Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Government Patents

White House May Name Patent Reform Opponent As New Head of Patent Office 211

Posted by samzenpus from the fox-in-the-henhouse dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

White House May Name Patent Reform Opponent As New Head of Patent Office More

White House May Name Patent Reform Opponent As New Head of Patent Office

Comments Filter:

  • Classic Obama (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 30, 2014 @01:31PM (#47352187)

    Is anybody surprised? Claim to support Net Neutrality and give the power to the Cable lobby. He's done this before and he'll do it again. Hypocrite-in-chief.

    • Re:Classic Obama (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 30, 2014 @01:56PM (#47352463)

      You only hate hypocrisy because you are racist.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Penguinisto ( 415985 )

      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

      • Re:Classic Obama (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mellon ( 7048 ) on Monday June 30, 2014 @03:51PM (#47353663) Homepage

        It's really simple. I do not think Obama is perfect and wonderful. But I think he is less harmful than Bush Junior was, because he's competent. He gets things done. I don't like everything he gets done, but he is the head of the executive branch, not the legislative branch. It's his job to get things done.

        Expecting the president to change laws is treating him or her like an autocrat: a king. The president is not supposed to make policy; he or she is supposed to implement policies made by congress and the courts. What sucked about Bush was that he thought it was his job to "lead the nation" and he did a piss-poor job of it, with Congress' help.

        We really need to get over our collective feudal attitude toward the presidency. The founding fathers understood that the president was not a king; George Washington famously refused to be named king. Why have we forgotten this principle?

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Shatrat ( 855151 )

          He just said today he was going to unilaterally start changing immigration policy. He's been behaving like an autocrat for quite some time now. Your X is bad therefore Y is good logic does not work, they're both the wrong lizard.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by mellon ( 7048 )

            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 cert

            • If the laws don't change then it's Obama's job to implement them as written - not decide that things need to change and carry out his own ideas. He may even be correct in that assessment but he does not have that power under the Constitution, so such actions are illegal. Do nothing Congress? Too bad, embarass them on prime time or whatever it takes to change things legally. It may well suck, but that does not change the rules. I realize he's been doing it anyway, so the point is merely academic.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by camg188 ( 932324 )
          Competent? He doesn't leave the golf course until the shit has already hit the fan and is running down the walls.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Dadoo ( 899435 )

        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

        Because, sadly, the alternative would have been worse. Do you seriously think Romney wouldn't have done exactly the same, at least as for as Network Neutrality and Patent Reform are concerned?

        Even towards the end of the Bush ye

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Rob Y. ( 110975 )

        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 dictat

      • It's getting to the point where the US Citizenry will need to decide to accept to be held captive to the interests of a Corporate Oligarchy or go into active revolt against a Government that no longer sees them as actual citizens, but as the chattel of the "true citizens", the Corporate Personhoods of the Fortune 500. ObamaCare was the first step in forcing every American to buy goods and services from Corporate Cartels. Having Corporate Lobbyists oversee and regulate the industries meant to protect the A

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Don't forget the rest of the bad ones:
      FCC chair Julius Genachowski - law school buddy and media conglomerate VP
      as you mentioned, Tom Wheeler - long time fundraiser, Cable industry lobbyist
      US Food Safety Czar and former Monsanto VP Michael Taylor
      US Treasury Secretary Jack Lew - Citigroup executive during the $45 billion bailout
      Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker - chief fundraiser during his campaign in 2008, her family businesses were being sued by IRS for using illegal tax shelters overseas, investigated for

    • Re:Classic Obama (Score:5, Insightful)

      by flyingsquid ( 813711 ) on Monday June 30, 2014 @04:01PM (#47353771)

      Is anybody surprised? Claim to support Net Neutrality and give the power to the Cable lobby. He's done this before and he'll do it again. Hypocrite-in-chief.

      I don't know what the hell to think about Obama anymore. The guy we elected was smart, charismatic, capable, articulate; he ran a brilliant campaign that took out the heavily favored Hilary Clinton. He came across as a man with the intelligence, principles, and pragmatism to fix the nations problems... or at least not fuck it up as catastrophically as George W. Bush did. So where the hell did that guy go?

