Sounds like Director Iancu is managing a similar amount of revenue from his last gig.
1
Three Billion paid in by innovators.
Let’s not forget that: BY innovators.
1.1
Actually, the vast majority of PTO fee collections are by companies that own the patent rights, half of whom are foreign companies. Including almost all of the patent maintenance fees, which are a major contributor. They also subsidize the greatly reduced PTO fees for applications by small entities and many individual inventors.
Yes, 3 billion dollars a year is a lot of money for a system being attacked by some as now worthless, and that 3 billion dollars does not even include attorney fees, which are multiples of that.
1.1.1
The system will get a lot more “worthless” really fast if the gates are opened up again to the State Street parasite class. There is next to zero public support for, e.g., patenting correlations and junky claims that turn people who are sending photos of their pets to each other into infringers.
1.1.1.1
translation: Wah!
1.1.1.2
Amen
1.1.2
Actually,… half of [them] are foreign companies.
How is this point relevant? Are innovations from foreign innovators less useful to Americans? I expect that those whose lives were saved with penicillin would not think so.
1.1.2.1
I’m still trying to figure out why it’s “relevant” that the money was allegedly paid for by “innovators.”
The fact of the matter is that a huge portion of those fees are paid for by NON-innovators who haven’t innovated anything, and another huge portion of the fees is paid for by people who might have innovated something but are asking for a lot more than what they deserve.
I don’t think this was the point of the post but if you want to try to break this stuff down, it’s not going to result in me or anyone else running to the store to buy a thank you card for people who are seeking US patents.
1.1.2.1.1
“I’m still trying to figure out…”
Lol. Naturally.
Try better.
“ it’s not going to result in me or anyone else running to the store to buy a thank you card for people who are seeking US patents.”
Your cognitive dissonance is on display again.
(get into a line of work in which you can believe in the worth of the product — it would be better for you; it would be better for all that have to put up with your rants of feelings; and probably most of all, it would be better for your “clients”)
1.1.2.2
Greg, it’s very relevant to folks who think, or are miss-lead to think, the PTO is taxpayer-funded “big government” [to shrink or get rid of], or that it is substantially funded by individual inventors. Almost none of the PTO fees from foreign applicants are from from individual foreign inventors. [Nor are most foreign obtainers of U.S. patents obtaining those U.S. patents to promote U.S. R&D or U.S. manufacturing or lower consumer prices in the U.S., for that matter. But of course it gives U.S. companies complementary rights to obtain patent protection in most other countries.]
1.1.2.2.1
“But of course it gives U.S. companies complementary rights to obtain patent protection in most other countries.”
How does that work?
Not sure your phrasing is quite what you think it to be…
1.1.2.2.1.1
The Paris Convention.
1.1.2.2.2
Almost none of the PTO fees from foreign applicants are from from individual foreign inventors.
Thank you for your clarification. Now that I better understand the point that you mean to make, however, I have so say that this seems like rather a thin and irrelevant distinction. The fees are paid by innovators. Whether those innovators are the actual inventors, or the entities who funded the work of the actual inventors, is kind of a meaningless distinction.
In the real world, genius without capital to back it up is mostly just untapped—and therefore wasted—potential. The entity that lays out the capital is just as deserving of the patent reward as the actual brain that thought up the invention.
1.1.2.2.2.1
No, Greg, you don’t understand. The term “innovators” is a propaganda term for the maximalists. It doesn’t refer to BigCorp (who are “anti-patent” … but who pay tons of fees).
It’s meant to refer to the “little guys” — you know, “little guys” like Michael Caputo and related piles of filth. The kinds of people that Ray Niro liked to snort coke with.
“No, Greg, you don’t understand. The term “innovators” is a propaganda term for the maximalists. ”
Utter balderdash.
More of that “one-bucketing” (all pro-innovators must be in the same bucket of pro-individual inventors)
Maybe if you dealt with that cognitive dissonance of yours Malcolm, you might be able to put away your tinfoil hat.
