Is the pro-patent community going to continue to lose every battle?

By Gene Quinn
May 16, 2018

I recently had the opportunity to interview USPTO Director Andrei Iancu. In a wide-ranging interview where no questions or topics were ruled out of bounds, we discussed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), inter partes review, patent eligibility and more. Those who have heard Director Iancu speak since he assumed the position as head of the United States Patent and Trademark Office in February have been pleasantly surprised by his forthrightness and candor. He even told me that he is intentionally seeking to raise hopes because a revitalized innovation system is what America needs to compete economically.

Regardless of party affiliation, it behooves the patent and innovation community to support those who understand the importance role inventors play in America’s economy, and the vital role patents play in incentivizing innovation and encouraging investors to provide funding. Therefore, it should be no great surprise that I am a fan of Director Iancu.

To date there has been no reason to be critical. His actions have matched his words, which is unfortunately rare inside the political caldron found inside our nation’s beltway.


For example, during a question and answer period at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, former Commissioner for Patents Bob Stoll pressed Director Iancu about when the patent community could expect some kind of relief from the Office relating to Section 101. Iancu point blank said that the Office would issue guidance within a matter of weeks. It did not even take that long before the Berkheimer guidance was released.

Director Iancu has in his speeches and one-on-one conversations informed the industry that he is engaging in what I will characterize as a listening tour relating to the PTAB; and he said as much during our interview. In addition to the Office looking at all aspects of PTAB procedure front to back, including the trial practice guide, Director Iancu is listening to the comments, criticisms and suggestions of the industry. The Office has already issued a set of proposed rules that will change the claim construction standard to the Phillips standard, which Is the same as applied in district courts. No one expects this first measure of PTAB reform will be the last.

Director Iancu is also speaking about software patent eligibility in a way much like former USPTO Director David Kappos did in his last speech in November 2012. Software and algorithms obviously need to be patent eligible if America is going to compete in this new technical century that will be defined by artificial intelligence. As Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) aptly demonstrated by her questioning of Director Iancu when he last testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, artificial intelligence is driven by software and algorithms.

Whether Director Iancu wants to admit it or not – and he did not want to admit it during our interview – he is inviting Congress to legislatively reform patent eligibility. He is speaking of the need for more certainty and stability for software and medical diagnostics, for example. He then tells the Senate Judiciary Committee that if they should want to legislatively reform Section 101 the Patent Office will gladly assist however possible. While it is understandable that Director Iancu cannot politically be the champion for 101 legislation, he is thrusting it into the spotlight in a way that demonstrates that the Trump Administration is certainly supportive of changes that would address Supreme Court decisions that have decimated much groundbreaking innovation, from artificial intelligence to personalized medicine to medical diagnostics.

It is understandable that inventors, investors and others supportive of strong patent rights would be skeptical, and I’ve heard and read much skepticism.

How much can one man actually accomplish? We’ve lost every battle over the last 12 years – beginning with eBay – so it is foolish to believe things will be different now, right? Perhaps it is but giving up when the finish line could be so close doesn’t seem particularly wise to me.

The loudest voices for patent reform that would further harm inventors in the House will be gone after the 2018 mid-term election due to retirements. Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) lead the hearing for the Democrats when Director Iancu last testified, which is unusual given the Democrats generally follow a strict seniority hierarchy, but everyone knows the patent issue is very important to Coons, so perhaps Democrats on the Committee are starting to defer to Coons who is only gaining in seniority himself. Director Iancu is poised to take the Patent Office in the right direction and seems to have a mandate to do so from above.

If not now, when?

It would be easy to be skeptical, but the patent community should take this opportunity to engage. Despite continued disappointment from the Supreme Court, there is a very real possibility that pro-patent reforms could be achieved within the next 2-3 years. While 2-3 years may seem a long time away, if you are not trying to affect change today you will be too late by the time momentum begins to publicly surface. That’s how DC operates.

So, is the pro-patent community going to continue to lose every battle? Time will tell, but failure to seize this opportunity with a fullness of purpose and dedication to finally come off the benches and do whatever is necessary to prevail will doom this moment.