      I remember the early Obama speeches when he wasn't just a speaker but an orator, he the fire of a black preacher... he had conviction. That was the inspiring thing about him. Yeah it was pretty words, but he seemed to really believe it. Now he just seems to mouth the speeches, like they're just empty words put there by his speechwriters. At times when people ask him questions he seems barely able to articulate an answer and to fumble for words... more and more, he's that barely-keeping-it-together guy we saw during the second debate against Romney. He seems dejected, run-down... and increasingly it seems like the administration can't do a damn thing right. They're as bad as Bush ever was on drone strikes and warrantless surveillance- worse, in fact- Guantanamo isn't shut, the VA is a clusterfuck, Iraq is falling apart again, the response to the Crimea was half-assed... and now this?

      I still like the guy, as a person. I think he means well. But I get the impression that he's burned out, disengaged and depressed, that he spends his days staring at the ceiling of the Oval Office and counting the days until his Presidential Library opens and he gets to take lucrative speaking gigs. And that meanwhile, with the Commander in Chief checked out, the various special interests and agendas are having a field day, and doing what they do best- turning government of the people, for the people, and by the people into the plaything of moneyed special interests, the uber-rich, and the military-industrial complex. Anyway, that's my theory. I think he means well, and he came in trying to fight the machine, but it was one man against an entire machine. And the machine ultimately broke him.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tvsjr ( 242190 )

        I don't know what the hell to think about Obama anymore. The guy we elected was smart, charismatic, capable, articulate; he ran a brilliant campaign that took out the heavily favored Hilary Clinton. He came across as a man with the intelligence, principles, and pragmatism to fix the nations problems... or at least not fuck it up as catastrophically as George W. Bush did. So where the hell did that guy go?

        Same guy... what you saw was an act, and millions of people fell for it hook, line, and sinker. Now, since he's in his second term and Congress is unlikely to grow the cojones to impeach him, he simply doesn't care.

      • I don't know what the hell to think about Obama anymore. The guy we elected was smart, charismatic, capable, articulate; ....

        A big part of the problem is he wasn't actually 3 of those 4 things. He read teleprompters really well, but anytime he responded off the cuff, he was a stammering fool. The media did a good job of covering for him.

      • The guy we elected was ...

        No he wasn't. You made the mistake that most people make, which is listen to what they say rather than observe what they do.

        His voting record told you everything you needed to know. The least deserving of a right to complain now are the people that didnt care about the easily discoverable facts about Obama that were not only discoverable by the ordinary man looking at the public record (which is available online) but also covered extensively by what I guess you would have called "partisan sources."

      • Ha Ha Ha (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 30, 2014 @06:26PM (#47354977)

        "The guy we elected was smart, charismatic, capable, articulate; he ran a brilliant campaign that took out the heavily favored Hilary Clinton. He came across as a man with the intelligence, principles, and pragmatism to fix the nations problems"

        I'm going to type something that will seem a slam against Obama, but that's really not my point (I'm not a fan of most politicians), read the whole post:

        Where was the evidence for ANY of that? You were propagandized. All the democrat-run news networks told you he was "brilliant" and you bought it even though he sealed all his academic records (unlike all previous candidates) and you've still never seen them. The same people told you he was "capable" even though he'd never run ANYTHING, never been responsible for ANYTHING, never held a job that required ANY productivity or creativity. Now when he is unable to get things done, he blames the Republicans and those same news outlets help him (even though MOST presidents have had to deal with opponents in congress) Articulate? Have you ever seen him without a teleprompter? Sure all those same biased sources gushed about how "articulate" he was... but what was the true evidence? He stumbles and stutters like crazy without a teleprompter and even uses them to address elementary school kids (liberal Democrats ridiculed VICE Presidential candidate Palin for scribblying several words on her hand before giving a half-hour long speech without teleprompters). Was his campaign over Hillary TRULY "brilliant" or did she run a poor campaign (as she appears to be doing again) and was she jettisoned by a Democrat-leaning press that found a candidate it preferred to support? (Reminders: Hillary claimed the fairest coverage she got in 2008 was on Fox, and Bill is still bitter and said Obama "played the race card" against him and Hillary). As for "good intentions"... as the old saying goes: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". George Bush and his supporters would say HE had "good intentions"...

        My point is that people are easily manipulated, and the techniques politicians and their armies of advisors and campaign staff use are becoming increasingly sophisticated. Obama's own team brags about their "mirco-targetting" and other campaign breakthroughs (which, if you THINK about it are all just ways of manipulating people). The problem is made worse when 9 out of 10 journalists in the US have repeatedly admitted to being aligned with the Democrats. When that combined propaganda machine "kicks-in" and works on behalf of one person (no matter the skin color, gender, etc) the population is sadly ill-equipped to see through the marketing smoke screen and ask questions about actual abilities, actual qualifications, etc. Obama had NO applicable resume for the Presidency (and Hillary's was just as thin (former First Lady, and recipient of a donated Senate seat). Those two 2008 candidates did NOT have the qualifications of an FDR, a JFK, a Reagan, and LBJ, etc. and no amount of PR and friendly news coverage could cure it.

