<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: PTO Kills Invention Submission Business</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2008/08/25/pto-kills-invention-submission-business/id=191/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2008/08/25/pto-kills-invention-submission-business/id=191/</link>
	<description>Patents, Patent Applications, Patent Law</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:13:25 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: robertplattbell</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2008/08/25/pto-kills-invention-submission-business/id=191/#comment-214</link>
		<dc:creator>robertplattbell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 03:29:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=191#comment-214</guid>
		<description>Great Article.  Having testified against an Attorney who worked with an invention broker, I understand the meaning of the new Rule.

The problem with the invention broker relationship (in general) is that the invention broker acts as a middle-man between the Attorney and the Client, and as a result, the client is not choosing their own attorney or getting unfiltered advice from the attorney  (not that it makes much difference, the attorney generally says whatever the invention broker tells them to say or writes for them in many cases).

Kudos to your for disclosing your relationship to LegalZOOM. I have mixed feelings about legalZOOM.  On the one hand, I admire their &quot;empower the people&quot; approach to the law - by attempting (at least) to demystify the legal process and allow individuals access to their own legal system.

That being said, applying for a Patent is not as simple as applying for a name change or an uncontested divorce.  Drafting claims is a nightmarish process to the uninitiated, and I see no easy way to make this something that the lay person could tackle.

I&#039;ve had some legalZOOM cases cross my desk - from desperate clients who used the legalZOOM &quot;forms&quot; and now were being rejected and wanted me to &quot;fix&quot; their home-made applications.

I&#039;ve found that taking such &quot;parachute&quot; cases is a nightmare, so I routinely turn them down.  In most cases, the home-made Patent applicant can&#039;t be saved, anyway.

I guess perhaps that is one good legalZOOM might be doing.  Joe PRO SE has an invention that probably isn&#039;t patentable anyway.  He files using legalZOOM, messes it all up, gets rejected and ends up abandoning the case.  A lot cheaper than the $20,000 an invention broker would charge.

But perhaps LegalZOOM should stay out of the patent business and concentrate on legal issues that really ARE just a matter of filling out forms.

One other thing - these invention brokers are SURVIVORS, so don&#039;t count them as out of business just yet.  One company had over 3,000 design patents pending when it was shut down - charging $10,000 apiece to the clients for their &quot;services&quot;.  Do the math - that&#039;s $30 MILLION a year.  You and I are in the wrong business!

The larger companies easily take in $100 MILLION  a year or more.  Do you think they are going to walk away because of some silly RULE?  They will ride some worn-out Patent Attorney like a cheap pony, and when he gets caught by OED, they&#039;ll dump him and find some other fool to file their papers for them.

Or, like one firm I ran into, they will just do the bogus &quot;reports&quot; (want your Census SIC code?  That&#039;s $500!) and &quot;marketing&quot; and then refer the patent side to some patsy attorney who goes along with the deal.

They will survive, you can count on that.

Again, good article.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great Article.  Having testified against an Attorney who worked with an invention broker, I understand the meaning of the new Rule.</p>
<p>The problem with the invention broker relationship (in general) is that the invention broker acts as a middle-man between the Attorney and the Client, and as a result, the client is not choosing their own attorney or getting unfiltered advice from the attorney  (not that it makes much difference, the attorney generally says whatever the invention broker tells them to say or writes for them in many cases).</p>
<p>Kudos to your for disclosing your relationship to LegalZOOM. I have mixed feelings about legalZOOM.  On the one hand, I admire their &#8220;empower the people&#8221; approach to the law &#8211; by attempting (at least) to demystify the legal process and allow individuals access to their own legal system.</p>
<p>That being said, applying for a Patent is not as simple as applying for a name change or an uncontested divorce.  Drafting claims is a nightmarish process to the uninitiated, and I see no easy way to make this something that the lay person could tackle.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve had some legalZOOM cases cross my desk &#8211; from desperate clients who used the legalZOOM &#8220;forms&#8221; and now were being rejected and wanted me to &#8220;fix&#8221; their home-made applications.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve found that taking such &#8220;parachute&#8221; cases is a nightmare, so I routinely turn them down.  In most cases, the home-made Patent applicant can&#8217;t be saved, anyway.</p>
<p>I guess perhaps that is one good legalZOOM might be doing.  Joe PRO SE has an invention that probably isn&#8217;t patentable anyway.  He files using legalZOOM, messes it all up, gets rejected and ends up abandoning the case.  A lot cheaper than the $20,000 an invention broker would charge.</p>
<p>But perhaps LegalZOOM should stay out of the patent business and concentrate on legal issues that really ARE just a matter of filling out forms.</p>
<p>One other thing &#8211; these invention brokers are SURVIVORS, so don&#8217;t count them as out of business just yet.  One company had over 3,000 design patents pending when it was shut down &#8211; charging $10,000 apiece to the clients for their &#8220;services&#8221;.  Do the math &#8211; that&#8217;s $30 MILLION a year.  You and I are in the wrong business!</p>
<p>The larger companies easily take in $100 MILLION  a year or more.  Do you think they are going to walk away because of some silly RULE?  They will ride some worn-out Patent Attorney like a cheap pony, and when he gets caught by OED, they&#8217;ll dump him and find some other fool to file their papers for them.</p>
<p>Or, like one firm I ran into, they will just do the bogus &#8220;reports&#8221; (want your Census SIC code?  That&#8217;s $500!) and &#8220;marketing&#8221; and then refer the patent side to some patsy attorney who goes along with the deal.</p>
<p>They will survive, you can count on that.</p>
<p>Again, good article.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
