![[IPWatchdog Logo]](https://ipwatchdog.com/wp-content/themes/IPWatchdog%20-%202023/assets/images/temp/logo-small@2x.png){kind=logo}
65 “I believe that President Biden would have benefitted from an experienced voice knowledgeable about the dangers of supporting the erosion of property rights during the discussions on whether to support India and South Africa’s proposal to the World Trade Organization to waive IP protections under the TRIPS Agreement.”
Intellectual property (IP) made modern vaccines possible. It took billions of dollars in private and public investments in research and development to be able to create, in record time, multiple viable vaccines to fight the COVID-19 pandemic. The entire world should be celebrating the innovators that continue to push forward with new solutions to problems we will face in the future. This pandemic will end, but there will be another. We should be eternally grateful to have companies like Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson that have the capability to create and manufacture vaccines at large scale.
The global community, unfortunately, has not benefited equally over the last six months from these available vaccines. Wealthy countries like the United States have more vaccine than citizens willing to accept the protection, while India and Brazil are suffering from a lack of resources. In the quest for a boogie man to blame for the disparate treatment across the globe, one target has become clear. The problem cannot be the lack of material to manufacture the vaccines, the supply chain for needles or vials needed to administer the vaccine, or even the infrastructure needed to distribute the vaccines in developing countries. So, patent protection must be what prevents countries from manufacturing its own vaccines.
This line of thinking is both wrong and dangerous. Intellectual property protection provides the private sector with incentives to develop the innovations needed to create and manufacture the vaccines. Vaccines are complex; developing countries don’t have the know-how or facilities to manufacture them. Confiscating patents will do nothing to solve the problem. Patents are not the enemy.
The United States has already lost a generation of manufacturing know-how to lower-cost global labor, has had untold amounts of intellectual property forcefully taken and stolen by China and watched as our patent system has been weakened by Congress and our own courts. Now is not the time to place one of our greatest institutions on the sacrificial altar. The U.S. patent system has contributed significantly to our economic growth for more than 200 years. Weakening patent rights will only drive more companies to rely on trade secrets and innovate in the dark.
Missing Leadership
It has been over four months since President Biden’s inauguration. As of yet there has not been a nomination for the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). In addition to running the USPTO, the Director is responsible for advising the President on intellectual property issues. I believe that President Biden would have benefitted from an experienced voice knowledgeable about the dangers of supporting the erosion of property rights during the discussions on whether to support India and South Africa’s proposal to the World Trade Organization to waive IP protections under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).
The proposed TRIPS waiver is not the only missed opportunity to make sure the U.S. intellectual property system is protected. A Senate confirmed USPTO Director should also be actively participating in crafting IP-related legislation. Congress continues to focus on new IP legislation. So far this year, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the Inventor Diversity for Economic Advancement (IDEA) Act, which has been amended to the Endless Frontier Act. Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Thom Tillis (R-NC) have also proposed additional patent law amendments related to the recordation of patent ownership. These are missed opportunities for a USPTO Director to participate in the legislative process and to lead rather than follow.
The USPTO is a large complex agency that deserves a confirmed capable leader. There is much work to be accomplished to build on recent progress. Yes, post-grant proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) are not yet properly balanced and eligibility under 35 USC 101 is broken; but there are equally important missions that need leadership.
Critical USPTO Missions
The USPTO continues to be behind the technology curve. The Endless Frontier Act should include legislation to provide the USPTO with more resources to modernize its vast IT systems. This would include full IT redundancy, continued investment in cyber security, next-generation examiner tools and implementing AI-enabled patent searching.
Improvements on patent examination quality is also critical. There are seemingly endless ideas for improving patent quality. The most important factor to quality, however, is examiner time allocated for actual examination. Finding more time for examiners while meeting current budgets and production requires a leader knowledgeable about patent prosecution, examination procedures and a willingness to work with the USPTO labor unions. Some of the USPTO revenue withheld by Congress over the last 20 years should be reallocated to the agency for boosting examination operations. For example, the implementation of multiple examiners for applications in emerging technologies.
Diversity throughout the entire intellectual property ecosystem is critical to staying competitive in the world. While the USPTO is already one of the most diverse agencies in the federal government, we have much more to accomplish in STEM diversity to train and encourage the next generations of innovators. The Director needs to champion diversity, not just for racial equity, but to make sure that the U.S. does not irretrievably fall behind our economic competitors.
It’s time for the administration to select a USPTO Director with experience in leading a large organization, a belief in strong patents and trademarks, and a passion to make U.S. innovation more robust and diverse.
Image Source: Deposit Photos
Image ID:28557353
Copyright:Feverpitch
![[Advertisement]](https://ipwatchdog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Patent-Litigation-Masters-2024-sidebar-early-bird-ends-Apr-21-last-chance-700x500-1.jpg)
![[Advertisement]](https://ipwatchdog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/WEBINAR-336-x-280-px.png)
![[Advertisement]](https://ipwatchdog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/2021-Patent-Practice-on-Demand-recorded-Feb-2021-336-x-280.jpg)
![[Advertisement]](https://ipwatchdog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Ad-4-The-Invent-Patent-System™.png)
Join the Discussion
65 comments so far.
AAA JJ
June 10, 2021 10:16 pmThis is a professional forum?
Lulz
AAA JJ
June 10, 2021 09:11 pm“As to the NYT article you rely on, your assertion is NOT supported.”
I no longer have access to that article, but yes it does.
Here’s a more recent NYT article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/05/us/politics/biden-american-bar-association-judges.html
From the article:
“In 2001, President George W. Bush broke with the decades-long practice by stopping sending names to the group for vetting before nomination. Mr. Trump did likewise when he took office in 2017. But in 2009 the Obama administration restored the association’s role, raising expectations in the group that Mr. Biden would do the same.”
Decades long practice. The ABA Journal describes their current role, which is not a prescreening role as Drumpf, like Dumbya before him, didn’t like being told his potential nominees were unqualified.
“As to the wm.edu article, I didn’t find support for your assertion. Is the passage you rely on in one of the 168 footnotes?:
Did you read the first sentence? Which says “In March 2001, George W. Bush’s administration eliminated the American Bar
Association (ABA) from prescreening judicial candidates before their nominations are made public and forwarded to the Senate.”
“Did you actually read it?”
Yes, I did. It’s clear you didn’t. Or maybe reading isn’t your forte, Spanky.
Take a look at the last paragraph on page 39 through the last paragraph on page 41. It’s pretty clear.
Every president from Eisenhower to Clinton, i.e. all the white guy presidents, had the ABA prescreen their potential nominees before they were sent to the Senate. Dumbya ended that. Obama reinstated it. But according to you it was an incredible lack of transparency when the Black president did it. I wonder why you think that? (JK. I know why you think that.)
