Subcommittee on Intellectual Property
DATE: Tuesday, June 4-5, 2019 02:30 PM each day.
WITNESSES
Panel I
The Honorable Paul R. Michel; The Honorable Q. Todd Dickinson;
The Honorable David J. Kappos; Mr. Charles Duan; Professor Jeffrey A. Lefstin
Panel II
Mr. Robert A. Armitage; Professor David O. Taylor; Ms. Sherry M. Knowles, Esq.;
Ms. Alex Moss; Professor Mark A. Lemley
Panel III
Mr. Michael Rosen; Professor Paul R. Gugliuzza; Professor Joshua D. Sarnoff; Mr. Patrick Kilbride; Professor Adam Mossoff
Day 2:
Panel I
Ms. Barbara Fiacco; Mr. Scott Patridge; Mr. Henry Hadad; Mr. David Jones; Ms. Stephanie Martz
Panel II
Mr. Paul Morinville; Mr. Phil Johnson; Dr. William G. Jenks; Mr. Christopher Mohr; Mr. Jeffrey A. Birchak
Panel III
Mr. Jeff Francer; Mr. Hans Sauer; Ms. Natalie M. Derzko; Mr. Rick Brandon; Ms. Kate Ruane
The relentless l-y-i-n-g sack of cash named Sherry Knowles:
The proposed bill in fact would restore patent eligibility to the state that it was historically for over 200 years of American history.
False. The bill restores eligibility to a state that existed only for a very short time following State Street Bank, which was a horrible decision and the lowest point in the history of the US patent system.
Many are convinced it is the historic, pre-Myriad, Mayo, Alice application of patent eligibility that made the U.S. the successful country it is today.
“Many are convinced” that you should crawl back under your rock and die, Sherry. Do us a favor, please. Granting patents on correlations, naturally occurring DNA sequences, and methods of managing bingo games “on a computer” did not make the US “successful.” State Street Bank might have made you and your buddies wealthy, Sherry, but that’s a completely different result. Probably that’s too nuanced for you to understand given that you’re an i-d-i-0-t and a habitual l-i-a-r. Please do us all a favor and crawl back up into Big Jeans’ b-h0le and die.
Could you BE any more professional?
Tell it to Sherry Knowles, the Lying Sack of Human S-c-u-m.
I don’t play pattycake with these morally bankrupt pieces of dog-s-h-i-r-t. That would give the impression that they are something other than what they really are.
“I don’t play pattycake with these morally bankrupt pieces of dog-s-h-i-r-t. ”
Malcolm ONLY plays pattycake with himself – a very different “morally bankrupt pieces of dog-s-h-i-r-t. ”
Judge Michel: “I’ve spent 22 years on the Federal Circuit and nine years since dealing with patent cases and I cannot predict [under the current law] in a given case whether eligibility will be found or not found.
Either Judge Michel is a lying sack of shirt, or he’s an i-di-0t. My bet is on both.
Attorneys make these predictions all the time, and they make them accurately.
Michel is a paid shill and he needs to go f——k himself.
Judge Michel’s opinion that it is impossible to tell whether something will be held eligible under 101 is the same as the vast majority of patent attorneys.
it is impossible to tell whether something will be held eligible under 101 is the same as the vast majority of patent attorneys.
As I’ve said before: this might be true of the super serious “patent attorneys” filing claims to “apps” in Br0ken Crack, Montana where you practice. But it’s definitely not true where I am. Heck, even the pipsqueak fresh out of school Harvey Mudd alums can predict eligibility in most case.
It’s odd that the patent maximalists think that bragging about their denseness is “impressive” or compelling in any way. Then again, they’ve never been the sharpest sticks in the bunch.
Elsewhere, I have read a summary of Sarnoff’s position and (per that summary) he was completely off the rails.
Hey Prof, any updates?
Let me tell what happens if this pile of g@ r bage statute is passed: I will immediately infringe it, I will announce that I’m infringing, and we’ll go to the Supreme Court, and I will win, and the statute will end up in the trash. In addition, the public will hear all about the travesty that is patent maximalism, and they will learn how you insufferable t0 0 ls operate.
At the end of this, the maximalists will have wasted a massive amount of time and money that could have gone to a productive goal (e.g., feeding a starving person; buying medicine or teeth for someone) and spent it instead on a gratuitous and absurd display of stuffing their empty brains and diseased egos.
Moonbeam: ” … buying medicine … ”
And just what medicine is that, pray tell?
