to go to your grave reading nonstop about x phobia and y isms. Time to crack on down.

        2. Even now this dominates my headlines:

          link to yahoo.com

          Note that most of that isn’t even true of the alt-right itself. And notice who funds the 3 groups that are denouncing him. But, the organizations just slander away np.

          Terrible reporting. It will cause you and millions of others to “oops” make mistakes about what is being referred to, because they keep the facts carefully hidden below the allegations being made by the organizations. And it just keeps on going because lefty media gonna lefty and “freedom of the press” to publish false and malicious agitation-propaganda.

          1. Malcolm has always been about propaganda 6.

            You just now catching wind of it because of the political subject matter.

            He is exactly the same way with his anti-patentISMs.

            1. Yes anon but there is a difference in scale as well. His being free to spout off on a blog all day if he wishes about whatev he wishes is different than a billion dollar industry (actually more) spouting nonstop defamation of their political opponents.

              1. Not much difference there at all 6.

                Different target? Sure. But that is the only reason you seem concerned here. Otherwise, the VERY SAME TACTIC is “alright” with you as it aligns with a shared desired End.

    1. LOL

      Somehow “anon” — totally not a hypocritical hack! — forgets to mention post number 22.

      LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL NWPA + “anon” = The Bobbsy Twins. The best and the brightest! We all love you two. Super cute.

        1. the question.

          Remember, folks: “anon” knows about comment 22 but he doesn’t want to talk about it. But he’s a very serious person! Totally not a hypocritical hack who loves to polish his bff’s dirty shoes.

          1. 22 has nothing at all to do with your reposting the same schlock three times to be on top.

            That you want to pretend otherwise only makes you more the arse.

            1. 22 has nothing at all to do with your reposting the same schlock three times

              LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

              Because 25 never happened either.

              But “anon” is a very serious person. Tune in next time when he tells us what NWPA’s boots taste like.

              1. 25 has nothing at all to do with your reposting the same schlock three times to be on top.

                That you want to pretend otherwise only makes you more the arse.

                “very serious” and “boots taste” – more of the same lack of anything intelligent to say…

                But keep pretending that your deflecting as a response serves as an answer to the question – no need to change your own decrepit behavior, now is there, eh Malcolm?

                1. To clarify: yes, posts were made that moved your RE-post off of top-line – but the question has to do with YOU re-posting to claim that top-line (again and again and again).

                  Why are YOU so intent on claiming the top-line?

                  Maybe you want to try a substantive answer to the actual question and not your typical CRP…

  5. One thing is for sure, this maniac s0 ci0path that was just elected to the highest office by the l0 west forms of humans on the planet knows more about litigation than any other President in history (with the exception of the President’s who were lawyers or judges):

    link to vanityfair.com

    [Trump’s attorney] Petrocelli added that no president-elect had ever been in pending litigation before taking office

    That’s an interesting admission. Of course, educated people know that Trump has scores of lawsuits pending against him. Possibly well over a hundred. For some mysterious reason, our “liberal media” chose to pretty much ignore that fact (and the fact that this was an unprecedented situation). I suppose next we’ll hear some sob stories in the “liberal media” about how many of these suits are “frivolous” (because The Donald never files or threatens frivolous litigation himself).

    Is it too early to start the impeachment clock?

  6. Paid blogger attempting to blast comments, so re-posted. I am fine with a non-paid blogger posting, but a paid blogger like MM should not be permitted to submerge comments that are not part of his paid agenda, which is exactly what he does constantly.

    The way to think about this properly is to understand the history of modern patents. Jimmy Carter went about creating the Fed. Cir. to end the great malaise. Ronald Reagan then signed the Bill that created the Fed. Cir.

    The national economy boomed and the great malaise ended due to patents.

    Now, Google and the likes of Lee have destroyed the patent system and we are at 1 percent growth and companies like Google saying that they can do all the innovation. That we should give them tax breaks and get out of the way of the “Moonshot” division so they can provide all the innovation that the country needs while still maintaining Google as a monopoly.

    Please.

    Let’s hope that Trump sees the way forward to greater economic growth as a much stronger patent system with the IPR repealed and directors like Lee a distance nightmare.

    1. NWPA : Ronald Reagan then signed the Bill that created the Fed. Cir … the great malaise ended due to patents.

      LOL

      And the richest got relatively richer at levels that have never been approached since. Over the course of Reagan’s presidency, the share of the total income pie earned by the highest 1% of earners increased by 64%.

      link to valuewalk.com

      Yay! Go patents! Totally not about the “elites.”

      LOLOLOL

      1. Do you have any data whatsoever supporting your contention that the 64% number for that highest 1% came from patents (let alone from software patents)…?

        Serious question Malcolm.

        For you.

        1. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

          Hey, “anon”, remember when NWPA popped up here spoutin about how patent reformers were like “fundy k-lling people in Iraq” and you high fived him?

          I do. I’ve got the whole thread archived and a bunch of others, too.

          You’re his best friend.

          Ask him for data to support his contention that “the great malaise ended due to patents.” Then we’ll know you aren’t a hypocritical hack. M’kay? Good luck.

          LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

          1. Don’t need data, Malcolm – just use your common sense and appreciation of history.

            (and its funny that you call for data, but never respond when people – including me – ask the same if you — why do you think that is?)

          2. Seriously MM? That is the best you have on me? That I compared fundamentalist in the Middle East with anti-patent judicial activist who do not respect the rule of law and intentionally misrepresent science and the law for their own agenda thus undermining our legal system and our society.

            I am very happy to stick to the comparison for the reasons listed above.

          3. And yet another “reply” that provides NO answer to the question put to you.

            Let’s try again then:

            Do you have any data whatsoever supporting your contention that the 64% number for that highest 1% came from patents (let alone from software patents)…?

            Serious question Malcolm.

            For you.

    2. a paid blogger like MM

      I’m not a paid blogger, NWPA. But maybe you are? I mean, you sure post a lot and that’s apparently all it takes to leap to that conclusion in your tiny peabrain.

      And I’m very sorry that you happened to post a comment on the Trump&Patents thread just before I posted my new comment. Sometime that happens. Ask your mommy about it. Maybe she’ll even give you a lolly to s-ck on while you dry your tears.

  7. One thing is for sure, this maniac s0 ci0path that was just elected to the highest office by the l0 west forms of humans on the planet knows more about litigation than any other President in history (with the exception of the President’s who were lawyers or judges):

    [Trump’s attorney] Petrocelli added that no president-elect had ever been in pending litigation before taking office

    That’s an interesting admission. Of course, educated people know that Trump has scores of lawsuits pending against him. Possibly well over a hundred. For some mysterious reason, our “liberal media” chose to pretty much ignore that fact (and the fact that this was an unprecedented situation). I suppose next we’ll hear some sob stories in the “liberal media” about how many of these suits are “frivolous” (because The Donald never files or threatens frivolous litigation himself).

    Is it too early to start the impeachment clock?

        1. The thread is about Trump and the patent system.

          He’s the most litigious president(elect) in history. And he’s the most litigated against.

          You think that’s not relevant to a system that relies on the threat of litigation to function?

          LOLOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

          But “anon” is a very serious person, folks! And he totally h@tes, Trump! Yup. He said so. And “anon” would never tell a l i e. Nope. Not “anon”!

          LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

          1. The thread is about Trump and the patent system.

            The operative word there is “and.”

            None of your political rants (no matter how accurate they may be) satisfy that operative word.

            Please stick to the topic of patents.

            Thanks.

  8. Apparently NWPA believes that he is entitled to have the top comment because he’s a “true intellectual.” Nobody can write a new comment about NWPA! He’s so very very important and deeply serious. He’s totally not the same off-the-charts l0wlife who compared critics of software patents to “fundies k-lling people in Iraq”. Oh, except that he is.

    LOL

    (apologies — I accidentally posted this downthread a moment ago)

      1. Except you are a paid blogger

        Except I’m not.

        And if you keep saying so, then you’re just a l y in g axxh0le.

        Exactly like your bff, “anon.”

        Two peas in a p0d. Two little rich whining crybabies who just can’t get enough cash into their pockets fast enough. “Boo hoo hoo! Someone on the Internet disagrees with me! They must be paid! Boo hoo hooo!”

        LOL Tell us more about how because “you can claim a chair using static equations”, then you should be able to claim logic, too. That was a great “argument”.

        After all, “anon” appears to agree with you. So it must be s00per deep and serious.

        1. Software is not logic, Malcolm.

          We’ve been over this.

          You can obtain copyright on an aspect of software.

          You cannot obtain copyright on logic.

          Wake up son.

        2. As to “appearing to agree,” it is not difficult to agree to the fact that you have an unabashed anti-software agenda pursued with the type of fervor that can be borrowed from religious extremists.

          Not sure why you want to act all shocked about that.

        3. And if you keep saying so, then you’re just a l y in g axxh0le.

          Gee, Malcolm does not ever engage in that type of behavior, now does he?

          Oh wait – that is exactly what Malcolm does. The
          A
          O
          O
          T
          W
          M
          D
          continues ad nauseum.

  9. Re-posted because the paid blogger MM is just trying to submarine my posts.

    The way to think about this properly is to understand the history of modern patents. Jimmy Carter went about creating the Fed. Cir. to end the great malaise. Ronald Reagan then signed the Bill that created the Fed. Cir.

    The national economy boomed and the great malaise ended due to patents.

    Now, Google and the likes of Lee have destroyed the patent system and we are at 1 percent growth and companies like Google saying that they can do all the innovation. That we should give them tax breaks and get out of the way of the “Moonshot” division so they can provide all the innovation that the country needs while still maintaining Google as a monopoly.

    Please.

    Let’s hope that Trump sees the way forward to greater economic growth as a much stronger patent system with the IPR repealed and directors like Lee a distance nightmare.

    1. the paid blogger

      Here’s a guy named NWPA who is so ign 0rant that he can’t figure out how someone can post frequently here without being paid to do so.