The Author

Gene Quinn

Gene Quinn is a Patent Attorney and Editor and founder of IPWatchdog.com. Gene is also a principal lecturer in the PLI Patent Bar Review Course and an attorney with Widerman Malek. Gene’s specialty is in the area of strategic patent consulting, patent application drafting and patent prosecution. He consults with attorneys facing peculiar procedural issues at the Patent Office, advises investors and executives on patent law changes and pending litigation matters, and works with start-up businesses throughout the United States and around the world, primarily dealing with software and computer related innovations. is admitted to practice law in New Hampshire, is a Registered Patent Attorney and is also admitted to practice before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. CLICK HERE to send Gene a message.

Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on IPWatchdog.com do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of IPWatchdog.com. Read more.

Discuss this

There are currently 38 Comments comments. Join the discussion.

  1. Software Inventor May 16, 2018 1:39 pm

    Well said, Mr. Quinn. All stakeholders, I hope, will agree that an improved patent system will benefit all, and most importantly our county. I may not have any existing claims left in 2-3 years, yet if there is progress in the making, then I may be encouraged to continue innovating and filing additional patent applications.

  2. Pro Se May 16, 2018 1:40 pm

    IPR petitions should be limited to no more than 3 references in 103 theories. Seeing 6-12 references stitched together of not claims, but specifications and open published opinions that can be patched in to somehow cover claims is nothing more than a game of lawyer talent, NOT based on any technical merits of how something works.

  3. angry dude May 16, 2018 1:44 pm

    short answer: yes

    because money talks

  4. Anon May 16, 2018 2:21 pm

    It WOULD be easy to be “skeptical.”

    😉

  5. Valuationguy May 16, 2018 3:39 pm

    Leaving out the names of the specific legislators (Goodlatte, Issa, Leahy, Kyl, Sessions, and Feinstein coming immediately to mind) doesn’t absolve them of their direct responsibility over the current patent legislation mess they created and encouraged…..but it was kind of you. Fortunately….only Feinstein remains after this coming January…..but if the Dems take control of the Senate, she is slated to be the primary ball carrier of the efficient infringers faction since she would likely be the Chairperson of the Senate Judicary Committee (due to her seniority)…and thus would be the gatekeeper for all patent reform in the Senate.

  6. StrongPatents May 16, 2018 4:32 pm

    Gene – it could be particularly helpful to your reader base to do a state by state analysis of the most pro-patent rights candidates leading up to the mid terms.

    This would give us a chance to stump for a slate of the “right” candidates across the board…

  7. Night Writer May 16, 2018 5:36 pm

    Fighting the talent on K Street is not an easy fight.

    My guess is that patents will end up like anti-trust law.

  8. angry dude May 16, 2018 10:12 pm

    Night Writer @7

    “Fighting the talent on K Street is not an easy fight”

    Yeah, right, dude

    and some of that “talent” has blonde hair, nice boobs etc.

    what can we offer to those congress critters and their aides ?

    dudes can’t take too much money in bribes so it has to be a p***** or nice ar$e or something

  9. Night Writer May 16, 2018 11:04 pm

    The way to think about this is that the big tech companies that want to weaken patents just have to push $50 million a year at K Street a year. That is nothing to them. We can work real hard to not get paid for it to try and fix the patent system, but we will lose. The SCOTUS has for a long time taken the side of the large international corporations in all areas of law.

  10. angry dude May 17, 2018 12:28 am

    Night Writer @9

    Yeah, and you can see some of that 50 mil being splashed around in places like Archibald’s … “right behind the whitehouse” lol

  11. Paul Cole May 17, 2018 6:49 am

    As I said on a recent posting, with slight modification: We are the masters of our fate. We are the captains of our soul.

    Stuff pessimism! Stuff passive victimhood! We should all do our best. That means best possible specifications with the best possible descriptions and claims carefully drafted with sections 101 and 103 in mind. Whatever disasters happen in the USPTO, the start of the avalanche is a poorly drafted claim, and we can avoid that.

    Empower the positive thinking of our profession PLEASE!

  12. Anon May 17, 2018 7:04 am

    Mr. Cole,

    One can only blow sunshine for so long.

    This is NOT one of those things where “if we only do our best” the problems will disappear. While your message – in and of itself – is not a bad one (it IS good to always try to do your best ), it is simply an inappropriate one wherein the situation calls for changes (and focus – and yes, even emotion) OUTSIDE of ourselves.

    The “cheerleading” that you present then gets in the way of a real solution.

    We actually need what you say – but we need MORE.