“No, but neither has any person in the U.S. under 75.”
This is without a doubt the most idiotic statement in the history of the internet. Times like 3. Or however many times you embarrassed yourself repeating it.
“Apparently there are many woke people who believe that my children had a head start you know, because white privilege, and that other kids literally living across the street and going to the same school should get preferential treatment based on skin color.”
What “preferential treatment” are the other kids literally living across the street and going to the same school getting that has you so outraged? Be specific.
So you can’t provide any examples of how your children are “suffering” and being “penalized” by affirmative action or efforts to promote diversity? I knew you wouldn’t. And couldn’t. Because they’re not. Neither are mine. And you know that.
Anon
June 10, 2021 09:10 pm“That said, leftist bigotry is such that any race too successful must be punished by dim-witted woke people in the name of holy diversity.”
That’s because the actual philosophy in play for Neo-Liberalism is identity politics and victimhood.
If you actually are non-white, but refuse to accept victimhood, then you are defined to be “white-ish.”
Or per the “C’mon Man” man, you just are not black.
Critical Race Theory IS the evil that it professes that it wants to battle.
AAA JJ may provide names and articles that discuss it, but he ALSO has been cagey in disclaiming that his views match those of the links and names that he has provided.
I called him out on this and he promptly disappeared.
Does not stop him though (as the hypocrite that he is) from demanding “specifics” from you.
Anon
June 10, 2021 08:55 pmB,
AAA JJ’s laments have been thoroughly skewered by a person that he has routinely denigrated in a typically mindless manner: Ben Shapiro.
That he feels (and emphasis on the emotive aspect thereof) so, is only more the indicator that he actually refuses to treat the topic in any way even remotely close to being inte11ectually honest.
Anon
June 10, 2021 08:22 pmlol – your view is as off as it is unsurprising, my sycophant MPEP lemming.
RTFMPEP
June 10, 2021 06:28 pmKeep at it, ABA JJ! The brass knuckles of your arguments have shattered the jaw of B’s latent white supremacist arguments and your metaphorical boot is grinding anon’s face into the dirt!
Anon
June 10, 2021 05:42 pmAAA JJ,
Why don’t you provide the level to which you now ask?
To work: the “be specific please” as to the basis for YOUR racism for any global treatment of individual wrongs solely on the color of skin.
You seem to embrace the critically flawed view that anyone being treated normally has somehow been treated ‘with privilege.’
Such of course falls apart with even a single instance of your purported “victim class” having NOT been treated improperly.
In the past you have retreated from spelling out YOUR selected beliefs from the world of “academics” who have presented the seriously flawed Critical Race Theories.
That you now want “specifics” when you yourself refuse to engage at that level is more than telling.
As I have maintained, when you espouse your Liberal Left dogma, you place any sense of reason and actual critical thinking (that you may have on patent matters) on the shelf, and you act exactly like Malcolm Mooney.
B
June 10, 2021 05:33 pm@ AAA JJ “Of course you didn’t. I doubt you looked very hard.”
Dude, you’re so full of it. If you were remotely sincere you would have provided a page and paragraph. That said, the ABA Journal (not me) is calling your veracity into question.
“Was your father ever denied a spot in a school based on nothing more than the color of his skin?”
My father quit high school and joined the military. He couldn’t afford college. FYI, he grew up without electricity in his house, and had never even used a telephone until he was out of boot. That said, starting from nothing he’s now relatively wealthy with an impressive portfolio of land holdings.
“Ever denied a loan or a lease based on nothing more than the color of his skin? . . . ”
No, but neither has any person in the U.S. under 75. Also, the first loan he ever applied for was a year after the 1965 Civil Rights Act.
“Was your father ever denied the right to vote based on nothing more than the color of his skin?”
No, but neither has any person in the U.S. under 75.
“How are your children “suffering” “in the name of racist woke equity”? Be specific please. . . How are your children being “penalized for things that happened 100 years ago that they had no control over”? Be specific please.”
Apparently there are many woke people who believe that my children had a head start you know, because white privilege, and that other kids literally living across the street and going to the same school should get preferential treatment based on skin color. Complaining about such treatment only gets bigoted responses like “Aggrieved white people crying about “reverse discrimination” has been going on for years. I stopped paying attention to them years ago.”
Pay attention, Spanky, I’m talking about you.
That said, leftist bigotry is such that any race too successful must be punished by dim-witted woke people in the name of holy diversity. https://harvardlawreview.org/2017/12/the-harvard-plan-that-failed-asian-americans/
The amazing part about story of the link above: Marilee Jones, the former dean of admissions at MIT, was too stupid to graduate community college. Yet she apparently spent decades penalizing Asian kids for hard work, discipline, and overall excellence.
What part of “people should be treated equally under the law regardless of race” so offends you?
B
June 10, 2021 02:47 pm“Yes, they did. As the NYT article linked to in your Newsmaxx (lulz) article clearly stated, and as the below article clearly states:”
As to the NYT article you rely on, your assertion is NOT supported. What the NYT article does say is: “The number of Obama prospects deemed “not qualified” already exceeds the total number opposed by the group during the eight-year administrations of Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush; the rejection rate is more than three and a half times as high as it was under either of the previous two presidencies, documents and interviews show.”
As to the wm.edu article, I didn’t find support for your assertion. Is the passage you rely on in one of the 168 footnotes? Did you actually read it?
Here’s something from the ABAJournal: “The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary currently rates judicial nominees after their nominations have been publicly announced, . . . .”
https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/gop-senators-criticize-aba-ratings-during-hearing-for-nominee-rated-not-qualified
So apparently your assertions about ABA practices don’t match with the NYT, the William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, and the ABA Journal.
AAA JJ
June 10, 2021 02:36 pm“As to that ‘head start’ based on race – I never saw it,…”
Of course you didn’t. I doubt you looked very hard.
“…and my father (born into some serious poverty) never saw it.”
Was your father ever denied a spot in a school based on nothing more than the color of his skin? Every denied a job based on nothing more than the color of his skin. Ever denied a loan or a lease based on nothing more than the color of his skin? Was your father ever denied the right to vote based on nothing more than the color of his skin?
“Why should my children suffer in the name of racist woke equity?”
How are your children “suffering” “in the name of racist woke equity”? Be specific please.
“Further, I don’t think that any children should be penalized for things that happened 100 years ago that they had no control over.”
How are your children being “penalized for things that happened 100 years ago that they had no control over”? Be specific please.
AAA JJ
June 10, 2021 01:21 pm“Did any of those ‘white presidents’ (your words at #24 above), such as Eisenhower et al. do this?
No, they didn’t.”
Yes, they did. As the NYT article linked to in your Newsmaxx (lulz) article clearly stated, and as the below article clearly states:
https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1344&context=wmborj&sei-redir=1
You are a person at war with truth.