      But he wants us to believe that he has very important and thoughtful things to say about the patent system! Yes, he’s a deeply serious person. We have to pay attention to him! It would be so “elitist” not to change his soiled di apers and ask him to tell us more.

      And eventually we’ll hear about “Star Chambers” and he’ll accuse the blog of being “rigged” against him and all his critics are like suicidal k-llers. Which is totally not like something that his hero Trump would do.

      LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

  10. One thing is for sure, this maniac s0 ci0path that was just elected to the highest office by the l0 west forms of humans on the planet knows more about litigation than any other President in history (with the exception of the President’s who were lawyers or judges):

    [Trump’s attorney] Petrocelli added that no president-elect had ever been in pending litigation before taking office

    That’s an interesting admission. Of course, educated people know that Trump has scores of lawsuits pending against him. Possibly well over a hundred. For some mysterious reason, our “liberal media” chose to pretty much ignore that fact (and the fact that this was an unprecedented situation). I suppose next we’ll hear some sob stories in the “liberal media” about how many of these suits are “frivolous” (because The Donald never files or threatens frivolous litigation himself).

    Is it too early to start the impeachment clock?

    1. Apparently NWPA believes that he is entitled to have the top comment because he’s a “true intellectual.” Nobody can write a new comment about NWPA! He’s so very very important and deeply serious. He’s totally not the same off-the-charts l0wlife who compared critics of software patents to “fundies k-lling people in Iraq”. Oh, except that he is.

      LOL

  11. The way to think about this properly is to understand the history of modern patents. Jimmy Carter went about creating the Fed. Cir. to end the great malaise. Ronald Reagan then signed the Bill that created the Fed. Cir.

    The national economy boomed and the great malaise ended due to patents.

    Now, Google and the likes of Lee have destroyed the patent system and we are at 1 percent growth and companies like Google saying that they can do all the innovation. That we should give them tax breaks and get out of the way of the “Moonshot” division so they can provide all the innovation that the country needs while still maintaining Google as a monopoly.

    Please.

    Let’s hope that Trump sees the way forward to greater economic growth as a much stronger patent system with the IPR repealed and directors like Lee a distance nightmare.

    1. NWPA: Google and the likes of Lee have destroyed the patent system

      Kind of odd, then, that more applications are being filed and granted than ever before in history. And there’s work coming out of the ears of patent prosecutors (the competent ones, anyway).

      So what is that NWPA is referring to, exactly?

    2. Night, agreed.

      There was no hope under Hillary. Now, at least we can hope under Trump.

      And, I know a lot of people on our side supported Hillary. I still do not get their thinking.

  12. Greg D the date at which we lawyers become technologically obsolete could arrive much sooner [than 20 years].

    This hilariously wrong assertion reflects a profound misunderstanding about what skilled attorneys do (and why people pay them).

    On the other hand, it’s always pleasant to see an implicit admission that software is logic.

    I’d love to hear from the maximalists as to whether rules for making a legal argument based on a certain set of input data (aka “facts” and “law”) would constitute eligible subject matter. Please, please, please make the argument as forcefully as you can! Because there’s nothing metaphysical about junky software patents …

    LOL

    1. I’m not sure what your point is here, but if there were I machine I could buy that would let me scan in a patent application, an Office Action and the cited documents and press a button and have an appropriate response to the Office Action print out, I would surely consider buying one and I don’t think anyone reading this could say it wasn’t a patentable invention, even if at the heart of it there was a generic computer (running novel software), generic scanner and generic printer.

      Would a patent to such a machine be nothing but junk?

      1. Indeed. The idea that such a machine could be characterized a “ineligible” because it is “just logic” seems a bizarre parody of an argument. I really know nothing about AI, but surely the (1) machine that you described is (2) useful, (3) novel (at least regard to the state of the art today), and (4) non-obvious (once again, relative to today’s art).

        Those 4 point should be enough to define a patentable invention. If it turns out that all of the novelty resides in the software, what of it?

        1. A claim reciting an old machine that reads you a non-obvious set of instructions would fit your criteria Greg. But it’s not eligible. Got another argument? Make a really compelling one! Try really really hard Greg! Cuz you kinda sound like a poorly programmed machine now ….

          Cmon. Let’s hear the argument in defense of the eligibility of “lawyer …. on a computer.” I need the laughs.

          1. Lol – old machine just reading does NOT fit.

            Maybe you need to revisit that famous volunteered admission of yours concerning the exceptions to the judicial printed matter doctrine again (or my very easy to understand Set Theory explication)…

            1. “anon” : old machine just reading does NOT fit.

              It’s not “just reading”. It’s reading a non-obvious set of instructions. The claimed machine recites that non-obvious content.

              Bottom line: it fits every one of Greg’s criteria.

              And you knew that. You just decided to dissemble instead. But you’re a very serious person! Really smart. We all have to pay attention to you.

              1. Just reading “x” is the point that you are dissembling about Malcolm.

                Clearly, the point of law that is pertinent here are the exceptions to the judicial doctrine of printed matter.

                You seem to have a very difficult time treating this subject with any sense of inte11ectual honesty – having in the past volunteered admissions as to knowing and understanding the law that directly undercut your dissembling.

                I even provided an extremely easy to follow Set Theory explication and invited you to discuss that explication.

                You (of course) refused and went silent on the discussion of the legal point – as you have since done again and again and again…

                Greg’s criteria is easily more than just reading “X” no matter what the “X” being read is.

                The difference falls along Set B written matter and Set C written matter.

                Further – and very clearly – there is no dissembling from me on this legal point, and (also) once again you merely engage in your rather stale but most used meme of
                A
                O
                O
                T
                W
                M
                D

                It is beyond sad that you continue to try such banal tactics given that your own admissions wreck them.

                1. “anon” the exceptions to the judicial doctrine of printed matter.

                  Explain to everyone why those exceptions exist, “anon.”

                  Go ahead. You’re the expert. What is the scope of subject matter that is “excepted”, how does the doctrine work in practice (under what section of the statute?), and what is the support for the doctrine. As you know, this “doctrine” is not expressly in any of the patent statute and that’s a bit of a problem for you. Unless you’re a hypocrite who will do and say anything.

                  So go ahead, “anon.” The floor is all yours. And you’re a very serious person.

                2. You want more and yet have not acknowledged the critical part necessary for the point here.

                  Maybe you should stop wanting more and acknowledge that point (and of course, post with inte11ectual honesty regarding that point) first.

        2. If it turns out that all of the novelty resides in the software, what of it?

          The conclusion that “all non-obvious useful software is eligible” is one that you need to defend, Greg, with a convincing argument.

          Good luck! If you succeed, then you’ll be the first. But you have to actually come up with the argument. It’s not exactly an easy argument to make and you’re not the first one to have tried to do it. For starters, explain what kind of information content and logical content “limitations” will be allowed to confer “non-obviousness” to your “useful” software? Recognize that there’s quite a lot of “If x then y” logical variations out there. Is there any reason to expect that “if x then y” logic doesn’t work on certain classes of information? Give an example.

          This is just to get you started. In a moment, we’ll discuss why it matters for your eligibility argument that the logic which constitutes the heart of your “innovation” is embodied by “software”, as opposed to being written on paper (which, of course, is a computer-readable medium).

          It’s all about first principles, Greg. And, no, the first principle isn’t “if I would pay for it, then it has to be patent eligible.” At least not outside of a tiny tiny tiny bubble of patent maximalist screechers.

              1. That’s fantastic since software is neither.

                Shall we again point out that there is NO copyright in logic or information, and yet there is copyright for a facet of software?

                You always like to run away from that logic.

                1. Shall we again point out that there is NO copyright in logic or information, and yet there is copyright for a facet of software? You always like to run away from that logic.

                  Pointing out something isn’t “logic”. Kinda weird to suggest otherwise.

                  But you’re a very serious person! You must be saying something super important and meaningful because you’re right about so much, so often. And you’re always really coherent, totally not a hypocrite who will do and say literally anything no matter how silly.

                2. Brushing aside your worthless ad hominem, you have said nothing.

                  Want to try again to reply with something intelligible?

      2. Les if there were I machine I could buy that would let me scan in a patent application, an Office Action and the cited documents and press a button and have an appropriate response to the Office Action print out, I would surely consider buying one

        LOL An “appropriate” response.

        Les, if such a machine existed, I’d buy it for you. Of course, you’d probably just use it once or twice and then destroy it with a hammer after seeing the output.

        On the other hand, maybe you could include an Appropriatenes Dial that goes all the way to “Pure B.S.” I bet there’s a bunch of software patent attorneys that would love such a machine. Maybe there using them already. Kinda seems that way.

    2. Anytime either of you want to address what I wrote, feel free.

      But thanks for the chuckles in the meantimes. The “I would buy it” argument for patent eligibility is especially amusing.

          1. What they told me was: “We do not hold that no process patent could ever qualify if it did not meet the requirements of our prior precedents. It is said that the decision precludes a patent for any program servicing a computer. We do not so hold.” and ” It is said we freeze process patents to old technologies, leaving no room for the revelations of the new, onrushing technology. Such is not our purpose.”

            Why, what do you think they said?

                1. Les “directly quoted” the non-holding of a Supreme Court case. Wow! Very impressive.

                  Alice also didn’t hold that it was illegal to drive 200 miles per hour on the freeway. Therefore, I am free to do so. Because I want to! I’d even pay money to do it, which means that I should be able to do it. Yes, this is deep deep stuff.

                  You’re very impressive, “anon”! Very very intelligent, just like Les. Quick studies.

                2. Unfortunately, “anon”, your limited English language skills appear to have prevented you from noticing that we weren’t discussing whether Alice held that “all claims whose novelty resides in software are ineligible.”

                  But maybe if you try really, really, really hard you can figure out what was actually being discussed. Hint: I started the discussion and I set forth expressly the issue to be considered.

