A Window is Open to Save U.S. Patents—Don’t Let it Slam Shut

By Gene Quinn
February 2, 2020

“Patents are lobbied as an issue by large corporations as a luxury, when times are good and no other issues of corporate importance demand attention…. With Google’s attention diverted, that alone raises the prospects for those who would like to see the U.S. patent system resurrected.”

U.S. patent system window open - https://depositphotos.com/85912570/stock-photo-man-opens-pvc-window.htmlThose who discover and create in the first instance have been unable to succeed because there are those who implement their innovations without paying for the rights, which is just a sanitized way of saying there are a handful of giant companies that prey on innovators by taking whatever they want with impunity. The legal system has been complicit in this racket— in fact, the very cause of the problem. 35 U.S.C. 101 is simple and straightforward, and the intent of Congress is clear in the legislative history: everything made by man is supposed to be patent eligible, period.

It has been some time since everything made by man has been patent eligible in the United States, however, which is why various innovator constituency groups have been pleading for help from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), from the courts and from Congress. The USPTO has come through to the greatest extent possible since Andrei Iancu became Director, first with a speaking and testifying tour where he said over and over again that 101 needed Congressional attention, then with positive guidance after the Federal Circuit’s decision in Berkheimer, and then again twice in 2019, first with Revised Patent Eligibility Guidance in January 2019, and then with voluminous examples in October 2019. Iancu and Commissioner for Patents Drew Hirshfeld have been very busy.


Getting on the Same Page

Sympathetic members of Congress heard the calls from Director Iancu to take action, and action was taken. Stakeholders were invited to roundtable events throughout the Spring of 2019, which led to the release of talking points, then principles, then draft language, and a promise of a bill by July. As we know, there was no bill introduced in the Senate IP Subcommittee in July as promised, but it would be introduced before the August recess. Then it would be introduced sometime after Labor Day. Then promises on an introduction date stopped. Now, sources have told IPWatchdog that the Senate IP Subcommittee is moving on from patent eligibility reform to copyright matters because those who support reform cannot agree.

Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC), who Chairs the Senate IP Subcommittee, and Senator Chris Coons (D-DE), the ranking member of the Senate IP Subcommittee, are prepared to work together with innovators to introduce a legislative fix to 101 and attempt to solve the patent eligibility crisis, yet factions within the pro-innovator community are unable to agree.

Meanwhile, the implementer community (i.e., those who are not infringers because innovators can’t even patent their inventions) are perfectly fine with the way 101 is and continue to tell Congress no reform is necessary. The implementers are on the same page.

Wouldn’t it be nice if the innovators were on the same page? Frankly, given the state of patent eligibility and how decimated life sciences and software innovators have been over the past decade it is mystifying that an acceptable compromise cannot be achieved. Surely there must be an innovator position acceptable to everyone?

There must be an innovator position acceptable to everyone if a legislative fix has any chance. As Senator Tillis told the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) recently, in order for there to be a bill introduced it must be one that can at a minimum pass the Senate IP Subcommittee, and without an innovator compromise that will be impossible.

“But Congress should do this because it is the right thing to do,” I hear frequently. In an ideal world that would be true, but holding onto such Pollyannaish views in Washington, D.C., is a recipe for failure. Passing legislation, any legislation, is political. In the patent and intellectual property realm it is not “political” with a capital “P”, but rather political in terms of philosophy and ideology. That is why you see Republicans and Democrats crossing the isle on issues dealing with patents and intellectual property. In fact, many times you will see Members of Congress agree on patents and IP when they agree on literally no other issue. But that doesn’t change the reality that legislation will not move if the votes are not present.

The Window

There is a window open for legislative action, and the innovator community is blowing it. Google fired its lobbyists in Washington, D.C., and then rehired all new lobbyists with an antitrust and economic background. Meanwhile, the Trump Administration has held roundtable talks about how to combat counterfeits in online marketplaces, which have been thinly veiled forums asking what, if anything, the government can do to punish Amazon for rampant counterfeits. Facebook has few friends in Washington, D.C. after the last election and its privacy issues, and its recent quarterly report shows expenses significantly up, that revenue growth slowed significantly and the CFO suggests that is likely to continue into the future.