  13. Paul Cole May 17, 2018 8:04 am

    @ Anon

    I am still bearing the scars of having to prepare a European response for an invention relating to a new pharmaceutical agent and its use in treating patients.

    The application had resulted in an issued US patent, and corresponding patents in Australia and Canada had also issued.

    The proposed European claim followed the language and graphic formulae in claim 1 of the issued US patent. Unfortunately for us pedants in Europe:

    (a) None of the graphical formulae in the issued US claim appeared in or could readily be derived from the disclosure of the originally filed specification;

    (b) a significant defining term for one of the substituents in that formula did not clearly read as a matter of chemical nomenclature onto the preferred genus of materials intended to be used.

    (c) The compound made in the single synthetic example did not appear to fall within any of the definitions in the issued US main claim, also proposed to be adopted in Europe.

    (d) The compound actually produced in that example was identified neither by chemical name nor by structural formula. That is an omission that reflects badly on the inventor who should have been taught at school how to write up experiments.

    (e) There was no reported human or animal test in the specification to lend credibility to the invention as needed under current UK and EPO appeal Board jurisprudence.

    How do we allocate blame for this mess? Is it mainly with the inventor and/or the original drafting and prosecuting attorney who started the avalanche? Or is it with the overworked US examiner, bemused by the mass of material he had to wade through in this lengthy and complex specification, who omitted to check the basis for the claims being put forward? I think that the person who originates a faulty position is more to blame than a checker who omits to correct it.

    Either way, Anon, I don’t think that all our problems can be made to disappear if we “do our best” but they can certainly be ameliorated. And that is something WE can do without invoking either Congress or the Supreme Court.

    It also follows, as I suggested earlier, that some supporting amicus briefs from a positive-thinking USPTO would also help and would be in accordance with its duty to promote the patent system

  14. Bob Hodges May 17, 2018 8:18 am

    What if We Really Wanted to Have a Way to Eliminate Bad Patents?
    PGR and IPR were (should have been) intended to weed out bad patents. Although what constitutes a bad patent might be in the eye of the beholder, the rhetoric in support of eliminating bad patents refers to obviously invalid patents that should never have issued. There should not be, and is not, a reasonable argument that patents that are not bad patents according to the proper definition should be subject to a quick and dirty process of invalidation. Assuming that we do want or need a mechanism for eliminating bad patents (as properly defined), it should be clear and obvious in the review process that the patent is a bad patent. If a patent is not obviously one that should not have issued, then it is, by definition, not a bad patent.
    From this, we can see immediately where the IPR and PGR processes go wrong. First, the standard for granting a petition for review, and the standard for judging the evidence of invalidity are much too lenient for the goal. The standard for granting an IPR petition is “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail.” The standard for granting a PGR petition is that “it is more likely than not” the petitioner will prevail. The standard for judging the evidence (when determining if the petitioner will prevail) for both IPRs and PGRs is preponderance of the evidence (that lowest burden of proof). These standards are far too to limit IPRs and PGRs to the review and invalidation of bad patents. Rather, these standards make it easier to invalidate even strong patents than would be the case in District Court.
    What is the policy rationale for adoption of such low standards? There is none apparent from the debate on the purpose and goals of IPRs and PGRs. It is possible that these standards for IPRs and PGRs were adopted in good faith with the policy goal of eliminating bad patents. Regardless of this, the actual effect of IPRs and PGRs shows that the facial policy reasons for adopting IPRs and PGRs were grossly overstepped. To the extent that IPRs and PGRs were adopted for the hidden and denied purpose of weakening patents in general, and commercially valuable patents in particular, such a policy is difficult to justify.
    The policy mismatch between the stated goals for IPRs and PGRs and the actual effect is the most significant and legitimate argument against IPRs and PGRs because it does not depend on Constitutional, due process, and takings rationale. Such rationales are likely to be decided based on underlying policy goals, including such hidden and denied goals as weakening patents overall. By engaging directly on the policy goals of IPRs and PGRs, we are more likely to succeed by bringing IPRs and PGRs into alignment with the stated policy goal for IPRs and PGRs, perhaps by first forcing into the light the currently hidden and denied policy goals of some of the actors in the debate.

  15. Bob Taylor May 17, 2018 9:21 am

    Gene, please do more on this subject and do identify, for those that are interested, the key individuals in Congress that need the support of the invention community. The path ahead may be a long one, but we have to start somewhere. If we do not, we will watch one of the greatest engines of productivity in history move to other countries.