                  Good luck, “anon”! You’re a real sharp … stick. I’m sure you’ll figure it out eventually, even if you need to phone a friend.

                3. That quote was not from Alice – if you have a quote from Alice that directly contradicts that quote, let’s see it.

                4. MM: “we weren’t discussing whether Alice held that “all claims whose novelty resides in software are ineligible.”

                  Well if you agree that the court DID NOT hold that all claims whose novelty resides in software are ineligible, then it is up to you to explain why the Office Action Responder 5000 is not eligible. It is not for us to explain why it is eligible. That is clear on its face.

                5. it is up to you to explain why the Office Action Responder 5000 is not eligible. It is not for us to explain why it is eligible.

                  LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

                6. You haven’t answered the question, Malcolm – what part of the quote provide by Les being on point do you not understand?

                1. I didn’t say I’d buy one THEREFORE its patentable. I said I’d consider buying one AND no one here could say it wasn’t a patentable invention, even if at the heart of it there was a generic computer (running novel software), generic scanner and generic printer.

                2. He is not (I know that is what you are indicating). It is standard fare for him to v0m1t such mindlessness when pressed further in any dialogue.

                  Such is the blight from Malcolm for a full decade now.

  13. I wonder if Trump and Obama talked about patent policy during their meeting today.

    I’m still trying to wrap my head around the fact that our President-elect is a shameless and unabashed l i ar who fired up his base by endlessly regurgitating a racist myth about Obama’s birth place. And then recanted it because of its potential to “distract” people. And — surprise, surprise — the “liberal media” and the DC c0cktail crowd were just fine with that.

    Oh, it’s going to be so much fun to watch this trainwreck. Except for the poor people whose lives get ruined as a result. But, yes, let’s get back to the super serious business of figuring out whether out whether Trump’s “policies” are going to “strengthen” patents.

    1. “And then recanted it because of its potential to “distract” people.”

      He recanted it to dupe the mainstream media into giving him free publicity, as all the media outlets were prone to tell us. Played like a fiddle.

      “And — surprise, surprise — the “liberal media” and the DC c0cktail crowd were just fine with that.”

      Um, they literally destroyed property in the hotel where the announcement was made because they were so angry. So yes, they were “fine” with it after they blew their stacks sky high and lashed out causing destruction of property.

      “for the poor people ”

      The poors! The poors! Didn’t they know they’d be better off on the progressive plantation? How could they not have known with the media telling them so over and over?

      1. Wow! 6 says the “liberal media” busted some stuff in a hotel because they were sooooooo angry about Trump being a racist lying s@ck.

        That’s some real anger there. Stuff got broke in a hotel? Oh my word. Crazy anger. Changes everything!

        Again: lots of people are going to suffer and die as a direct result of this scumb@g who was, once again, propelled into office by racist misogynist ignorant t0 0ls. Don’t blame the messenger. Just watch and see.

        1. “lots of people are going to suffer and die ”

          Lulz, yeah and the stock market is going to totally fall through the floor too! And nobody died or suffered as a result of Hillary’s foreign policy! Or any other Merican president’s for that matter!

          link to money.cnn.com

          “Don’t blame the messenger. Just watch and see.”

          I’m not blaming you, nor do I doubt you, I’m calling your statement simply foo lish. You’re making a prophecy that would have come true no matter which candidate took office and regardless of whether or not we MAGA. And then you act like it’s just the worst if trump causes the death and suffering rather than Hillary doing the same, just to different people.

          1. And I suppose in your microscopic brain there was no difference between Obama’s policies and Bush’s either.

            Hillary doing the same, just to different people.

            What?

            1. People would suffer and die under Hillary as well brah. She’s directly responsible for the suffering in Libya. Herself, personally, not even Obama, made that call to send Libya into chaos. Now their country is devolved into a sht hole with a bunch of “refugees” streaming out (and through). Wikileaks are suggesting that the US state dept (her dept) are somewhat behind the Syria war getting started as well, though there is no super good link there yet. She presided in the state dept over Afghanistan being slowly retaken by the Taliban thus causing a huge stream of refugees. She presided and supported Barrack not leaving a garrison in Iraq allowing for ISIS to be born. She’s rumored (and wikileaks seem to confirm now) to have caused the FBI to take action in Waco literally because she thought they were taking up too much of the news cycle (that they needed to manipulate simpletons like yourself). Hillary is all about the bombings Obama is conducting in random countries to hit suspected “terrorists” who live in tiny villages (and the closest block full of people).

              Bottom line, people will suffer and die under either Hillary or Trump. At least Trump will MAGA in the process.

              1. 6, Hillary’s willingness to get involved in other people’s wars is what troubles me. There are always going to be wars in the world, but not all of these wars are going to involve American interests, at least not to the extent that we should take sides in the armed conflict or get directly involved with our own airpower and our own troops.

                Take a look what happened in Vietnam. That basically was a Civil War where our own troops could not tell the friend from foe. There was no way for us to effectively fight that war let alone win it. So in the end, we spent a decade killing and being killed for nothing.

                Kuwait was slightly different in that we had a clear military victory. But we then FUBARed that victory by leaving our troops in place, and getting involved with policing Saddam through UN sanctions designed to get rid of his weapons of mass destruction. Folly. Had we thought it through, we would have never gotten involved in the first place. Our national interest was not at stake. The original policy communicated by the American ambassador to Iraq was the correct policy: we do not get involved in Arab-to-Arab disputes. But we did get involved, and that directly lead to the formation of Al Qaeda and to the conflict in Afghanistan.

                The Iraq war also seemed unnecessary, but directly flowed from the mistake of getting involved with the Kuwait war in the first place. We found ourselves fighting an enemy where we again could not tell friend from foe. Any such war is very difficult to win. Even so, we had all but won the war when we left without leaving any military force behind to finish the job. As result of that mistake, we got ISIS.

                I do not know how we got involved in trying to topple Qaddafi and Assad, but we did; and it was a mistake in each case. Libya is a mess. In Syria is a catastrophe. Both of these situations got worse as a direct result of our meddling, and Hillary Clinton was behind that meddling. It is as if Hillary was incapable of learning from history or, perhaps, she simply did not know anything about history.

                Then we have the situation in Syria where Hillary was advocating a no-fly zone intended to shoot down Russian airplanes. And then she has the gall of accusing Trump of being dangerous! Incredible.

                1. “There are always going to be wars in the world, but not all of these wars are going to involve American interests, at least not to the extent that we should take sides in the armed conflict or get directly involved with our own airpower and our own troops.”

                  I know right? Much less spend a trillion dollars doing an operation “the clean way”.

                  The Kuwait war didn’t even need to happen. The only reason it did happen was because some i di ot told Saddam (or strongly implied or whatever) that we would not intervene. That was false. And it was our bad. Had we made sure he understood we would defend Kuwait he wouldn’t have invaded in the first place.

                  “I do not know how we got involved in trying to topple Qaddafi and Assad”

                  The much vaunted “Arab Spring” was happening and a rebellion was afoot and everyone was thinking still that all middle eastern Islam people needed was “a chance” at democracy. Then the opportunity to k ill Gaddafi presented itself and Hillary was like “oh yeah, let’s bo mb him” so they shot his convoy with a dro ne, the rebels got hold of him and b eat/sh ot him to d eath. But everyone was wrong in that actually most areas that are i slam ic dominated are inherently unstable places that nigh surely require an iron grip to even turn halfway into a decent civilization because of their iron age/middle ages mentality and ide ology that clashes with the modern world. And this is literally true all around the world with like 2 exceptions and in those countries they’re do minated by only one sect of islam unlike other places were there are many. Iraq’s democracy, without our help to prop them up, is near sure to fail within 20 years.

                  As to Assad we were just doing covert ops, standard regime change nonsense that the establishment is in lu rve with.

                  “It is as if Hillary was incapable of learning from history or, perhaps, she simply did not know anything about history.”

                  Neither is true. You have to understand the agenda of the people to whom she is beholden to understand why she continually does it. And it is a very complicated game for very rich people who have interests that are not in yours or my own best interest. But they’re paying Hillary’s bills so she can have a 300 milly war chest, a nice “foundation” to hire all her friends onto so they can have a place to chi llax in style tax free, and billions in PAC money to “get out the vote” etc.

    2. MM, it was Hillary that sought to paint Obama as a Muslim in her primary campaign against him. Hillary and Bill were also behind a crackdown on black youth in the ’90s.

      There are many, many quotes from Hillary in all sorts of contexts that were bigoted beyond belief. She openly mocked Catholics, for one.

      Bill’s mentor was Senator Fullbright, a Klan member and a segregationist. Hillary’s protege was Senator Byrd, a KKK grand Marshall.

      Now, does she get away from being a bigot in fact just because she does all of in the background? I don’t think so.

      Trump did vex Obama with the birther thing for a number of years. But the people who know Trump say that he is not a racist, and I believe them. Were he to behave in private like Hillary, I too would call him a racist.

      But, MM, it seems abundantly clear that it was you were backing a racist, if not the only racist in the race (pun intended). People who consistently behave the same way over a long period of time when others are not looking are what they seem to be.

      1. Seriously, Ned, you can stop reciting your Fox News pablum anytime. It’s not even interestingly wrong.

        the people who know Trump say that he is not a racist,

        LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

        Oh, man, this blog is a crack-up sometimes.

        1. Trump did vex Obama with the birther thing

          And this is where it needs to be said: Edward Heller is a shameless apologist hack who will do and say literally anything if it pleases his rich, white tiny brain.

      2. I sm a busy person and so are you. I don’t have the time to provide all the links necessary to show that most of what you wrote is nonsense, and you wouldn’t have time to read them if I did. Some time when you find yourself with an idle hour (a delayed connecting flight at the airport, for example) you might find it interesting to ask yourself “how many of those assertions in #17.2 could I establish with evidence?”, and then tool around on Google to find the goods. I expect you will find it educational to see how much of what you wrote is unfounded gossip.

