Dir. Vidal’s First Steps

Kathi Vidal is now the USPTO Director after being sworn-in by Federal Circuit Chief Judge Kimberly Moore.  Congratulations!

Dir. Vidal’s first press release is a call for dialogue on what needs to happen to advance the patent office and “to expand, protect, and commercialize U.S. innovation.”  In addition to IP expansionist statements, the announcement also repeatedly adds caveats: “minimizing inappropriate opportunistic behavior … deterring abuses and gamesmanship.”  The other key theme taking steps to ensure that the innovation incentive reaches broadly to all Americans “especially those who have historically lacked access to, and opportunities for equitable participation in, our intellectual property (IP) economy . . . from every region of the Country and across gender, race, identity, socioeconomic class, and veteran status, as well as among all other groups that have been underserved and overlooked.”  This is exactly right – for our world to remain viable, we need to allow space for each person’s individual genius.   Vidal proposes reaching out to actually teach innovation “in our schools, universities, and communities and encourage the emergence of additional innovation hubs.”

Read more here.

105 thoughts on “Dir. Vidal’s First Steps

  1. 13

    Exactly what does “equitable participation” in IP mean? It doesn’t have a meaning, it’s just buzzwords.

    1. 13.1

      I would disagree, as the equity agenda very much has a meaning.

      Do not confuse the buzz-word type of banter with lacking that meaning. That would be a very large mistake (and one in which the Liberal Left WANT people to make).

    2. 13.2

      “equitable participation” has a very definite meaning.

      The elite decide on your group. There will be equal participation according to group percentages.

      “Equitable participation” is a synonym for a quota system.

    3. 13.3

      “I would disagree, as the equity agenda very much has a meaning.”

      That is correct.

      “The elite decide on your group. There will be equal participation according to group percentages.

      “Equitable participation” is a synonym for a quota system.”

      Pretty close to the mark. But I’m not really sure how they’d do this in the patent system as it is entirely corporate dominated and the equitable participation needs to happen in the companies not in the PTO all that much so to speak. They could give out lower fees to boost participation tho for micro/small entities minority owned etc.

  2. 12

    One good point raised below is that the poster feels that the Director will focus on maintaining job security for the USPTO over reform.

    Let’s see if that is true. We’ve seen the far left policies ravage the USA as detailed below and it may be that the new Director will think nothing of laying off 1,000’s examiners.

    Let’s see what happens. I think Ben is right that 101 is low-hanging fruit for the Director to go after and, if truth be told, pretty much no software patent is eligible under current CAFC case law. The other thing is the IPRs. The new Director could vastly increase the number of patents invalidated.

    We’ll see. Again, my prediction is that her agenda will be controlled by the far left.

    1. 12.1

      You know most of what I read below is just ignorance of what is actually happened. You need to broaden your news sources. If you are fixed on legacy media, then I can see why you would hold so many delusional beliefs.

      The list of l i e s and omissions by the legacy media are astounding with things such as Hunter’s laptop, Russian collusion, Covid origin, and so forth. It is not Fox vs. legacy media, but the legacy media vs. pretty much all the other news sources and legacy media continues to lose the audience.

      Anyway, I’ve made my prediction Ben sort of did and Greg made a solid prediction. The rest of you just complained.

      1. 12.1.1

        Just look at the legacy media freaking out about Twitter.

        The legacy media wants to curtail free speech and they want to tell you what to think and decide what to tell you and what not to tell you.

          1. 12.1.1.1.1

            What is interesting to me anon is that pretty much all the federal government agencies that had to do with making war and spying were against Trump.

            The last President where this was true was Kennedy. Kennedy was murdered and Trump was taken out by lies.

            1. 12.1.1.1.1.1

              One of two major detriments to Trump was his lack of ties to the Beast that dwells in DC.

              Unfortunately, his other major detriment acerbated the first.

      2. 12.1.2

        Just occurred to me that the apocalypse for the USPTO may be if China invades Taiwan. China might pull all their applications from the PTO.

        1. 12.1.2.1

          To what effect? Those only reflect sunk costs.

          I think more believable would be a drastic drop in new filings.

          1. 12.1.2.1.1

            The drop in new filings would be enough for catastrophe.

            But, don’t be so smarmy. You can’t tell how far this is going to go. Russia/China and maybe India are trying form an alternative economy based on Chinese currency.

            We’ll see what happens but it does illustrate how unreliable and unstable the Chinese filings are.

            And let’s not forget that US filings have been falling for years now even as technology is becoming more and more important.

            1. 12.1.2.1.1.1

              And the far left want a form of government in this country that is similar to the Chinese government where a group of elites tell us how to live and restrict our freedoms.

              Incredibly Steve Colbert actually publicly calls for censorship on Twitter, which is based on politics. This is the start of the new far left government. It is actually potentially far more serious than people realize (or they are Marxists and are happy.)