B
June 10, 2021 01:20 pm@ AAA JJ
By the way. Our attitudes on race are quire different.
I have repeatedly stated that all people should be treated the same – content of character, not color of skin.
You, on the other hand, have openly shown hostility to white people (your comment at #37).
Only one of these attitudes is racist.
Speaking of your comment at #37: “our country has a LONG history of excluding groups of people, e.g. African Americans, Asians, from opportunities. White people have gotten a 400 year or so head start.”
Read the news any? Asians are discriminated against openly by the Left, and Jews are openly being being on the streets by the Left. What are their crimes exactly?
As to that “head start” based on race – I never saw it, my brothers never saw it, my cousins never saw it, my mother (being born Canadian) certainly never saw it, and my father (born into some serious poverty) never saw it. Why should my children suffer in the name of racist woke equity?
Further, I don’t think that any children should be penalized for things that happened 100 years ago that they had no control over.
Maybe the problem isn’t a lack of a head start or related to skin color. Maybe the problem is related to culture.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/black-immigrants-success-shows-the-power-of-free-markets/ar-BB190Qtx
B
June 10, 2021 12:46 pm@ AA JJ
Reading isn’t your forte, nor is honesty.
I wrote directly about Obama’s practice of prescreening BEFORE NOMINATION so that people, such as you, would dare make the idiotic statement that Obama never nominated an unqualified judicial nominee.
Did any of those “white presidents” (your words at #24 above), such as Eisenhower et al. do this?
No, they didn’t. You are a person at war with truth.
“So I guess rewriting history also passes for intellectual honesty in the Newsmaxxosphere.”
All that bitterness has warped you to the point that you wouldn’t recognize “intellectual honesty” if it bit you on the ankle.
Anon-noyed
June 10, 2021 12:27 pm@48
‘I’m done with responding to children looking for stupid petty stuff to be offended by.’
Yes, stick a fork in you, you are definitely done.
AAA JJ
June 10, 2021 12:04 pm“You’re using a false premise as part of a question.”
No, I’m not. You stated that Obama’s use of the ABA pre-screening process was “[What] an incredible and unprecedented lack of transparency.”
https://ipwatchdog.com/2021/03/30/biden-announces-intent-nominate-tiffany-cunningham-federal-circuit/id=131682/
See your comment at 55.
So I guess rewriting history also passes for intellectual honesty in the Newsmaxxosphere.
“Now, can we put the politics aside and move forward on IP issues?”
Depends. Are you bringing the same level of intellectual honesty to those discussions as you bring to these other discussions?
B
June 10, 2021 11:02 am@ AAA JJ “I guess comparing affirmative action to the Holocaust is what passes for intellectually honest debate in the Newsmaxxosphere.”
The person who made the comparison to what is going on today was a Holocaust survivor, not me. It was a great privilege to sit shiva for her, and before he her husband. To people who suffered like that it was a mitzvah, a holy duty even to the non-religious, to end the sort of racism everywhere.
I do know this: If I had said the same thing as you but substituted “Jews” for “white people,” a lot of would accuse me of being a NAZI.
“Still waiting on your explanation why Obama’s use of the ABA pre-screening process for judicial nominees was the most incredible and outrageous lack of transparency in history”
Very easy. You’re using a false premise as part of a question. That admin was far from transparent, but not b/c of ABA prescreening of judicial nominees. I did a search on the subject, and saw nothing.
https://www.bing.com/search?q=obama%20administration%20transparenncy%20aba%20judicial%20nominees&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&pq=obama%20administration%20transparenncy%20aba%20judicial%20nominees&sc=0-56&sk=&cvid=19543DDAC5E64928B1F06BFAFF6DBCC3
Now, can we put the politics aside and move forward on IP issues?
AAA JJ
June 10, 2021 09:28 amI guess comparing affirmative action to the Holocaust is what passes for intellectually honest debate in the Newsmaxxosphere.
Sad. Honestly.
Still waiting on your explanation why Obama’s use of the ABA pre-screening process for judicial nominees was the most incredible and outrageous lack of transparency in history. Of course if you cant explain why you think that I’m sure I can.
B
June 10, 2021 12:47 am@ Anon-noyed / RTFMPEP “You’re re-writing what happened, . . . ”
I’m done with responding to children looking for stupid petty stuff to be offended by.
Anon-noyed
June 10, 2021 12:34 am@41
‘ipguy asked how long I’ve had my number. I replied since 1999. So evasive that only another regular using another moniker can appreciate.’
You’re re-writing what happened, as anyone can plainly see from the original posts at 11 and 14-16. You gave an evasive answer, and you never specifically said you were admitted to the patent bar.
B
June 9, 2021 11:49 pm@ AAA JJ “Aggrieved white people crying about “reverse discrimination” has been going on for years. I stopped paying attention to them years ago.”
So sad. Honestly.
Reminds me of something a friend of mine said about her experience growing up in Berlin. All the little petty digs that grew into hostility – slowly at first, but eventually such hostility, fed by politicians, led to state-sanctioned laws passed to check her privilege – all in the name of the greater good. https://collections.ushmm.org/iiif-b/assets/787102
Nothing good comes from state-sponsored discrimination and petty racial hatred.
Anon
June 9, 2021 09:01 pmB,
Excellent question – and one that I used to deflate the ego of one David Boundy (yes, that David Boundy).
Well ok, less “deflate the ego” and more “enrage his ego” — on the direct point that Void for Vagueness is NOT limited to criminal law matters.
I will look to see if I can find the item, but if I recall correctly, it was in an article written by Mossof.
Anon
June 9, 2021 07:59 pmRTFMPEP,
I have no idea what it is that YOU think that you mean by “fellow traveler rightist ideologue.”
Perhaps you confuse the fact that I am against the mindlessness of the Liberal Left with me ‘being a Rightist.”
I can assure you, that would be error – as I have previously provided under independent evaluation of the ISideWith.com website.
B
June 9, 2021 06:30 pm@ RTFMPEP “Anon, stop with your “objectivity” BS. You’re not and never have been, especially when it comes to your fellow traveller rightist ideologue B.”
Dude, I had no inkling of Anon’s political bent until a few weeks ago. Where we get along ideologically is our common desire for fair jurisprudence and meaningful IP protection.
Now here’s where I’m making a peace offering. Let’s stop all stupid politicking and while we will never agree on d-i-v-e-r-s-i-t-y, we can respectfully disagree.
BTW, Anon, I’m working on another CAFC brief and looking for case law on void for vagueness as it relates to judicial decisions, as opposed to criminal statutes and administrative rules. The CAFC needs to be confronted with 5th amendment due process as it relates to Alice/Mayo. Merely pointing out the statutory due process requirements of the APA isn’t apparently enough. Shameless mockery of a word twice admitted by the SCOTUS as meaningless (yet central to the Alice/Mayo doctrine) combined with a double-dog-dare to define said word is my next approach.