    As ill-conceived as the IPR procedures have turned out to be, only Congress can fix what the Supreme Court has done to the patent system, which is far worse and far more difficult to correct. We have been here before, although it has been so long that many have forgotten. The 1952 revisions to the Patent Act were, at least in major part, a reaction to several decades of growing hostility at the Supreme Court to patent licensing and even to the idea of asking a lower court to enforce a patent. Section 103, which replaced the judicially created and poorly articulated patentability requirement of “invention,” was a direct response to Justice Jackson’s dissent in Jungerson v. Ostby & Barton, in which he observed that “the only patent that is valid is one which this Court has not been able to get its hands on.” Similarly, the peculiar structure of Section 271(c) and (d) was a response to Justice Douglas’ ruling in the Mercoid cases finding that any challenge to contributory infringement, because it was not limited to the precise boundaries of the claim, was a violation of the Sherman Act.

    The place to turn around the sorry state of affairs we face today will have to start in Congress, and once movement is apparent there, the Court may begin to see what damage it has caused. Restoration of the right to an injunction is a good place to begin.

  16. Valuationguy May 17, 2018 9:33 am

    Bob,
    To understand the AIA…you need to get into the motivations of the drafters (Joe Matal being the primary here), politicians (Kyl, Sessions, Leahy….who Joe worked for), and the academics who provided the primary theoretical basis for justifying and pushing the need for the legislation (Stanford’s Lemley primarily…but several others as Berkeley and George Mason Univ. who were well supported by certain corporate giants: Cisco, Google, etc. initially to push the efficient infringement platform).

    Reading their own words…their motivations were clear….PATENTS are a HINDRANCE to BIG BUSINESS….thus weakening the barrier that patents represents would boost BIG BUSINESS. And they were ENTIRELY CORRECT…..in the SHORT RUN at least (which is the only timeframe Americans seem to consider these days) as evidenced by how the tech market leaders have dominated global market share by moving fast (despite any threat of lawsuits over infringement).

    Additionally…you have to understand that due to Google’s influence, the media was 100% behind the ‘bad patent’ meme despite its VERY LIMITED influence on the economy (i.e. total cost of bad patents was estimated to be $2B per year across the U.S. economy) particularly in light of the resulting negative influence the AIA had on overall IP values ….which also hit the economy (i.e. estimated loss of between $0.5T – $1.4T in IP value by 2015 and it has continued to pile up)…but which was masked by the overall positive effect on several large stock market leaders (Apple, Google, Facebook, Cisco, etc.) who invested comparatively little into R&D and no longer had to pay ongoing royalties for technologies they infringed.

    Essentially….due to the media and market emphasis on CASH FLOWS and EARNINGS of a VERY SELECT number of tech companies (i.e. FANGS)….the destruction of VALUE (patents) at MANY smaller companies is overlooked…especially since many balance sheet asset values only reflect the initial accounting COST of getting a patent…..not the actual fluctuating VALUE of the asset created or destroyed which doesn’t show up until the asset it monetized via a market sale. The smaller companies financial statements see the lower earnings due to R&D expenses to get a patent going UP….but see less royalties after the AIA.

    The Courts generally followed the media coverage (if enough people (as reflected by media accounts) seem to think there is a problem, the courts get more involved with the issue (just like the legislature!)….which is why patent cases picked up dramatically over the past 8-10 years at the SCOTUS and you saw misguided Ebay and Alice decisions)….thus they got behind the bad patent train as well……even discounting the direct (controlling) influence that Google was granted over vetting judges in the Obama admin.

    Some 8 years later….the LONG-TERM effects of the AIA are being felt WIDELY. Google grip on the media is slipping due to the inevitable feedback that hubris has on most people. People have woken up to the fact that while Apple/Google/Facebook stock has risen….THEIR OWN standard of living has FALLEN (since very few people own stock directly….and almost half have no retirement next egg assets which might benefit from FAANG stocks) and now they are subject to a virtual POLICE STATE by the tech that the corporate giants have created (and they, the courts, and the legislature have allowed gov’ts to take advantage of while unchecked). Once Apple/Google/Facebook stock STOPS rising…INVESTORS will jump on the backlash bus in a cascading fashion by rotating their positions out (or going short).

