Trump’s Budget Proposal for USPTO Flat for FY 2019

The Trump proposed budget for FY2019 appears to be essentially flat as compared with FY2018.  The proposed budget would permit the USPTO to spend up to $3.459 billion in FY 2019 (year beginning October 1, 2018). We are approaching the 1/2 way mark for FY 2018.  In the most recent PPAC meeting, PTO Chief Financial Officer Tony Scardino reported expected FY2018 spending of $3.444 billion.

Trump Budget (PTO on p. 199): http://src.bna.com/wlO

 

 

 

28 thoughts on “Trump’s Budget Proposal for USPTO Flat for FY 2019

  1. 4

    The operations of the PTO should be 100% percent funded out of the general revenue that the PTO have no incentive to issue bad patents in large numbers to obtain more fees at both ends of their services, the patenting service and the invalidation service.

    1. 4.1

      Exactly correct.

      1. 4.1.1

        Exactly correct.

    2. 4.2

      You presume that a different source of funds has a driving factor in the allowance of “bad patents.”

      This is nothing more than Malcolm’s feelings dressed in sheep’s clothes.

      How – exactly – would changing who pays for examination change the actions of the Office FOR that examination?

      If you are insinuating that the Office merely “pads” its profit for invalidation services, you have to confront a number of factors, including, but not limited to:

      – the Office is NOT a profit center.
      – IF the Office is rubber stamping – FOR ANY REASON – that action needs to be stopped, regardless of who is paying for the examination.
      – the Office does NOT control the number of applications submitted (you assume a false control on the intake side).
      – it is the APPLICANT getting “stiffed” for the costs ON BOTH the front side and any later invalidation service side.
      – subjecting innovation (and the CHOICE of pursuing patent protection) to a “general taxation” protocol will only WORSEN the attacks on the patent system, and would drive with even more force the number and ferocity of SAWS-like shadow programs.

      While at first glance, your suggestion may carry some appeal, that appeal very quickly disappears when some critical thinking is applied.

      Thanks, but no thanks.

      1. 4.2.1

        anon, the PTO clearly has an incentive to issue bad patents that are later invalidated by the PTO because both actions expand the overall bureaucracy. It is just a lot harder to get money from the general revenue that from user fees to feed the beast.

        1. 4.2.1.1

          Your reply simply does not address the point put to you that the source of revenue for paying for examination makes no difference in the point that you are attempting to make.

          “feeding the beast” is completely didassociated with what you propose, and thus you engage in a logical fallacy on that supposed point.

          1. 4.2.1.1.1

            didassociated” should read “disassociated”

            damm autocorrect

            1. 4.2.1.1.1.1

              You should fix your autocorrect :) I’ve never heard of didassociated.

              1. 4.2.1.1.1.1.1

                The use of the “bold” features separated the parts of the word. I’m not about to dive in and correct the autocorrect.

        2. 4.2.1.2

          “anon, the PTO clearly has an incentive to issue bad patents that are later invalidated by the PTO because both actions expand the overall bureaucracy”

          mmmmm, yeah kinda a stretch bruh, and also Idk if your general fund solution would solve that. It would just start taking out of the general fund. Congress is the critter that wants this ho hum perverse incentive in place.

  2. 3

    I wish Congress would just let the USPTO use 100% of the money that it takes in in fees. FY 2018 fees collected estimates are $3,586.2MM (patents + trademarks).

  3. 2

    A proper caveat (of course) when comparing THIS budget item with any other budget item is that THIS budget item does NOT come from ANY general tax revenue.

    THIS budget item comes expressly – and entirely – from innovators purchasing services in order to obtain a certain type of property right.

    The actual item of paramount concern here is that the law is properly applied in the prosecution of applications.

    There is no need for screed of any kind directed to what some merely “feel” as items that these individuals feel should not be patent eligible.

    1. 2.1

      Well you’re wrong about the paramount importance thing. But keep trying.

      1. 2.1.1

        You need to revisit your understanding of what it means to serve a client.

        Seriously.