              I know all this sounds out there but just consider how out there it is that there are many in this country that support the Chinese taking Taiwan and don’t care about democracy. See what happened in Hong Kong.

              Just remember that innovation and patents don’t mix well with a Marxist government. And now HRC is saying if the Rs take the presidency and Congress, we won’t have a democracy. Any sensible person knows the opposite is true. We would not have a democracy if Biden were a strong president and would have carried out the far left policies. We are just lucky that Biden is so weak. I guarantee you the FBI and DOJ are corrupt.

              Anyway, I am sure the likes of Lemley are happy. They have their $100 million burning down the patent system and the country and now want to put their boot on our necks and tell us what to do.

              This country is unrecognizable from the country the country it was 50 or 60 years ago.

              For patents, we’ll see if the new director cares about the jobs of the patent examiners or the ideolog of the far left. Don’t forget that most of them take normal form to get money and once unleased show their true colors and push Marxist policies.

              1. 12.1.2.1.1.1.1

                “This country is unrecognizable from the country the country it was 50 or 60 years ago.”

                Arguably caused by many different things but overall we had the role of “global Imperial Hegemon” thrust upon us when Britain decided to wreck itself and its empire fighting nazis guaranteeing lolPoland if you can believe it. And certainly once most of Europe worth much was bombed out.

            2. 12.1.2.1.1.2

              I hear you — and there is nothing smarmy in my reply.

              You and I are of the few here that appear to take world trends seriously — so many other have their Liberal Left blinders on.

            3. 12.1.2.1.1.3

              Caught in filter…

              Your comment is awaiting moderation.

              April 17, 2022 at 2:11 pm

              I hear you — and there is nothing smar my in my reply.

              You and I are of the few here that appear to take world trends seriously — so many other have their Liberal L eft blinders on.

  3. 11

    For Night Writer (and anyone interested in a neutral viewpoint — which should include everyone), may I draw your attention to the links provided at 3.1.4.2 and 3.1.4.3 below.

    And for those naturally averse to “anon says,” let me point out that while I may have ALSO shared the viewpoint provided by the neutral source, these are direct links by those who have formulated their views quite independent of this anon.

  4. 10

    One good point raised below is that the poster feels that the Director will focus on maintaining job security for the USPTO over reform.

    Let’s see if that is true. We’ve seen the far left policies ravage the USA as detailed below and it may be that the new Director will think nothing of laying off 5,000 examiners.

    Let’s see what happens. I think Ben is right that 101 is low-hanging fruit for the Director to go after and, if truth be told, pretty much no software patent is eligible under current CAFC case law. The other thing is the IPRs. The new Director could vastly increase the number of patents invalidated.

    We’ll see. Again, my prediction is that her agenda will be controlled by the far left. We shall see if she is constrained by the need to feed the USPTO or if she takes the course of the far left in other areas.

  5. 8

    We had a internal town-hall. She mentioned using AI to automate examiner searches. This was a few minutes after saying she had expertise in AI. I am slightly disappointed.

  6. 7

    It depends on the perspective, but I suspect many here do not consider Vidal’s control over the Office’s examination of 101 to be a “little” thing.

    As Iancu crafted the current policy ex nihilo and was never challenged, it seems to be there is much she could do on that front.

    1. 7.2

      Ben and his example of how NOT to use Latin…

      Iancu certainly did not craft the Patent Eligibility Guidelines “out of nothing.”

      That you think so does not speak well for you — especially given your ‘profession’ as an examiner.

  7. 6

    The CAFC decided “Amgen v. Vidal” today. That was fast. Second day in office, and already her name is appearing in the case captions.

  8. 5

    “In addition to IP expansionist statements, the announcement also repeatedly adds caveats: “minimizing inappropriate opportunistic behavior … deterring abuses and gamesmanship.” ”

    That’s good to hear.

    1. 5.1

      >>“minimizing inappropriate opportunistic behavior … deterring abuses and gamesmanship.”

      This good include anything.

        1. 5.1.1.1

          It’s funny how some seem absolutely oblivious to the “1984’ing” that runs rampant.

          Funny in a horribly macabre and sad way.

        2. 5.1.1.2

          “inappropriate opportunistic behavior”

          She must have been talking about how 6 examines patent applications.

  9. 4

    Given what I’ve seen from the Biden administration with Yellen (caused inflation), Mayor Pete (destroyed logistics), Granholm (drove up oil prices), Mayorkas (drove immigration to levels that will upend our culture), Garland (corruption beyond measure at the DOJ, tagging parents, and using DOJ for politics), Austin (responsible for Afghanistan and Ukraine) and so forth, I have to believe this Vidal is going to be a disaster beyond measure.

    Again, the important thing with a person like Vidal is not who she was but what she promised to do for the far left like the rest of Biden’s country destroyers.

    I have to believe that Vidal is going to follow policies similar to what Mark Lemley (at least 10 years ago before he became more corporate). So Vidal will pursue the fallacy that if only everyone could use all technology (the open commons) and no patents were enforcement than this would expand our innovation engine. This is the belief of the far left that control Biden and you have to believe that they control Vidal’s marching orders given what else we’ve seen from the Biden administration.

