White House May Name Patent Reform Opponent As New Head of Patent Office 211
An anonymous reader writes The Obama Administration is set to appoint Phil Johnson, a pharmaceutical industry executive, as the next Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, according to sources. The move is likely to anger patent reform advocates given Johnson's past efforts to block legislation aimed at reining in patent trolls, and in light of his positions that appear to contradict the White House's professed goal of fixing the patent system. The top job at the Patent Office has been vacant for around 18-months since the departure of previous director David Kappos in early 2013. Currently, the office is being managed by former Googler Michelle Lee, who was appointed deputy director in December. Earlier this month, Republican Senators led by Orrin Hatch (R-UT) sent a letter to President Obama that praised Lee but that also described the current USPTO management structure as "unfair, untenable and unacceptable for our country's intellectual property agency."
Re:Obama (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think you can blame him for Guantanamo -- he's been blocked by Congress on that one: http://www.politifact.com/trut... [politifact.com]
If you want to complain, you'll have to find some that you can actually blame on him ... luckily, you have lots to choose from : http://www.politifact.com/trut... [politifact.com]
(and this is why when I ran for office, I only made one promise -- that I'd give fair consideration to everything put before me ... which meant I once had to abstain from a vote when I found that some complaints had been withheld, as I couldn't research if they were legitimate complaints or not)
Re:Classic $Politician (Score:5, Interesting)
Obama seems to be the first mainstream US presidential candidate in a long time to "talk the talk" to the kind of people who read Slashdot. The others have been spouting ignorant crap or simply ignoring the topics that most Slashdotters care about. Therefore Obama is the first president that we can be disappointed in -- the others were known bad before they became presidents.
Um, maybe to you. I saw Obama coming a mile away, he's admittedly even more of a let down than I or anyone else could imagine but I knew the vapid talk was just that. I'm glad you admit that he fooled you, most on your side keep claiming that he's actually not an embarrassing failure and that things are way better than when Bush was in office.
Re:Obama (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh you are quite wrong. The ACA (Obamacare) is not a giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry. That would be very low. It is, in fact, a giveaway to the insurance industry. And the lawyers.
The insurance industry and lawyers are like the laws of thermodynamics - you can't win any battles with them, you can't even battle to a draw, and you have to play with them.
Re:Classic Obama (Score:3, Interesting)
This does lead to an interesting question... and not a troll, I promise:
Now mind you, I'm not saying that suddenly everyone should vote Republican (I'm registered as "no party" in my own state), but I want to know how the folks who support the President no-matter-what can continue the cognitive dissonance and devotion to the guy in spite of crap like this (and much, much more). We see a lot of it even here on /. , so I think it's relevant. Even towards the end of the Bush years, you never saw this level of personality cult... and yet I'm bombarded with folks who will hotly defend the guy no matter what he does (my perception may be biased due to living in Portland, but still...)
Does anyone else see this? And if you are among those who still support the guy, please tell me why not support someone such as a Green Party candidate, or someone who isn't part of the party machine, so to speak?
PS: Simply pointing the finger at The Other Party doesn't really cut it either, IMHO (mostly because I find both to be equally distasteful) - in other words, give me an answer that doesn't involve fear of someone else...
PPS: Please be civil about it to each other and otherwise - this is an honest question.
Re:Classic Obama (Score:3, Interesting)
Easy. Because Republicans put the idiots on the Supreme Court that just decided that your employer can dictate what kind of birth control you use your health insurance to buy. That's right - YOUR health insurance. The insurance that you received from your employer in lieu of cash to buy your own - which would be an even worse deal, since the insurance companies still only offer their best group plans to employers. And while Obama deserves at least some of the blame for letting insurance companies dictate such things, at least he saw to it that insurance companies can't deny you coverage outright - for which many people are quite grateful.
Anyway, until a mass movement votes the Congressional tools of the oligarchs out of office, you may as well vote for the guys who won't give the Court to folks who are intent on allowing Republicans to choose who gets to vote in the first place...
Re:Classic Obama (Score:3, Interesting)
No, you're not getting me. I am not saying Obama is good or Obama is bad because of his good or bad qualities as an autocrat. I am saying he is good because of his good qualities as an executive. The stuff he's doing as an autocrat I sometimes agree with and sometimes disagree with, but it shouldn't be something he has to do as an autocrat. Congress should be doing the right thing, and it's not. We could debate the merits of the various executive orders he's given since he came into office; I certainly understand why he's been acting as an autocrat. Congress wants him to be an autocrat: they've made that crystal clear. But that's the problem. Congress is supposed to be making these policies, but they have abdicated them to the executive. First with Bush, by letting him do things they shouldn't have let him do. Now with Obama by forcing him to set policies they should have set, because they will not govern.
We clearly don't agree in general, but if you think it's okay for Bush to be an autocrat, you can't turn around and say it's not okay for Obama. And if you think it's not okay for Bush to be an autocrat, then we agree; the question is what to do about it.