        1. 2.1.1.1

          You need to learn how to stay away from the caps lock key, Billy.

          1. 2.1.1.1.1

            Who is Billy and what is the point of your reply?

            Try something substantive instead of the vapid ad hominem….

      2. 2.1.2

        MM says “The actual item of paramount concern here is that the law is properly applied in the prosecution of applications.” is wrong. I think Anon makes sense on this one. What does MM say is paramount in the prosecution of applications? Disregarding the law?

        1. 2.1.2.1

          MM says “The actual item of paramount concern here is that the law is properly applied in the prosecution of applications.” is wrong. I think Anon makes sense on this one. What does MM say is paramount in the prosecution of applications? Disregarding the law?

          If “the law” (meaning what? the PTO’s rules?) when followed to the letter allows junk patents to enter the system far, far more easily than it allows them to be gotten rid of, then “following the law” is definitely not of paramount importance. How could it be? It’s as if Congress passed a law that “technically” (according to brilliant people like you and “anon” LOL) allowed blacks to be enslaved “legally” then, too, following the law would not be “of paramount importance” …. unless of course you’re a r@ cist RE pu k k k e glibertarian @ h0le hypocrite.

          You kind of need to step outside of your bubble of entitlement to understand this. Which means that it’s impossible for you to understand. You’re probably so e f f ing st p d you’re still hung up on Prometheus v. Mayo. Just like “anon” with this “broken scoreboard” whining.

          Unfortunately, Prometheus and Alice are “the law”. And so is “Alice.” So, too, are IPRs. And yet you disgusting hypocrites spend all your time doing everything you can to nullify your oh-so-sacred “law.” Seriously: give us a break already.

  4. 1

    Looks like we won’t be seeing any efforts on building infrastructure for intelligently searching and archiving designs, logic or math. Oh well. More handouts to the rich. That’s pretty much the agenda, after all.

    1. 1.1

      The dichotomy of your position remains unexplained, given that software (which you incorrectly attempt to portray as logic or math) is an item along the innovation path MOST ACCESSIBLE to the non-wealthy.

      Given your screed against “wealthy” you SHOULD BE coming out in the opposite camp of the anti-software patent viewpoint.

      1. 1.1.1

        I know it’s impossible for you to understand but the comment you just made so perfectly illustrates why you are on your endless losing street.

        But you’re one of those glib types who will never, ever “get it”. All I can say is … dance for me! Like you were born to.

        1. 1.1.1.1

          LOL – nice attempt at deflection – your lack of explaining that dichotomy remains.

          1. 1.1.1.1.1

            “Filthy contaminated heroin is the heroin MOST ACCESSIBLE to the non-wealthy!”

            Deep, deep stuff.

            1. 1.1.1.1.1.1

              What does this “reply” even mean?

              1. 1.1.1.1.1.1.1

                This “reply” being YOUR reply at 1.1.1.1.1 in case you are confused and caught up fertilizing your “shine the spotlights self-congratulations.

        2. 1.1.1.2

          “one of those glib types who will never, ever ‘get it'”.

          Who were we talking about? Is this third person?

          1. 1.1.1.2.1

            Please Pardon the Potential (re)Post:

            Your comment is awaiting moderation.
            February 14, 2018 at 10:40 am

            Malcolm is merely tossing out mindless ad hominem (which actually describes himself and reflects his often (WAY too often) used meme of Accuse Others.

            He thinks it “clever” to denigrate Libertarians (because he thinks that I am one) with the denigration “Glibertarin.” Thing is, it is HIS comments that are almost always the glib ones (and that’s being generous with the “fluent” description):

            glib: adjective
            (of words or the person speaking them) fluent and voluble but insincere and shallow.

            Your question then of “third person” may be answered with the realization that Malcolm is referring to himself and doing so in the third person. That would not be surprising given his ego and hyper-inflated view of himself that he displays.

            By the way, it has now been documented that the very same type of blight from Malcolm has been present on these boards for 12 years (well before I was around).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 Notify me of followup comments via e-mail.

You can click here to Subscribe without commenting

Add a picture