The one which was never invented … because it relied in part on your “someone’s” genes … and so couldn’t be patent-protected … and therefore never received the $3,500,000 investment necessary to bring it to fruition?
Is that the medicine you’re referring to?
The one which could have saved your “someone’s” life?
The fact is, Moonbeam, that; given the conditions and diseases which end up killing most human beings; someday, that “someone” could also be you.
Wouldn’t you be eternally thankful and great full to know that such a patent-protected medicine existed that would save your life?
Thankfully for all American’s, from the sound of today’s first hearing, Congress understands this fact and will soon be doing something about it.
You lost me after “Let me tell you”
Mark these words:
If Congress were to shockingly permit folks like the EFF, ACLU, and Silicon Valley to get away with blocking or corrupting these innovation-restoring, desperately and critically needed, Section §101 changes, more than 1,000,000 Americans will die unnecessarily in the years and decades to come … because no companies, universities, or non-profits were willing to risk – or able to raise — the millions required to invent such innovations.
Thank goodness our Founding Fathers and earlier Congress’ saw fit to protect and preserve them.
How devastating to and for our Country that the Supreme Court unconstitutionally crushed; and continues to block; such innovations.
Today’s Congress is these 1,000,000 Americans’ only hope
Today’s Congress is our Country’s only hope.
While your post does sound in emotional hyperbole (not everyone reading your comment may realize that the emotion comes from in part that you yourself are a cancer survivor and owe your life to protected innovation), one but may look at the withdrawal of the esteemed Cleveland Clinic from such very things that you speak of.
If Congress were to shockingly permit folks like the EFF, ACLU, and Silicon Valley to get away with blocking or corrupting these innovation-restoring, desperately and critically needed, Section §101 changes, more than 1,000,000 Americans will die unnecessarily in the years and decades to come … because no companies, universities, or non-profits were willing to risk – or able to raise — the millions required to invent such innovations.
LOL
Reads like a parody! I laughed anyways.
Meet your patent maximalists, folks. ALWAYS the dimmest bulbs in the room. And why the relentless b.s.? It’s almost as if they know they’re full of pure horse s- h – t , and they know everybody knows, so why not just dig deeper until they look like absolute and total f- 0 – 0 – ls. Maybe we’ll all feel sorry for them and just give them whatever they want …
the emotion comes from in part that you yourself are a cancer survivor and owe your life to protected innovation
Oh give us an ef-fing break already, you miserable little m-0-r-0-ns.
By banning any and all attempts to understand the relationship of the claim to the prior art when determining eligibility, the statute effectively nullifies itself. It might as well just say “Transparent efforts to draft around the requirements of 101 are encouraged and such can efforts can not be relied upon to determine eligibility.” Crouch knows this, of course, because he’s still got half his wits about him. Unfortunately, he’s apparently allowed himself to become so compromised or conflicted over the years that he is no longer capable of discussing or teaching basic logic in this context.
The really unfortunate part for everybody (except, of course, for that perpetually whining and entitled crowd of already wealthy patent game players) is that nothing good can result when you start from a pile of pure d 0 g s –t. That’s doubly unfortunate when many of us have spent decades describing the various flavors of ineligibility and the policy (or Constitutional) issues around them.
For example, nobody except a tiny fraction of patent attorneys believes that a “computerized” database comprising some “non-obvious” information content should be patentable. Likewise, nobody believes that such a database constitutes a “new computer.” Determining what kinds of “improvements” in the “art” of using logic to instruct computers is eligible is undeniably an incredibly important determination but instead of facing that issue, the drafters of this statute intentionally and shamefully (or completely ig n 0 r@ntly) have chosen to pretend that they can simply turn back the clock 40 years. As I said, it’s a j 0 ke, and in a sane world the people responsible for this would be mocked by every professional patent attorney.
Likewise, nobody believes that you should be able to patent a generic method of using a prior art detection tool to detect some “newly discovered” naturally occurring phenomenon, e.g., using a telescope to detect a “non-obvious” newly discovered asteroid that is heading towards the earth, or using a scale to weigh a “non-obvious” newly discovered Amazonian frog.
But the profession has turned into a ce s s p00l so I guess let’s all just swim to the b0tt0m and pretend we were born yesterday and that nobody will ever be so bold as to try claim that sort of thing. Sure, that will work out just great.