1.1.2.2.2.2
genius without capital to back it up is mostly just untapped—and therefore wasted—potential
One would think that a “genius” (LOL) would be able to figure out how to get his/her awesome ideas funded one way or another.
1.1.2.2.2.2.1
“would be able to figure out how to get his/her awesome ideas funded one way or another.”
Obtuse. Is it deliberate?
1.1.2.2.2.3
[I]t’s very relevant to folks who think, or are miss-lead to think, the PTO is taxpayer-funded “big government” [to shrink or get rid of], or that it is substantially funded by individual inventors. Almost none of the PTO fees from foreign applicants are from from individual foreign inventors.
Despite my qualms about distinguishing between “innovators” and the companies that pay for patent applications, I agree entirely with your attempt to deflate the “I am paying for this microphone” approach that certain voices bring to any discussion of reform of the patent office or error correction in the patent system.
1.1.3
“are by companies that own the patent rights”
Decent point, I should amend then by stating: BY innovators and their privies.
Same concept still applies.
“They also subsidize the greatly reduced PTO fees… does not include attorney fees”
Also good points (you don’t mind that I pair them up directly, eh?)
“lot of money for a system being attacked by some as now worthless”
I think though, that this comment entirely misses the boat as to why people are complaining – quite in fact, that lot of money is exactly why people are complaining that what the system provides as a result of innovators (and their privies) are spending, IS something worth attacking because of the waste of that money spent (rights which are deemed mere Public Franchise rights, easily revoked, and without the full natural** force of exclusion).
** and before undies are all bunched up, the use of natural merely indicates that the exclusive nature of a patent property right is MOST aligned with the injunctive aspect of a judicial remedy.
1.1.3.1
people are complaining
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Nobody is complaining, Billy, except for you and your sniveling buddies whose “innovations” are mostly pure unadulterated sh it.
1.1.3.1.1
…says the person who MOST complains….
Put.
That.
Shovel.
Down.
1.1.3.2
mere Public Franchise rights
BOO HOO HOO HOO HOO HOOOO!!!!!
1.2
Billions paid for the federal courts by JUSTICE SEEKERS. Let’s not forget that: BY JUSTICE SEEKERS.
Sounds like Director Iancu is managing a similar amount of revenue from his last gig.
Three Billion paid in by innovators.
Let’s not forget that: BY innovators.
Actually, the vast majority of PTO fee collections are by companies that own the patent rights, half of whom are foreign companies. Including almost all of the patent maintenance fees, which are a major contributor. They also subsidize the greatly reduced PTO fees for applications by small entities and many individual inventors.
Yes, 3 billion dollars a year is a lot of money for a system being attacked by some as now worthless, and that 3 billion dollars does not even include attorney fees, which are multiples of that.
The system will get a lot more “worthless” really fast if the gates are opened up again to the State Street parasite class. There is next to zero public support for, e.g., patenting correlations and junky claims that turn people who are sending photos of their pets to each other into infringers.
translation: Wah!
Amen
Actually,… half of [them] are foreign companies.
How is this point relevant? Are innovations from foreign innovators less useful to Americans? I expect that those whose lives were saved with penicillin would not think so.
I’m still trying to figure out why it’s “relevant” that the money was allegedly paid for by “innovators.”
The fact of the matter is that a huge portion of those fees are paid for by NON-innovators who haven’t innovated anything, and another huge portion of the fees is paid for by people who might have innovated something but are asking for a lot more than what they deserve.
I don’t think this was the point of the post but if you want to try to break this stuff down, it’s not going to result in me or anyone else running to the store to buy a thank you card for people who are seeking US patents.
“I’m still trying to figure out…”
Lol. Naturally.
Try better.
“ it’s not going to result in me or anyone else running to the store to buy a thank you card for people who are seeking US patents.”
Your cognitive dissonance is on display again.