      3. Truly, Ned, I gotta say that this breathtakingly false equivalency is incredibly disturbing coming out of the mouth of a supposed adult.

        In front of everybody’s face, Trump literally and transparently builds a base of support among white nationalists by repeating and promoting, over and over again, numerous, shameless racist lies and relies on that support to win *this* election (losing the popular vote but, hey, that’s the awesome system we have).

        Somehow this is equivalent to … what again? A stream of dubious allegations and out-of-context cr@p spo 0nfed to you by some Internet sleaze peddler?

        Good grief, man, use your brain.

        1. MM, a lot of what Trump said, I think, was just plain d*mb, etc., etc., etc. He had to walk back most of it, which only goes to the point that he tends to say things before he thinks them through. He is also very thinned skin. This we all know.

          But, of all the d*mb things Trump said or did, most of them were based good policy reasons, not racism. The bit about Muslims was not motivated by race, but by the war on terror.

          The one thing I cannot explain away is the birther thing, and that has always concerned me.

          As to Hillary, she has a public face and a private one. That private one is quite ugly in my view. If we had a truly evenly balanced media that actually reported what they all knew, she would never have gotten close to the nomination.

        2. MM, my replies have not made it through the filter. But the gist is that I agree Trump’s words are ill considered; and that he is obviously thinned skinned.

          1. It made it through Ned.

            Odd though, now that it is through, your rather apologetic “gist” makes me wonder why you strive so much to be in Malcolm’s favorable graces.

            Take a look at his swagger of late – swagger eminently directed at you.

            Any other person saying such would have long ago had you hitting the umbrage button.

            Hmmm.

      4. “But, MM, it seems abundantly clear that it was you were backing a racist,”

        You have to understand Ned, the Clintons used their media machine to brain wash good ol MM et al. into thinking only Trump was RAYCIST as opposed to them too. Plus, as a liberal, Clinton automatically gets a “I’m not a RAYCIST” sticker that means she’s tots not a RAYCIST simply by virtue of her being a liberal. At least in liberal eyes.

        1. the Clintons used their media machine to brain wash good ol MM et al. into thinking only Trump was RAYCIST

          That’s some hardc0re lizard brain “logic: right there.

          Wow.

          1. MM> willingly ignoring the wikileaks showing quite clearly that those in the democratic party elite and clinton’s former inner circle explicitly talk about controlling his thoughts and his worldview. On a fairly regular basis.

            Oh what’s that MM? You didn’t bother to look into the wikileaks? Lulz. Enjoy your mind control old timer.

  14. From: link to donaldjtrump.com

    Donald J. Trump’s 7 Point Plan To Rebuild the American Economy by Fighting for Free Trade

    4. Tell NAFTA partners that we intend to immediately renegotiate the terms of that agreement to get a better deal for our workers. If they don’t agree to a renegotiation, we will submit notice that the U.S. intends to withdraw from the deal. Eliminate Mexico’s one-side backdoor tariff through the VAT and end sweatshops in Mexico that undercut U.S. workers.

    5. Instruct the Treasury Secretary to label China a currency manipulator.

    6. Instruct the U.S. Trade Representative to bring trade cases against China, both in this country and at the WTO. China’s unfair subsidy behavior is prohibited by the terms of its entrance to the WTO.

    So, do we see any impact PCT-wise or prior art definition-wise?

  15. The fact is that Clinton would have continued Obama’s servitude to Google. Google doesn’t want patents. Google would continue to select the PTO director and the Fed. Cir. judges.

    Frankly, very hard to image anything worse than Clinton for patents.

    If Trump is a servant to Google, then there is some hope that he will get it.

    1. is —> is NOT

      You know this craziness is not coming from everyone in this country. The justices should all be impeached for Alice. It is a decision that allows any judge to invalidate any claim based on no evidence or hearing. You see if one side goes off the rails the other side does too. Ginsburg is as much responsible for Trump as anyone in the country.

      Start obeying the rule of law and the Constitution —everyone.

      1. Trump on the C trail said he wanted to reform the FDA approval process — to reduce costs and get better, fast, cheaper drugs to the market. Good start in my book.

        To be sure, Trump is not in the pocket of E. Schmit.

        Side note. Bumped into a S.CT Justice last night while out having a subdued celebration on the Trump win last nite. I would say the sentiment in DC (and SCOTUS) was one of relief –> You can love or hate the Trump but H Clinton would have been a disaster on many levels.

        1. Relief…?

          What about Hilary would cause SCOTUS to be fretful? Or was it just the possibility of a divided and polarized Executive/Legisilative branches situation?

          1. This is my supposition -> this particular Justice finds himself in the hot seat in certain types of cases –> ‘relief’ that help is on the way and ergo maybe 5-4 for only a little while longer then more 6-3. And also relief, from the immediate constitutional crises the election of Hillary would have placed the country. I, for one, would like:

            (a) a SCOTUS that requires right angles on the separation of power issues;

            (b) stops re-writing statutes to hold them Constitutional but instead just strikes them down; and

            (c) retakes the judicial power from the 4 branch of government.

              1. This is my supposition -> this particular Justice finds himself in the hot seat in certain types of cases

                It’s okay to say that you saw Justice Kennedy. Nobody gives a sh-t.

            1. (a) a SCOTUS that requires right angles on the separation of power issues;

              (b) stops re-writing statutes to hold them Constitutional but instead just strikes them down; and

              (c) retakes the judicial power from the 4 branch of government.</i

              And then what? Then you're just fine with "whatever happens"?

              You guys never cease to amuse.

        2. the sentiment in DC

          LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

          We all know that DC has long-standing problems with “the Clintons”. They weren’t supposed to be there, remember? They didn’t “belong.”

          But we can rest assured that Trump is going to bring some real class to the place. LOLOLOLOLOLOL

          relief

          Everybody is relieved that the election is finally over. Was there ever anything more depressing to watch? Other than the result, of course.

          You can love or hate the Trump but H Clinton would have been a disaster on many levels.

          Pretty sure we’re looking at a disaster that doesn’t even have a name yet. Remember the last time a clueless Republican President who lost the popular vote took office? I do. He started a completely pointless war, killed thousands of innocent people, destroyed the economy, and left the office in disgrace.

          Fun for the rubes, though! They go to wave their flags, villify non-whites, and accuse everyone who didn’t agree with them of being “traitors.” Oh, so much fun.

        3. Trump on the C trail said he wanted to reform the FDA approval process — to reduce costs and get better, fast, cheaper drugs to the market. Good start in my book.

          Anything more specific than this “wish” to “reform”? Gosh, I hope so.

          Maybe he can just get rid of the FDA. Freedom!

        4. iwasthere, agreed. What we need are more justices like Roberts. We will never get such a justice from the likes of Clinton.

          From Wellness:

          “The Framers of the Constitution “lived among the ruins of a system of intermingled legislative and judicial powers.” Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211, 219, 115 S.Ct. 1447, 131 L.Ed.2d 328 (1995). Under British rule, the King “made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.”
          1951
          *1951 The Declaration of Independence ¶ 11. Between the Revolution and the Constitutional Convention, state legislatures routinely interfered with judgments of the courts. This history created the “sense of a sharp necessity to separate the legislative from the judicial power.” Plaut, 514 U.S., at 221, 115 S.Ct. 1447; see Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Assn., 575 U.S. ___, _______, 135 S.Ct. 1199, 1215-1217, 191 L.Ed.2d 186 (2015) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment). The result was Article III, which established a judiciary “truly distinct from both the legislature and the executive.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 466 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton).

          “”[I]f there is a principle in our Constitution. . . more sacred than another,” James Madison said on the floor of the First Congress, “it is that which separates the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial powers.” 1 Annals of Cong. 581 (1789). A strong word, “sacred.” Madison was the principal drafter of the Constitution, and he knew what he was talking about. By diffusing federal powers among three different branches, and by protecting each branch against incursions from the others, the Framers devised a structure of government that promotes both liberty and accountability. …

          In these and other cases, we have emphasized that the values of liberty and accountability protected by the separation of powers belong not to any branch of the Government but to the Nation as a whole. See Bowsher, 478 U.S., at 722, 106 S.Ct. 3181. A branch’s consent to a diminution of its constitutional powers therefore does not mitigate the harm or cure the wrong. “Liberty is always at stake when one or more of the branches seek to transgress the separation of powers.”

          Wellness Intern. Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, 135 S. Ct. 1932 – Supreme Court 2015 link to scholar.google.com

          1. Nice case, however, there is the seed of defeat in the reasoning – consent and waiver of the Art III rights. Some would argue that the patent scheme is a pure creature of statute – and there is no Constitutional underpinning (in other words, Congress can create whatever it wants, and when an inventor elects to avail themselves to the scheme – that person consents to the scheme and waives Art III protection). Putting aside the 7th Amendment for a moment, I think we have the better argument – that the waiver premise could be true in the abstract – but the scheme right now creates an untenable mix of powers – wherein Art III power to adjudicate is granted, but the Executive department under the guise of an administrative court – can usurp the finality rule required by the separation of powers. That’s Hayburn’s case. It could be true that Congress could make the patent right only administratively enforceable (like the 337 ITC and strip the Art III department of jusidiction), but whether that hypothetical scheme violates the 7th Amendment, is a question for another day.

            1. There is no consent to the other Constitutional protections of property, as the scheme first established patents as property, and that status as property was not changed by the AIA.

              That other parts of the AIA may violate the constitutional protections of property does not change the attribution of property.

                1. I would not phrase it that way.

                  The Constitutional clause is an allocation of authority – it is not “patent law” itself.

                  One critical takeaway here is in the point that I have often expressed: it is critical to know the difference between statutory law and common law (aka judge-made law).

      2. The justices should all be impeached for Alice.

        Deep, deep serious stuff.

        And the other half of the Bobbsy Twins comes right along to high five!

        Keep the laughs coming, guys!