The blight of Malcolm and his “cut and paste”…
By banning any and all attempts to understand the relationship of the claim to the prior art when determining eligibility, the statute effectively nullifies itself. It might as well just say “Transparent efforts to draft around the requirements of 101 are encouraged and such can efforts can not be relied upon to determine eligibility.” Dennis knows this, of course, because he’s still got half his wits about him. Unfortunately, he’s apparently allowed himself to become so compromised or conflicted over the years that he is no longer capable of discussing or teaching basic logic in this context.
The unfortunate part for everybody (except for that perpetually whining and entitled crowd of already wealthy patent game players) is that nothing good can result when you start from a pile of pure d0 g s h i rt. That’s doubly unfortunate when many of us have spent decades describing the various flavors of ineligibility and the policy (or Constitutional) issues around them.
For example, nobody except a tiny fraction of patent attorneys believes that a “computerized” database comprising some “non-obvious” information content should be patentable. Likewise, nobody believes that such a database constitutes a “new computer.” Determining what kinds of “improvements” in the “art” of using logic to instruct computers is eligible is undeniably an incredibly important determination but the drafters of this statute intentionally and shamefully (or completely ign0 rantly) pretend that they turn back the clock 40 years. As I said, it’s a sick j 0 ke, and in a sane world the people responsible for this would be mocked by every professional patent attorney. Likewise, nobody believes that you should be able to patent a generic method of using a prior art detection tool to detect some “newly discovered” naturally occurring phenomenon, e.g., using a telescope to detect a “non-obvious” newly discovered asteroid that is heading towards the earth, or using a scale to weigh a “non-obvious” newly discovered frog in the Amazon.
But the profession has turned into a cessp00l so I guess let’s all just swim to the b0tt0m and pretend we were born yesterday and that nobody will ever be so bold as to try claim that sort of thing. Sure, that will work out just great.
A 5/30/19 article from the Morgan Lewis & Bockius law firm includes this comment:
“By abrogating the judicial exceptions to subject matter eligibility and exclusively focusing on an invention’s utility, the draft bill apparently attempts to expand patent protection to at least some inventions currently considered to be abstract ideas, laws of nature, or natural phenomena. A claimed invention that is “useful” under Section 101 will be patentable so long as it complies with all remaining statutory requirements—e.g., it is novel, nonobvious, definite, and described such that a person skilled in the art could make and use it.
But the draft bill’s proposed definition of “useful” may ultimately create more uncertainty than it solves. To be “useful,” a process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or improvement thereof must be (1) an invention or discovery that (2) provides specific and practical utility (3) in any field of technology and (4) through human intervention. (Presumably, the utility must be provided through human intervention.) This definition may resurrect many of the judicial exceptions that the draft bill seeks to eliminate. In some cases, the components may create new uncertainties. For example:
Can an abstract idea’s utility be “specific and practical”?
Are mental processes, products that exist exclusively in nature, and business methods in a “field of technology”?
Do wholly automated processes, laws of nature, and natural phenomena provide utility “through human intervention”?”
Yes it appears there that moles are drafting the legislation. What a surprise. Just look at the largest donors. SV all the way down.
? NW, why would SV companies want to increase the scope of patentable subject matter, increase patent litigation costs by eliminating 101 preliminary motion disposals, and increase their employee medical costs? Have you seen any letters to Congress supporting this legislation from any of those companies?
Paul,
You are not paying attention.
The 101 positions (your focus here) becomes the “oh, shiny” distraction for sneaking in the Trojan Horse of 112 (which eviscerates ANY gains under the 101 change).
Politics (and philosophical batt1es) are not always blunt “in your face” moves.
… as well as the Trojan Horse of changes to 35 USC 100 (apologies for the omission).
As severally demonstrated, the proposed 101 expansions of patentable subject matter to remove several prior exceptions are far broader than the proposed 112 amendment in that regard, which only impacts the “abstract” 101 exception for purely functional claim limitations. Also, the Fed. Cir. has already held that the application of existing 112(f) is NOT limited to functional claims that recite the words “means” or “steps” proposed to be eliminated here.
[As already noted, are other problems with this 112 proposal.]
Wrong again Paul.
There has been NO “severally demonstrated” as to the proposed 112 ONLY covering “purely functional claim limitations.”
You simply are not paying attention.
What anon writes below I largely agree with. Plus I agree with you Paul that the way that the changes to 101 would be as open to judicial interpretation as “abstract” was in Alice.