Patents are lobbied as an issue by large corporations as a luxury, when times are good and no other issues of corporate importance demand attention. If and when antitrust regulators launch an investigation into Google’s practices that will become an existential threat; antitrust investigations always are. Google has been the largest voice for reforms that weaken the patent system and the patent grant. With Google’s attention diverted, that alone raises the prospects for those who would like to see the patent system resurrected.

With Amazon doing all things for all people, including delivering on Sundays, are patents really a priority? While it seems foolish at the moment to think of Amazon as in turmoil, powerful name brand trademark owners are unhappy and openly discuss how to avoid using Amazon.  Particularly if there is a second Trump term, given the fact that there is no love lost between President Trump and Jeff Bezos, something to address online counterfeiting seems inevitable.

Facebook has too many issues on the horizon in the near term, including answering shareholder questions and closely monitoring the use of its network during the 2020 election, that it seems unlikely they will be able to focus on 101 reform. Retailers like J.C. Penny have been vocal with respect to the need for patent reform, but retailers are weakened – have you been to a mall lately? – and alone won’t have the clout.

Don’t Forfeit this Moment

The time is right for a legislative fix for the patent eligibility crisis facing real innovators in the life sciences and software industries. There is a unique opportunity for a legislative fix for 101, with many of those who have favored a weakened patent system no longer focused on the issue the way they once were, and partners in the Senate IP Subcommittee who actually, truly understand patents, the patent system and innovation.

A window is open; how long that window remains open is hard to know. But it would be a tragedy to forfeit this moment and watch such an opportunity pass without taking action.

Image Source: Deposit Photos
Image ID: 85912570
Copyright: akoldunov 

The Author

Gene Quinn

Gene Quinn is a Patent Attorney and Editor and President & CEO ofIPWatchdog, Inc.. Gene founded IPWatchdog.com in 1999. Gene is also a principal lecturer in the PLI Patent Bar Review Course and Of Counsel to the law firm of Berenato & White, LLC. 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 as of the time of publication and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of IPWatchdog.com. Read more.

Discuss this

There are currently 29 Comments comments.

  1. angry dude February 2, 2020 12:46 pm

    Naive to say it politely …
    Google’s attention is not diverted
    Trump and bezos may hate each other but when it comes to money
    They stand united
    Trump will not sacrifice amazon or Google stock to save 230-year old US Patent System
    To the morgue

  2. mike February 2, 2020 2:41 pm

    “Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC), who Chairs the Senate IP Subcommittee, and Senator Chris Coons (D-DE), the ranking member of the Senate IP Subcommittee, are prepared to work together with innovators to introduce a legislative fix to 101 and attempt to solve the patent eligibility crisis”

    That’s B.S. gene. Congress is ignoring the innovator community’s ask to sit down and discuss rationale for 112 and to reveal the ghost behind it.

    Who is this 112 ghost that the innovator community is suppose to agree with?

    Who is it that says Section 112 needs to be amended, and why is the innovator community not able to have a seat at that table to discuss?

    Saying that a ghost lives in a closet, and then locking the door and not providing any evidence that the ghost is real – why should someone believe in this ghost?

    And for you to tell someone that is it their fault for not believing in that ghost, when that someone has genuinely asked to open the door or at least for an explaination who the ghost is – that’s quite pretentious.

    Tell me who this ghost is and where we can sit down and I’ll have people there tomorrow, me included.

  3. Anon February 2, 2020 3:11 pm

    To repeat a sentiment as parallel to a previous thread, there is a world of difference between a window open (the opportunity analogy) and opening the gates to pull within that fine and beautiful opportunity of a Gift Horse (eh, city of Troy?).