    2. Obama’s servitude to Google? Other than your obvious paranoia, do you have even the slightest bit of proof of this pap or do you just hate everything Obama/clinton you will say whatever your right wing blog tell you to say?

      1. Sure – closed door and minute-less meetings, iirc the second highest level of lobbying, software projects written by (and funded by) Google prior to the public announcement of said projects, rampant Donkey pay to play schemes and one of the highest ever “revolving door” counts in history…

        Do you really want to be that Polly Anna about this…?

        1. Closed door meetings? And you know this how? You were part of it? All you have is baseless rumors and no evidence. Talk to me when you get a shred of proof.

            1. And these fictitious reporters you believe are real know what happened behind closed door meetings? ok…
              I’m sure there are some reporters who think that. Trump thinks of the national Enquirer as a legitimate newspaper so maybe it’s one of them…

                1. Not sure what your response is supposed to imply.

                  There is no “tight around the collar” when it is you that seems to accept plain facts.

                2. Drain the swamp? Is that what one calls it?

                  Trump’s transition team is staffed with long-time Washington experts and lobbyists from K Street, think tanks and political offices…he has so far fully embraced lobbyists within his transition, and all signs point to a heavy influence from longtime Washington Republican circles on his transition. And with Trump mostly skipping detailed policy proposals during his campaign, they can have a powerful impact on his agenda.

                  Somehow, that looks more like business as usual.

                3. Yes, but look behind the headlines at who those “lobbyists” are. They’re not your avg “scum”. Though the mainstream media continues to present its narrative to you.

                4. My point being “Me myself and I” by rolling out the classic Clinton 3 dog defense–> oh sure it looks bad, and there is tons of smoke –> No smoking gun, or the phony read Mens Rea into all the statutes, etc etc. that maybe she is part of the crookedness herself.

    3. Night, I was making this point to our side in the fight prior to the election, but most did not see that Clinton would be more of the same or that Trump represented reform.

      Puzzling.

      Now, I do admit that proof is in the pudding, so to speak. But let us keep our fingers crossed.

      1. Here I can happily agree. I approach the new administration with much less native enthusiasm than you do, but I am quite on board with crossing fingers and hoping for the best right now.

      2. Better to have some hope of change, than the certainly of no change at all. HRC, was already selling the Executive department to the highest bidders – there is an actual spread sheet of donor, $$, and Executive department title – right on the wikileaks. Mind-blowing.

                1. Thanks – any idea who the names may link to (as in, Big Corp…?) Pretty sure that the pay to play is dominated by those with the largest (as in Citizen’s United largest) voice$…

  16. As people have pointed out, the IPR experience of the new President is in trademarks and not patents.

    Trademark registrations cannot be a restraint of trade. That’s why they are perpetual.

    But patent rights can and do restrain trade, very effectively. That’s what they are for. And Mr President-to-be Trump is, I suppose, viscerally against any of that.

    So why on Earth should he favour strong patents? I expect his instinct will be to close them down.

    On the other hand, if his currently closest consigliere has made a mint out of junk patents, he might come round to the very opposite view that, all in all, it’s best for everyone to let a million patent actions bloom.

    Who knows?

    1. Trademark registrations cannot be a restraint of trade. That’s why they are perpetual.

      Not exactly correct.

      If you equate “restraint” with “exclusive,” perhaps, but that is not the general meaning of “restraint.”

    2. Strong patents have the natural curb of limited times.

      The question comes down to whether or not Mr. Trump (or who he delegates) believes in the Efficient Infringer model or can grasp that strong patents foster better innovation.

      There is a point to be made that Trademarks are not about innovation at all, so it is difficult to correlate experience of one to the views of the other. Quite a bit of apples and oranges.

      1. The question comes down to whether or not Mr. Trump (or who he delegates) believes in the Efficient Infringer model

        This silly script about this “model” is a joke. It’s not a “model”. It’s just the way that business works.

        Your real complaint is that patents — – especially junk patents — have been devalued by making it easier to get rid of them. Even if you make it harder to get rid of them, it’s still going to be the case sometimes that people are going to decide that practicing the claim is worth the risk of being successfully sued for infringement. Try to grow up and argue the issues like an adult for once. It’s not like we don’t all know where you’re coming from.

        Based on his business practices in general, it would appear to be the case that Trump believes in doing whatever he can get away and everybody else can go s c rew themsleves. You really have a hard time figuring that out? My gosh, you really were born yesterday.

        Trademarks are not about innovation at all

        Odd, then, that design patents are widely seen as a useful part of the pathway towards trademark protection.

        1. Whether or not design patents are a “useful pathway TO trademark protection” encompasses completely different dynamics.

          If you had an inkling of business and trademark law, you would have already known that.

    3. Trump also has little record of establishing or advocating for public policy, only in challenging it to serve his own needs. I think its a big mystery how he will govern, but generally his whims will change daily depending on who hes trying to impress or manipulate. Is some friend of his trying to file suit in EDTX? Then hell be opposed to venue reform. Or is another friend being sued in EDTX? then he’ll be for it. Its all very personal with him.

      1. Trump also has little record of establishing or advocating for public policy, only in challenging it to serve his own needs. I think its a big mystery how he will govern,

        Does anyone care “how he will govern”?

        What matters to his supporters is: who is he going to hit and how hard? Women? Blacks? Muslims? Latinos? Gays? Environmentalists? Those groups need to be hurt, and hurt badly. Because … angry white “Real Americans.” They’re s00per d00per strong! And oh so very serious. Totally not lizard brains who can’t figure out whether Medicare and Medicaid are government programs or not.

      2. I wonder what The Donald thinks about racist trademark registration?

        Presumably he’s all for it.

        Kris Kobach was the architect of the most racist law in modern American history. SB 1070 passed in Arizona in 2010. What did it mean? If you have brown skin or an accent, police had a right to stop you, detain you and demand you prove your citizenship.

        Kobach just named to Trump’s transition team. Sorry, brown people! Sorry, brown people with accents! It’s time for you to get sc rewed, just like the old days when America was “great.”

  17. From the other thread, but too funny not to repeat here:

    “Better buy a big bucket for your tears, “anon.” She’s pretty much guaranteed to be around for 8 years.”

    1. Whatever floats your boat. Unlike you, I’m not ashamed to admit error, especially that one.

      Presumably, since both parties are “total cr@p” in your super serious opinion, you’re just as bummed about the result as I am. Your candidate was decimated beyond recognition, after all. Mine, at least, won the popular vote, including (by a huge margin) the votes of the kinds of people who innovate stuff. You used to act like those people were really important. What changed?

      1. I am bummed.

        But that’s another thing you simply cannot comprehend in your “throw them all in the same bucket” mentality.

        1. You simply can not credibly complain about being “in a bucket” when you’ve repeatedly thrown incredibly diverse of classes of people into buckets and tarred them based on that alone, e.g., “academics.”

          Besides that, there is literally nothing that you’ve ever said here that is consistent with you sincerely believing that Bernie Sanders should be President. What’s that all about? I could answer that question for you but I’ll give you a chance to explain why you’re so enamored of the man.

          1. MM, your support for Bernie is puzzling since he and Trump’s positions on most issues were aligned. I do agree that Bernie was not with Trump on the Wall and Muslims. But beyond that? The same.

            1. He was only “for Bernie” after the fix was in and only too eagerly chowed down on the Donkey CRP sandwich that was Hillary (while never batting an eye on the G-g-grift machine that was Hilary’s main financial backers).

              1. He was only “for Bernie” after the fix was in

                Oh lookies! It’s the path0 l0gical li ar again, making stuff up out of thin air.

                And remember folks: “anon” — the bl0g’s resident paranoiac who finds commies under his bed — claimed to support Bernie Sanders and he expects us to believe him. He’s a very serious person!

                1. Nothing at all made up Malcolm. Your first indication of supporting Bernie was on the very same thread that you jumped to Hilary.

                  On the other hand, I have been entirely consistent in wrd – and deed – in supporting Bernie.

                  That you cannot understand this is merely another reflection of your tendency to throw anyone who does not agree with you into the same bucket.

                  Wake up son – the world is not that polar.

      2. As to my “candidate” being decimated, the write in was a known protest (so not sure if “decimated” is even the correct word).

        The skullduggery against my candidate happened by his own party – to the benefit of the G-g-grifter you couldn’t wait to chow down on.

      3. Unlike you, I’m not ashamed to admit error, especially that one.

        Funny that – I read nowhere of any such admitted error (and your petulant whining all too clearly points out that you still do not grasp exactly what your error is).

  18. House Speaker Paul Ryan called for unity following the election of Donald Trump Wednesday morning, saying the Republican nominee “just earned a mandate.”

    ROTFLMAO

    That predictable silliness didn’t take long. Of course, Trump lost the popular vote unlike, say, Obama who handily whupped his opponents both time. What was the Republican response to Obama’s superfabulous “mandate”? Does anyone remember?

    1. Not sure what “predictable” you were thinking of, but I think that Ryan was looking out strictly for his own behind (since he was not playing nice with Trump before Trump was elected).

      1. Not sure what “predictable” you were thinking of

        Everything that Ryan said was predictable. And it was, in fact, predicted. Because … utterly predictable.

        Ryan was…. not playing nice with Trump before Trump was elected).

        LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

        Oh, he was soooo mean! Withering, really. Brutal. Nasty. Sure he was.

                1. You seem unable to comprehend things, as you continue to force everything through your glasses of “if you don’t believe everything I believe, then you are the enemy and the enemy is ALL in one bucket”

                  Wake up son.

                2. you continue to force everything through your glasses of “if you don’t believe everything I believe, then you are the enemy

                  No, I’m the guy who voted for Hillary Clinton after voting for Bernie Sanders in the primary.

                  You’re the ridiculous libertarian cl0wn who advocated writing in a no-chance candidate to “send a message.”

    2. MM, do recall that the O’man had both houses and 60 votes in the Senate. He ignored the Republicans because he could. Told them that too.

      When they took power in ’10, he was facing payback.