      • Insightful indeed.

        As an outsider - Canadian - I see all of the things you describe. I think your theory is very likely right. Obama wasn't a twisted politician when he started. He had an agenda that was mostly in the favor of the average Joe. The problem I have with professional politics is that I realize you have to compromise to get anything done. If you want Bill A to be passed, you need the support of a lot of other people, and you may need to support Bill B to get the job done, though you don't

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tomhath ( 637240 )

        The guy we elected was smart, charismatic, capable, articulate; he ran a brilliant campaign that took out the heavily favored Hilary Clinton

        None of the above. Other than those who were on Bill's payroll, Democrats desperately wanted an alternative to Hillary because they knew she was unelectable. Obama is the product of a $1B marketing campaign, nothing more.

  • Obama (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tough Love ( 215404 ) on Monday June 30, 2014 @01:32PM (#47352191)

    At first I was fooled. Copyrights. Patents. Guantanamo Bay. What is it with this guy.

    • At first I was fooled. Copyrights. Patents. Guantanamo Bay. What is it with this guy.

      Don't get too upset. Considering how much Congress works against the People's interests, the status quo is looking a lot safer than reform at the moment.

    • Re:Obama (Score:5, Interesting)

      by oneiros27 ( 46144 ) on Monday June 30, 2014 @01:42PM (#47352305) Homepage

      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: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        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)

        Like fucking hell we can't. He can't wait to go "extra-Constitutional" in other matters in the face of Congressional disapproval. Hell, at least with Gitmo being a military base he could always claim he's Commander-in-Chief. But noooo, he's ignoring that for this kind of wag-the-dog crap:

        Obama to take executive action on immigration [cnn.com]

        At a hastily scheduled Rose Garden appearance, Obama said House Speaker John Boehner told him last week that the chamber's GOP majority he leads will continue blocking a vote on a Senate-passed immigration bill.

        In response, Obama said he was starting "a new effort to fix as much of our immigration system as I can on my own, without Congress," adding that he directed his team to recommend steps he can take this summer and that he would then act on those steps "without delay."

        "The failure of House Republicans to pass a darn bill is bad for our security, is bad for our economy, is bad for our future," the President said. "America cannot wait forever for them to ask."

        It's all about narcissistic grandstanding with this arrogant popinjay - and he needs a distraction after getting bitch slapped in the past week by the Supreme Court 9-0 for

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by lemur3 ( 997863 )

          Hell, at least with Gitmo being a military base he could always claim he's Commander-in-Chief. But noooo, he's ignoring that

          actually, no, he isn't ignoring it. in one of his first acts as president he signed an executive order to close gitmo.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

          he did this January 22 2009

    • What it is with this guy: in order to rise the top you must make promises to powerful insiders, lie to the people, give them just enough to prevent revolt, but keep fattening your patrons. It's all about insiders vs. outsiders, not Democrats vs. Republicans. Obama is not a "liberal." He is the ultimate insider.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      There is nothing wrong with this guy. They put documents on its desk, and he signs them. He is not running the show, like all the presidents in history. He is just a good figure.

    • ObamaNation (Score:2, Insightful)

      by frovingslosh ( 582462 )
      This country is an Obamanation.
    • All he said was that he'd bring change. We were suckers to believe that it would be beneficial change for ourselves.

    • I think you forgot the NSA, how they went after Snowden, NOT going after the bankers, and drone strikes against American citizens.

      I think we're all a bit disillusioned with the Obama Presidency. (Though I am VERY glad we didn't elect either McCain nor Romney, IMHO they'd be much much worse based on what they campaigned on).

      I think there a few sources for this disconnect. The first, Obama campaigned a lot farther left than how he's governing. You can blame him leading false impressions, or you can blame us

  • Why does Obama keep doing this? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Joe Gillian ( 3683399 ) on Monday June 30, 2014 @01:32PM (#47352197)

    It seems like no matter what Obama says, he continues to appoint lobbyists with clear conflicts of interest to important positions rather than actually think about his choices. First it was Tom Wheeler at the FCC, and now a lobbyist and executive for Big Pharma in charge of patents. What causes him to keep doing this?