I’ll ask the same of ipguy, AAA JJ, RTFMPEP, and any passing law-nerd having meaningful input.
Also, could you re-post the URL of that law-review article that twice quoted me?
Anon-yed
June 9, 2021 06:17 pm“The proximity of your post with the same type of shade that RTFMPEP displayed is why you were “lumped in.””
You say “shade”, I say “objective assessment”. See how that works, except in my case, it happens to be true.
When it comes to B, you’re not objective. You can shout it to the hills until the cows come home but by any objective measure, you ain’t objective.
Whatever your alleged disagreements with B, they don’t extend to the way he attacks others because you enable him.
B
June 9, 2021 05:55 pmRTFMPEP “B is incapable of an honest answer.”
Said the guy so traumatized in our last debate that he had to accuse Mississippi of being inbred.
“You definitely put the “ass” in assumed, B.”
Oh, please. Up the insults, RTFMPEP. Something less cliché and that doesn’t peg the lame-o-meter.
@ Anon “If he were indeed interested in pursuing an actual viewpoint from B, other paths could easily have been taken.”
Bingo. A straight-forward request works nearly every time, and if I miss something, say what I missed w/o being combative, and I’ll respond.
BTW, the reason I didn’t think you were asking me a question was that your hypothetical question was in a post to ipguy.
“It’s not as if B and I have not ever disagreed – we certainly have.”
And yet we haven’t traded blows like angry monkeys with cattle prods . . . at least for years. Go figure.
Anon-noyed “ipguy asked B an honest question and B gave an evasive response.”
ipguy asked how long I’ve had my number. I replied since 1999. So evasive that only another regular using another moniker can appreciate.
“I’d say he’s probably under investigation by the FBI right now for storming the US Capitol Building on January 6th . . . .”
So lame I’ll accuse you of being RTFMPEP.
Look, people, I don’t want to waste time arguing the petty stuff, and to my detractors I find your personal attacks just . . . lame.
BTW, instead of resorting to this “how dare to criticize” , you just need to say, “Golly, I disagree, but could you say why you think that said judge wouldn’t know the Constitution from stereo instructions?”
I’ll be happy to elaborate.
RTFMPEP
June 9, 2021 04:36 pmAnon, stop with your “objectivity” BS. You’re not and never have been, especially when it comes to your fellow traveller rightist ideologue B.
Anon
June 9, 2021 04:21 pm“ It’s true that I have an opinion about B”
… as I objectively noted, your view is shaded.
The proximity of your post with the same type of shade that RTFMPEP displayed is why you were “lumped in.”
That lumping is objectively accurate.
“That’s something that B would do”
Don’t care. Not pertinent. My action stands on its own and is clearly objective.
“your bias in favor of B” asserted (by you), again, but not so, as I have also objectively laid out factors dispelling such.
As to B’s qualms with AAA JJ, well, those are less “side with B” and more, “AAA JJ loses his rationality when looking away from patent law and into matters of Liberal Left ideology.”
“Just be honest with yourself about it.”
Already am. Sure, we align quite often on strong patent protection items. I would hope that EVERYONE would align with me on those aspects of my views. But as I have also noted (and somehow you missed), we DO NOT always agree with each other. I do not happen to catalogue links to instances of disagreement, so no, I will not be providing a link to you. But stick around, it’s bound to happen again.
Anon-noyed
June 9, 2021 02:08 pmAgain, let’s agree to disagree.
You can hold yourself out as the “objective assessor” all you want but you are not. You retaliate to my referring to your well-known bias in favor of B by lumping me in with RTFMPEP. That’s something B would do because B simply cannot handle honest criticism. It’s true that I have an opinion about B and your bias in favor of B, but that is based on my objective assessment of your and B’s posting history. I call it as I objectively see it. Be it with AAA or anyone else B gets in a tussle with, you invariably leap in to defend B. You’re allies or friends or whatever. We get it. Just be honest with yourself about it.
“It’s not as if B and I have not ever disagreed – we certainly have. ”
Then I’m sure you’ll provide a link to that.
AAA JJ
June 9, 2021 01:33 pm“Wow, how are you so able to ignore the racism?”
Aggrieved white people crying about “reverse discrimination” has been going on for years. I stopped paying attention to them years ago.
“It leads to assumptions such as, if unqualified people are promoted b/c of diversity, anyone who is a minority is the product of preferential treatment and is not qualified.”
The only people who make “assumptions such as, if unqualified people are promoted b/c of diversity” are racists. As I’ve explained to you 10 times nobody is suggesting that incompetent, or unqualified, or unmeritorious people be appointed simply “b/c of diversity.”
“Can you name any judges on the CAFC that were appointed specifically b/c of they weren’t a minority? I can’t, but personally I think most of the white men presently on the CAFC bench are incompetent.”
I can’t think of any CAFC judges who were appointed as part of an effort to make the court more diverse. I think Biden was clear he intended to promote diversity in his appointments. I haven’t read or heard any criticism of the qualifications of his appointments (though I wouldn’t be surprised if there was some from the lunatic fringe, i.e. OANN, Newsmaxx, etc.)
“Tell me: why do you insist on perpetuating racism? By racism I mean favoring/disadvantaging one group of people over another based on race.”
You love the false premises. You’ve learned well worshipping at the feet of Ben Shapiro.
Here’s why I favor affirmative action and promotion of diversity: our country has a LONG history of excluding groups of people, e.g. African Americans, Asians, from opportunities. White people have gotten a 400 year or so head start. It’s not “racism” to make some efforts to help people from those groups, who’ve inherited 4 centuries of unequal treatment, catch up.
“Have you actually read any of the stories on Judge Koh ON THIS VERY BLOG? Apparently not, but try to find a positive story. Her tenure as a federal dist. judge is abysmal. Overturned twice last year alone – once by the SCOTUS and once by the 9th. Both unanimous decisions. Apparently, she’s incapable of reading a statute (much like Taranto). Why overlook this level of incompetence b/c diversity?”
ON THIS VERY BLOG?!?! Oh noes!!!! Lulz. This blog’s opinion doesn’t hold much sway with me.
So she was overturned twice. By unanimous decisions. So that’s your definition of “incompetence” or a judge? I have a feeling quite a few more judges are gonna be incompetent under that definition. Probably one or two that you think are competent.
“My point: I don’t care what a judge looks like so long as the judge can do a good job, is honest, and has a good temperament.”
Under this criteria Brett Kavanaugh is the most incompetent judge in history.
“Take Mayer’s concurrence in In re Guldenaar.”
