Angry Patent Lawyer Still Angry, Claims PatentlyO's Dennis Crouch Is Both A 'Dickhead' And Violated CFAA

from the andrew-schroeder,-have-you-met-charles-carreon? dept

Oh boy. Tim Cushing recently had a post here about a very angry patent lawyer, by the name of Andrew Schroeder. The story of his unbelievable rant filed with the patent office was originally highlighted over at PatentlyO, by Dennis Crouch, who most folks in the patent business are well aware of because of the blog and his regular commentary on patent-related issues. After Crouch published the rant, the story caught on in the press and it got a bit of coverage, including on our site as an example of how not to conduct business before the patent office. Everyone has bad days. And the best thing to do is to admit that you had a bad day and move on.

But that's apparently not how Andrew Schroeder rolls.

Our friends over at Above The Law have alerted us to the fact that Schroeder is back... and is he ever pissed off about people knowing just how pissed off he is. In what may be one of the worst-designed blogs ever made (and, warning, it's so badly designed that it doesn't even work at all if you have javascript turned off) Schroeder has announced that first, Dennis Crouch is the "Dickhead of the Year" for 2013 (I'm wondering who the past winners are) and (even better) that he believes Crouch violated the CFAA in finding and publishing his rant.

Both posts are filled with poorly designed graphics, mostly mocking Crouch, which Schroeder proudly takes credit for late in that first post. These aren't even "bad in an ironic way" graphics. They're just bad. In the way that someone is when they first discover how Photoshop works and suddenly thinks they're a master of design bad. But the rant is just as wacky. He never apologizes for the language he uses, beyond noting that it was "less than flattering." No, his focus is on the claim that his insane rant -- in which he accused a patent examiner of taking drugs, being drunk, not reading the patent application, of having to write with crayons and a variety of other euphemisms to suggest that the examiner has mental problems -- was a "confidential" communication between himself and the examiner, and revealing it involved both (a) illegal hacking into the USPTO site and (b) being a "dickhead" for thinking it might be entertaining to highlight his ranting.

One of the things I find fascinating about this whole ordeal is the fact that many of the articles written since Patentlyo’s blog post all assume that this was some sort of “PUBLIC” rant or tirade. Everyone assumes that this was some sort of “Open Letter” to the USPTO that I wrote to shame this particular Examiner (in fact, this was just between the Examiner, his Senior Examiner and me…and no one else). In fact, this was a confidential letter and anyone who tells you anything to the contrary is full of shit, I don’t give a fuck what they tell you.

Uh, no, it wasn't.

From there, Schroeder goes into a big rant about how terrible it is to use the USPTO's filing system. That may be true, but so what? That has nothing to do with the inappropriate nature of his rant. Schroeder, however, connects the dots to claim that because the USPTO site is so complicated, he would have thought that it would protect his "confidential" communications better (there's an assumption in there that's not quite true...). He also includes some totally gratuitous ad hominem attacks on Crouch, because no Schroeder rant is complete without resorting to sophomoric trash talking.

He further complains that Crouch appears to be "sympathizing with the Examiner!" because no one could possibly sympathize with a patent examiner. Now, we're generally no big fans of patent examiners around here, because we tend to think they approve all sorts of junk patents, but I think it's rather easy to sympathize with the recipient of Schroeder's rage rant. Of course, Schroeder hates examiners for the opposite reason we do. He insists they're not approving nearly enough patents, and that their default is to reject patents. In fact, he gives an anecdotal "side note" about some mythical patent examiner who has a 100% rejection rate. That's amusing, since (as we pointed out recently) in 2012, nearly 90% of all patent applications were eventually approved. And Schroeder thinks examiners are too quick to reject?

In the second post, Schroeder insists that as far as he can tell it's absolutely impossible that Crouch could have found his rant in the PAIR system, and therefore, he believes that Crouch hacked into the USPTO's computers and violated the CFAA.

I’m gonna have to crowdsource this one because I’ve been doing research and can’t seem to figure out how Dennis Crouch was able to access my account with the USPTO. It has always been my understanding that patent applications less than 18 months old and their office action responses are to remain confidential. I’m starting to think that Patentlyo’s Dennis Crouch just wants me to believe that it is common knowledge that you can access anyone’s records there at the USPTO. However, from my own research I have found no evidence whatsoever that it is possible. And more importantly, I DON’T EVEN KNOW IF HIS ACTIONS WERE EVEN LEGAL!

The more I think about it, the more likely it is that Dennis Crouch may have broken a whole bunch of laws. When it comes to cyber crimes there are state laws (one for where he lives, possibly where I live, and that of Alexandria, Virginia (USPTO).

And then of course there are Federal laws as well such as the CFAA (Computer Fraud & Abuse Act) which makes it a felony to hack and steal documents similar to what Dennis mother fucking menace may have done.

That one comes complete with a poorly executed graphic showing Crouch's head mixed in with the text "Computer Hacking is Cool" and pretending that this is a class that Crouch teaches at the University of Missouri Law School.

