Mike Drummond, the Editor-in-Chief of Inventors Digest Magazine and a decorated journalist, has just joined the Board of Directors of American Innovators for Patent Reform (AIPR). AIPR, headquartered in New York, represents a broad constituency of American innovators and innovation stakeholders, including inventors, engineers, researchers, entrepreneurs, patent owners, investors, small businesses, and intellectual property professionals such as patent attorneys, patent agents, tech transfer managers and licensing executives. Most recently, AIPR has opposed the Patent Reform Act of 2009, which some vocal critics have called “patent deform.” AIPR is on record as opposing proposed apportionment of damages, post grant opposition and a change to the first-to-file regime, all sensible positions and views that I personally hold myself. When reached for comment, Drummond said: “Ideally, the AIPR will be one of those bodies that becomes irrelevant – we do our job so successfully that odious versions of patent reform die and meritorious patent changes take root. It will be interesting to see what sort of posture the new head of the USPTO takes, and what sort of fight we’re in for.”
In a story that is totally off topic, but intended to continue to develop a sense of community that reaches beyond intellectual property, we had our IPWatchdog Fantasy Football Draft yesterday, online via ESPN, at 3:00pm Eastern. It went relatively smooth I think, although the draft did not turn out anything like the mock drafts I was participating in over the weekend to prepare. One twist for the league I set up was that we will play with 2 Quarterback staters each week, and we are playing with 1 Defensive Lineman, 1 Linebacker, 1 Defensive Back and a Punter in addition to the traditional 1 Defense/Special Teams setting. I thought this would make things more interesting and leading to roster moves and some strategy during the season. We will see how it develops, but some trash talking has already started, albeit all in jest.
This post is long over due, and quite frankly it is because I thought I had already posted it several months ago. As I am getting back into the swing of things and gearing up to write more about software, software patents, Parts III and IV of the History of Software Patents (see Part 1 and Part 2), I want to highly recommend The Genie in the Machine: How Computer-Automated Inventing is Revolutionizing Law and Business, written by Robert Plotkin (who not too long ago wrote Why Wishes Should be Patentable for this blog), a patent attorney located in Boston, MA, who is also an Adjunct Professor of Law at Boston University. If you are pro-software patent you need to read this book because it will likely give you some wonderful insights that you can use to help you convince non-believers, and maybe even persuade a patent examiner or two. If you are anti-software patent I would also recommend you read this book as well. Plotkin’s positions are somewhat radical in that not only does he think software should be patented, but he wishes should be patentable as well, and that is exactly what will happen as computer automated inventing becomes increasingly more realistic.
This week the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced it had preliminarily reached a settlement with Dyna-E International and its owner George Wheeler, which would bar the retailer of rayon towels from making false and misleading claims that dupe consumers into believing its paper towels are biodegradable. under a proposed settlement with the Federal Trade Commission. This preliminary settlement is now open for public comment, as is routine and customary when the FTC seeks to settle a complaint against individuals or companies charged with violations of law. Those wishing to comment have through September 25, 2009, after which the Commission will decide whether to make it final. While nothing can be certain, it is safe to say that in the vast majority of cases a preliminary settlement is made final. It is also worth knowing that a consent agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission of a law violation, but a final order does carry the force of law with respect to future actions and each violation of a final order may result in a civil penalty of $16,000.
Every once in a while we do an Internet search to find out what is out there quoting to IPWatchdog.com or me personally. We also try and make sure that others are not infringing upon our works by republishing our content without permission. It is flattering in one sense to have people want to steal your stuff and copy it without permission, but that is, of course, copyright infringement. I authorize some republication, but not much any more. Search engines, particularly Google, punish websites for identical content being on multiple websites. That has been and to some extent still is a tell-tale sign to Google that you are trying to manipulate their search rankings via other than preferred means. So the republication, particularly when not authorized, is something that I do not tolerate. I have even started sending out DMCA takedown notices as appropriate. See Sample DMCA Take Down Letter.
I was at work today, doing what I usually do. I talk to inventors who want to patent their inventions. I speak to so many different levels of inventors. There are those who have no disposable income at all and are hoping their invention will change that for them; there are those on a tight budget who are hoping to do things as “cheaply” as possible; there are those who have some disposable income and can afford to put some money into this endeavor and there are those that have the financial backing of the small, medium or large company they work for. I also speak to inventors who are very protective of their inventions and those who are willing to share with anyone that will listen. I also speak with some inventors who have been through the patenting process before and others who are first time inventor who by their own admission “doesn’t know the first thing about patents.” This last group is the inventors I speak to the most, and it pains me to hear some of their stories.
Lets be perfectly clear, the Patent Office does not call me and ask my input regarding anything, which should be readily apparent to those who read IPWatchdog.com regularly. Had the Patent Office done so, and actually taken my suggestions to heart the Department of Justice would not have needed to ask the Federal Circuit to hold off on taking the claims and continuations case en banc pending David Kappos being confirmed and perhaps withdrawing the rules and mooting the case. No, it wouldn’t have been necessary because I was suggesting that directly since at least December 2008, and was begging Jon Dudas in my writings week after week to do the right thing the go back to the drawing board as early as September 2007. In any event, this doesn’t stop me from pounding my keyboard and publishing my thoughts here. I guess you could say I am naive enough to believe that eventually good ideas will be implemented; and yes, I do understand that I just impliedly referred to good ideas and the federal government in the same sentence. Notwithstanding, there is real hope in the patent community that Kappos will usher in real reform, so I have hope. In the meantime, I want to nominate a few people for the open position of Deputy Patent Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy.
Typically blog roll links are not helpful to a website's rank. To give some additional "link love" to those we think you might be interested in reading we have moved our blog roll and links to a dedicated page. Go to IPWatchdog Blog Roll & Links.