    My prediction: an attempt by Vidal to eviscerate the patent right. That is my prediction. Of course, she may not be an effective administrator, which would not be a surprise since she is a law partner, and so maybe not much gets done. But the far left controls her agenda so push for the open commons and attend to the big tech demands. (It is interesting that the open commons tend to play to a monopoly with market force as they can just take anything from you and put you out of business with 100’s of billions in the bank.)

    Anyway, don’t criticize may analysis without making your own prediction.

    1. 4.1

      Actually, I am willing to double down on my statements.

      We should expect a far left agenda at the USPTO.

    2. 4.2

      Can you name any particular policy decisions by any of those people that actually caused the events you mentioned? Because sometimes the effects happen a few years (or even decades, sometimes) after the decisions that precipitated them.

    3. 4.3

      This is as unhinged a post as you have posted here I think (though, you do have some unhinged gems). None of this is true. And you can’t back any of it up with any policy that was endorsed or any data that would support a cause and effect. More of your looney conspiratorial nonsense that is most often reserves for anyone that does not endorse your patent maximalist views. You once claimed to be liberal, but I think everyone can see plane as day that you are nothing but a reactionary that would support any regime as long as your precious patent system “ran on time.”

      1. 4.3.1

        The irony of Ordinary and “unhinged” – a mirror of his own tendencies of an ANTI-patent train system running on time….

    4. 4.4

      Mayorkas (drove immigration to levels that will upend our culture)

      The current net in-migration rate to the U.S. is the lowest that it has been at any time since the George H.W. Bush administration. Lower than the rate at any time during the GW Bush administration. Lower than at any time during the Obama administration. Lower than at any time during the Trump administration.

      Setting aside the inherent fatuousness of the assertion that a given rate could “upend our culture” (what does this even mean? how would we know?), it is really hard to understand how this rate might “upend” anything when higher rates twenty years ago did not. In any event, Sec. Mayorkas’ term has not “driven” the immigration rate up at all. The rate continues to fall.

      1. 4.4.1

        The current net in-migration rate to the U.S. is the lowest that it has been at any time since the George H.W. Bush administration.

        You must be only counting LEGAL immigrants.

        The actual immigration rate is appalling different than the one that you want to talk about.

        1. 4.4.1.1

          **************************************************************
          WASHINGTON, April 16 (Reuters) – U.S. border authorities arrested 210,000 migrants attempting to cross the border with Mexico in March, the highest monthly total in two decades and underscoring challenges in the coming months for U.S. President Joe Biden.
          **************************************************************

          link to reuters.com

          I’m confused. Greg wouldn’t steer us wrong, though.

          1. 4.4.1.1.1

            Have you not been paying attention to how many have been let through?

            Serious question.

            (And I do also seriously hope that you are not trusting ANY steering from Greg).

      2. 4.4.2

        A crushing lack of foreign workers is already “upending” any number of businesses. The general demographic aging of our country, if we don’t import a LOT more “democrat” voters is going to upend our culture a lot worse than some brown people running around.

        It’s simply amazing how history entirely stops when a Republican is the President and starts again the moment a Democrat is inaugurated.

        1. 4.4.2.1

          LOL – because the Southern border fiasco is a “good thing”….

          As if you had a credibility problem with your penchant desire to not understand the terrain of patent law, you want to add to that, eh Marty?

        2. 4.4.2.2

          Marty, there is a big difference between issuing green cards to educated tech workers/bio workers (100K / year) and having open borders where 10’s of millions of immigrants a year will pour in. It is a culture issue.

      3. 4.4.3

        “net in-migration rate”

        “The number of immigrants minus the number of emigrants over a period, divided by the person-years lived by the population of the receiving country over that period.”

        Who cares about “net in-migration” bro? They’re talking about actual migration in, not “net” (minus those that left). If you have cultural americans leaving, and non cultural americans incoming then the culture is “upended” or whatever.

        “how would we know”

        It’s really pretty easy to see in a given area bro. You’ll see everything go spanish in most cases as most of the cultural conversion is just to mexican. Or you’ll see halal shops popping up and women walking around in literal black bag technology (burka etc) if it’s going muslim (as in some areas with huge muslim in migration where the gov “dumps” them). Or you’ll see a korea/china/vietnam-town area pop up (a few west of DC and obviously chinatown mid-DC) already, with vietnam town area currently expanding last I checked. Eventually you’ll start to see larger changes. You’ll also mysteriously start seeing a bunch of voters for dems (see NOVA).

        I personally don’t mind it all that much, but that’s what it looks like and it isn’t really all that hard to see.

        “In any event, Sec. Mayorkas’ term has not “driven” the immigration rate up at all. The rate continues to fall.”

        Are you delusional?