(get into a line of work in which you can believe in the worth of the product — it would be better for you; it would be better for all that have to put up with your rants of feelings; and probably most of all, it would be better for your “clients”)
Greg, it’s very relevant to folks who think, or are miss-lead to think, the PTO is taxpayer-funded “big government” [to shrink or get rid of], or that it is substantially funded by individual inventors. Almost none of the PTO fees from foreign applicants are from from individual foreign inventors. [Nor are most foreign obtainers of U.S. patents obtaining those U.S. patents to promote U.S. R&D or U.S. manufacturing or lower consumer prices in the U.S., for that matter. But of course it gives U.S. companies complementary rights to obtain patent protection in most other countries.]
“But of course it gives U.S. companies complementary rights to obtain patent protection in most other countries.”
How does that work?
Not sure your phrasing is quite what you think it to be…
The Paris Convention.
Almost none of the PTO fees from foreign applicants are from from individual foreign inventors.
Thank you for your clarification. Now that I better understand the point that you mean to make, however, I have so say that this seems like rather a thin and irrelevant distinction. The fees are paid by innovators. Whether those innovators are the actual inventors, or the entities who funded the work of the actual inventors, is kind of a meaningless distinction.
In the real world, genius without capital to back it up is mostly just untapped—and therefore wasted—potential. The entity that lays out the capital is just as deserving of the patent reward as the actual brain that thought up the invention.
No, Greg, you don’t understand. The term “innovators” is a propaganda term for the maximalists. It doesn’t refer to BigCorp (who are “anti-patent” … but who pay tons of fees).
It’s meant to refer to the “little guys” — you know, “little guys” like Michael Caputo and related piles of filth. The kinds of people that Ray Niro liked to snort coke with.
link to washingtonexaminer.com
“Little guys.”
“No, Greg, you don’t understand. The term “innovators” is a propaganda term for the maximalists. ”
Utter balderdash.
More of that “one-bucketing” (all pro-innovators must be in the same bucket of pro-individual inventors)
Maybe if you dealt with that cognitive dissonance of yours Malcolm, you might be able to put away your tinfoil hat.
genius without capital to back it up is mostly just untapped—and therefore wasted—potential
One would think that a “genius” (LOL) would be able to figure out how to get his/her awesome ideas funded one way or another.
“would be able to figure out how to get his/her awesome ideas funded one way or another.”
Obtuse. Is it deliberate?
[I]t’s very relevant to folks who think, or are miss-lead to think, the PTO is taxpayer-funded “big government” [to shrink or get rid of], or that it is substantially funded by individual inventors. Almost none of the PTO fees from foreign applicants are from from individual foreign inventors.
Despite my qualms about distinguishing between “innovators” and the companies that pay for patent applications, I agree entirely with your attempt to deflate the “I am paying for this microphone” approach that certain voices bring to any discussion of reform of the patent office or error correction in the patent system.
“are by companies that own the patent rights”
Decent point, I should amend then by stating: BY innovators and their privies.
Same concept still applies.
“They also subsidize the greatly reduced PTO fees… does not include attorney fees”
Also good points (you don’t mind that I pair them up directly, eh?)
“lot of money for a system being attacked by some as now worthless”
I think though, that this comment entirely misses the boat as to why people are complaining – quite in fact, that lot of money is exactly why people are complaining that what the system provides as a result of innovators (and their privies) are spending, IS something worth attacking because of the waste of that money spent (rights which are deemed mere Public Franchise rights, easily revoked, and without the full natural** force of exclusion).
** and before undies are all bunched up, the use of natural merely indicates that the exclusive nature of a patent property right is MOST aligned with the injunctive aspect of a judicial remedy.
people are complaining
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Nobody is complaining, Billy, except for you and your sniveling buddies whose “innovations” are mostly pure unadulterated sh it.
…says the person who MOST complains….
Put.
That.
Shovel.
Down.
mere Public Franchise rights
BOO HOO HOO HOO HOO HOOOO!!!!!
Billions paid for the federal courts by JUSTICE SEEKERS. Let’s not forget that: BY JUSTICE SEEKERS.
… and your point is…?
Ha! Touché.
Comments are closed.