Sorry if I over reacted.

-Gene

You say: “It is your unsupportable position that there is no such thing as a dishonest examiner that is pushing the boundaries of honesty. Is it not?”

NO, it is not!

Are you really an attorney? Major premise, minor premise and conclusion makes for great logic games, but are simply not proof. You have raised extraordinarily serious charges. Charges that if true would land people in jail for a very long time. Logic games and Socratic proofs are not evidence, and if they taint thousands of honest PTO workers (which they do) proof should be demanded.

I am not a fool. I get what you are saying, and to dismiss it outright as impossible would be naive. Could it have happened, yes. Did it happen, I serious doubt it, particularly given there is a real and undeniable explanation that we all know to be 100% true, we all know it happens.

It is also possible that molecules could align in such a way so as to spontaneously and mysteriously turn a page. That is scientifically provable, but it has never been observed by a reliable witness or one who was not drunk. The fact that it is possible doesn’t mean it happened. Your syllogism makes for great debate in university circles, but gets you laughed out of court in the real world.

I know you are frustrated. I am frustrated too. We can openly discuss that what you suggest is a feeling shared by many, but those of us in the industry know that while it might appear to be the case it is almost certainly not the case. In science we know that the exotic theory is rarely correct. Keep it simple and you will see the light. Examiners take cases out of order because it is advantageous to them given the crazy quota system. The fact that an ordinary inventor might suspect bribery is a perception problem for the USPTO, not a reason to tarnish the reputations of the many hard working people at the PTO who like us are just trying to make a living and navigate this unnecessary economic downturn.

-Gene

major premise: in every human population of thousands a percentage are dishonest.
minor premise: patent examiners represent a human population of thousands
ergo . . .
conclusion: a percentage of patent examiners are dishonest.

Now, my friend, tell me where the dishonesty is. Tell me which premise you want to challenge. Or show me your argument why the conclusion doesn’t follow.

Your position is that because I can’t point to a single, known, dishonest examiner that my assertion of the syllogism is itself dishonest. May I refer you to Aristotle’s Prior Analytics. Absence of proof is not proof of absence, particularly in the face of overwhelming logic.

It is your unsupportable position that there is no such thing as a dishonest examiner that is pushing the boundaries of honesty. Is it not?

Your comment is insulting, and shows that you know absolutely nothing about me. When the USPTO changed certain rules in September 2008 my business was crippled, yet I explained it was a positive change because it should have meant the end to invention submission companies. Unfortunately, all the PTO did was push anyone reputable out of the business and left it open for invention submission companies to exploit independent inventors. I wrote about that over and over again, and have even been told by some inside the PTO that I was at one point public enemy number 1 because I railed on Director Dudas for 2 years because of his poor decisions and advancement of initiatives that would cripple innovation, harm independent inventors and destroy pharma.

If you want to have your head in the sand go right ahead, but my advice to you is to learn from the wisdom of President Lincoln who said:“It’s better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.”

Healthy debate is always welcome, and many who challenge me go after me and we have a vigorous debate. Notwithstanding, I will not tolerate what happens on many other patent blogs, and I do ban people who attempt to take the discourse to unacceptable levels. The Internet allows people to say whatever they want without recourse and while remaining completely anonymous, no matter how insulting or rude. That, however, will never be allowed on IPWatchdog.com.

-Gene

I am not suggesting your accusations are criminal, but you are leveling charges of criminal behavior. You are also being 100% unfair. You said: “there is no amount of evidence I could put up that would convince you…” This is unfair and intellectually dishonest. If you really are an attorney you have to realize that you have presented no evidence. You have provided a grand total of ZERO evidence, and what you are saying is pure conjecture. Your accusations are extremely serious, and accusations like this demand at least some evidence.

I didn’t cut you off because it is important for those in power, both in Congress and the PTO to understand that what you say is indeed a growing perception (from what I can tell). That is a serious problem for the PTO, and one I feel certain the career officials who are leading the PTO at the moment will take seriously and try and address. Without Congress helping there is only so much the PTO can do themselves though.

I share in frustrations, and learn every day about quick actions in some situations. It is unfair and something needs to be done. If and when there is evidence I will pursue it and treat it accordingly. I am not going to allow our discourse to dive into speculation and lambasting the PTO for no good reason. Playing to the masses and conspiracy theorists is not what I am about. That does damage without anything positive.

I do hope you continue to participate, but please do distinguish accusations of criminal behavior from honest and understandable frustrations, unfairness and things that can and should be changed.

Thanks.

-Gene

“You are making extremely scandalous accusations, which are criminal in nature. At this point you either need to put up or shut up.”

I hope that what you are saying here is that it is the behavior I am addressing, bribery, that is criminal and not that my suggesting it is criminal.

As to the putting up or shutting up, the problem is that OED files are not public. I couldn’t even see the files in a dishonesty complaint I brought against another patent attorney after I got a jury verdict against him in state court. There is a reason for this star-chamber secrecy, and it’s to maintain a public perception of uniform professional honesty, a perception you clearly have and want to project to this audience. Consequently, there is no amount of evidence I could put up that would convince you that PTO employees and patent lawyers are not 100% immaculate. So I will accept your invitation and shut up.

Older Attorney, I love the Q.E.D. suggestion but my middle name is, apparently, Mud.

Well, maybe that’s because you’re in on the take as well!

I understand that many are frustrated, and justifiably so. You raised what I believed to be an important issue of perception, because it is naive to think that there are not some who believe cases being taken out of order might be attributed to money changing hands. I hear that time to time, and I do not believe it to be the case. I have seen no evidence, and I agree that a low allowance rate cuts against you, regardless of how you choose to dismiss that statistically verifiable evidence. The reason cases are taken out of order is because some examiners ignore first-in-first-out in order to enhance their own situations by reaching their quota. We all know that to be true, we all have experience with examiners rushing to allow in order to meet a quota, and while this is an important problem to be addressed it does not deserve to be treated as or called bribery — because it is not.

You are making extremely scandalous accusations, which are criminal in nature. At this point you either need to put up or shut up. If you have evidence lets see it with the particularity and specificity such severe accusations demand. If you have no hard evidence and only conjecture then this needs to stop. The point has been made that there is a perception problem. No one is ignoring that some lawyers and even judges have been convicted of bribery. Questions need to be answered internally at the PTO to ensure applicants are treated fairly and equally. We should not jump to rash conclusions based on no evidence.

I appreciate you reading IPWatchdog.com, but I am not going to allow my site to become home for baseless and unprovable accusations. I will not tolerate paranoid discourse as is tolerated elsewhere on the Internet. I appreciate you raising this issue for open and fair discussion. I invite you to continue to participate in an open and fair discussion, but further accusations without specific and verifiable proof will not be accepted.

-Gene

Q.E.D.