    • The honest answer is, we can only guess.

      An answer that's snarky but perhaps accurate is that (a) he said whatever would get him elected, and/or (b) lacks the ability to resist those around him.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      He's a corrupt idiot paying for his time in the white house. Oh sorry saying that automatically makes me a racist right?

    • Someone must have explained to him what really happened to JFK (remember to wear your tinfoil hats).

    • Re:Why does Obama keep doing this? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 30, 2014 @01:51PM (#47352401)

      Why is this so hard to understand?
      First - dispel from your mind there are two parties called Democrats and Republicans who are polar opposites.
      The truth is there are 2 factions (some of each in each of the two parties): oligarchs and representatives.
      The oligarchs are people like Dianne Feinstein (D) and Mike Rogers (R). The representatives are people like Ron Wyden (D) and Justin Amash (R).

      The oligarchs generally believe in more power for them so they can rule you. They understand they cannot openly come out and say this. Thus, their method of achieving their ends is to propose wildly unpopular legislation which they use to demagogue "the other guy's party" on different technicalities. This creates the boogie man they need to raise campaign funds and scare the people into voting for them rather than the "evil other guy".

      Currently the Oligarchs are in the majority in both houses and they have the white house. They are also well entrenched in both the DNC and RNC.
      Obama is and always was one of them. The republicans have been screaming this for ages. Most of them though just didn't realize that you were screaming your head off about Bush being like this, that you were right too.

      Welcome to having your eyes opened. Join the club.

    • What causes him to keep doing this?

      Money.

      But more seriously, this is one of the problems with electing a president with a short political CV/resume. His circle of trust doesn't have the critical mass of folks that can survive a vetting process (any than could have already got their job and gotten out after 4 years), so he has to rely on getting suggestions folks in an extended political operative/Washington insider circle which only knows people looking for a job from the pool perpetual bureaucratic lobbyist ruling class that's pretty much b

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Jodka ( 520060 )

      ..Obama ..continues to appoint lobbyists with clear conflicts of interest to important positions rather than actually think about his choice... What causes him to keep doing this?

      It is because he has not seen it in the news yet.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Jodka ( 520060 )

      ..What causes [Obama] to keep doing this?

      Maybe this [spectator.org] has something to do with it:

      The American Association for Justice, formerly and more accurately known as the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, gave 96 percent of all its contributions so far this year to Democrats. A fluke? They gave Democrats 96 percent in 2012, 97 percent in 2010, and 95 percent in 2008. The Washington Examiner’s 2011 investigative reporting showed that, of political contributions given in 2010 by the employees and partners at the top 110 plaintiff’s firms in

    • Probably because he's given a very short list of names and then the advisors point to the name they prefer. Obama is like any other CEO, completely clueless about how the organization really works.

    • He keeps doing it because there is a ton of money to be made by lawyers within the current system.

      - Fees to create, file, and defend bogus patents
      - Fees involved with court cases over bogus patents and patent trolls (some involving negotiated settlements of billions)
      - Fees negotiating licensing deals, contracts, and other instruments felt necessary in the over-litigious environment

      Remember Obama is a lawyer and all his friends are too, and he (being a Democrat) gets a lot of financial backing from lawye

    • Each candidate spent more than a billion dollars in the last election. Where do you think that kind of money comes from?

  • Classic $Politician (Score:3, Insightful)

    by komodo685 ( 2920329 ) on Monday June 30, 2014 @01:40PM (#47352291)
    It seemed odd that only posts I see on this subject ("Classic Obama", "Obama ... What is it with this guy", and "Why does Obama keep doing this") all seem to suggest this hypocrisy is somehow unique to the current president.

    Maybe I'm missing something as I was born in '88, was there a time when politicians weren't appointing people based on who would be best for the major corps in the industry.?How is this anything but the standard Corruption which we can expect from all future presidents?

    • Re:Classic $Politician (Score:5, Insightful)

      by amorsen ( 7485 ) <benny+slashdot@amorsen.dk> on Monday June 30, 2014 @01:47PM (#47352355)

      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.

      • Re:Classic $Politician (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Trailer Trash ( 60756 ) on Monday June 30, 2014 @01:51PM (#47352395) Homepage

        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.