      1. He ignored the Republicans because he could. Told them that too.

        I have no idea what you are talking about. Pres. Obama bent over backwards to try reach compromises with the Republicans in Congress—both before and after the 2010 midterms—and was repeatedly rebuffed. I would be very interested to see you cite any public statement by Pres. Obama that could be fairly construed as “I am ignoring you because I can.”

          1. From the linked article:

            At the meeting, Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the No. 2 House Republican, passed out copies of the Republicans’ five-point stimulus plan. At first blush, Obama said, “Nothing on here looks outlandish or crazy to me,” Obama said, according to a source familiar with the conversation. He seemed particularly receptive to some Republican ideas about increasing benefits to small businesses.

            Somehow that does not seem to me like one could fairly characterize the discussion as “I am ignoring you because I can.”

            1. You cut short the quote, taking it out of context Greg.

              The next sentence minimizes that which you attempt to maximize:

              But when the conversation got down to other specifics,…

              That’s a rather “Malcolm” move Greg. For shame.

  19. As others have already said, I am very doubtful that Pres. Trump has ever thought about patents or that he will spend any more than ~15 min. of his presidency thinking about them. I also expect that, for the most part, whatever legislation the republican Congress cares to send him will receive his willing signature.

    The AIA was a thoroughly bipartisan creation. The AIA was not merely bipartisan in the sense that the Dems wanted some of the stuff in there and the GOP wanted other stuff, and they agreed to put in both bits to reach passage, even though each party had to hold its nose about half of the AIA contents. Rather, it was bipartisan in the sense that each party saw the AIA reforms as common ground. Therefore, there is nothing that I expect the GOP Congress to repeal from or add to the AIA.

    As for the Courts, I note that there does not seem to be any particular partisan valence to the Supreme Court’s view on IP. Most recent IP decisions have been unanimous, and when there have been dissents, they have been bipartisan (e.g., Justices Alito and Sotomayor in Cuozzo, or Breyer with Kennedy and the Chief in Petrella). That is a long way of saying that it does not appear to me that the party of the president has much effect on Supreme Court IP outcomes.

    This is very different from the CAFC. There it is quite clear that the Democratic appointees have been more keen to restrain patent rights, and the Republican appointees have taken a more expansive view of patent rights. I suppose, then, that to the extent vacancies open on the CAFC, a Trump presidency will mean more judges with a more expansive view of patent rights. That said, the SCotUS lately matters more than the CAFC. Also Pres. Obama has filled a lot of CAFC vacancies with fairly young folks, so I am not sure how much opportunity Pres. Trump will have to alter the balance of the CAFC composition.

    1. Greg, I beg to differ. Both Democratic Senators from California wanted to remove FTF from the AIA because it would harm startups. The AIA was not uncontroversial.

      Since then, IPRs have proven to be a disaster for patent law. There is all but a consensus on that view, although with the collapse of MCM Portfolio, and the loss in Cuozzo, there was a growing realization that there was nothing that we could do anymore.

      Then along comes Trump.

      1. IPRs have proven to be a disaster for patent law. There is all but a consensus on that view,

        lol – what? Did someone take a poll?

        Meet Ed Heller. He was a pioneer in moving jobs offshore when his company’s bottom line was threatened. He proudly voted for a race-baiting ignoramus because he needs more money. He’s a very serious person!

        1. MM, no, I was not happy about moving jobs offshore. We had no choice. Were I to have my way, I would have long ago reduced corporate taxes and regulation to keep those jobs in the US.

          In the run up to the AIA, the only support we had in Congress for not passing the AIA were from Democrats who saw patents as important for US jobs and for startups. I will never forget their support and they will always have my vote.

          As to IPRs being a disaster, I think there is a consensus view on that, but there are a large number who cheer it on as they do not like the patent system at all. Google is among their leaders.

      2. Both Democratic Senators from California wanted to remove FTF from the AIA…

        True, but Democrat Leahy worked to fight off the Feinstein amendment and keep FTF in the AIA. In other words, FTF was not a partisan issue. There were democrats who wanted FTF and republicans who wanted FTF, and democrats who did not want FTF and republicans who did not want FTF. Same for IPRs. Same for joint research agreements. Etc.

        Nothing about the AIA was an especially partisan issue.

        1. It was the great “anon” who reminded everyone endlessly that the AIA represented an “anti-patent attack” “from the right and the left.”

          Of course there were plenty of folks in the creamy center who who also supported the AIA.

        2. Greg, yes. But with the Democrats in power, it was the Democrats that truly passed the AIA. Still, a number of them were skeptical. They listened to us, and for that we are grateful.

  20. Life is a series of probabilistic outcomes. The odds said he would not win; he won. The odds say he will be a horrible president; he probably will be. But to be sure; I never trusted Hillary’s instincts and Trump has shown, if anything, a supernatural instinct for finding the gaps. If he ends up driving the Republican party insane, it may be worth the candle. I am 100% not in the boo hoo crowd this morning. I wish she had won, but I have faith in America. And both literally and ironically; thanks Obama!

    As to patents, or more broadly how he will act as President; the man knows how to read a poll and fleece a sucker- probably better than anyone who has ever held the office. Thing is, he is against other people fleecing the rubes. That’s the charm of the man. When a plutocrat sees himself as the protector of the little guy, and he has a natural understanding of scamming, its kind of hard to predict how he will impact the patent system, if at all. Absent any kind of worldview on patents, he will probably be content to undo what Obama did, if even that, and so he will probably leave it in the hands of the Congress and whoever he sold the director’s job to.

    There is absolutely no telling where a new justice will land on patent eligibility based on their political leanings. It’s a philosophical thing, as we see from the 19 different takes at the USSC and CAFC.

  21. 1. Most valuable patents get litigated in an Article III Court.

    2. They are also subjected to the parallel process of the IPR except the IPR uses different (and unfair) rules.

    3. It had been a long time since issued patents have been presumed to be valid so there is really no need to have them Examined.

    President Trump can Drain the Swamp that is the Patent Office by:

    1. Going to a Patent Registration System administered by the Copyright Office; and

    2. Shutting down the Patent Office.

    And,

    Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, empowers the United States Congress: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the *exclusive* Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

    It does not say, “except for inventors who do not practice the invention themselves.”

    If you want to keep that un-Constitutional policy then it should also apply to companies that make things but not a product that is covered by their patent.

    This un-Constitutional policy should also apply to companies that contract production to a another party (like a company in China) because then the company does not make the product themselves. The company in China makes it.

    And, if you want to keep this un-Constitutional policy apply it to authors who are not also publishers.

    1. Do any other entitled “little guys” want to post more of their fantasies?

      Let it all out. These are really fresh ideas and what could possibly go wrong?

      LOL

    2. A very large number of U.S. voters from all parties obviously played hooky in high school when they were supposed to learn the fundamentals of our government and its Constitution. In particular, that a President does not enact any laws – tax laws, patent laws, or any other kind of law. Nor does a president even get the final say on the interpretation of laws in our system. Thus, in almost every election the candidates promise to change all sorts of things for which they have no control, no vote, and often little influence, but those voters buy it anyway.

      1. Cur, “[A] President does not enact any laws – tax laws, patent laws, or any other kind of law. Nor does a president even get the final say on the interpretation of laws in our system.”

        They said the same thing once upon a time about the Roman Emperor. How did that work out?

        But after Obama and all his end-run executive orders, I think we can expect a lot of the same from Trump.

        1. LOL

          Yes, folks, Trump’s awful policies and executive orders that hurt millions of people … will be Obama’s fault.

          Classic Repukkke script.

            1. anon, I know MM is a Democrat and he must be just a tad upset right now. But he does listen, even if he does not always agree.

              Some Democrats are acknowledging that they have lost the people and that Trump’s election was a populist election. In the past, Democrats have been the populists, from Jackson to FDR, tirelessly working for the common folk. But today, they mock the average Joe: the people who shop at Walmart; deplorables, and the like. The Democrat party has become the establishment. They look down on most Americans.

              Sanders is an exception. He too was a populist; and he has expressed his support for Trump. That is welcome. It would be nice for Sanders and all his followers to join with Trump in the new administration, and in the party for the future.

              1. Trump’s election was a populist election. In the past, Democrats have been the populists, from Jackson to FDR, tirelessly working for the common folk.

                This is the trouble I have with the word “populist.” Any word that can allegedly encompass Presidents Jackson, Roosevelt, and Trump is so broad as to be essentially coterminous with “human being.” Jackson murdered literally tens of millions of people so that he might give their land to his well-connected friends and party loyalists. FDR fought back spittle-flecked plutocratic opposition to make sure that hungry people were fed, homeless people were sheltered, humiliated people were given a measure of dignity, and that the defenseless of three continents were rescued from oppression. To throw these two both into the bucket of “populist” obscures the much more salient differences between them.

                The fact that both talked about “the common man”—one while committing vicious atrocities and the other while exercising corporal works of mercy—just goes to show that (as the Bard said), one may “smile and smile and be a villain” (Ham. Act. 1, sc. 5). To throw the word “populist” around in such a circumstance tells one nothing worth knowing about the characters involved.

                1. Populist has nothing to do with those character traits, Greg.

                  You make the mistake of looking for a value content in the word “populist” when that word does not have any such content.

                2. Well Greg, Andrew Jackson did have his brutal side. There is no doubt about that.

                  As to Roosevelt I agree with your characterization of him.

                  But his concern with the plight of the those who were suffering during the depression illustrates in spades that the problem with the current the elites of both parties is that they pursue policies regardless of the damage they do to the lives of ordinary people.

                  Consider free trade as just one example. These trade deals allow corporations to move jobs outside United States while allowing them to import products back into the United States with no tariffs. Corporations react in predictable ways. They move jobs to places of low taxes and little regulation. By this means they can increase profits because of low regulation and retain those profits because of low taxes and still have access to the markets of the United States.

                  Obviously, free trade is a jobs killer. There is little doubt that the people affected by these free trade deals voted for Trump because he promised to do something about them.