        1. 4.4.3.1

          It’s really pretty easy to see in a given area bro. You’ll see… halal shops popping up… [o]r… a korea/china/vietnam-town area pop up… I personally don’t mind it all that much, but that’s what it looks like and it isn’t really all that hard to see.

          If you do not mind it, in what sense is this an example of “our culture” being “upend”ed? To “upend” is “to affect to the point of being upset or flurried.” By definition, if you do not mind it, then you are not upset or flurried.

          Are you delusional?

          What kind of response is this? If you think that I am mistaken, cite the data that show me my error. This is not a subject that admits of immediate personal verification or falsification.

          Who cares about “net in-migration”…? … If you have cultural americans leaving, and non cultural americans incoming…

          To a first approximation, the number of “cultural [A]mericans leaving” is so small as to be unworthy of consideration. The largest single flow of people out of America is illegal immigrant deportees, and the next largest outflow is legal and illegal immigrants choosing to return (for whatever reason) to their home countries.

          Obviously, you need to take those numbers into account when deciding whether American culture is likely to be “upend”ed by immigration. If the CBP deports an immigrant, there is no sense in pretending as if they are still here when assessing their effect on our culture.

          1. 4.4.3.1.1

            The data from the federal government.

            California where now almost 50% of the households don’t speak English at home. Lots more stats where that came from.

            Estimated inflow: 18,000 / day captured. 1 /3 captured.

            54,000 a day * 365 = 19,700 over the next year. The State Department estimated that if we had open borders which is effectively what we are going to have that 50,000,000 would come immediately.

            The issue is culture not race.

            1. 4.4.3.1.1.2

              “California where now almost 50% of the households don’t speak English at home.”

              The stat you are referring to is that a bit more than 40% of people don’t speak English at home which is a quite different thing than what you stated.

              40% of people in this country are total idjits who get their info from Faux News and eat horse dewormer. That’s a much bigger problem for the country (unless you’re a white dominionist).

              1. 4.4.3.1.1.2.1

                Thank you Malcolm for going over the top with your own special unhinged feelings.

                And may I add that your tinfoil hat is especially shiny today.

              2. 4.4.3.1.1.2.2

                Actually, “The Prophet”, the last number was in 2017 and it was 44.6% of Californians don’t speak English at home and the number is a low estimate and the number would have grown since 2017. So my number was close.

                And,
                link to washingtonexaminer.com

                The issue is that our culture is being wiped out by the influx of immigrants. Many are not assimilating.

                It is not a race issue but a cohesion issue of culture. And this is an old problem that goes all the way back to Rome.

                1. Over the weekend, I saw a piece that claimed that the largest consternation for the established “D” party was the massive losses in poll numbers for Biden from the Hispanic base.

                  It appears that the FAR Left portion of the established “D” party have seriously overplayed the Neo-Liberalism and identity politics (drawing far too much to YOUR identified Marxist underpinnings), and that the ‘gambit’ of “re-culturing” the United States with a vast multi-million influx of illegal (to be granted legal status) immigrants may well backfire as the entering Hispanics may turn instead to the “R” party.

            2. 4.4.3.1.1.3

              Estimated inflow: 18,000 / day captured. 1 /3 captured.

              Fine, whatever. The same federal government from which you data come also calculates that the inflow rate is lower now than it has been at any point over the last 20 years. The inflow rates are presently falling, not rising.

              Therefore, if you are talking about “Mayorkas… dr[i]v[ing] immigration to levels that will upend our culture,” you either mean that he has squeezed levels so low that they will “upend our culture,” or else you are simply mistaken. Which is it?

              1. 4.4.3.1.1.3.1

                And (again), Greg – as your thickness is on display – your “data” reference point is NOT the one you should be using.

                That you want to “trust” what the Biden administration is putting out there is,

                well,

                let’s be kind and call it “amusing.”

            3. 4.4.3.1.1.4

              Oh Noes…not Spanish!

              Clearly the solution to an aging- and eventually declining – population is MOAR PATENTS.

              Because growing a society via immigration automatically destroys the dominant culture and weakens the state beyond repair, as experienced by the United States in the 19th century.

              Wait, what?

              link to aei.org

              1. 4.4.3.1.1.4.2

                Someone said “hola” to me today and I immediately clutched my flag and bought a hot dog and another gun. Merka! Greatest. Culture. Ever.

              2. 4.4.3.1.1.4.3

                “as experienced by the United States in the 19th century.”

                Are you literally discussing the white mane wiping out a vast stretch of indians and what they had that passed as a “state” as something other than “growing a society via immigration automatically destroying the previously dominant culture and weakening the state beyond repair”? I’m just not even sure if you’re a parody of yourself.

                1. No. I’m discussing that facts that between 1880 and 1920 there were more than 20 million immigrants. The peak year for immigrants was 1907, approximately 1.3 million. The majority of arrivals were from Central, Eastern and Southern Europe.

                  In other words, white people. Salts of the Earths. The right kinds of people, as opposed to those browns and yellows that can only “upend” and would neverincrease GDP and living standards for everyone.

