Comments on: Judge Michel II: Public Nuisance #1 Proselytizing for Patents

By: Stan E. Delo

Stan E. Delo — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 19:30:17 +0000

Gene,
It certainly is clear to me that Chief Justice Michel has become a Major asset for inventors here in the US. We need all the help we can get these days, and he obviously is not mincing words any more. I wish we could get the whole Senate to read this interview, which might cause many of them to change their stripes somewhat. He mentioned giving the PTO about a billion to jump-start the office, which is just exactly what I have been thinking for quite some time now. Put a billion in, and probably get about 100 billion back in the form of new jobs created by new technologies in the next 5 years or so.

Stan~

By: Gene Quinn

Gene Quinn — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 01:52:06 +0000

Joe-

Thanks for reading the interview. As for the “poor Gene will never learn” comment, it seems I have gotten under your skin. Too bad for you that in the face of an extremely interesting interview you can only see clear to try and take a cheap shot at me. I feel sorry for you, I really do.

-Gene

By: joe

joe — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 01:40:07 +0000

You should read the earlier interviews with CJ Michel.

And to be respectful, you should refer to him as Chief Judge.

Poor Gene will never learn . . .

By: staff

staff — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:01:47 +0000

When the judge speaks of “overbroad” patents he makes us concerned that he is being influenced by IPO. They are a trade group of large corporate serial infringers. Their intent is not to fix the patent system, but to kill it, or at least make it only useful for large firms. They will turn the patent system into a sport of kings if not stopped.

By: staff

staff — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 16:35:47 +0000

“the patent office started pressing the idea that the applicant was a customer and the whole idea was to please the customer and so it issued of patent, even if the claims were overbroad”

The thought that patent applicants are customers is just PR…unless those applicants happen to be certain large companies who are favored. Small entities are given short shrift. The problem is not the cases they allow, but those they do not. That is one of the things that is killing the patent system for small entities -those who most create new jobs. The judge needs to speak with those of us in the trenches instead of large corporate wags. Their ivory towers are too far from the battlefield. Nevertheless, other than that he makes a lot of sense and has a good bearing.

By: Gene Quinn

Gene Quinn — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:09:37 +0000

EG-

I agree. Judge Michel has such depth of experience in the law. I also think having a District Court Judge on the Federal Circuit would be welcome indeed. When I interviewed Rader he told me (paraphrasing) that he didn’t know how you could be an appellate judge without ever having had to deal with the struggles of narrowing the issues for trial and creating a record.

Stay tuned for parts 3 and 4. I also have some other surprises in the works!

-Gene

By: EG

EG — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:02:07 +0000

Gene,

Like the first installment I’ve printed this one out as well. I know we in the “patent vineyard” want to know most what Michel has to say about our world, but it’s very interesting to see the breadth of his experience outside our world. With his litigation background at DOJ, we now know why he wants a Federal Circuit judge who is a district court trial judge. Judge O’Malley who is currently under consideration definitely fits that bill. Looking forward to the last 2 installments.

By: mpls providers

mpls providers — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 06:08:26 +0000

Terrific interview. I forwarded your URL to several folks I know who will find it of interest. What would $700 million translate into in terms of avoided patent backlog (http://www.inventionstatistics.com/Patent_Backlog_Patent_Office_Backlog.html ) and delayed innovation? Has there ever been done any analysis quantifying how backlogs (or no backlogs) impacts innovation and economic growth?
Harrison