          1. MM, the problem of stretching the constitution is that once stretched, it cannot be unstretched. If Trump effectively repeals Obamacare with the stroke of a pen, as the O’man did with the Immigration Laws, are the Dems truly going to complain?

            Why of course they. But hypocrisy is the norm in DC.

            1. A couple of points:

              (1) No immigration laws were ever vitiated, with a pen stroke or with anything else. Congress budgeted enough funds for ~400K deportations per year, and Pres. Obama carried out ~400K deportations per year. In other words, he enforced the immigration laws with all of the vigor that the Congress empowered him to do.

              (2) I feel fairly certain that Pres. Trump will not repeal Obamacare by executive discretion. I expect that he will repeal it the old-fashioned, fully constitutional way. That is to say, both houses of the next Congress will pass a bill that revises the U.S. code to remove all the changes that were added on account of the Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act. Pres. Trump will sign that bill. That way, the repeal will not merely be an act that can be reversed by the next president, but will rather require another act of Congress (for which we will have to wait at least another 20 years, in all likelihood).

              (3) Will democrats complain about that repeal? You bet we will. Just like the republicans complained about the original passage of the AIA. Will we launch an all out scorched earth campaign of litigation to obviate the repeal? No, probably not. I am not clear on why any of this would strike you as “hypocrisy,” but I think it is safe to predict that people who lose an election will complain about the corresponding outcomes (fat lot of good it will do us).

            2. A couple of points:

              (1) No immigration laws were ever vitiated, with a pen stroke or with anything else. Congress budgeted enough funds for ~400K deportations per year, and Pres. Obama carried out ~400K deportations per year. In other words, he enforced the immigration laws with all of the vigor that the Congress empowered him to do.

              (2) I feel fairly certain that Pres. Trump will not repeal Obamacare by executive discretion. I expect that he will repeal it the old-fashioned, fully constitutional way. That is to say, both houses of the next Congress will pass a bill that revises the U.S. code to remove all the changes that were added on account of the Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act. Pres. Trump will sign that bill. That way, the repeal will not merely be an act that can be reversed by the next president, but will rather require another act of Congress (for which we will have to wait at least another 20 years, in all likelihood).

              (3) Will democrats complain about that repeal? You bet we will. Just like the republicans complained about the original passage of the AIA. Will we launch an all out scorched earth campaign of litigation to obviate the repeal? No, probably not. I am not clear on why any of this would strike you as “hypocrisy,” but I think it is safe to predict that people who lose an election will complain about the corresponding outcomes (for whatever little good it will do us).

            3. But hypocrisy is the norm in DC.

              As it is with Malcolm. You just tend not to see it because of your affliction of “6-is-a-genius-because-he-agrees-with-me.”

              Go ahead and count the number of insults Malcolm has v0m1ted your way this week alone. How many Ned?

        2. Ned, the only Roman Emperors in this country I know of are a few folks on this blog who apparently think they are. None have enough influence to buy a three minute interview with a single senator.

          1. Cur, I was thinking of the slow accretion of power in the Emperors. At the time of Augustus, laws still had to be passed by the Senate and People. But at the time of Diocletian, taxes and laws were imposed by edicts, which are the equivalent to executive orders.

            I see the same thing happening here in the US. The O’man edicts were effectively new laws or the repeal of existing laws. That precedent set, I am willing to bet that Trump does the same thing.

            1. And yet Ned, you seem perfectly fine with the accretion of power to the Supreme Court when they step[ over the line and violate the separation of powers – but do so if their Ends match your Windmill Chase….

      2. I agree that the president cannot write new legislative text himself. That said, I am not 100% certain that new legislation is necessary to achieve the outcome proposed in point #9. Imagine that Pres. Trump were to say

        Omarosa, I am appointing you as Undersecretary of Commerce for the PTO. Here’s what I want—I want something close to a 100% grant rate for patent applications in a one year time frame. I want you to tell the examiners to make sure that the application is filed in English (we are not going to grant U.S. patents on applications filed in Spanish) and that the fees are paid. If it meets those two criteria, I want it to go to grant. Let the courts sort out whether these things are valid or not.

        Does that actually violate any statutory mandates? And if so, is there anyone with standing to challenge the violation in court? If the answer to either of those questions is no, then the President has the power to turn the U.S. into a registration-only patent system, even without new legislation.

  22. I welcome the change.

    The Democratic Party (and to an extent, the old GOP) had become too aligned with the “international elites.” They gave us the AIA and IPRs. There literally was no hope of reform here if Clinton had won, and we all know it.

    Regarding the Supreme Court and our constitutional challenge, the only hope w ever had were in the more conservative justices who were not wedded to the administrative state and who were more inclined to view patents as property. Our challenge has gone. It died with Scalia. But a more conservative court is exactly what we need to roll back the worst of the AIA, to the extent that is still possible.

    Regarding the PTO, I would find it hard to believe that he would appoint another Google type as Director. Since the situation is fluid, perhaps we can influence the decision by making recommendations.

    All in all, to me, a very positive result for the patent system that I want — a strong patent system that works for the startup, the small inventor, the university, as well as for Pharma. The focus should be on rolling back the excesses of the past administration. It would be really nice if the new administration would listen to us now and perhaps even propose a repeal of all post grant reviews.

      1. That would be a different “us” than you and your sock puppets “that you don’t use”…(but you whined incessantly about)

        😉

    1. Regarding the PTO, I would find it hard to believe that he would appoint another Google type as Director.

      Why would that be “hard to believe”? It seems perfectly believable to me.

      Maybe it’s time for Ron Katznelson or Gene Quinn to step up. What could go wrong?

      LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

    2. I will say this, Ned: seasoned Republican patent attorneys should be overjoyed by this election, just like every other person in the wealthiest sectors of our society.

      I can hardly wait for your tax savings to trickle down to the poor, struggling militiamen in rural Oklahoma. It’ll be like a magic waterfall! Sure it will.

        1. This election was a revolt against the elites.

          Oh, I have no doubt that tons of p i g -ign0rant people thought they were “revolting against the elites” when the pulled the lever for Trump.

          But anyone with half a brain knows that no such “revolt” took place, nor is any such “revolt” going to take place. The “elites” are still right there, they aren’t going anywhere, and a new “elite” named Donald Trump is going to take the reigns in January.

            1. That’s an effect of the Echoes in his own mind and his refusal to actually engage (in an inte11ectually honest manner) views not in accord to his own.

          1. MM, you might be right and a lot of people think you are right. But I do not think so.

            Obamacare created the TeaParty that in turn elected a lot of Republican to repeal it. Nothing happened. And the reason nothing happened primarily was a guy name John Boehner. There was a lot of anger there.

            The T-man tapped into this anger by easily defeating all establishment Republicans. Then he narrowly defeated Hillary who represent the epitome of the status quo — no change.

            This election was about change, and if Trump does not deliver, all H is going to break loose. These disaffected types may go back to the Democratic Party if a reformist candidate emerges, which I doubt could possibly happen given that Hillary and most Democrats think the average American is a deplorable.

            That party, MM, has a lot of soul searching to do. Trump, in turn, must deliver on his promises.

    3. Yes, Trump may not “appoint another Google type as Director”, but have you forgotten some of the completely-patent-clueless PTO Directors appointed by some prior Republican presidents? Lets hope not again, but there are no guarantees.

  23. Also, how will he reconcile various competing interests? Its one thing to announce how everything will be great (bigly so), its another to balance e.g. how to keep incentives for pharma with complaints about costs in his revamped ACA.

    1. Simon, I am not so sure Trump has thought about patents very much. I think he, or his new administration, will listen to us with an open mind.

      1. I am not so sure Trump has thought about patents very much

        He hasn’t thought about them at all. So you have one less thing to be unsure about.

        I think he, or his new administration, will listen to us

        Who is “us”? You’re a tiny Bay Area operation surrounded by tons of patent attorneys and the majority are just fine with IPRs.

        Oh but wait! You represent the “little guys” that Trump is soooooo dedicated to helping. Sure he is!

        LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

        1. MM, who do you think he will consult if not those who of us who oppose the weakening of the patent system under Obama?

          I know others have said that he too would consult Silicon Valley for their choice of a new Director. But, frankly, that I would find hard to believe.

          1. who do you think he will consult if not those who of us who oppose the weakening of the patent system under Obama

            Who on earth do you think “you” just elected, Ned?

            Good grief, I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump picked Colleen Chien because “she’s hot”.

            1. MM, if Trump were to do anything of the kind …

              I that he would pick someone who voted for him. That would probably not include any college professor, like Chien.

              The guy he should consult on this would be Ted Cruz, who did argue 5 patent cases before the Supreme Court, IIRC.

              1. When I search for Rafael Cruz in Google scholar, the only SCotUS case I find in which he argued in person was Frew v Hawkins. His name appears on amicus briefs in a few other cases. None of them are patent cases.

                1. But we are now beyond the age of being bothered by facts – just make something up, and put it on the internet.

                2. Yeah, cur, like this made up fact:

                  link to scholar.google.com

                  Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB SA, 131 S. Ct. 2060 – Supreme Court 2011

                  Norman H. Zivin, Wendy E. Miller, Cooper & Dunham LLP, New York, New York, R. Ted Cruz, Allyson N. Ho, James B. Tarter, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Houston, Texas, for Respondent.

                3. Interesting. It never occurred to me that he would be listed as “Ted,” so I did not even bother to search with that name. To be fair to curmudgeon, however, a patent case is not really quite the same thing as “5 patent cases… .”

                4. Greg, let is not be fair to Cur, shall we? After all, I knew of one, and I believe I had heard of others, up to 5, and that is what I said.

                  You know me well enough by now that I do not simply make things up as implied by Cur. He and I do not see eye-to-eye on IPRs, and that colors his commentary on anything I say, which is unfortunate and shortsighted.