I won’t debate you on Mayer. He’s awful. Incompetent? IDK. But I’m not going to defend him.
“Yes I can, but that would take a few thousand words just to barely dent his lunacy on 101. His latest brainchild of note is American Axle, where apparently he believes that any claim involving a law of physics disqualifies the claim under 101 while at the same time Taranto (along with DyK) violated the Petitioners due process rights.”
So if American Axle is not overturned does that make J. Taranto competent?
BTW, still waiting for why the Black president’s use of the ABA pre-screening process for judicial nominees was the most incredible and outrageous lack of transparency even though 9 of his white predecessors used the exact same process.
Anon
June 9, 2021 01:18 pmI am making no excuses — and even do not deign to call the snark “bad behavior.”
I think that perhaps your own views (as you share) of how you see B color your perception of the exchange.
It’s not as if B and I have not ever disagreed – we certainly have. I just happen to be adept at dealing with both meaningful points AND snark, so I can recognize when someone is not handling that tool well.
You may well fault ipguy for tangling — but do not be blind to ipguy’s attempts at doing his own part of that tangle.
It’s not “standing up for him” to objectively assess who wield the verbal weapons better here. I have nothing against ipguy, and actually enjoy most of his posts. But clearly, both you and our MPEP friend come into this with vision already shaded.
That’s a detriment, a bug, not a feature.
Anon-noyed
June 9, 2021 12:27 pmLet’s agree to disagree, Anon.
ipguy asked B an honest question and B gave an evasive response. I’ve seen enough of B’s posts to know that B goes on the attack whenever B gets nailed for their own evasiveness. I think your clear and well-known bias in favor of B is blinding you. If you were unbiased, you would see that B has still not explained B’s “frame of reference.” ipguy weaponized it? Meh. Stop making excuses for B’s bad behavior.
As B said, “words have meaning”, and B’s use of “this” was vague and indefinite, and that was very likely intentional on B’s part. Throughout the exchange, ipguy remained cool but B lashed out like the well-known angry troll he is (I’d say he’s probably under investigation by the FBI right now for storming the US Capitol Building on January 6th but for the fact that would require B to be something more than an armchair warrior). My critique of ipguy is that he should have known better than to get into an exchange with a troll.
Anon
June 9, 2021 11:07 amOur friend (Read The Fin MPEP clearly lacks the wits to see the irony in his own whining.
ipguy clearly did NOT ‘best’ B.
Sure, he threw a little snark towards B, and sure, B did not return on point for any additional meaningful discussion on the underlying issue to which the “frame of reference” comment had its genesis in.
But ipguy went down the wrong rabbit hole with his own banter. IF you are going to engage in such tactics, you damm well should be aware of the path that you are taking.
He got slammed – and rightfully so (in the classic John Maynard Keynes manner of having sharp words against such unthinking).
If he were indeed interested in pursuing an actual viewpoint from B, other paths could easily have been taken. Instead, it appears that he would rather nurse his own hurt feelings — and continue to blunder down a path of digs without even recognize that he is in the weeds along that path.
An attorney SHOULD know the tools that they wield – especially language tools.
On the flip side – my post to B did have multiple meanings – B clearly grasped one, just as did ipguy grasp one.
I would be interested in B’s views (outside of any sense of “frame of reference” as ipguy has ‘weaponized’ that term. There may well be value in seeing how different people rank past directors in at least seeing why directors are viewed to be ‘bad.’
Those underlying (and potentially very different) drivers of ‘bad’ can point the way to the opposite effect of what a ‘good’ director should be doing – and NOT doing.
RTFMPEP
June 9, 2021 03:56 amipguy,
B is incapable of an honest answer. It’s all deflection with him. Anon is B’s buddy so don’t count on him to put B’s feet to the fire. Don’t bother responding any further because it’s what trolls like him love for. It was a simple question you asked of him that he couldn’t be bothered to answer honestly and directly.
” I assumed that Anon used his proffered question”
You definitely put the “ass” in assumed, B. You just can’t deal with ipguy having bested you. Given the way you write here, if you are a patent scribe, one can only imagine the tsunami of 112 rejections you brought down on your clients.
So, have some cheese with your whine, and grow up.
B
June 8, 2021 09:48 pm@ ipguy “That’s at worst a lie, and at best disingenuous. What you actually said was: “I’ve been doing this since 1999” with no clear indication what you meant by “this.””
If you’re incapable of remembering your own question when reading my answer, that’s not dishonesty. Whining after the fact still doesn’t make my reply dishonest.
B
June 8, 2021 09:42 pm@ ipguy
“Your gaslighting is ineffective. People are free to judge your attacks as being ad hominem for themselves.”
Words have meaning. The fact you’re incapable of acknowledging the definition of a classic term of logical discourse since the time of Aristotle reflects on you, not me.
The fact you can’t identify a single ad hominem attack by me on you despite my multiple requests is also telling.
“Anon asked you a question @23. Why are you not responding to him?”
I’m pretty sure Anon was pointing out your “thin skin,” and I assumed that Anon used his proffered question as an example of adult behavior that you might consider adopting.
Anon
June 8, 2021 09:10 pmipguy,
You are losing the battle of snark here.
You should pay better attention to the terms that you are using. I presume that you are an attorney, and (for you) these distinctions should matter (at least, if not being a source of some minor pride).
Goodness knows, I don’t mind some smack talk myself – but you started dishing some out, and you are not taking it well.
ipguy
June 8, 2021 08:55 pmB,
Anon asked you a question @23. Why are you not responding to him?
ipguy
June 8, 2021 08:53 pmYour gaslighting is ineffective.
People are free to judge your attacks as being ad hominem for themselves. Of course, most won’t say anything to you because you’ll just attack them, as you always do when you’re given “relevant criticism.”
B
June 8, 2021 06:03 pm@ “You mean, besides your attacks on me? Your comments directed at Russell in #8.”
I didn’t attack you using an ad hominem approach. ipguy, you may wish to read up on what an ad hominem attack is.
As to Mr. Silfer, the man made a false claim about something I said, and I called him out on it – that and I pointed out his hypocrisy of diversity by pointing out that he’s a principle in the most white bread firm on Earth. Addressing a false claim is not ad hominem. Does a person’s failure to address diversity in his own back yard weaken his virtue signaling in general?
Ad hominem or relevant criticism?
You know, I’ll go with it’s an ad hominem attack. Diversity is either right or wrong regardless of Mr. Silfer’s complete lack of practicing diversity while lecturing me on the issue.
That said, I’ve never made any ad hominem attack on you, and you haven’t pointed to one.
B
June 8, 2021 05:26 pm@ AAA JJ “No, I haven’t. Do you have some case names/numbers on all these times . . . .”