    My Uncle Ben always told me (among other aphorisms): it’s good to have an open mind — just not so open that your brains fall out.

    Change 101 to eradicate the mess created by the Supreme Court?


    Create the possibility of an even bigger mess with the contemplated changes to 100 and 112?

    Not a chance.

    I invite my senators, those senators appearing to want to resurrect the strong patent right and ALL senators to take the one immediate step — without bringing in the Trojan Horse — and eradicate the mess that the Court has shown no gumption of fixing (which for example COULD be readily fixed with the Kavanaugh Scissors).

    IF the Senate wanted to make a real and lasting difference, I then invite them to truly inoculate their work (the possible impending ones and ones like the Act of 1952 which was a direct response to the Court and its self-christened “The only valid patent is one that has not yet appeared before us” by exercising their Constitutional authority of jurisdiction stripping of the non-original jurisdiction of hearing patent cases from the Supreme Court (coupled with a proper resetting of the CAFC).

  4. Paul Morinville February 2, 2020 4:45 pm

    Gene, What do you propose that the non-implementors could agree on?

    I thought that the 101 language on the proposed bill was good. But the 112 and 100 changes were terrible and dangerous.

    Do you suggest going along with those bad changes in exchange for a 101 fix?

    Or do you suggest a different fix for 112 and 100 then is now proposed?

    I still do not see any issues that need to be fixed in either 112 or 100. I think that they first need to make a case that these need to be fixed. They have done nothing but fear monger with false narratives using patent applications and patents that have never been and never will be the subject of litigation. (https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2019/03/29/bad-patents-are-just-another-big-tech-false-narrative/id=107819/)

    There can be no “compromise” on 100 and 112 without debating the actual facts to understand if there is a real problem to begin with.

  5. angry dude February 2, 2020 6:19 pm

    Pre-Ebay Constitutional Patent Rights would be an existential threat to today’s Google, Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Dell, Cisco, Microsoft etc.

    No wonder they bought up legislation in wash dc to effectively abolish 230-year old (!!!) US Patent System

    Who cares about The Founding Fathers and The Constitution ?

  6. angry dude February 2, 2020 8:50 pm

    Anon @3

    The movie “Troy”:

    Paris (looking at the Trojan horse and speaking to his father, the King of Troy Priam): “Father, burn it !!!”

    So weak and ridiculed Paris was absolutely correct (although his advice was ignored and he and everyone else died at the end)

    I told you years ago… (because I knew…)

  7. Jason Lee February 2, 2020 10:44 pm

    FAANG is a Trillion dollar army, that have bought up congress on both sides. Inventors have already moved over seas, as they know America’s patent system is dead. Snap out of it Gene it’s over in America. Quit the make believe sorry telling and speak the facts. Patents are dead in America.

  8. angry dude February 3, 2020 12:56 am

    Jason Lee @6

    “FAANG is a Trillion dollar army and patents are dead in America” for sure

    If American government doesn’t want to feed American inventors then they will have to feed hostile foreign corporations aka Apples and Googles of SV
    Silicon Valley IS NOT AMERICA !
    Fed up with this sh1t
    Calexit now !!!

  9. Anon February 3, 2020 7:37 am

    angry dude,

    You give yourself far too much credit with your bleating lines of “I told you so.”

    First, I recall no such dialogue from you. Likely, you may have posted something, but that post was probably merely a feeling-based complaint, disassociated from any cogent legal position, and thus (on a legal blog), not likely to gain any traction.

    This of course likely led to you applying even more emotion as you likely felt ‘jilted,’ and alone, even on a pro-patent platform.

    As I have long told you (and told YOU directly), emotion without reason is just not helpful.

    Your style of complaining (and subsequent “just quit” messages) are not helpful.

    This latest “rally cry” modeled on Brexit is also disassociated from reality and is not helpful.

    You have a lot of passion and energy. Try to put it to constructive use.

