ABA Journal's Patent Application To Score Interview With USPTO Boss David Kappos
from the nice-work dept
ChurchHatesTucker writes "The ABA Journal was unable to secure an interview with the USPTO chief, so they published a faux business method patent for securing an interview. Within four hours, they got their interview."Yes, but the real question is whether or not the USPTO would approve the patent...
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: david kappos, fake patents, interview, patents
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Is there any doubt?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But the real question is...
Nonetheless, I agree with CHT's analysis. Seems like an odd USPTO patent approval.
Do we need new patent examiners? Yes. Quite frankly, when I call my congresspeople at their DC offices, I am usually greeted by a nice person with a very heavy Indian accent. Just like other customer service numbers.
So call the local office.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is the USPTO outsourcing them to India to save costs?
If so, can we stop for a moment and ask "WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING?"
I mean, they're the Government. The ones under the Constitution, can print money. Why the hell is the Government outsourcing jobs to India?
If my Government is outsourcing Patent and IP jobs to cut costs, I believe we as citizens have the right to:
1) Not formally recognize any patents or intellectual property claims granted by outsourced personnel, or personnel that lack US Citizenship.
2) Formally invalidate any patents or intellectual property claims granted by outsourced personnel, or personnel that lack US Citizenship.
3) Formally replace those who granted patents or intellectual property claims with those who are qualified and hold US Citizenship.
4) Increase pay of patent and IP examiners 10 fold. These examiner positions should be the most desired and coveted position in the country outside of the US Supreme Court, or Congress. As their decisions could reach that high.
Apparently right now, we're not paying them enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
freaking punks everywhere
Each time I read this passage I admire the wisdom of the Founding Fathers who put this clause in the original US Constitution
What is left of it today ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: freaking punks everywhere
'authors and inventors'
authors now mean 'content owenrs' (rarely does it mean the actual author anymore)
inventors now mean anyone with an idea (not an actual invention as the founders intended)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: freaking punks everywhere
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Excellent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not much
Each time I read this passage I admire the wisdom of the Founding Fathers who put this clause in the original US Constitution
What is left of it today ?
---------------------------
Not much, I'm afraid. Lets take a look:
"To promote the progress of science" - definitely not happening anymore, as patent is almost exclusively used now to RESTRICT progress and CONTROL what people can and cant do with an invention.
"and useful arts" - HA! Promote big media corporations bottom line is more like. What "useful arts" are being promoted? Again, not many, as its mostly huge conglomerates like the recording industry and hollywood studios that benefit the most. None of them, incidently, NEED copyright to be as much of a success as they are, since virtually everything is "pirated" anyway, and yet they are still making lots of money.
"by securing for limited times" - bwahahaha - funniest of all, and the furthest off-the-mark of the entire thing. Since when was "limited times" EVER intended to be 120+ YEARS?? Please, someone in CONgress, answer me that?
"to authors and inventors" - As someone pointed out above, this is no longer the case, as ANY person who has so much as had an IDEA can now have a copyright or patent on it. The broad brush paints all the same color, after all.
"the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries" - The only part left that is true. What is NOT said is that this "exclusive right" is now a de-facto monopoly for a virtual eternity (or at least, lifetime + about a century).
Again, the INTENT of this constitutional clause was ALWAYS for this to be a RESTRICTED right, both in terms of length of time and scope of protection. It currently barely resembles the original intent, and has moved well past its intended purpose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not much
You are dead wrong here
I am holding a US Patent in my hand with the official USPTO seal and the signatuire of the PTO Director (some dude named Dudas - now gone)
it says in writing that I have the right "to exclude others from making, selling blag balgh blah "
DO you really believe I have that right as a small patent holder, a micro-entity if you will ?
Then you must have spent last 5 years of your life in outer space
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not much
You may find it difficult to exercise your right. For instance, if your patent is stupid and should not have been granted, or if it has little value, you may not be able to find a lawyer willing to take your case on a contingency-fee basis. Then you would have to hire a lawyer with your own money, and the cost of litigation may outweigh its value pretty quickly (again, we're taking it for granted that your patent is low-value or worthless).
But you have the right, and litigation is expensive... so as a practical matter, other small operators will be unlikely to want to infringe your patent. Now the big guys - they are probably aware of the quality of your patent, and believe they will eventually win a lawsuit. Their cost/benefit analysis is very different from the small operator's. Put differently, the value of your exclusive right is that it is enforceable against other micro-entities.
Incidentally, if your patent is valuable and the infringement significantly impairs that value, you should have no trouble getting a lawyer to protect it. The largest single-plaintiff verdicts are for patent infringement. The rules for collecting a contingency fee from a single plaintiff are much friendlier than the rules for collecting from a class of plaintiffs. So lawyers who think they can win have strong incentives to represent patent-holders. This is the genesis for myriad stupid lawsuits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not much
In patent law terms it's the right to obtain injunction
Read about eBay Inc. v. MercExchange decision and other recent (mis)happenings in the patent world
You are as clueless as any other punk here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not much
Angry dude, homework assignment for you: look up the history of exclusive right language. You might be surprised at what it was originally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not much
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"but these solutions fail to meet the needs of the industry because the pendency period for such requests might exceed that for a patent application."
Also found this interesting.
"David Kappos, former vice president and assistant general counsel for intellectual property at IBM, was hired as the director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to flush the bottleneck of patent applications. It takes more than 20 months for the agency to take its first action on a patent application; his goal is to cut that time in half."
Just what we need, more reckless patents being granted for no good reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This sounds like an attempt to brainwash the public into believing that patents are somehow serving the public good. Just make sure you control all of the media outlets into brainwashing you and be sure to censor criticisms as well, which is exactly what mainstream media is doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anything
[ link to this | view in chronology ]