Wow, how are you so able to ignore the racism? Been on every news channel but CNN. https://www.bing.com/search?q=biden+administration+sued+racist+criteria&cvid=52d5e10f97d94473af20db05466f4412&aqs=edge.0.69i59j0l3.6665j0j4&FORM=ANAB01&PC=DCTS
“Really? Why is that? Why would all Black, or Asian American, or Hispanic judges be “stained” if another Black, or Asian American, or Hispanic judge is incompetent?”
It leads to assumptions such as, if unqualified people are promoted b/c of diversity, anyone who is a minority is the product of preferential treatment and is not qualified.
“Please tell me when in the history of this country that judges were selected only on the criteria that they were “the best.””
I never claimed that, and despite me telling you this 10 times, you have trouble remembering. That said, why limit the pool of available judges because of people’s skin color? It’s racists behavior. Remember MLK? Content of character, not color of skin! FYI, some of my high school teachers marched with MLK, and braved water cannons, tear gas, and dogs. One I still keep in contact with thinks this diversity b.s. is divisive and dangerous, and (her words) she didn’t brave the racism in the 1960s in MS and AL for racism to re-appear in the form of woke politics.
“So does [Taranto] “stain” all the other white guy judges?”
Can you name any judges on the CAFC that were appointed specifically b/c of they weren’t a minority? I can’t, but personally I think most of the white men presently on the CAFC bench are incompetent.
Tell me: why do you insist on perpetuating racism? By racism I mean favoring/disadvantaging one group of people over another based on race.
“Vast legacy of incompetence? Wow. Hard to believe somebody confirmed 90-0 in the Senate is that incompetent.”
Have you actually read any of the stories on Judge Koh ON THIS VERY BLOG? Apparently not, but try to find a positive story. Her tenure as a federal dist. judge is abysmal. Overturned twice last year alone – once by the SCOTUS and once by the 9th. Both unanimous decisions. Apparently, she’s incapable of reading a statute (much like Taranto). Why overlook this level of incompetence b/c diversity?
My point: I don’t care what a judge looks like so long as the judge can do a good job, is honest, and has a good temperament. Those qualifications (or lack thereof) exclude Koh and half the CAFC from promotion.
Take Mayer’s concurrence in In re Guldenaar. Mayer never read any of the SCOTUS 101 cases, and among some of his more stupid statements asserts that 101 eligibility under Alice/Mayo is a pure question of law while (in the next sentence) also stating, “Eligibility questions mostly involve general historical observations,” The problem: Mayer is so ignorant of the law he doesn’t realize he just evoked FRE 201(c)(1). He then goes on to speak of things like “the scientific and medical literature” as not being evidence. Apparently, Mayer missed 100% of his evidence classes.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-2465.Opinion.12-28-2018.pdf
That level of incompetence is dangerous.
“Is it simply that you disagree with [Taranto’s] rulings or something else? Hard for me to believe that a guy who clerked for J. Bork, clerked for J. Sandra Day O’Connor, and argued 19 cases before SCOTUS is one of our “worst judges” but I’m sure you can explain.”
Yes I can, but that would take a few thousand words just to barely dent his lunacy on 101. His latest brainchild of note is American Axle, where apparently he believes that any claim involving a law of physics disqualifies the claim under 101 while at the same time Taranto (along with DyK) violated the Petitioners due process rights.
Yeah, even Judge Moore called him out on that one, but feel free to worship at the feet of incompetence.
ipguy
June 8, 2021 04:47 pm@22
“Please show me a single example where I attack you or anyone else on this forum using an ad hominem attack.”
You mean, besides your attacks on me? Your comments directed at Russell in #8.
“I responded since 1999.”
That’s at worst a lie, and at best disingenuous. What you actually said was: “I’ve been doing this since 1999” with no clear indication what you meant by “this.”
Anon asked you a “direct” question. Give him an answer. Lord knows I don’t expect it to be an honest one.
AAA JJ
June 8, 2021 02:32 pm“AAA, have you met Joe Biden?”
No, I haven’t. Have you?
“Have you seen how many times in his brief admin that he’s been sued and lost on his racism?”
No, I haven’t. Do you have some case names/numbers on all these times in his brief administration that he’s been sued and lost on his racism that I can take a look at?
“As to judges, I personally know several judges Biden promoted – some darn good, but one in particular is a total nincompoop.”
Drumpf put 10 judges rated unqualified on the federal bench. If Joe’s only put on one who in your estimation is a nincompoop I’d say he’s doing pretty well. How many judges that the ABA rated unqualified has Joe appointed? (BTW, I’m still waiting to hear your explanation why it was ok for every white president from Eisenhower to Clinton to have the ABA pres-screen judicial nominees, but it suddenly became the most incredible lack of transparency ever when the Black president did it. Can you explain that?)
“What do they have in common?
They? I thought it was just one nincompoop from Joe?
“DIVERSITY. One problem with ‘diversity’ is that it stains the darn good judges that are mixed in with the nincompoops.”
Really? Why is that? Why would all Black, or Asian American, or Hispanic judges be “stained” if another Black, or Asian American, or Hispanic judge is incompetent? Are all white judges “stained” by a white incompetent judge?
“I’ll stick to judging people based on their character and competence, and leave bigotry for others to consider.”
Thinking that an “incompetent” judge of a particular race “stains” all the other judges of that race is pretty bigoted. You seem to be incapable of judging (no pun intended) each judge on their merits.
“Where did I say that?
Oh, I didn’t.”
You said this: “Any act of requiring diversity (you’re a big advocate) necessarily results a lowering of competence as the most diverse candidate will not always be the best.”
Please tell me when in the history of this country that judges were selected only on the criteria that they were “the best.” How many white guys who weren’t “the best” got nominated and confirmed?
“Richard Taranto is proof positive that the worst judges have no claim to diversity.”
So does he “stain” all the other white guy judges? If not, why not? What it is it about J. Taranto that makes him one of the “worst judges”? Is it simply that you disagree with his rulings or something else? Hard for me to believe that a guy who clerked for J. Bork, clerked for J. Sandra Day O’Connor, and argued 19 cases before SCOTUS is one of our “worst judges” but I’m sure you can explain.
“On the other hand, despite Lucy Koh’s legacy of vast incompetence, several people here championed the idea of promoting her to the CAFC you know, because diversity.”
Vast legacy of incompetence? Wow. Hard to believe somebody confirmed 90-0 in the Senate is that incompetent. Would be interested to hear your reasoning though.
Anon
June 8, 2021 01:49 pmipguy,
I can see that you want more details, but you having a bit of a thin-skin issue here.
Maybe a more direct (or least different) question:
B,
What part of your experience do you think gives most weight to your views (your frame of reference) on ranking past USPTO directors?