  10. Matt OMalley February 3, 2020 8:06 am

    Years ago (pre AIA & Alice) there was a great study done to compare the value of patents granted, specifically to see if there was any difference between those granted to small entities (including independent inventors) vs those granted to large entities. The study used four factors to determine value, the number of citations back to the granted patent, then they used a similar system of citations & data to score the patent’s originality, growth & impact within its art unit or field of use & overall.

    And the data clearly showed that patents granted to small entities (again including independent inventors) were demonstrably, far & away, more valuable than those granted to large entities. In fact you would hear the same from such patent valuation companies, as Innography on IPWatchdog podcasts, before the company sold in 2016.

    So what did Congress do? Well they got together & created the AIA to make things far harder & more expensive for independent inventors. And suddenly the Supreme Court was taking up more patent cases as they went to work on fostering far more 101 rejections with cases like Alice, Mayo, & the like, under arguments with such relatively arbitrary terms as the claimed patent wasn’t “substantial” enough. And even more unbelievable was how these rulings didn’t just change laws going forward, but somehow it was all made retroactive.

    Recall the Piers Morgan, CNN interview with Justice Scalia where Piers asks what has been his hardest decision & Justice Scalia says, “no, it’s the dullest case imaginable. There is no necessary correlation between the difficulty of a decision & its importance. Some of the most insignificant cases have been the hardest. Its probably be a patent case.” Now realize that estimates are that over 60% of the US economy is tied to intellectual property, so it would seem a patent case is hardly an insignificant subject, especially to the degree patent law was harmed.

    But hey, the large entities had already established their enormous wealth with company valuations that in some cases, showed they had close to or even more money in reserves than the US government. So with so much wealth & such a prominent seat at the throne of US innovation, they naturally set out behind the scenes to hire the lobbyists necessary to then pull the rug out from under everyone else, i.e., the competition. Yet everyone kept saying, how it simply cant happen – they cant change our-world-leading patent system — until they d-i-d.

    And it may take a few years to clearly understand the tremendous damage, but one day, some economist somewhere will finally wake up, get clued in & look back & say, wow, that was exactly the time we screwed up our lead in the world for fostering innovation here, as the AIA & Alice (& others) really made it much harder to get patent protection. And thus, much harder for startups to get funded. Hmmm, why & how did we let that happen?

    Could it be all of those stories we were fed from large entities about horrible trolls & frivolous patent litigation were almost all a red herring? Too bad, other countries then came along & saw the open opportunity, like China, Korea, Japan, Germany, & the like, & have step in &, in some cases, taken over, cause we used to lead the world in innovation – now when was that?

    Yeah, back when our patent system lead the world & when it was far easier to explain what was & wasn’t patentable. And so, just before the AIA & Alice (& other tragic Supreme Court rulings) ruined it. And to say nothing about the fees that have gone through the roof at the PTO. Who does that harm more, independent inventors or someone the size of Apple?

    Where lobbyists found fools in politics, bloggers & John Oliver to regertate such lines they were feed, as, “our patent system is out of date”. Well then, I guess our Constituion is too.

    And btw, remember all the stories we heard about Lemmelson & all of his submarine methods to greatly extend the life of all his patents? Cause that was often cited as a significant reason for many AIA changes. Okay, well years ago, I went back & downloaded all his patents & found it was only a tiny fraction that got any extensions. And I dare say, probably at a comparable rate to others for a portfolio of its size.

    Yet the PTO at that time, lead us to believe Lemmelson was so horrible & egregious with his so called “submarine” methods that he was getting patents with far longer lifespans than what was fair, but who’s to say, without a much deeper dive who actually was dragging their feet more? Cause I sure bet there was far more to it & certainly nothing to justify the destruction made via the AIA & Alice.

    And come to think it, why was the PTO citing an independent inventor in this harsh way? Were there no similar examples from the large entities too? Oh, wait, that’s right, Lemmelson was dead & thus not likely to argue back & afterall, the large entities were spearheading the whole thing, so that wouldn’t fit their narrative being pushed & really, they likely wrote it.