  17. Anon May 17, 2018 9:38 am

    Mr. Cole,

    An anecdote of an issue that backs up the general maxim of us all “doing a better job” is precisely OFF-POINT from what I am telling you.

    Again – it is NOT that what you say – in and of itself – is improper in any way. It IS though a disservice to think that the path that you offer will resolve the larger issues that we are seeing.

    That path simply will not get us to where we need to be. This is simply NOT a matter of (if we the applicants only did a better job).

    To the extent that your championing THIS “other view” and THAT effort takes the focus off of what the Office is doing (or not doing) and what the Court (and the courts) are doing (or not doing), you are merely creating a distraction from the greater good.

  18. Anon May 17, 2018 9:46 am

    Valuationguy @ 15:

    Well stated, and in a one-word summary, the effects that you describe can be (and should be) attributed to:

    Propaganda.

    Pretending that propaganda has not been rampant is a mistake of the highest order. This is one reason why the otherwise correct Mr. Cole, and his stance, are mis-aims in the current climate.

    Make no mistake, I agree with the “let’s do a better job” message from Mr. Cole. But a focus there – to the exclusion of where focus needs be at – is an unforgivable mistake.

  19. angry dude May 17, 2018 10:05 am

    Paul Cole @11

    Dude,

    you are really annoying

  20. Night Writer May 17, 2018 10:06 am

    >>(Stanford’s Lemley primarily…but several others as Berkeley a

    Mark Lemley has since admitted that he has a lot of money at stake in burning down the patent system.

  21. Night Writer May 17, 2018 10:10 am

    @15 valuation guy

    Those are generally good observations. I don’t know about the backlash and the stocks stopping to rise.

    Don’t forget too that Google buys many of the journal articles and –I strongly suspect–has been buying many if not most new IP professors at universities.

    Basically, there are few people that are probably idiots like me that are sticking to our principles no matter what and there are the other 95% that are bought off boys and girls.

  22. Ternary May 17, 2018 10:12 am

    Paul Cole @13: “(a) None of the graphical formulae in the issued US claim appeared in or could readily be derived from the disclosure of the originally filed specification;”

    Items like this are not behind the current malaise of the patent system.

    Perhaps you can take a look at US 7,725,375 (one of the Alice patents) and make a suggestion on how to improve the specification. The way I read the specification is that 101 push-back was expected and the spec was fully loaded on machines, networks, processors, memories and the like. The patent has 117 pages of figures. The applicant made sure to explain that the invention relates to “machine operations” which are different from human interactions. To no avail, as we well know.

    The anti-patent community is winning by having successfully established a notion that patents have a negative effect on innovation. No amount of “doing better” will help.

  23. IamI May 17, 2018 10:37 am

    Angry Dude @19:

    There’s a lot of irony coming from you in that post, given your “to the morgue” keyboard macro.

  24. Gene Quinn May 17, 2018 11:21 am

    Bob @15-

    I will continue to follow this thread.

    For now, what I can say is there are some inside DC starting to try and convince Congressman Nadler (D-NY) of the importance of the patent system and incentives to innovate and the need for eligibility reform, etc. There are many predicting that the Republicans will lose the House of Representatives in the 2018 mid-term election. I don’t personally believe that will happen, but I can certainly appreciate the risk.

    If the Republicans do lose the House most believe Nadler will become the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee. He has been more aligned with the views of Goodlatte et al. I’m told that he is listening, but has a long way to go. So those interested in trying to spent time, money and energy to convince an important Member of Congress might spend time focusing on convincing Congressman Nadler of the need for strong patent rights and a strong patent system for inventors.

  25. Ron Hilton May 17, 2018 12:35 pm

    The post-grant process kills good patents, while the examination process allows bad patents. I believe that the solution is a tiered examination process, where the first tier defines the IP rights, and the second tier allows them to be enforced. The reason is that most patents are never asserted, and the cost of a more thorough examination would be uneconomical. That small percentage that need to be asserted should undergo a second, more thorough examination – thus weeding out the bad patents that trolls have been using to give the whole system a bad rap.

  26. step back May 17, 2018 1:20 pm

    I suggest the title for this post is badly framed.
    It is not really about being pro- versus anti-patent.

    It is about being in favor of killing off the American inventor class versus saving it.
    Do the global demographics on that question.
    How many around the world want to see the American inventor killed off?
    Who and how many wish for an opposite outcome?