Thanks
B
June 8, 2021 02:12 am@ ipguy “However, instead of an honest response, I’m 99.9% sure that you’ll just make another ad hominem attack.”
Please show me a single example where I attack you or anyone else on this forum using an ad hominem attack.
If you can’t, then perhaps it’s you who ought be “displaying a little maturity”
“That is what psychologists refer to as “projection” on your part.”
Let’s see. You asked, “how long have you been admitted to the Patent Bar?” Your EXACT words and you asked nothing more.
I responded since 1999.
Hostile? not in the slightest.
B
June 7, 2021 11:35 pm@ ipguy “That is what psychologists refer to as “projection” on your part”
Earth to ipguy. You asked a question, I gave you a straight answer. Now you could have indulged everyone by making a statement relevant to my experience, but instead you chose a lame attack.
“What is the “this” that you’ve been doing since 1999?”
Your original question was, “how long have you been admitted to the Patent Bar? . . . . .” I answered since 1999. Go figure!
“However, instead of an honest response, I’m 99.9% sure that you’ll just make another ad hominem attack.”
Look up in this thread, and feel free to quote any ad hominem attacks by me upon any poster on this forum.
I’ll wait. If you cannot find one, then perhaps you might consider “displaying a little maturity.”
ipguy
June 7, 2021 09:49 pm“Your quips are lame, and they don’t reflect anything about you other than mindless hostility.”
That is what psychologists refer to as “projection” on your part.
Why are you so coy about your alleged “frame of reference”?
You said: “I’ve been doing this since 1999”
To which I responded: “Doing what? Posting comments?”
What is the “this” that you’ve been doing since 1999? Patent prosecution? Have you been a patent examiner? Were you an in-house patent engineer?
However, instead of an honest response, I’m 99.9% sure that you’ll just make another ad hominem attack. So surprise us by displaying a little maturity and explaining your “frame of reference.”
B
June 7, 2021 03:01 pm@ ipguy “Doing what? Posting comments?”
Grow up. Your quips are lame, and they don’t reflect anything about you other than mindless hostility.
B
June 7, 2021 02:58 pm@ AAA JJ “Again, nobody is demanding or even suggesting that “the most diverse candidate” has to be hired regardless of merit.”
AAA, have you met Joe Biden? Have you seen how many times in his brief admin that he’s been sued and lost on his racism?
As to judges, I personally know several judges Biden promoted – some darn good, but one in particular is a total nincompoop. What do they have in common? DIVERSITY. One problem with “diversity” is that it stains the darn good judges that are mixed in with the nincompoops.
I’ll stick to judging people based on their character and competence, and leave bigotry for others to consider.
“And your “argument” (for lack of a better term) assumes that the “best” candidate has always been selected.”
Where did I say that?
Oh, I didn’t.
Richard Taranto is proof positive that the worst judges have no claim to diversity. On the other hand, despite Lucy Koh’s legacy of vast incompetence, several people here championed the idea of promoting her to the CAFC you know, because diversity.
Bad judges happen. That said, why make the problem worse by using racist criteria?
AAA JJ
June 7, 2021 10:22 am“Any act of requiring diversity (you’re a big advocate) necessarily results a lowering of competence as the most diverse candidate will not always be the best.”
Again, nobody is demanding or even suggesting that “the most diverse candidate” has to be hired regardless of merit. You keep making stuff up to generate outrage. I realize that works for Newsmaxx (lulz) and Ben Shapiro, but it’s intellectually dishonest.
And your “argument” (for lack of a better term) assumes that the “best” candidate has always been selected. You and I, and everybody else in the world, knows that’s not even close to being true.
ipguy
June 7, 2021 05:23 am@15
“I’ve been doing this since 1999,”
Doing what? Posting comments?
“such information doesn’t start to address my “frame of reference.””
Don’t keep us in suspense.
B
June 5, 2021 08:51 pm@ ipguy “You forgot to respond to my query regarding your frame of reference. For example, how long have you been admitted to the Patent Bar? More than 10 years? More than 20 years? More than 30 years?”
I’ve been doing this since 1999, but I respectfully submit that such information doesn’t start to address my “frame of reference.”
Lee had all the prerequisites to be a good head of the PTO, but was a miserable failure. The Judge Richard Taranto of the USPTO
ipguy
June 4, 2021 06:33 pm@13
You forgot to respond to my query regarding your frame of reference. For example, how long have you been admitted to the Patent Bar? More than 10 years? More than 20 years? More than 30 years?
B
June 3, 2021 08:54 pm@ AAA JJ “No one is suggesting that.”
Any act of requiring diversity (you’re a big advocate) necessarily results a lowering of competence as the most diverse candidate will not always be the best.
@ Russel Silfer “B, take some time to actually read what I wrote.”
Respectfully, I read word-for-word. What you did state was, “Diversity throughout the entire intellectual property ecosystem is critical to staying competitive in the world”
I’m pretty sure patent examiners are part of the “intellectual property ecosystem.”
Correct me if I’m wrong.
“I never lectured you. I don’t even know who you are, B.”
Respectfully, the phrase “I cannot understand any opposition to making sure all our fellow citizens can contribute to solving tomorrow’s technology challenges” sounds remarkably like a condescending lecture – especially given that I was NOT opposing this concept.
“However, there is much to do in the US to get children from all walks of life to participate in STEM and see themselves as innovators.”
Oh, I think we can agree on this. The “how” is the problem – especially in this Kardashian-centric culture that champions celebrity over hard work while screaming “racism” when outcomes don’t outcome according to preconceived notions of woke equity. Improving STEM scores is more about fighting pop culture than addressing lack of opportunity.
@ ipguy, “If the names of examiners associated with PTAB decisions is any indicator . . . ”
True. It’s as if no special “diversity” requirement/preference in violation of the Constitution and the 1965 Civil Rights Act was ever necessary to achieve diversity in a STEM-centric workplace.
Who knew?
ipguy
June 3, 2021 05:40 pm@10
If the names of examiners associated with PTAB decisions is any indicator, the USPTO Examining Corps is highly diverse.
ipguy
June 3, 2021 02:21 pm@8 “I most respectfully submit that you don’t know my frame of refence.”
Okay, then what is your frame of reference? For example, how long have you been admitted to the Patent Bar? More than 10 years? More than 20 years? More than 30 years?
Russell Slifer
June 3, 2021 09:41 amB, take some time to actually read what I wrote.
You started by mischaracterizing my article “Here I say, “TOTAL B.S.” The idea of “diversity” never helped a single examiner examine a single patent application.”
What I actually said is that the new Director does not need to focus on the diversity of the USPTO since it is already one of the most diverse agencies. However, there is much to do in the US to get children from all walks of life to participate in STEM and see themselves as innovators. You may not know that the USPTO has a large group dedicated to outreach and education. Like k-12. These are the innovators I speak of.