    And meanwhile, the PTO was asking Congress to allow it to manage it’s own revenues & fees for the 1st time, via the AIA — & who 1st suggested that idea? And it doesn’t take a genius to guess who is paying most of the PTO fees? Well, the large entries, of course. One happy merry-go-round.

    And so who cares if many of their patents are worth relatively less when compared to independent inventors, cause all their large entity fees are perhaps really going towards a much bigger hidden cause. In fact, so much harm has been done that we’re now hearing a
    there is a decline in filings.

    And eventually you’ll see a similar study comparing large & small entity patent valuations – as I started this comment with -where the affects of the AIA & Alice may cause that once impressive & distinguishable gap in patent validations to gradually disappear, as the PTO & large entities succeed in stripping away any motivation for an independent inventors to try & prosecute a patent any more & for startups either.

    But I do, btw, applaud & support recent efforts at the PTO to work on improving101 clarity. And if more can be done via Congress, great, but it’s hard to imagine the large entities not coming in & making it even far worse.

    If the patent office truly cared about innovation, they could easily track the patent granted with the highest valuations as scored via the outline at the start & then gather those specific inventors to ask what’s needed to maintain or improve our patent system & not even involve those who have simply paid the most in PTO fees – cause what’s truly more relevant in fostering innovation?

  11. Anon February 3, 2020 9:55 am

    Bravo Matt – some nice constructive advice.

    Two minor nits with your narrative, in reverse order:

    Lemelson and the archetypical ‘submarine’ patent has not been a driver as you portray here.

    Your comment of “Yet everyone kept saying, how it simply cant happen – they cant change our-world-leading patent system — until they d-i-d.” does a disservice to those of us (including this blog) who have long been a voice against what was happening. The “lone wolf” arc of storytelling is just not appropriate or accurate. The narrative is actually worse, as the capture of Congress happened despite voices of those in the know ringing out. It me “feel more compelling” to have the narrative that no one thought what was going on was possible, but this vastly understates the danger that what was going on was roughshodding over intelligent input. I know that I personally contacted my representatives and explained my background and voiced my disapproval throughout the AIA runup and passage.

    The capture of Congress is simply more dangerous than the “brave lone wolf” narrative provides.

  12. Model 101 February 3, 2020 10:24 am

    “There must be an innovator position acceptable to everyone if a legislative fix has any chance. As Senator Tillis told the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) recently, in order for there to be a bill introduced it must be one that can at a minimum pass the Senate IP Subcommittee, and without an innovator compromise that will be impossible.”

    Compromise,,, Make 101 reform apply retroactively.

    Compromise… Let all the dead 101 patents have discovery and then go directly to a jury trial.

    Compromise… Let the damage awards stand without appeal.

    Compromise… Reform 112 and 100 after these other compromises are met, and schedule new IP Senate hearings and such on 112 and 100 as in the Senate 101 hearings last year.

    Gene, please send this Compromise idea to Senators Coons and Tillis.

  13. TFCFM February 3, 2020 10:32 am

    GQ: “‘But Congress should do this because it is the right thing to do,’ I hear frequently. In an ideal world that would be true, but holding onto such Pollyannaish views in Washington, D.C., is a recipe for failure.

    There’s much to be said in support of this assertion, whether directed toward congressionally-implemented “fixes” or judicially-implemented “fixes.”

    “Somebody else should ‘fix’ the problem” is a far cry from suggesting a rational, workable ‘fix.’ Keeping in mind that nobody is foolish enough to fall for literal implementation of declaring eligible everything made by man, which, as Gene well knows, has never been the standard for eligibility, folks who adamantly insist that SOMEBODY ELSE should come up with a workable standard should consider the possibility that all of the somebodies else who may be in a position to implement a ‘fix’ are as puzzled as the rest of us as to how to articulate a workable standard.