      2. Agreed, which worries me. A lot of people coming at patents fresh have internalized the “patents are bad” rhetoric that is flowing around these days

        1. Simon Elliot: A lot of people coming at patents fresh have internalized the “patents are bad” rhetoric that is flowing around these days

          The “rhetoric” is otherwise known as the “there are more bad patents and more bad actors in the system than ever before” facts.

          But go ahead and pretend it’s all “rhetoric”!

          We just made it all up. Nobody would ever threaten small businesses operating in diverse fields across the country with some junky “do it on a computer” patent lawsuit filed in the b@nana republic of East Texas. Nope. Unpossible. It could never happen.

          And nobody would ever go to the Supreme Court and argue that you could infringe a junk patent by practicing an old data gathering step and thinking about it. Nope! That would never ever happen.

          And no “expert” patent attorney would ever go to the Supreme Court demanding that you can use a patent to protect a medical database “on a computer”. Nope. It’s just “rhetoric”!

          1. MM, Thiel of FaceBook might be a Supreme Court nominee even you could support. He, I suspect, would be adamantly against software patents that vex FaceBook.

            1. Maybe I wasn’t clear, Ned: not everybody is a shallow self-absorbed g00n like you. Theil is a greedy “libertarian” dirtb@g and doesn’t belong anywhere near the Supreme Court.

  24. TM is such a different beast from patents that I wonder whether his experience will actually be a hindrance. He likes to use the Art 3 courts to protect his TM/cow his opponents, which is the opposite direction of most patent law reforms.

    1. I think that “opposite direction” that you identify may be a factor in which direction Trump goes.

      Or not, as Trump is only as consistent as it suits him personally.

    1. Trump in charge of the PTAB…

      Sure brings a different ring to it than the “transparent” Obama-Google connections…

  25. Dennis: The question on everyone’s mind is how the patent office and patent system will be restructured once Donald Trump becomes president.

    Scientists have identified the worlds driest substance: Dennis’ sense of humor.

          1. Now here is a point on which we can agree—gin. At least in those parts of America where me and mine dwell, gin will make things seem great, at least temporarily.

    1. Oh dear, this is another one of those posts that I meant to seem light and funny, but as I read it on the screen it looks dark. Please disregard the above.

    2. Yes, well, that’s pretty much always the case when the risk of war and depression, or actual war and depression, are eclipsing pretty much everything else.

      It goes without saying, I think, that these angry white suburban/rural men aren’t going to be appeased by handing out more software patents.

      The good news is that, after they kiss their healthcare goodbye, they can get to work doing all the awesome jobs that were being stolen from them by the furrin invaders. Those jobs should be opening up left and right, especially when the “job creators” aren’t shackled by silly regulations like paying a minimum wage. Even better: they can do whatever they want with their money because they won’t be forced to pay into that communist plot called Social Security.

      Oh, it’s going to be just swell. It’ll be a lot like the reign of George W (one of history’s most reviled Presidents) except way less tasteful. And you’re going to love the next twenty or thirty years if you’re a really really healthy fetus!

      1. MM, regarding jobs, I worked at Seagate, one of the very first pioneers of moving manufacturing offshore. Why did we do it?

        1. Taxes.
        2. Environmental.
        3. Wages.

        We need reform in all three areas and/or amendments to treaties if we are ever going to see those jobs return. I have heard enough of what Trump has had to say to know that he fully understands why jobs are leaving the US, how to stop that, and how to bring them back. But, as you say, this will not be easy, or soon.

        1. Right. Let’s lower taxes on giant corporations so they’re the lowest on the planet (remember when Republicans told us over and over and over that the deficit was the Worst Thing Ever? <—-LOL), allow them to pollute more than any other place on earth, and let them pay their workers less than any other place on earth.

          Then those awesome jobs will totally appear. What could go wrong?

          But we really should pay attention to your deep thoughts on this, Ned, because of the huge effect it'll have on you personally. Right? I mean, you're a "little guy" yourself, right? Just scraping by …

        2. This is pure, unadulterated nonsense. He may be able to affect tax policy, but the other two points are non-starters. Ask China how economic growth at the expense of their environment is going? Their GDP is up, but it can get really nasty. Additionally, to keep his angry white blue collar base, any returning jobs will have to pay like they did in the days of yore. They are not going to settle for wages that are low enough to be attractive to businesses.

          1. There’s little chance he’ll get jobs to return, and those that do will be high tech. Companies will hire 5-10 people to debug, program, and run robotic machines, instead of hiring hundreds. And the problem will be that the middle class isn’t trained for these positions.

            And what about when Uber replaces its drivers with driverless cars? Or when the shipping industry uses driverless trucks? Or when Amazon makes all its deliveries with drones and not UPS drivers? What do we do with all those people? I feel for the middle class, but it’s only going to get worse, and I can’t see Trump’s policies helping anything.

            1. the problem will be that the middle class isn’t trained for these positions.

              B-b-b-b-ut …. charter schools!

              I feel for the middle class, but it’s only going to get worse

              Trickle down and tax cuts will turn the mid- and uppermidwest into an economic garden of eden! Just wait and see! And if it doesn’t work, it’s the fault of the brown people and their food stamps.

              I can’t see Trump’s policies helping anything.

              Well, building that wall will create a yuuuuuge number of incredible jobs. Tremendous job opportunities. Plus the security guards and painting over the the graffiti. And working for the military is a really fantastic opportunity. It used to be risky but now they offer some truly lifelike artificial limbs.

            2. “What do we do with all those people?”

              If you think the only people that are going to be displaced by technology are Uber drivers and truck drivers, you might want to wake up. Doctors and lawyers are going to be next on that list.

              1. Pretty much. We had best all be learning to teach yoga classes or make artisanal furniture. It is probably another 20 years before the software is good enough to replace us, but (as yesterday proves), sometimes events surprise you, so the date at which we lawyers become technologically obsolete could arrive much sooner.

              2. Doctors and lawyers are going to be next on that list.

                Unless all incentives to innovate in software are eliminated…

                Wait a second, suddenly the logic of Alice makes so much more sense!

                1. But that makes Malcolm’s whining more than a bit self/serving, doesn’t it? (Setting aside the self-l0ath1ng for a moment)

            3. One thing that could arguably improve the economy would be to get some of the trillions of dollars now hoarded offshore [often by using unchallenged bizarre IP valuations] returned to the U.S. on the condition that is invested in U.S. capital improvements and/or R&D. But if those capital improvements include even more automation it is not going to improve job chances for the unqualified millions.
              Even a [badly needed] massive infrastructure project would require a relatively small percentage of unskilled manual laborers these days.

          2. Ordinary:

            Jobs move because of

            1. Taxes;
            2. Regulation; and
            3. Labor rates.

            Of the three, the last is virtually unimportant.

            Jobs will return if the taxes and regulation are reduced.

            1. Regulations like … you can’t refuse to make a profit on your cake by refusing to sell it to customers you’re big0ted against.

              Yes, it’s crucial that we get rid of those regulations! Because “angry people in Kansas can’t figure out how to make money.”

              Oh, it’s going to be a fun four years.

            2. I am sure that those three are important, but surely you are missing #4, location of the market.

              In the immediate aftermath of WWII, “customers” lived in North America. Europe and Japan were smoldering wrecks of war-ravaged destruction and the the non-Japan parts of Asia were a vast mass of pre-industrialization poverty. Under those circumstances, it made economic sense to locate production facilities in North America to be close to your customers.

              Now that Asia is becoming more and more prosperous, it makes increasing sense to locate manufacturing in Asia, even if items #1, #2, and/or #3 might militate in favor of some other location. In other words, you really cannot go “back” to the 1950s. No matter how “attractive” one makes one’s taxes, regulations, or prevailing wages, some of that manufacturing is never coming back from Asia.

              1. Under those circumstances, it made economic sense to locate production facilities in North America to be close to your customers.

                So what happens when manufacturing (think advanced 3D printing) is IN the customers’ homes…?

  26. One thing is for sure, it is highly likely that the justices he appoints are going to be better than what Obama has appointed.

      1. Just the best justices. Really tremendous justices. Believe me. The justices are going to be so good, you’re going to be tired of how good they are.

    1. Yeah, lane closing, quarantining Chris Christie and and 9/11 witnessing Rudy Giuliani would be huge on the bench, huge.

    2. Night, I agree that I believe that he will appoint Justices that are not going to favor the administrative state and who will view strong patent rights as important to America.

      We would have gotten the exact opposite from President Clinton.

      1. Yes, I think that it is safe to say that the justices that Pres Trump will appoint will be different from those that a Pres Clinton would have appointed.

        1. Since you don’t see a party divide (below), but here see a difference, Greg, can you explicate (unpack even) what you mean? What difference do you see? Social issues? Citizen rights? Corporate rights (a la Citizen’s United)…?

      2. Ned, what in the numerous unanimous patent decisions of the Sup. Ct. in recent years gives you any logical basis to think that Republican appointees will be much more pro-patent-owner?
        Do you really think that is even a question likely to be asked in a Senate confirmation hearing?

        1. Exactly. One would be hard pressed to name a recent IP case that split along party lines. There is no real difference between Democratic justices and Republican justices on IP law questions.

        2. Paul, I really believe we would have gotten 4 votes in MCM Portfolio v. HP if Scalia had not died. The conservative justices are not heavily biased in favor of the administrative state.

          I have hope that Trump can turn this around and that we can begin to roll back the AIA.

          1. The conservative justices are not heavily biased in favor of the administrative state.

            You don’t have to be “heavily biased in favor of the administrative state” to be unconvinced of your cr@ppy arguments, Ned.

            1. MM, I call it as I see it. Moreover, there are a lot of others who agree with me. We are putting far too much power in the executive.

              From our conversation, you do not see anything wrong in this, and rather look to the greater public good that is being achieved by killing off software and business method patents that never should have been issued. I recognize this benefit, as well. But I, and many others, see a problem with the shift of power to the PTO.

Comments are closed.