I never lectured you. I don’t even know who you are, B.
AAA JJ
June 3, 2021 09:13 am“…explain why the U.S. should choose diversity over competence when hiring a single examiner.”
No one is suggesting that. Either for the PTO or any other organization in this country. But keep beating that straw man. You seem to enjoy it so much.
B
June 3, 2021 01:27 am@ Benny “B, Since a majoritty of examiners are white males, the statistical probability is that the worst one is, too.”
Most respectfully, I’m 99.9% sure the examination core is not 50%+ white male. However, please provide numbers to the contrary if you have such info available.
@ Russel Silfer “I cannot understand any opposition to making sure all our fellow citizens can contribute to solving tomorrow’s technology challenges.”
Russel, I never stated or remotely suggested “any opposition to making sure all our fellow citizens can contribute to solving tomorrow’s technology challenges.”
Shame on you.
“we have much more to accomplish in STEM diversity to train and encourage the next generations of innovators”
You spoke of USPTO diversity. The USPTO is made up of examiners and their management, not innovators, wouldn’t you agree? BTW, the super VAST majority of innovators I represent are not white men, Russel, but keep pretending you have an inkling of what you’re talking about while you virtue signal.
BTW, I perused your firm (SLW) on line, Russel.
WOW, so many white males and what? 3%-4% non-white? How many African-American partners? ZERO!!!
Maybe you should personally practice this diversity thing b/f you lecture anyone on the issue.
Just a thought.
@ ipguy “In your opinion, based on your limited frame of reference.”
Admitted in my opinion, my friend, but I most respectfully submit that you don’t know my frame of refence.
@ curious “If you to want advocate for REAL change, get Chris Coons and Thom Tillis to pull together a bipartisan coalition that can pass a real bill.”
w.r.t. the Senate judiciary committee, Tillis is 100% on-board.
Coons, Hirono et al, not so much.
ipguy
June 2, 2021 07:53 pm@2 “the worst USPTO Director ever.”
In your opinion, based on your limited frame of reference. Based on my nearly three decades of experience with the USPTO, the title of “Worst USPTO Director Ever” is a toss-up between James Rogan and Jon Dudas.
Those with more experience than I may choose to name someone who held the title of “Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks” like Bruce Lehman (who, in my opinion, ranks “Next to Worst”).
Curious
June 2, 2021 04:28 pmI said innovators not examiners. I cannot understand any opposition to making sure all our fellow citizens can contribute to solving tomorrow’s technology challenges.
I’ve been doing this for over a couple of decades now, and I have never once experienced (or heard anecdotal evidence of) anybody being denied a patent based upon diversity-related issues. I believe the operant phrase here is ‘virtue signaling.’
If there is discrimination going on in the patent system it is that the patent system greatly favors large corporations over solo inventors and small companies.
In the grand scheme of things, I understand why people lobbying for changes engage in virtue signaling. For example, 4 years ago, I recall a number of articles proposing changes that include a number of references to China — knowing that the China was a bugaboo topic in that administration. Whether it works, I don’t know. Personally, I’m just not a fan as I believe that it distracts from the real message.
Curious
June 2, 2021 02:16 pmIt has been over four months since President Biden’s inauguration. As of yet there has not been a nomination for the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
Iancu was nominated on August 26, 2017, and wasn’t sworn in until February 8, 2018.
Kappos was nominated on June 18, 2009, and wasn’t sworn in until August 13, 2009.
Given that we are on the 2nd day of June, I don’t see the delay as being unusual.
The proposed TRIPS waiver is not the only missed opportunity to make sure the U.S. intellectual property system is protected.
I’m getting worn out by people making a big to-do over something that hasn’t happened yet (i.e., the waiver) and by reasonable accounts, isn’t going to substantively impact anything.
Yes, post-grant proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) are not yet properly balanced and eligibility under 35 USC 101 is broken; but there are equally important missions that need leadership.
The PTAB is a haven for patent infringers and 101 is broken. However, a new USPTO director doesn’t change any of that. Fixing the PTAB and 101 is for Congress. While there is a small chance that a new composition of the Federal Circuit might reset 101 jurisprudence, I don’t have high hopes. Regardless, the USPTO director merely enforces/applies the law — he/she doesn’t make the law.
A Senate confirmed USPTO Director should also be actively participating in crafting IP-related legislation.
A Senate confirmed USPTO Director would merely be a mouthpiece for the administration. They don’t need one. Chris Coons would be a better advocate in the Senate, and if the Senate passes a bipartisan IP bill that has support from the administration, I think it is very likely that such a bill would make it through the house.
If you to want advocate for REAL change, get Chris Coons and Thom Tillis to pull together a bipartisan coalition that can pass a real bill. Collecting information about diversity and amendments to the recordation of patent assignments are little more than fluff. 101 and the PTAB need reforming. If they aren’t reformed, I will continue in my strong belief that the US patent system is all but worthless for the little guy.
Russell Slifer
June 2, 2021 01:33 pmB, you seem to skip over my statement that “While the USPTO is already one of the most diverse agencies in the federal government, we have much more to accomplish in STEM diversity to train and encourage the next generations of innovators.” I said innovators not examiners. I cannot understand any opposition to making sure all our fellow citizens can contribute to solving tomorrow’s technology challenges.
Benny
June 2, 2021 12:51 pmB, Since a majoritty of examiners are white males, the statistical probability is that the worst one is, too.
For the most part, Ii don’t who my examiners are unless they are on Linkedin. But since their salaries are public, I know how much they earn.
B
June 2, 2021 10:00 am“It has been over four months since President Biden’s inauguration. As of yet there has not been a nomination for the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).”
As Pro Say stated: the nation needs another Andre Iancu. More likely we’ll get another Michele Lee – the worst USPTO Director ever.
“Diversity throughout the entire intellectual property ecosystem is critical to staying competitive in the world. . . . The Director needs to champion diversity, not just for racial equity, . . . ”
Here I say, “TOTAL B.S.” The idea of “diversity” never helped a single examiner examine a single patent application.
Seriously – stop with such empty platitudes.
For all the zealots who will scream “racist” at my statement, I dare you to make a substantive argument instead and explain why the U.S. should choose diversity over competence when hiring a single examiner.
To be clear: (1) I absolutely believe THE WORST, MOST INCOMPETENT, DISHONEST examiner I ever dealt with was a white male, and (2) I don’t care if an examiner is the most non-binary xe/xir POC on Earth – the moment the PTO chooses diversity over competence is the moment quality drops.
Pro Say
June 1, 2021 08:10 pmHere here Russ.
Time to end the innovation-damaging silence and appoint another Iancu.
America deserves — and must have — no one less.