                  You are no parody my friend. Just a classic pull up the ladder type. You got your Jack, despite the also-fact that excluding willing young workers is the actual cultural suicide facing us.

                2. Marty,

                  You really do need to dig deeper into the poli/philosophical battle that drives the big “D” machinations.

                  This is just not a “pull up the ladder” situation.

                3. “I’m discussing that facts that between 1880 and 1920 there were more than 20 million immigrants.”

                  Which then assisted largely in “growing a society via immigration, automatically destroying the previously dominant indian culture and weakening the indian state-like structure beyond repair”. Correct? Incorrect?

                  “The peak year for immigrants was 1907, approximately 1.3 million. The majority of arrivals were from Central, Eastern and Southern Europe.

                  In other words, white people. Salts of the Earths. The right kinds of people, as opposed to those browns and yellows that can only “upend” and would neverincrease GDP and living standards for everyone.”

                  That’s all cool and all, but isn’t what you actually said. Still further, the discussion is not about “muh GDP” or “muh living standards” or even “muh ebil whites” and sadly even “muh noble browns/blacks” (truly a wonderous topic, we can discuss later 🙂 ). As you obviously already know.

                  “You are no parody my friend.”

                  I wondered whether you are a parody of yourself, not whether I am myself a parody.

                  “Just a classic pull up the ladder type. ”

                  Hardly. As I already explained, I personally don’t mind the current immigration.

                  “You got your Jack, despite the also-fact that excluding willing young workers is the actual cultural suicide facing us.”

                  Hardly. The cultural devastation wrought by the boomers and just previous to them, and after them, has negatively affected me overall in many ways, tis true. And further, the giganto immigration, mostly illegal, but some legal, has likely negatively affected me in some ways that are not really felt in-my-faceish. Certainly importing more men than women necessarily affects the overall dating/marriage/ahem markets negatively for me and all men to a small degree that may be somewhat outsized (tho women still outnumber men overall). And certainly increasing minority populations gigantically, while still culturally limiting my ability to marry brown/black/foreign/foreign fam girls via overall via a 100+ cultural/familial/socio etc. issues negatively affects family formation for me and other men around me hugely when I reside in majority minority areas, as I did (unwittingly regarding this particular issue at the time, and yes there are some nums on that issue, though it is far from the worst issue affecting the DC area marriage scene). Moving near home shows this off gigantically in such fashion that it cannot be missed btw. But, overall, those things are nigh just meh. The larger issue here is other people, and the culture overall, especially in limited locals, not turning into literal balkanization. Which is the current discussion.

                  “the also-fact that excluding willing young workers is the actual cultural suicide facing us.”

                  I wish it was bro. Fact is, there’s huge amounts of native “willing workers” disengaged from the work environment because there is no good reason for them to engage (no fam formed, no dependent wifey, they can stay at home etc. etc.). And nearly all of that comes from leftism of the past. If you want all these “muh young workers” then you need to use the ones you’ve got available instead of importing desperate third worlders. And that means giving them a reason. And that means giving up leftism, en masse.

            4. 4.4.3.1.1.5

              “The State Department estimated that if we had open borders which is effectively what we are going to have that 50,000,000 would come immediately.”

              An underestimate no doubt. That’s likely “just the ones that have the money and would show up tomorrowish on a flight/boat”. Not counting the ones that would come if they would need to finangle it somehow.

          2. 4.4.3.1.2

            “By definition, if you do not mind it, then you are not upset or flurried.”

            Um that’s just me bro. If there’s thousands or millions, or tens of millys that are upset or “flurried” (flustered) then that is “upending”. To them. Which is obviously what matters derp.

            “What kind of response is this? If you think that I am mistaken, cite the data that show me my error. This is not a subject that admits of immediate personal verification or falsification.”

            The numbers reported all over the place show uptick in inflows. Note that is irrespective of OUTFLOWS (which nobody cares about unless it was merely recent people that came in).

            “To a first approximation, the number of “cultural [A]mericans leaving” is so small as to be unworthy of consideration.”

            That’s obviously some insider baseball (probably leftist) math you’re doing that you’d need to demonstrate. If you’d have us believe that there are way more recent immigrants (especially LEGAL ones) leaving than old ev il white dudes going to SE asia or jamaica etc. then you’re going to have to show your work.

            “The largest single flow of people out of America is illegal immigrant deportees”

            That’s cool and all, now let’s talk about the “LEGALlol” ones and the legal+illegal (that is, the actual nums). So that you might cure your delusional position and get a handle on reality.

            1. 4.4.3.1.2.2

              If you’d have us believe that there are way more recent immigrants (especially LEGAL ones) leaving than old ev il white dudes going to SE asia or jamaica etc. then you’re going to have to show your work.

              Quite right. As I noted above, this is not a subject that admits of immediate, personal verification or falsification. Your skepticism does you credit.