Defining the term “useful” by reference to the term “utility” was yet another preschool maneuver. But look at who was involved in the drafting. No surprise that it was scribbled in crayon.
While Malcolm’s other comment has been (suitably) expunged, the stultifying irony of Malcolm Accusing Others of “preschool” and “crayons” in view of scrivining (by the legislative branch) TO eradicate the ultra-p00r scrivining of the Judicial Branch is something to behold
Conversations on this very thing are also happening on other (well-known) patent blogs, and not just individual law firm forums.
I was hoping someone would point out why the authors of this law firm article think that “novel” would still be required by other provisions of the patent statute when it would removed from 101? Where? That word is only in the title of AIA 102 but it is not part of the actual definition of what is prior art therein.
I was hoping someone would point out why the authors of this law firm article think that “novel” would still be required by other provisions of the patent statute when it would removed from 101?
It is perfectly plausible to imagine that in a world in which “new” is no longer in §10, that those things that are presently excluded by §101 might nonetheless be excluded by the “in public use” exclusion of §102(a). After all, it is not necessary that the public use actually put the claimed item into possession of the public (e.g. Barnes’ corset staves in Egbert).
Still and all, like yourself I would like a little more assurance that this is how we all agree that the public use exclusion will function in a world without “new” in §101. There is another equally plausible reading of “in public use” that says that (e.g.) a protein found naturally in human brains is not in “public” use because the insides of a human’s skull are not “public” places. I would not like to think that the point that is supposed to save us from the patenting of long-existing but as-yet-undiscovered natural molecules depends on how “public” we consider the organ system where these molecules exist.
Myriad was decided by the Supreme Court six years ago. The Federal Circuit and the PTO have been developing case law in the meantime and the policy issues have been discussed ad infinitum.
It’s more than a bit disturbing that literally NONE of these considerations have found their way into this proposed “fix” which boils down, fundamentally, to a request from the most notoriously bad actors in the profession to have a “re-do” where, somehow, they don’t swarm the PTO with massive reams of incredibly cr @ ppy patent applications which they don’t subsequently attempt to “monetize” at everyone’s expense. Anyone who’s been around for the past 20 years watching these characters and the games they play in court, online, and elsewhere knows exactly what’s going to happen.
What’s most mystifying is why they didn’t also ask for 103 to be eliminated in its entirety. That maneuver would jibe perfectly with their lame excuses for expanding 101 into the stratosphere but I guess that’s too far even for some of the maximalists (but surely not all of them).
There is NOTHING disturbing about a branch of the government waking up and taking back their Constitutionally appointed power to write the statutory law that is patent law and extinguish (abrogate) the ultra vires scrivining of Common Law law writing.
If you had ANY appreciation of the Rule of Law (and has any control over your emotions), you would recognize the bankrupt nature of your “logic.”
Besides, aren’t you getting all worked up over nothing? Aren’t you the one that constantly preaches that certain Supreme Court cases will never be overturned?
“Myriad was decided by the Supreme Court six years ago.”
So what?
How long was the Dred Scott decision on the books?
Greg, re an argument that even if ” “new” is no longer in §101, that those things that are presently excluded by §101 might nonetheless be excluded by the “in public use” exclusion of §102(a).” But reading the normal meaning of the word “public” as publicly available information out of the very provision of 102 where the word public specifically occurs would be a real statutory interpretation stretch, and not what prior cases support. Which is why we have the Fed. Cir. case law adoption of the Learned Hand Metallizing Engineering doctrine making secret use a personal forfeture and expressly NOT statutory prior art.
[R]eading the normal meaning of the word “public” as publicly available information out of the very provision of 102 where the word public specifically occurs would be a real statutory interpretation stretch…
Two points:
(1) I share your concern. If the Congress is going to take “new” out of §101, it would be best if they were also to amend §102 to make it clear that pre-existing-but-unrecognized natural products are excluded from patentability on novelty grounds. Better still simply to leave “new” in there. The “shall be determined only while considering the claimed invention as a whole, without discounting or disregarding any claim limitation” language that they add in §101(b) already takes care of the concerns that motivate the removal of “new.”
(2) While I agree that the reading of “public use” that I discuss above is a stretch, it is no more of a stretch than the Court’s reading of the AIA §102 in Helsinn that the details of an invention do not need to be made public in order to anticipate a claimed invention. I think that the Court got it totally wrong in Helsinn, but at least Helsinn leaves open a way to deal with the problem that would be posed by removing “new” from §101. It would be beyond perverse if the Court were to say that an enabling disclosure is not necessary to bar Helsinn’s claims, but would be necessary to bar the claims to (e.g.) a pre-existing brain protein.