    Whether a sensible standard ultimately originates with a congressman, an aide, a judge, a court clerk, a litigant, a patent applicant, an examiner, a blog commenter, or one of an infinite number of monkeys pounding away on typewriters, adoption of a sensible standard for patent eligibility in the US awaits enunciation and explanation of the standard — NOT the mere assumption by this or that official of responsibility for coming up with such a standard.

    As ever, folks having a financial stake in outcomes will predictably line up on whichever side reflects their interest in any proposed standard, so their comments can (indeed) must be considered in light of self-interest. A standard that will truly work is one that will make sense broadly.

    Even if most folks agree that we haven’t currently achieved such a standard, moving away from the current standard will require creation of a more perfect one, rather than mere complaint about the imperfections of the current one.

    (More tersely put, cries to “Do Something!” tend to less fruitful and beneficial than identification of a something-sensible-to-do.)

  14. Pro Say February 3, 2020 11:45 am

    Thanks Matt — great post.

    The quickest, most sure, and permanent eligibility cure?

    Abolish Section 101.

    With Sections 102, 103, and 112, we don’t need — and indeed have never needed — 101.

    Would probably be the shortest bill Congress has ever passed.

    Short. Sweet. Effective.

  15. angry dude February 3, 2020 11:55 am

    Anon @9

    “angry dude,
    You give yourself far too much credit with your bleating lines of “I told you so.”

    Hm… Ask Gene and some other folks here – they remember
    Many years ago (as early as right after EBay was decided – my patent was granted in October of 2006 – do your calculations) I posted very angry messages here about the direction US patent system was taking – specifically that I, as inventor, did not get my part of the bargain as far as exclusivity goes…and wasn’t going to receive reasonable monetary compensation too.. (after AIA it became practically impossible for small patent holders)

    I was posting pretty much same comments Gene writes himself these days
    I was ridiculed here by Gene and patent attorneys like you saying that US patent system was still functional and I was just a clueless loser without any idea how to monetize my patent (not fully engaging in patent monetization saved my patent from PTAB and me from being bankrupt and insane – because I knew was was coming…)

    Is 230-year old US Patent System finally 100% dysfunctional today ???
    (To the point that patent attorney practicing in certain technical field like software, or even consumer electronics cannot tell you for sure if your invention in THAT particular field is patent eligible or not – just think about the gravity of this situation for a second and the consequences for your profession)

    YES or NO ?

    I told you so 13 years ago…

  16. angry dude February 3, 2020 12:06 pm

    Model 101@12

    You do realize that none of these is going to happen ?
    For a simple reason that if all patents improperly and unconstitutionally killed by PTAB are resurrected now, a bunch of dudes will come out of woods after Apple, Google, Amazon and the rest of SV looters
    With the consequences like 30% or more drop in their stock valuations
    Those sv punks and lgbts may hate trump and he probably hates the guts of that rich prick bezos, google punks and apple ceo, BUT when it comes to money they stand united
    Pecunia non olet (“money does not stink”)

  17. Angelica Stevenson February 3, 2020 1:27 pm

    Great article thank you for bringing it to my attention. What is the call of action? What can I or other inventors and innovators do before the window is closed.

  18. Tesia Thomas February 3, 2020 1:36 pm

    In angry dude moments I say screw all of this!

    If you can’t afford to file outside of the USA then don’t file even a provisional in the USA.
    Inventors need to learn how to prosecute their own IP in order to cut out attorney fees as much as possible in the US.
    File your own IDS – if it’s not a book then try again.
    Do your own prior art search. Actively study all competitors and for many that will be the US government itself by way of many alphabet soup orgs – FDA, DOD, and others.
    If any multinational asks you for something then have a contract in place.

    Expecting the government to fix the problem it created is insanity.
    Indie inventors need to lose all hope and let the country drown in bloodshed caused by FAANG.
    Give them the USA. Let them have it. Government should stay out of commerce as much as possible and vice versa. They’ll take themselves out. If you don’t have the patience for this then immigrate to countries with more resolve and moral courage. Seems like Europe doesn’t believe the hype about patent trolls… Asia too.