              The US State Dept. keeps a periodic estimate of Americans living abroad (1). Meanwhile, the DHS keeps track of both deportations and voluntary departures (2). As you can see, both of the deportations and departures dwarf the Americans-abroad numbers.

              The one point that I got wrong above, however, was that I said that deportations outnumber departures. Actually it is the other way around. One way or the other, however, the data bear out that one needs to look at the net migration flow, not the gross flow, if one wants to get a picture of the effects of migration on “our culture.”

              Now that I have provided a variety of data, perhaps you might do likewise. Do you still maintain that I am “delusional” to think that immigration flows are diminished under Mayorkas? If so, do you have any numbers to back that up?

              (1) link to aetnainternational.com
              (2) link to dhs.gov

              1. 4.4.3.1.2.2.1

                The State Dept estimates that the total of Americans living abroad increased from 4.1 million to 9 million between 1995 and 2019. Over the same time period, the DHS confirmed the departures of over 27 million illegal immigrants. The numbers including departures by legal immigrants were even larger. As you can see, departures of foreigners leaving America dwarf the departure of Americans leaving America. Those net flows are mostly about foreigners arriving and foreigners leaving. Americans leaving is too small a phenomenon to merit serious consideration.

              2. 4.4.3.1.2.2.3

                Even from your own sources I don’t think you understand what you’re talking about. It’s 4+ milly new americans newly living abroad in 15 years. Meaning around 266k+ american’s leaving every single year. Your aetna says it’s 9 milly now, doubledish from 4 milly 15 years prior (based on their timeline). So 266k+(ish) americans leaving per year (compare to around a milly new LEGAL, not even counting illegal, immigrants coming in per year with majority being way far from american culture, and you see the actual changing of culture nums if you care about such nums). Whereas the deportations and vol returns are around 510k or 380k per year. Hardly dwarfing, and those aren’t the legal immigrants all that much I doubt (the legal ones of course want to stay like 90+% of the time).

                “One way or the other, however, the data bear out that one needs to look at the net migration flow, not the gross flow, if one wants to get a picture of the effects of migration on “our culture.””

                It doesn’t take a rocket genius to look and see the effects on the localized cultures of various areas that are flipped entirely from american, esp the ebil “white christian american culture”, or noble “black traditional american culture”s previously in those same locations bro. You’ll know because many a woman will be robed in black bag technology, or you’ll be hearing all spanish, vietnamese, chinese, etc. in your earballs, or oddly seeing all dem votes (BY COINCIDENCE I’M SURE). You don’t need to “look at numbers” at all.

                “Now that I have provided a variety of data, perhaps you might do likewise. Do you still maintain that I am “delusional” to think that immigration flows are diminished under Mayorkas? ”

                Um they’re not “diminished” under him, they were, and still are, BOLSTERED considering the fact that we just now are stopping the COVID restrictions but we’re at giganto nums of “encounters” even with COVID restrictions just being in effect. That’s kind of the point.

                In any event, you should look at the overall nums, which is what matters, and which clearly show percent foreign born still on the rise, and still at over a milly being the norm of legal immigrants (way too large, need around 250kish or less for cultural non-interference, as we saw above). And that’s not counting illegals.

                link to migrationpolicy.org

                1. [Y]ou should look at the overall nums,… which clearly show percent foreign born still on the rise…

                  But the overall numbers do not show the percentage of foreign born U.S. residents on the rise. In 2017 that percentage was 13.7%. In 2018, 13.7%. In 2019, 13.7%. In 2020, 13.7%. In 2021, 13.7%. We, of course, do not yet have numbers for 2022.

                  In 1890 the percentage foreign born was 14.8%. In 1910 it was 14.7%. Did these percentages “upend” our culture? The history of immigration to America is one long litany of chicken-littles loudly warning that this tide of foreigners bid fair imminently to swamp the U.S. ship. It has never happened yet. Why is it like to do so now, when the percentage is not even cresting at the same level achieved at the turn of the last century?

                2. “But the overall numbers do not show the percentage of foreign born U.S. residents on the rise. In 2017 that percentage was 13.7%. In 2018, 13.7%. In 2019, 13.7%. In 2020, 13.7%. In 2021, 13.7%. We, of course, do not yet have numbers for 2022.”

                  Right tho bro, you want that num to be closer to 8-9%, if not less (most established normal countries want less). You’re looking at the sky high nums of 2010’s and previous 40 years as if they’re liek normaaaal n stuff. No, they’re sky high, and have been for like 40 years, with the admin constantly saying they’ll get immigration (and thus that num) under control while not doing so. The last time that num started getting way high we eventually had to put the breaks on immigration as well. Hard.

