Comments on: CAFC Up for Grabs, Harmonization and the US Economy http://ipwatchdog.com/2009/09/15/cafc-up-for-grabs-harmonization-and-the-us-economy/id=6132/ Patents, Patent Applications, Patent Law Fri, 10 Sep 2010 16:11:12 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: American Cowboy http://ipwatchdog.com/2009/09/15/cafc-up-for-grabs-harmonization-and-the-us-economy/id=6132/#comment-8241 American Cowboy Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:00:53 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=6132#comment-8241 I misspoke re Bush 43. Here is what I think happened: some big donor told somebody near the top that they are being pestered by patent trolls, leading to directive to some White House staffer was to look into the donor's complaint. The Oval Office had little or no involvement after that, but the folks below them took that one statement and ran wit h it, leading to quality = reject, reject, reject. All of this is conjecture, but I bet that is what happened. I misspoke re Bush 43. Here is what I think happened: some big donor told somebody near the top that they are being pestered by patent trolls, leading to directive to some White House staffer was to look into the donor’s complaint. The Oval Office had little or no involvement after that, but the folks below them took that one statement and ran wit h it, leading to quality = reject, reject, reject.

All of this is conjecture, but I bet that is what happened.

]]> By: Gene Quinn http://ipwatchdog.com/2009/09/15/cafc-up-for-grabs-harmonization-and-the-us-economy/id=6132/#comment-8239 Gene Quinn Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:55:37 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=6132#comment-8239 American Cowboy- I would agree, or at least my memory of Clinton coincides with what you say. It is hard to ignore the fact that under Clinton we has tremendous innovation relating to computers and the Internet, and the government and courts understood what was driving the economy, which was computer, the Internet and software. I am not sure I would agree completely regarding Bush 43. I don't know that he was listening the anti-software patent crowd, or big business who wanted no start-up patents. Perhaps that is what happened. I learned early on in my practice from my mentor that you should not ascribe malice as a motive where incompetence is an adequate description. His reasoning was far more people are incompetent than are malice, which I think is largely true. Your version would certainly explain a lot, but I think what happened was Soviet era goals established to be met or exceeded without concern for whether the goals were forwarding any meaningful objective. I think you are right with respect to Obama and his administration. They talk innovation on a first level, and pay lip service to patents and do not seem to understand the business-incentive model of capitalism. If nothing else hopefully the articles here and elsewhere, along with good comments will present the issues and jump start discussions. Thanks for contributing. -Gene American Cowboy-

I would agree, or at least my memory of Clinton coincides with what you say. It is hard to ignore the fact that under Clinton we has tremendous innovation relating to computers and the Internet, and the government and courts understood what was driving the economy, which was computer, the Internet and software.

I am not sure I would agree completely regarding Bush 43. I don’t know that he was listening the anti-software patent crowd, or big business who wanted no start-up patents. Perhaps that is what happened. I learned early on in my practice from my mentor that you should not ascribe malice as a motive where incompetence is an adequate description. His reasoning was far more people are incompetent than are malice, which I think is largely true. Your version would certainly explain a lot, but I think what happened was Soviet era goals established to be met or exceeded without concern for whether the goals were forwarding any meaningful objective.

I think you are right with respect to Obama and his administration. They talk innovation on a first level, and pay lip service to patents and do not seem to understand the business-incentive model of capitalism. If nothing else hopefully the articles here and elsewhere, along with good comments will present the issues and jump start discussions.

Thanks for contributing.

-Gene

]]> By: American Cowboy http://ipwatchdog.com/2009/09/15/cafc-up-for-grabs-harmonization-and-the-us-economy/id=6132/#comment-8238 American Cowboy Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:30:37 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=6132#comment-8238 I agree that often leftwingers are antipatent, but I don't think we saw that in the Clinton administration, and the Bush 43 administration, in my view, was as anti patent was we have seen in 30 years. Bush 43 listened the software numbskulls who think no software patents should exist and that everything on the internet should be free to copy, and the BIG money, BIG businesses that saw their franchises threatened by upstarts with patents. Remember, patents are the antimonopoly; patents are the way the little guy gets to compete with the big guy, since he gets to call on the even bigger guy, the government, to back him up. Incumbents don't like that, even if they have a few patents of their own just to be able to say they are "innovative." My view of the Obama administration is that they have not thought much about any of this. They give lip service to the benefits of innovation, but since they spend their whole lives in NGOs, government and non-orofits, they have no idea what innovation is about, so they don't know what helps or hurts it. The best they can do is acknowledge their ignorance and listen to the wise counsel of the better-informed posters on IPWatchDog. I agree that often leftwingers are antipatent, but I don’t think we saw that in the Clinton administration, and the Bush 43 administration, in my view, was as anti patent was we have seen in 30 years. Bush 43 listened the software numbskulls who think no software patents should exist and that everything on the internet should be free to copy, and the BIG money, BIG businesses that saw their franchises threatened by upstarts with patents. Remember, patents are the antimonopoly; patents are the way the little guy gets to compete with the big guy, since he gets to call on the even bigger guy, the government, to back him up. Incumbents don’t like that, even if they have a few patents of their own just to be able to say they are “innovative.”

My view of the Obama administration is that they have not thought much about any of this. They give lip service to the benefits of innovation, but since they spend their whole lives in NGOs, government and non-orofits, they have no idea what innovation is about, so they don’t know what helps or hurts it. The best they can do is acknowledge their ignorance and listen to the wise counsel of the better-informed posters on IPWatchDog.

]]>