Randomly, at the end of the first blog post, Schroeder goes off on how proud he is of the hard work he puts into designing his websites:

You see, for the past several years I have taught myself how to build my own websites, everything…from A-Z. I can do HTML, the Videos, the graphics, the images, CSS, and even the SEO. And I think that I can build one hell of a website. For the past several years, I have had countless people call me out of the blue and ask me who built my website. When I reveal to them that it was me, they usually respond with something like, “No, really, who actually built your website?”

I love building websites. I get absorbed in it, and I can’t tell you how many times I have looked up at the clock to see “3:AM”, and wonder where the past 12 hours went. Some guys have video games, girls have shoe hunting expeditions, I have the website munchies. So, if any of you have gotten this far and think you need a website, go ahead and give me a call, and I’ll hook you up!

The website has to be seen to be believed. Not only does it not function without javascript, but the layout is ridiculous and confusing, the graphics don't line up, and (as mentioned) the graphic design is awful. So, not only can you get a patent lawyer who might start cursing you out and rant at you for not approving the patent he wanted you to approve, but he might start advertising his awful web design skills in the middle of it all. Wow. Here's a screenshot of one of the blog posts (each has their own "background" image that distracts from, well, everything. Schroeder might do well to consider taking a deep breath before writing any more angry rants and maybe, just maybe, taking a class on web an graphic design.

Filed Under: andrew schroeder, patents, rant, uspto

IP Attorney Responds To Patent Application Rejection By Filing Ranting, Ad Hom 'Remarks'

from the should-try-to-patent-a-scotch-that-isn't-also-a-whiskey dept

There's a lot of anger directed at the US Patent Office, but it mainly originates with people frustrated by the office's "rubber stamp" approval process that has littered the road to success with hundreds of trolling speedbumps, each one waving a stack of overly broad patents and demanding that actual innovators hand over enough cash to cover the rent on their empty East Texas offices.

Patently O has uncovered some anger directed at the USPTO, this time coming from the opposite direction. After a client's application for a telescoping sprinkler was rejected for not being anything the patent office hadn't seen before, patent attorney Andrew Schroeder fired off an apoplectic set of "remarks" to the patent examiner. It starts by suggesting the examiner has a drinking problem and then sinks even lower. Way lower.

REMARKS: Are you drunk? No, seriously…are you drinking scotch and whiskey with a side of crack cocaine while you "examine" patent applications? (Heavy emphasis on the quotes.) Do you just mail merge rejection letters from your home? Is that what taxpayers are getting in exchange for your services? Have you even read the patent application? I'm curious. Because you either haven't read the patent application or are… (I don't want to say the "R" word) "Special."

Andrew Schroeder is too genteel to actually use the word "retarded," but that doesn't stop him from throwing around a bunch of synonymous phrases.

So, tell me something Corky…what would it take for a patent application to be approved? Do we have to write patent applications in crayon? Does a patent application have to come with some sort of pop-up book? Do you have to be a family member or some big law firm who incentivizes you with some other special deal? What does it take Corky?

Perhaps you might want to take your job seriously and actually give a sh.t! What's the point in having to deal with you Special Olympics rejects when we should just go straight to Appeals? While you idiots sit around in bathtubs farting and picking your noses, you should know that there are people out here who actually give a sh.t about their careers, their work, and their dreams.

The USPTO briefly posted these "remarks" before taking them down (and there's more of this spectacular rant at Patently O). As for the patent in question (posted below), the patent reviewer found the tripod sprinkler wasn't anything special, citing U.S. Patent No. 2,694,600, Patent No. 4,824,020 and Patent No. 5,484,154.

Apparently, attorney Andrew Schroeder sent another set of "remarks" to the examiner who rejected this patent application. Oddly enough, it was the same examiner who rejected the sprinkler: Alexander Valvis. This unlucky lightning rod/government employee lists seven patents in this rejection. These remarks have also been removed by the USPTO, somewhat limiting Schroeder's infamy.

Clients hiring Schroeder to assist them in filing patent applications may be surprised to learn that "antagonizing the USPTO" is one of the bonus services the attorney provides. It's certainly not included in the long list of services on his fee page. (It does, however, list an intriguing option called "Office Action," which is available in 2 or 3-hour sessions [$500-$750].) Schroeder's offerings cover a whole range of IP-related services, many of which are thoroughly "explained" by pages that appear to be still under construction. (Click on the "IP Piracy" page to watch a not-yet-uploaded video futilely attempt to buffer itself into existence and marvel as the attorney's phone number [the only text on the page] tells you all you need to know about how "IP Law Stops IP Theft.")

At the end of the day, it appears that patent examiners just can't catch a break, especially if that patent examiner is Alexander Valvis, bane of Andrew Schroeder's existence and destroyer of dreams.

Filed Under: andrew schroeder, east texas, uspto