                  “In 1890 the percentage foreign born was 14.8%. In 1910 it was 14.7%. Did these percentages “upend” our culture? ”

                  Actually they in large part did in some areas, and if you read you’d know. All those parts of the history books that say things like “the newly arrived catholic/irish/etc. population made for big changes in the local community creating a hubbub” is what is literally being discussed, except now its on steroids. As we know still further, those were the relatively speaking non-oppressed peoples of the world and nearly the most easily assimilated and wanting to assimilate. Nowadays obviously it’s the reverse on all accounts as large percents are at least one of, victims, harder to assimilate, and/or not wanting to assimilate in a rather larger portion of cases (as they dislike the eb il ones and the Great Satan already, as well they should). Though for the large part those extra back in the day immigrants headed, duh, into the wide mostly unpopulated areas where the indians were being driven out of. So it “upended” their indian culture rather than existing american culture. And obviously at that time there was no welfare state to help immigrants out, they scrounged as they could and were only here if they actually wanted to be here (at great hardship quite often).

                  “fair imminently to swamp the U.S. ship.”

                  The newest people are not going to swamp the whole US culture, we’re talking localized effects here mostly (that are growing though and in some place mostly the SW being super huge).

                  “Why is it like to do so now,”

                  To the extent that it does happen, it’s mostly happening now because a. the cultural differences being way different and in some cases harder to assimilate, b. a desire amongst leftists to not have immigrants be “forced” to assimilate having gone mainstream and c. literally the giganto population of mexico spilling over (up from 50 to 130 milly in merely 70 years with 200k+ spilling to the US each yearish). Not saying it will “swamp” all, but it is largely swamping what we have now in areas. And tis a much different situation than what we had in 1900 to even be swamped then.

                3. 6,

                  Not that Greg would ever admit to such, but since he is of the Liberal Left persuasion, he may well “become convinced” in the upcoming trends bear out (for the “D’s” worst dreams ever: that their attempted flood of new votes turns NOT to the “D” ticket, but instead to the “R” ticket.

                  As usual, consider (and discount as appropriate) the source being Fox:

                  (at comments sub 4.4.3.1.1.2.2): link to foxnews.com

    5. 4.5

      [D]on’t criticize m[y] analysis without making your own prediction.

      I predict that the patent system will chug on through Vidal’s tenure mostly like it was before, with no more than a 5% effect visible in any measurable parameter. As Prof. Crouch has previously demonstrated, across spans of decades the grant rate for the USPTO never varies more than 8 percentage points from around the 65% horizon.

      link to patentlyo.com

  10. 3

    “minimizing inappropriate opportunistic behavior … deterring abuses and gamesmanship.”

    Whether she lives up to these words or not, they are welcome.

    I am cautiously optimistic, because the people mindlessly favoring stronger patents seem to be incapable of acknowledging such abuses.

    1. 3.1

      So, back in like 2006 the OMB did an assessment of whether there was a “troll” problem or “inappropriate opportunistic behavior” and found NONE.

      The OMB at the time was considered the most objective and reliable department in the USA.

      Plus, what a game to use words like “inappropriate” where “inappropriate” can be defined as pretty much anything.

      1. 3.1.1

        I recall that (but thought that the date was closer to 2009).

        After that came out (immediately), there was silence — no one dared challenge or want to draw attention to that government report (among those seeking to weaken patent rights).

        As I recall, it was merely about three months later that the “0h N0es, Tr011s” propagandists revved up their machine — as if the OMB never published what they published.

        Not entirely UNsurprising, we see that exact same tactic play out HERE — thread after thread, month after month, year after year, when the points against Efficient Infringer malfeasance are simply not taken into account, and the SAME ones act as if nothing was ever said in counterpoint to their agenda.

      2. 3.1.2

        >words like “inappropriate” where “inappropriate” can be defined as pretty much anything.

        Even better, different listeners will hear them differently, so political-types can make promise different things to different parties w/o being called out as pandering. See also motte and bailey argumentation

      3. 3.1.3

        Did you look at the Genuine Enabling Tech thread at all? That’s pretty clearly inappropriate opportunistic behavior. People who care about the patent system shouldn’t turn their head away from such abuses.

      4. 3.1.4

        [T]he OMB did an assessment of whether there was a “troll” problem or “inappropriate opportunistic behavior” and found NONE.

        This simply is not true. The OMB never did a study. To prove this to yourself, just go to the website (omb.gov) and try to find this “assessment.” You will not, because it does not exist.

        The OMB did solicit comments on perceived problems from “trolls” during the Obama administration, and published the comments it received. Some of those published comments complained that there was a “troll” problem while others denied that there is such a problem, as one might expect from self-selecting respondents to a call for comment.

        The OMB also set the FTC the task of investigating. The interested reader can read the FTC’s report. The report’s conclusions were too nuanced to be neatly summarized as “problem” or “no problem,” but it is certainly not a fair summary to say that they “found NO” problems from “trolls.”

        link to ftc.gov

        1. 3.1.4.1

          The OMB never did a study.

          Just to clarify, the OMB has done many studies on many subjects. I meant merely that the OMB never did a study on patent “trolls.”

        2. 3.1.4.2

          The FTC report was criticized for missing the limitations that it (itself) had set before the OMB.

