Comments on: Kappos Lays Out Ambitious Agenda for USPTO in Speech at IPO http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/09/22/kappos-lays-out-ambitious-agenda-for-uspto-in-speech-at-ipo/id=6318/ Patents, Software Patents, Patent Applications & Patent Law Thu, 09 Feb 2012 07:58:49 +0000 hourly 1 By: staff1 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/09/22/kappos-lays-out-ambitious-agenda-for-uspto-in-speech-at-ipo/id=6318/#comment-8298 staff1 Wed, 23 Sep 2009 17:00:06 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=6318#comment-8298 "It is hard to argue with what he says, namely that it has been long enough without any overhaul of the patent system..." The Mona Lisa hasn't been overhauled in recent memory either. Should we scrap it? Not all change is for the good. There's reform and there's deform. Patent reform is a fraud on America... “It is hard to argue with what he says, namely that it has been long enough without any overhaul of the patent system…”

The Mona Lisa hasn’t been overhauled in recent memory either. Should we scrap it? Not all change is for the good. There’s reform and there’s deform.

Patent reform is a fraud on America…

]]> By: Noise above Law http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/09/22/kappos-lays-out-ambitious-agenda-for-uspto-in-speech-at-ipo/id=6318/#comment-8296 Noise above Law Wed, 23 Sep 2009 09:54:09 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=6318#comment-8296 Slovski - this, as you point out, may be reality - this is also self-destruction, or do you think that the Office isn't self-destructing? (I'd love to hear your rationale for your view). Bad Quality and Fast is easy: Rubber stamp or massive reject-reject -reject. I have proslytized against swinging from one extreme to the other. Gene - while not meant to minimize the criticality of the hostage situation, bad patents are simply worse than good patents at any speed. Bad patents create the common man's perception that NO patents are better than bad patents. Bad patents have led to the knee-kerk and errant Office definition of quality which has spiralled us to our present situation. Bad patents have been the amunition of those that want to destroy the patent system. Go down the path of any target other than good patents and you will be lead to destruction. Patent quality is the first must. That being said, I do see the line of thought that opening the flood gates and allowing more good patents with some more bad patents through is better than the current choke hold of not letting ANY patents through, but that is not central to my position. My position pre-supposes that the Office is willing to actually grant patents to those applications that meet the requirements of the Law. I think we both agree that that is not currently happening. IF you are going to limit the process and sacrifice quality at the start, then it might be better to be fast about it. This is logical from the manifest statistics regarding patents and litigation (the bogeyman of excessive patent litigation is a contrivance - just ask Chief Judge Michel - oh wait you don't ahve to - His view is onthe record). However, in the sacrificed quality scenario, the logical extreme would be to simply scrap the patent system and impliment a registration system. INSTANTLY eliminate the backlog, radically reduce costs (Buh-bye examiners and POPA) and let the courts fight it out with a much reduced overall load. The court's load increases, but due to the low percentage of patents actually litigated, the overall system load will drop. But that is not what the Law is. That is not the system our founding fathers wanted to have. It is the wrong path. Slovski – this, as you point out, may be reality – this is also self-destruction, or do you think that the Office isn’t self-destructing? (I’d love to hear your rationale for your view).

Bad Quality and Fast is easy:
Rubber stamp or massive reject-reject -reject. I have proslytized against swinging from one extreme to the other.

Gene – while not meant to minimize the criticality of the hostage situation, bad patents are simply worse than good patents at any speed. Bad patents create the common man’s perception that NO patents are better than bad patents. Bad patents have led to the knee-kerk and errant Office definition of quality which has spiralled us to our present situation. Bad patents have been the amunition of those that want to destroy the patent system. Go down the path of any target other than good patents and you will be lead to destruction. Patent quality is the first must.

That being said, I do see the line of thought that opening the flood gates and allowing more good patents with some more bad patents through is better than the current choke hold of not letting ANY patents through, but that is not central to my position. My position pre-supposes that the Office is willing to actually grant patents to those applications that meet the requirements of the Law. I think we both agree that that is not currently happening.

IF you are going to limit the process and sacrifice quality at the start, then it might be better to be fast about it. This is logical from the manifest statistics regarding patents and litigation (the bogeyman of excessive patent litigation is a contrivance – just ask Chief Judge Michel – oh wait you don’t ahve to – His view is onthe record). However, in the sacrificed quality scenario, the logical extreme would be to simply scrap the patent system and impliment a registration system. INSTANTLY eliminate the backlog, radically reduce costs (Buh-bye examiners and POPA) and let the courts fight it out with a much reduced overall load. The court’s load increases, but due to the low percentage of patents actually litigated, the overall system load will drop.

