Andrei Iancu has now been sworn-in as the new USPTO director. He begins today with his mission to ensure that the American IP system remains “the crown jewel that provides both the incentives and the protections necessary to enable that innovation and resulting growth.”
For the past nine months, the Agency has been led to Joe Matal who was given the difficult title of “person performing the functions and duties of the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.” Congratulations to Matal for his successes in shepherding the agency during this time.
I wrote earlier this week that the Chinese patent system is at a crossroads as it reaches middle-age. I believe that the US patent system is also at a crossroads – ready to be refreshed and renewed, but tentative about what that will mean for established interests. I look forward to hearing Iancu’s vision for the future and his ideas for implementation.
Because every PTO director needs to be associated with a conspiracy theory around here:
I hear Director Iancu is a lizard person who is going to use his position as director as a stepping stone to enslave humanity.
I also heard that.
Was that X-files or Harry Potter…?
I’m looking forward to seeing the direction Mr. Iancu takes the PTO as our new Director.
I look forward to hearing Iancu’s vision for the future and his ideas for implementation.
Prepare to be incredibly disappointed because Iancu isn’t a “visionary” by any stretch of the imagination. He hasn’t demonstrated any substantial depth of understanding of the massive systemic problems presented by the Office’s (inherent) inability to come to terms with the well-known issues created by logic patenting. Maybe he could start with something relatively straightforward like creating a searchable database of all of human history’s ornamental designs, including a defined systematic process for applicant submission of new ornamental designs into that database. Start now during a period of record high revenues and you could be finished by 2030, maybe. Or he can just worry about his friend’s complaining about “too many rejections” and how horrifically unjust it is to be denied a patent on a method of determining the spiciness of a taco using a sensor connected to a remote server.
“logic patenting”
How goes that copyright project attempting to copyright logic?
Funny thing that, eh? One cannot copyright logic but one can copyright software.
Have you figured this out yet?
Hey, “anon,” Ed Crane doesn’t remember your “wife”. Was she on The Menu?
LOL
Cato Institute was, and is, and always will be a sad, sad j0 ke. Nobody could have predicted that a bunch of glibertarian dudes would act like fifteen year olds every time a woman left the room. But, sure, let’s privatize social security because they are So Very Serious Just like “anon”!
LOLOLOLOLOLOL
I have no clue as to what point you are trying to make with any of your mindless tangential references.
mindless tangential references.
LOL So sayeth the bot who never shuts up about his magical box of protons and neutrons.
That is NOT my “magical box.”
This has been explained to you many times now.
In direct and simple English.
As to “who never shuts up,” that appears (after your literal v0m1tfest today) that you are playing your age old (well 12 years) Accuse Others meme again…
one can copyright software
Right. That was a special handout for the Silly Con Valley Boys.
If you have an argument, “anon”, please just make it. Try using English. Walk everyone through it. I’m sure it will be very very convincing to everyone.
LOL – so you think that even copyright is some “special handout”…..
And yet, you provide no insight as to why you feel that way, or any indication that you grasp the difference as to why you may obtain copyright protection on an aspect of software (hint: software – gasp – is not logic).
Something about “Grow Up” comes to mind that would be apt for your situation…
even copyright is some “special handout”…..
Indeed it is. Just ask Mickey Mouse. But I’m talking about some very specific type of copyright protections that were given to digital “stakeholders.”
you provide no insight as to why you feel that way
It’s unclear what “insight” needs to be provided. Unlike you and your cohorts, I’m not a big conspiracy theorist nor do I need to be. The DMCA was passed “in the open”. That doesn’t make it any less of a handout. It does make its existence and history somewhat common knowledge.
software … is not logic
Not an argument and also untrue.
You’re flailing. Note that software can include more than just logic. That doesn’t make it “not logic.” Ice cream is frozen cream. Also can include nuts and fruit. Doesnt make it “not ice cream.” Super nuanced stuff! 2nd grade math can be hard for kindergartners like you.
That Accuse Others in play (again, yet, still)
The one flailing today is quite obviously you.
“’m not a big conspiracy theorist nor do I need to be.”
LOL – and yet it was those “Silly Con Valley” types that somehow got the copyright protection for “logic” (even though one STILL CANNOT copyright logic – which, with plain, simple and direct English refutes your assertion that software IS logic, but may contain more)….
Repeat after me:
One cannot obtain copyright on logic.
Let’s see if you can figure out why this is a fact.
Comments are closed.