    We the people ARE the country and maybe we just need to move along with OUR country and let FAANG manufacture their own demise.
    They want to forget where they came from as indie inventors just like we are. Let them.

    In the more Anon inspired manner:
    The government has the power to fix this mess. Let’s make them see their wrong.
    Why dont some pro-pre-AIA IP attorneys and inventors pool money to PTAB every patent FAANG holds dear?
    Take out all patent prior art.
    Get 100K+ people to dilute their trademarks by using trademarks instead of “searching” online and whatnot. TTAB them.
    Boycott their products.
    Make them use some of their reserve capital to stay afloat.
    That is all the American way. Americans don’t ask for justice from those that would encumber us. We dump expensive tea in the harbor and prepare for the tension to bring about war.
    FAANG employees don’t even like the companies they work for wholeheartedly. They’re really just the places that are doing the most hiring for my debt-ridden by striving generation. There’s no loyalty… Mere dependency and awe.

  19. Tesia Thomas February 3, 2020 1:47 pm

    Stop wanting free and fast products. Re-learn patience and travel. Plan ahead for things. Share. Cook large dinners at home. Go to a library and learn the Dewey decimal system. Read a paperback book. Call a friend instead of messaging.
    These companies are luxuries and not necessities. They prey on weaknesses of the human experience and condition.

    Be better people. Companies will be better companies.
    That is the American way.
    This whole thing is changing because We the People are changing. A company is like a virus. It doesn’t survive without a host of lazy Americans willing to trade their freedom, health, and happiness for ease of use, comfort, and being able to sit on the couch and manage their lives from an electronic device.

    Go old school.

  20. Anon February 3, 2020 2:47 pm

    angry dude,

    Read again my post. Most likely you fit the profile that I have provided (and your ongoing current mantras — as unhelpful as they are — tend to verify my writing rather than your recollection. In have had to explain to you on several occasions just what I am “making fun of you” for and WHY your emotion-laden rants sans any meaningful reasoning play directly into the hands of the Efficient Infringers.

    You do not seem able to comprehend your own actions (and limitations thereof).

    You would rather fill your head with more emotive ‘martyr complex’ fallacies than actually stop and use reasoning.

  21. angry dude February 3, 2020 6:02 pm

    Anon @20


    unlike you I actually put my money where my mouth is

    I know things you do not know, some very ugly things – that’s why I kept my patent and my sanity, at the expense of being cynical and angry all the time

    You just keep spewing useless legal mantras nobody cares about at this point

  22. Ternary February 3, 2020 8:27 pm

    Beware of Greeks bearing gifts (Troy), paraphrased: beware of politicians bring unsolicited compromises.

    I have not seen invalidation of patents over 112(f) coming even close to the problems of Alice and Mayo rejections. (clearly some people want to change that). I understand that some interests groups want a new 112(f) to offset a new 101 section. Why is this reasonable? It only makes sense if one believes that a new 112(f) section will generate another round of getting rid of valuable patents. Quid pro quo: less ineligibility 101 rejections/invalidations but more 112(f) problems for patent owners.

    It makes me truly curious who is behind this. Perhaps Senator Tillis or his staff are able to provide examples of patents with unacceptable functional claim language that should limit or invalidate the claims and in particular: why? I don’t see how being determined to be a functional claim offsets being directed to an abstract idea.

    A compromise on section 101 usually would mean that some technical elements would still be deemed patent ineligible. A compromise in the context of this matter would be a compromise on content and the text of the 101 language.

    But saying: I will give you a broad 101 section if you give me a narrower 112(f) is no compromise. It is a simple trading deal. I give you this, you give me that.
    Sections 101 and 112(f) are treated as negotiable instruments to kill off patents. And the ones who now greatly and undeservedly benefit from an irrational 101 section want something back in return to continue invalidating patents.