    There lies the rub.

  27. Anon May 17, 2018 1:27 pm

    Mr. Hilton,

    Your multi-tiered approach remains as poorly thought out of as ever.

    Who in their right mind would “go for” the unenforceable lower tiered patent? And why?

    It is a myth – and a poor one at that – that anything LESS than your “gold-plated” is desired or even should be recognized as a property right (or maybe, a “franchise” right).

  28. Anon May 17, 2018 3:14 pm

    Ternary @ 22,

    Three great points that deserve some emphasis (in reverse order):

    1) Propaganda was very much effectively at work.
    2) It was the Supreme Court** in Alice that “scr ewed the pooch.”
    3) The current malaise will not be fixed by applicants “doing better.”

    **Claims that both sides averred to as passing the statutory category aspect of 101 (and no one questioned the other prong of 101: utility of the nature of the Useful Arts) were none the less made “at issue” BY the Court (outside of any “case or controversy” requirement of the Court’s authority in the first place) and even those claims were nullified by the Supreme Court.

  29. Night Writer May 17, 2018 5:00 pm

    >>How many around the world want to see the American inventor killed off?

    does make me wonder if any foreign countries have been helping with the anti-patent rhetoric in the US.

  30. Anon May 17, 2018 5:42 pm

    Night Writer,

    One wrinkle to consider: the juristic person of the corporation is truly a TRANS-country entity.

    A “person” with augmented capabilities that no Real Person can match, coupled with NO true limitations of being explicitly tied to any one national sovereign (foreign OR domestic).

    Foreign nations may tread lightly where such juristic NON-national sovereign entities may choose to “run heavy.”

    Foreign nations may (to a greater or lesser degree) be cognizant of the old Reagan-esque “Mutual Assured Destruction” tactics, or may be cognizant that their “styles” of infiltration may be used against themselves by others, thereby warranting some level of restraint.

    Non-sovereign limited Corporations on the other hand have NO such restraints.

  31. step back May 17, 2018 6:07 pm

    NW @29

    It shouldn’t take much stretch of the imagination to suspect that at least a few foreign countries own one or more Congress persons for doing as they bid.

  32. Ann Nonymous May 18, 2018 12:01 am

    Gene, time for you to run for office. I believe there has never been a congressman who was also a patent attorney.

  33. Night Writer May 18, 2018 9:14 am

    Lots of good points from Anon and step back.

    One other wrinkle to think about. The corporations that try to innovate, in general, do not have a great history. My guess is that what will develop is corporate innovation labs that steal everything they can from others. There is a lot of pressure to innovate in a corporate lab and yet they usually don’t get much done. There are exceptions.

    Anyway, it is another portion of the puzzle. China too is similar to this in that they prevent foreign companies from doing business in China –or at least make it hard–and then steal all the innovations from around the world. They are actually a huge version of what Google is becoming.

  34. Anon May 18, 2018 10:14 am

    Night Writer,

    I actually envision China as very different than Google.

    China – as a nation – is NOT a trans-national.
    China – as a nation – bears restraints that nations naturally carry.

    China – as a nation – bears a striking resemblance to early US (as you may recall, early US was a very eager “pirate” of other people’s IP).

    Google, on the other hand, is an epitome of a Trans-national that has no allegiance (as a Real person may) and no restraint in its role as a jurisitic person.

    It sees only $ – regardless of ANY “national” responsibility or accountability, because, as a TRANS-national, it has NO “national” responsibility or accountability.

    This is a major reason why I am in favor of limiting rights of “juristic” persons.

  35. Night Writer May 18, 2018 10:20 am

    @33 Anon

    Good points. I’d say from an innovative perspective, though, that they are similar.

  36. Gene Quinn May 18, 2018 11:27 am

    Ann @33

    Thanks for the vote of confidence.

  37. Eric Berend May 19, 2018 5:22 am

    @ 32., ‘Ann Nonymous’:

    Perhaps not.
    However, there is a certain former Illinois State Senator and U.S. President, who was.

  38. Night Writer May 19, 2018 3:51 pm

    @32 Ann

    I agree. Gene for Congress. If you agree to run, I will agree to contribute money to your campaign.

Post a Comment

Respectfully add to the discussion.

Name *
Email *
Website

Our website uses cookies to provide you with a better experience. Read our privacy policy for more information.Accept and Close