        • But what was the alternative? Just another politician who did not even bother to "talk the talk" to "the kind of people who read Slashdot"? Should we have expected better from McCain or Romney? I never doubted that most of Obama's promises would be BS but I thought that at least the few concesions he does give to the people to keep them satisfied would at least be in our favor this time. What a disapointment!

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by amorsen ( 7485 )

          It's great that you foresaw it all. That does not really have anything to do with what I wrote.

    • >It seemed odd that only posts I see on this subject ("Classic Obama", "Obama ... What is it with this guy", and "Why does Obama keep doing this") all seem to suggest this hypocrisy is somehow unique to the current president.

      It is somewhat unique.

      Bush wasn't hypocritical. He was blatant in his advocacy for non-progressive policies and for being corrupt. You think Bush would have ever pushed for patent reform? Or net neutrality? Not on your life. So when he did bad things, it was entirely expected.

  • From the article:

    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...
    In December, Johnson testified before the Senate on behalf of the 21st Century Patent Coalition, a group of companies who opposed a bill that would have made it easier for defendants to challenge low-quality patents, and to recover legal costs in the face of frivolous patent lawsuits. (Johnson’s group ultimately prevailed last month when Senate Democrats killed the bill altogether.) Johnson has also opposed previous patent reform initiatives, describing them as “almost everything an infringer could ever want.”

    "Patent reform" is not a single solution, with people lining up on opposites of a fence to either oppose or support it. There are many different issues, from patent trolls and shotgun litigation, to venue issues like the Eastern District of Texas, to the quality of examination at the USPTO, to patentability of software, to patentability of business methods (which is similar, but different), to patentability of medical diagnostic methods (also different), to issues of clarity and notice to p

  • The reason these overly-broad patents used by the patent trolls are granted is because they don't get properly examined and rejected. The patent examiner isn't given time to do a sufficiently thorough search or to make a proper legal case against a patent application. Those cases become patents, and the costs that should have been paid in examination get paid many times over in litigation.

    This guy has been part of the running of a pharmaceutical company. That kind of company deals with regulations of all

  • Extremely scary (Score:4, Insightful)

    by backslashdot ( 95548 ) on Monday June 30, 2014 @02:01PM (#47352533)

    This is a very dark development.
    The patent system is being abused such that it is preventing product launches and stifling innovation/invention by anyone other than large entities. For example, let's look at what's happening with LTE. Currently corporations are submarining many of these patents so that it will be impossible to make a non-infringing LTE base station or smartphone even 30 years after most of the currently known LTE patents expire. Not all the patents on LTE are even known (this is deliberate so that lawsuit can be filed at a later date). Anyway, what do I mean by submarining? They filed some of these applications years ago and then saw to it that SOME the patents have not issued (while a few are issued) ... after a 3 year delay .. a loophole in the law kicks in (basically they use 35 USC 135 (c) to trigger 35 USC 156 (a) ) and so they get 20 years from issuance date subtract 18 months until the patent expires. Their goal is to delay the patent issuance until the final quickly issued patent is about to expire .. then they will get the patent office to issue the new patents (the deliberately delayed ones). This allows them extended monopoly/royalties on LTE technology. This tactic is widely used. For example there are still patents from HDTV in the 1990s that have still not been issued. The patent law was changed in the early 90s to "prevent submarining" .. but a loophole was placed in there intended for pharmaceutical companies (cause FDA drug approvals can take a decade so it's unfair that they only get 10 years of monopoly).. but the problem with the loophole is that everyone else (non-pharmaceuticals) can use it too.

    This appointment needs to be protested properly.

    • In my opinion USC 135 (c) and USC 156 (a) are unconstitutional due to the limited times requirement specified in the constitution.

  • 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.

    Maybe they meant fixing the patent system, like people fix races.

  • Obama campaigned as something of a techie, promising more government transparency, promised to uphold net neutrality, reel in the troops committed to the Land War in Asia, and has ended up having a shill for the media cartels as his Veep, actively supporting the NSA collect-it-all mentality, has appointed a former cable exec to chair the FCC, has slammed the press for calling him on his flip-flops, and generally shown an attitude of intellectual superiority and/or played the race card in criticizing his opp

  • ``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 UPSTO management structure as `unfair, untenable and unacceptable for our country's intellectual property agency.' ''

    Knowing the business-ass-kissing^W^Wfriendly nature of your typical Republican Senator, I think the way to read that last

Slashdot Top Deals

C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas l'Informatique. -- Bosquet [on seeing the IBM 4341]

Close