But that is not what the Law is. That is not the system our founding fathers wanted to have. It is the wrong path.

]]> By: Gene Quinn http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/09/22/kappos-lays-out-ambitious-agenda-for-uspto-in-speech-at-ipo/id=6318/#comment-8291 Gene Quinn Tue, 22 Sep 2009 18:48:37 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=6318#comment-8291 TT- Examiners have to play games sometimes to meet their quota goals and keep their job. This results in needless delay and expense. If examiners were given a chunk of time to really devote to the case it should speed things up because rather than happening in on again, off again, on again prosecution time could be spent more efficiently and lead to much quicker patents. I suspect there is also a hope that if examiners actually work the file appropriately applicants can get rights and also choose to cut and run. If you continually get rejected and you need some rights you have to keep fighting the good fight. If there is a revision in the count system and that results in less time per case that would be enormously bad because it would increase the games and further slow prosecution, resulting in fewer rights and more nonsense. -Gene TT-

Examiners have to play games sometimes to meet their quota goals and keep their job. This results in needless delay and expense. If examiners were given a chunk of time to really devote to the case it should speed things up because rather than happening in on again, off again, on again prosecution time could be spent more efficiently and lead to much quicker patents. I suspect there is also a hope that if examiners actually work the file appropriately applicants can get rights and also choose to cut and run. If you continually get rejected and you need some rights you have to keep fighting the good fight.

If there is a revision in the count system and that results in less time per case that would be enormously bad because it would increase the games and further slow prosecution, resulting in fewer rights and more nonsense.

-Gene

]]> By: Gene Quinn http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/09/22/kappos-lays-out-ambitious-agenda-for-uspto-in-speech-at-ipo/id=6318/#comment-8289 Gene Quinn Tue, 22 Sep 2009 18:41:50 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=6318#comment-8289 Noise- I completely disagree with you. Quality is meaningless if patents are held hostage. Having the highest standards means start-up businesses cannot get funded and no new jobs get created. Slow patents are far more problematic than quality. -Gene Noise-

I completely disagree with you. Quality is meaningless if patents are held hostage. Having the highest standards means start-up businesses cannot get funded and no new jobs get created. Slow patents are far more problematic than quality.

-Gene

]]> By: Skovski http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/09/22/kappos-lays-out-ambitious-agenda-for-uspto-in-speech-at-ipo/id=6318/#comment-8286 Skovski Tue, 22 Sep 2009 18:21:16 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=6318#comment-8286 Good Quality and Slow means ending the office (self-destruction). Bad Quality and Fast means you are still going on (reality). Good Quality and Fast is the best (ideal world) Good Quality and Slow means ending the office (self-destruction).

Bad Quality and Fast means you are still going on (reality).

Good Quality and Fast is the best (ideal world)

]]> By: Noise above Law http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/09/22/kappos-lays-out-ambitious-agenda-for-uspto-in-speech-at-ipo/id=6318/#comment-8285 Noise above Law Tue, 22 Sep 2009 17:08:00 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=6318#comment-8285 The goal of decreasing the backlog should take a far distant second to the goal of improved quality. Good Quality and Fast is best, but Good Quality and Slow is better than Bad Quality and Fast. The goal of decreasing the backlog should take a far distant second to the goal of improved quality.

Good Quality and Fast is best, but Good Quality and Slow is better than Bad Quality and Fast.

]]> By: TT http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/09/22/kappos-lays-out-ambitious-agenda-for-uspto-in-speech-at-ipo/id=6318/#comment-8283 TT Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:30:19 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=6318#comment-8283 I am still trying to figure how increasing the time allowed per case per Examiner is compatable with the goal of decreasing the backlog. Unless reforming the count system really means decreasing the time allowed per case? I am still trying to figure how increasing the time allowed per case per Examiner is compatable with the goal of decreasing the backlog. Unless reforming the count system really means decreasing the time allowed per case?

]]> By: breadcrumbs http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/09/22/kappos-lays-out-ambitious-agenda-for-uspto-in-speech-at-ipo/id=6318/#comment-8280 breadcrumbs Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:26:17 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=6318#comment-8280 Was point 7) directed not to the IPO audiance, but to those that need to open the wallet? Was it coincidence that the President echoes this with a Innovation Initiative Speach ringing with the promise of(paraphrasing) "we will give the funds to the Office at any amount they need" - yet the President only signs the budget and doesn't actually control the giving? Was point 7) directed not to the IPO audiance, but to those that need to open the wallet?

Was it coincidence that the President echoes this with a Innovation Initiative Speach ringing with the promise of(paraphrasing) “we will give the funds to the Office at any amount they need” – yet the President only signs the budget and doesn’t actually control the giving?

]]>