Indeed Greg, and if there is no “new” requirement left anywhere in the patent statute I wonder if that might even be challenged as outside of the Constitutional scope of a U.S. patent? Especially given the historic background to our system of the patent statute of Elizabeth I which ended patents for non-novel items?
Golan v Holder has some intersecting historical facts that speak to your thrust, Paul.
No software developer invited ™?
That would be to the “go ahead and copyright pure “logic,” no, wait,…” Congressional hearings coming soon…
(Because somehow software must be thought of as an “either-or” type of thing, and everyone knows that since software is only logic, and logic can always be copyrighted, that only Copyright should exist for software…)
Plus, “professor” should signify that the person likely is a paid for shill from SV.
(Just look at the largest donors to the judicial committee. SV companies.)
Wow, I see comments from several others have been “saved from the filters,” but mine remain trapped…
The one substantive suggestion I noted in the 69 comments so far was that drug prices being attacked in another House committee are more appropriate for FDA and JD changes than patent law changes. I agree, but these proposed 101 changes in this committee would actually greatly expand the scope of patenting for pharmaceutical and diagnostics companies, apparently allowing for the first time even the patenting of naturally existing but previously undiscovered human body chemicals, genes, etc.? Even eliminating the “new’ requirement, which is NOT fully covered by 102 or 103. [Any chance these two different Congressional committees on these two different topics are communicating?]
I also cannot help observing that logically if Prof. Lemley was really trying to eliminate the entire patent system, as asserted here frequently, he would be eliminating his own career and his outside income sources.
The proposed Section 112 language [below] has been extensively attacked in comments here and elsewhere, so this is just one more issue I have not yet seen discussed:
Besides the usual problems of introducing any new word changes that might take years to judicially clarify, what about the many patent specifications that do not disclose any “corresponding structure, material, or acts” for every functional claim element? Will this 112 change increase the number of such patent claims held invalid as ambiguous?
—–
“(f) Functional Claim Elements—
An element in a claim expressed as a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.”
This appears to be “more neutrally” presented, but I have seen comments questioning the thing that you seem to say has been missing (especially, in the “elsewhere” sense – see IPWatchdog).
I like the proposed new §112 language, but only if we apply it in the same way as AIA §102 applies only to applications filed after the AIA start date. It would not be fair to apply this rule for claim construction to applications that were filed before the drafters knew what sort of written description support is required for functional claim terms.
Of course, if a post revision application were to use functional claim language without corresponding structure, it would fail and deserve to fail.
Of course you “like” it.
It’s a monstrosity and nasty trap.
I don’t think anyone could support the changes to 112 without exposing themselves as a judicial activists anti-patent person.
The changes to 112 do not even make sense within patent law. They are removing what a person of ordinary skill in the art knows about the subject area.
Even worse, it is a “turtles all the way down” scenario, for which the “atom bomb” against PURE functional language is driven to be no longer an option, AND drags into a quagmire the ENTIRE “Vast Midle Ground of ANY use of terms sounding in function.
As David Stein as aptly pointed out (on multiple occasions when Random goes into the weeds), such would affect nearly ALL art units (and really, the only ones that would push for such a change are a VERY tiny minority that are perfectly content with painfully narrow “objective physical structure” picture claims).
My proposed revisions doesn’t ignore what a person (or squirrel) of ordinary skill in the art knows about the subject area. I just want proof in writing, in the specification, that at the time of the invention the inventor actually contemplated the invention as claimed.
You want more than “proof” of contemplation – you want an engineering style document (where NO such degree is contemplated for the legal document that a patent is.
My proposed revisions [don’t] ignore what a person… of ordinary skill in the art knows about the subject area.
“My” proposed revisions? Do you have a different revision in mind for §112(f) than the text that Sen. Coons’ office is circulating?
It is. I would tighten up 112(a) to be closer to the European standard. I would prohibit an application that describes a crude system of using predefined questions to help book a travel itinerary from becoming a patent that claims the basic underpinnings of e-commerce when it is apparent that the inventor never contemplated that to be his invention. It would take more than arguing to an apparently half-interested examiner that the general principles where in the patent.
I would tighten up 112(a) to be closer to the European standard.