          See: link to ipwatchdog.com for a viewpoint of those limitations set forth PRIOR to the FTC’s report.

          Further – I believe that Night Writer errs (slightly) in both time and agency.

          I too shared that error. Rather than (even) 2009, and the OMB, it was 2013 and the GAO (Government Accountability Office).

          See Adam Mossof’s reporting at: link to cip2.gmu.edu

          1. 3.1.4.2.1

            Thanks anon. I think there is another study too that was done before 2009.

            But I note that once you pull out facts that the other side bows out.

            This is a typical thread where they throw shxt against the wall and expect us to produce all the facts as if their position has the presumption of proof and we must proof anything against them with a standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.

            1. 3.1.4.2.1.2

              But I note that once you pull out facts that the other side bows out.

              This is as it has always been.

              I am quite used to it (even as I continue to invite dialogue on the merits).

            2. 3.1.4.2.1.3

              [O]nce you pull out facts that the other side bows out.

              Does it not trouble you—even a little—that the putative “fact” that underlay your thinking as of 14 Apr—the imaginary OMB study of 2006—never happened? Your opinions rest on a foundation of half-remembered “facts” that do not stand up to a 10-min Google search, and even after their falsehood is demonstrated, your conclusions do not alter one iota. I would think that this might give one pause.

              1. 3.1.4.2.1.3.1

                It is beyond irony that Greg would lambast others while deserving of being lambasted himself (because he likes to pretend that he does not “even see” my posts — which everyone knows to be false).

                Night Writer, maybe you want to repost my links and bring p00r widdle Greggie up to speed….

      5. 3.1.5

        Thinking about the dates here, the 2006 date may have come from the old patent blog “271 Blog” that had its own investigation into the “0h N0es Tr011s” propaganda and which had as its main point that the “Tr011s” of that day actually held “higher quality” patents as they typically vetted items (invented by others) before they purchased those items of fully alienable property.

        The 2009 date does reflect an active involvement of the OMB, but that involvement was more in line with shutting down the attempted power grabs by the Patent Office – vis a vis the Tafas case and the Appeals Rule Changes denial, and subsequent withdrawal by the Patent Office.

    2. 3.2

      because the people mindlessly favoring stronger patents

      There is no such thing as that.

  11. 2

    Glad that Ms Vidal is finally official, now more than a year after Pres Biden’s inauguration.

      1. 2.1.1

        Rather thought provoking…?

        This is about as banal a plea for Efficient Infringement as one might imagine.

        The “thought provoked” is that this should bring out for anyone knowing anything about innovation protection is that Efficient Infringement is the primary gamesmanship that need be shut down.

        1. 2.1.1.1

          I think Greg meant this one:

          Bye bye #patents it appears The Biden
          @TheJusticeDept
          proposing a change in policy that would mean no US company holding a standards-essential patent—arguably the most important patent—could enforce it. Chinese companies, will continue to steal critical tech
          @MorningsMaria

          link to mobile.twitter.com

          1. 2.1.1.1.1

            I am sure that Greg meant what he actually posted to.

            It’s entirely consistent with Greg’s hackneyed viewpoints.

  12. 1

    From beleaguered independent inventors and innovative SMEs, cautious optimism.

    Cautious optimism only.

    1. 1.1

      I see no reason why anyone should feel either optimistic or pessimistic about the advent of Vidal’s tenure. All of the most important current problems in the U.S. patent system (eBay, Alice, international exhaustion, international enforcement) have much more to do with the courts than with the USPTO. There is very little that Ms. Vidal can do to improve matters, but also very little that she is at all likely to do that might make them any worse. I expect that the state of the patent system during Ms. Vidal’s tenure will be much like during her predecessor’s and her successor’s (unless the Congress or Court steps in to make changes, which seems regrettably unlikely).

      1. 1.1.1

        It depends on the perspective, but I suspect many here do not consider Vidal’s control over the Office’s examination of 101 to be a “little” thing.

        As Iancu crafted the current policy ex nihilo and was never challenged, it seems to be there is much she could do on that front.

        1. 1.1.1.1

          Two brief responses:

          (1) The data linked in 4.5 above indicate that even “major” changes in examination policy have fairly slight effect on grant rate.

          (2) I predict that the Iancu guidance will not be superseded. The director needs to make payroll each month, and for that she needs filing fees. If one gives the applicant pool cause to think that they will be wasting their time in filing, then they will not file. How then to keep the lights on?

          1. 1.1.1.1.1

            Between (1) and (2), it looks to me as if you’re arguing against yourself.

            If the 2019 guidance had no substantial impact, a reversal or equivalent change in the opposite direction should not prevent the PTO from making ends meet.

        2. 1.1.1.2

          seems to be there is much she could do on that front

          And what exactly – pray tell – are you thinking of?

          Vidal has the exact same constraints as Iancu had. She would have to deal with the exact same Gordian Knot conditions.

Comments are closed.