    Sound more like a criminal mob proposal (“I will make you an offer you cannot refuse”) than a serious proposal/compromise to improve the US patent system.

  23. Mike February 4, 2020 3:16 am

    Tesia: “Why dont some pro-pre-AIA IP attorneys and inventors pool money to PTAB every patent FAANG holds dear?

    That is all the American way. Americans don’t ask for justice from those that would encumber us. We dump expensive tea in the harbor and prepare for the tension to bring about war.”

    My God. I love you Tesia.

    I have heard this mentioned before, and I think we should do it:

    Every patent that becomes celebrated by the USPTO, let’s invalidate it.

    Let’s pull out the “conventional” components and show how it is abstract. Let’s show how it would be invalidated by Senator Tillis’ proposed 112. Let’s file multiple IPR petitions. Let’s pay “experts” to say it’s obvious. Let’s gang tackle it.

    Let’s dump every celebrated patent, or every patent of value, that has been granted within the past 200 years in the harbor.

    The 10,000,000 patent would be a start. The USPTO made a big deal about that one. We should make it meaningless. Then we can move on to FAANG. Then retroactively take out the likes of Edison, et al.

    They want to make a mockery of IP? Well then let’s make a mockery of IP.

  24. angry dude February 4, 2020 6:40 am

    US Patent 10,000,000 issued to Raytheon (developed mostly at US taxpayer’s expense)

    Claim 1. A laser detection and ranging (LADAR) system, comprising:
    – a two-dimensional array of detector elements, each detector element within the array including:
    – a photosensitive region configured to receive return light reflected from a target and oscillating local light from a local light source, and
    local processing circuitry coupled to an output of the respective photosensitive region and configured to receive an analog signal on the output and to sample the analog signal a plurality of times during each sample period clock cycle to obtain a plurality of components for a sample during each sample period clock cycle;
    -a data bus coupled to one or more outputs of each of the detector elements and configured to receive the plurality of sample components from each of the detector elements for each sample period clock cycle; and
    – a processor coupled to the data bus and configured to receive, from the data bus, the plurality of sample components from each of the detector elements for each sample period clock cycle and to determine an amplitude and a phase for an interfering frequency corresponding to interference between the return light and the oscillating local light using the plurality of sample components.

    This is 100% computer-implemented –
    …data bus, processor, plurality of sample components…
    If mechanical drive shaft is declared abstract then what is this ?
    PTAB anyone ???

    In other news New Your Times published article “Gap widens between haves and have-nots in tech” (10 years ago they published articles about evil patent trolls torturing BIG TECH)

  25. kingsman_statesman February 4, 2020 9:48 am

    The easiest way to solve these patent issues will be to issue everyone a patent and let them fight it out in the court system.

  26. Ternary February 4, 2020 11:07 am

    NW, I would add: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/03/technology/google-earnings-big-tech.html, something we all on this blog know, we all have experienced and finally mainstream America is taking notice of.

  27. jacek February 4, 2020 4:44 pm

    It is estimated that due to the lack of competition (due to the “efficient infringers” actions) average US consumer spends $300 / month more than in the EU for the same services. The only way to stop the Big money from ruining this country is Campaign finance reform. As long as money influence politicians, we will never know if the next Wolf is not hiding under the sheepskin.
    By the way, One of the people posting on this blog is a lawyer from “Unified Patents.” advertising on their pages awards for finding prior art to such and such patent.

  28. angry dude February 4, 2020 4:53 pm

    Ternary @27

    And present day BIG TECH monopolies concentrate much more power than any of the monopolies of past such as AT&T or Standard Oil which government decided to break up

    If it continues like this Amazon, which used to be online bookstore, will deliver all our meals via drones so all local restaurants will go out of business just like bookstores did…
    Congress, break them up already !
    I do not want Amazon to prepare and deliver my meals (oops… they already do – they own Wholefoods), patent royalties will suffice