Thanks for that clarification. I agree with you that much mischief would be avoided if the U.S. application of §112(a) were closer to the EPO’s application of Art. 123(2).
I have seen this phrase before (and have found “explanations” wanting), but Paul, what do YOU mean by:
“Even eliminating the “new’ requirement, which is NOT fully covered by 102 or 103.”
Keep in mind that “prior art” is NOT limited to printed prior art.
Also, I do not think your (equally) bald assertion of “he would be eliminating his own career and his outside income sources.” meets critical scrutiny.
You make it sound that it is incomprehensible that a person would be willing to forego a sliver of present income in order to realize a deeply held philosophical goal.
Your post is even less credible than the views that you wish to counter.
>>I also cannot help observing that logically if Prof. Lemley was really trying to eliminate the entire patent system, as asserted here frequently, he would be eliminating his own career and his outside income sources.
??? That argument does not even hold a drop of water. Markie Lemley is already very rich burning down the patent system and will have plenty to go buy a ranch in New Zealand riding the patent system down to the nothing.
As for “that drug prices being attacked,”
I find it interesting that the easiest and most clear path forward (that of requiring transparency on full pricing mechanisms from ALL Pharma) is actively shunned BY all Pharma (including Generics).
For all the “crowing” about how expensive R&D is, and how the (optional) rationale of “cost” is the great driver for need for patents, the players in that market sure have a strong aversion to any actual clarity on that point.
And yes, I do have some specific insight as to just why that type of clarity is NOT wanted by Pharma.
My question has been answered as to communications between the two different Congressional committees respectively on drug prices and on this 101 patent legislation. Reportedly ACLU and other lobbyists have already been hitting on members of both even before these hearings start. Prior apparent views of some pharma attorneys and some other patent attorneys that this 101 & 112 proposed legislation would be uncontroversial and sail though with little opposition even in the current political climate was never realistic.
Goodness, I hope that no one thought that this would be totally uncontroversial. Really, nothing is totally uncontroversial any more. I hope that the proponents of this legislation expected some degree of pushback. It would be disappointing to learn that they have no strategy in mind when witnesses show up with idiosyncratic sob stories of how their brother’s best friend’s roomate’s uncle was killed by a patent that had gone invalid because of rabies.
Why isn’t Dennis on the list to testify?
I want them to hear from Dennis.
I’m not huge on that, I like D, but his only formal influence session that I have gotten wind of was ridiculous and has only now started to fade away after a fadish intro of his muh policy suggestion. I just don’t know how much of a policy genioos he is.
6,
I am not recalling his policy position on 101.
What exactly was it that has now “faded away?”
>>Professor Mark A. Lemley
So someone that is married to a former executive of Google and has admitted that he has made many millions of dollars burning down the patent system is fit to testify? Really?
Most of Mark Lemley’s “papers” are unethical.
Lemley has made it clear his purpose is to destroy the patent system. He does not believe that patent are an incentive to innovation.
A simple question should be asked to each person: do you believe that patents are an incentive to innovation?
If the answer is “No” as it should be for Mark Lemley, then politely dismiss them. And maybe start with hearings that address the fundamental issue. Additionally, ask Mark Lemley if his papers are peer reviewed? If someone has an ethical complaint against Mark Lemley for his papers is there a way to address the ethical complain?
Hi, my name is Mark Lemley. My wife and I have been making 10’s of millions of dollars burning down the patent system. I am here to tell you that patents are bad–real bad for my bottom line. I am here to tell you that it doesn’t matter how unethical you are the Scotus will still cite to your paper if they need to pretend they are making a valid finding of fact. I am here to tell you that Silicon Valley monopoly companies will fill your bank accounts if you say bad things about patents. I am here to tell you that I don’t care about the future of the country as long as my future is bright. I am here to tell you that 101 is good. Alice is good. Monopolies are good. Innovation is bad.
I am Mark Lemley the man responsible for the destruction of the US patent system and innovation. I am very rich by doing so.
My comment never made it out of the filter.
No The Honorable Andrei Iancu? He put forward a pretty big shift in 101 practice within the USPTO, and it seems like some consideration for how that current practice fits within the existing jurisprudence might be helpful in deciding where to go from here.
Had the same thought, Plurality.
Perhaps they felt they’ve already heard from the Director about the critical importance of patents to our Country; and ending this innovation and job-killing 101 morass.
Would, however, be good to hear his view(s) on the other draft reforms.