Obama: “There’s nothing wrong with other people using our technologies. We just want to make sure that it’s licensed and you’re getting paid.”

The following excerpt comes from President Obama’s recent townhall meeting in Ohio on Friday, January 22, 2010:

* * * * *

Q    I’m an inventor, and I hold U.S. patent number 7,397,731.

THE PRESIDENT:  Okay.

Q    And before I ask my question I’d like to make a sales pitch.  (Laughter.)  If you can use my patent in your next election, I think you can raise a ton of money worldwide.  You should take a look at it.

THE PRESIDENT:  All right, we’ll take a look.  All right.

Q    If you can’t use it, the government could use it, and I could build a multibillion-dollar business here in Ohio.  (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT:  All right, we’ll take a look at your patent.  Go ahead, what’s your question?

Q    Yes, okay, it has to do with international patent rights.  With all this free trade and trade barriers falling, it’s really hard for an individual like me with a global-scope patent to file all over the world and get patent protection everywhere, and having to go overseas to fight infringement.  So if you’re going to drop trade barriers, maybe you can extend my patent rights to the foreign countries.

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, this is a great question, and this is a huge problem.  (Applause.)  Look, our competitive advantage in the world is going to be people like this who are using their minds to create new products, new services.  But that only helps us and helps you build a multibillion-dollar company if somebody can’t just steal that idea and suddenly start making it in Indonesia or Malaysia or Bangladesh with very cheap workers. 

And one of the problems that we have had is insufficient protection for intellectual property rights.  That’s true in China; it’s true for everything from bootleg DVDs to very sophisticated software.  And there’s nothing wrong with other people using our technologies.  We just want to make sure that it’s licensed and you’re getting paid.

So I’ve given instructions to my trade offices — and we actually highlight this at the highest levels of foreign policy  — that these are issues that have to be addressed because that’s part of the reciprocity of making our markets open.  And so when I met with President Hu of China, this is a topic that, at dinner, I directly brought up with him.  And — but as you point out, it’s got to be sustained, because a lot of times they’ll say, yes, yes, yes, but then there’s no enforcement on their end.

And one of the things that we’re also doing is using our export arm of the U.S. government to help work with medium-sized businesses and small businesses, not just the big multinationals to protect their rights in some of these areas, because we need to boost exports. 

Can I just say, we just went through a decade where we were told that it didn’t matter, we’ll just — you just keep on importing, buying stuff from other countries, you just take out a home equity loan and max out your credit card, and everything is going to be okay.  And it looked, for a lot of people, like, well, the economy seems to be growing — but it was all built on a house of cards.  That’s what we now know.  And that’s why if we’re going to have a successful manufacturing sector, we’ve got to have successful exports.

When I went and took this trip to China, and took this trip to Asia, a lot of people said, “Well, why is he going to Asia?  He’s traveling overseas too much.  He needs to be coming back home and talking about jobs.”  I’m there because that’s where we’re going to find those jobs, is by increasing our exports to those countries, the same way they’ve been doing in our country. If we increased our exports — our share of exports by just 1 percent, that would mean hundreds of thousands of jobs here in the United States.  Five percent — maybe a million jobs, well-paying jobs.  So we’re going to have to pry those markets open.  Intellectual property is part of that process.

* * * * *

 The invention claimed by the 7,397,731 patent is pretty cool. It is a “perpetual day reminder calendar.” 

PatentLawPic896PatentLawPic897

The patent was prosecuted by the inventors and it is not surprising that the claims are written in some sort of modified Jepson language. Claim 1 reads as follows:

1. A perpetual day reminder calendar for illustrating day, date and month information, including:

a) a set of day indicating plates with day indica; b) a set of month indicating plates with month indica; c) a set of date indicating cubes with date indica; d) a display stand with locating guides in one of three possible configurations, top holding, center holding or bottom holding;

the improvement wherein said day indicating plates and said month indicating plates identically shaped to fit around said date indicating cubes in a manner providing an interlocking of, said plates and cubes and the shielding of unneeded indica allowing only the needed day, date and month indica to be viewed and the interlocking pieces forming a calendar stack having a unique locating interaction feature with said display stand whereby the perpetual day reminder calendar can be easily manipulated for the sequential displaying of day, date and month indica.

475 thoughts on “Obama: “There’s nothing wrong with other people using our technologies. We just want to make sure that it’s licensed and you’re getting paid.”

  1. 301

    “Ancient Greece, ancient Rome, it’s all the same, n’est-ce pas?”

    Mr. Celine, notwithstanding the obviously global reach of this blog, I might suggest that English is the lingua franca of the patent community.

  2. 300

    The saddest thing is that I’ve heard Orly Taitz speak before, and I still can’t tell her ramblings from the ramblings of a satirical troll.

    Too much to respond to, I’ll just pick out a few points.

    NAL: IANAE, your post at 09:51 is a good half step – consider that the Constitution CAN be changed (sure it is harder to do and it is the bedrock as I mentioned, but change is indeed possible). As to making all the difference- it makes none when considering (R)ights as opposed to (r)ights.

    Yes, the constitution can be changed. Everybody knows that. It is important that it’s harder to change than regular laws. The rights in the constitution were important enough to somebody, at some point, that they are no longer subject to ordinary democracy. They can’t be changed by a simple majority vote. They are not subject to the whim of WE THE PEOPLE. That’s the distinction. You can’t take away someone’s constitutional rights simply because it’s popular to do so.

    AI: Are WE THE PEOPLE, in a position of vassalage to the United States Congress? Or is the United States Congress the servants of the American people?

    Congress is in charge. Congress makes the laws. The constitution is pretty clear on that. The people get to decide which people get to make up Congress, but Congress is in charge.

    AI: “WE THE PEOPLE have the power to enforce Article 8 of the Constitution by instructing our representatives to enact appropriate legislation for Inventors to be granted patents. It is in every sense, our Constitutional right.”

    You do indeed have the power to write your Congressman and ask him to vote for patent legislation. It is in every sense your constitutional right to free speech. And that’s all it is.

    Since your Congressman is the one who actually makes the laws, he’s not forced to listen to you or do what you say. The beauty of the marketplace of ideas is that you don’t have to buy what you don’t want.

  3. 299

    Ancient Greece, ancient Rome, it’s all the same, n’est-ce pas?

    Of course, the ancient Greeks didn’t have a word for xenophobia.

  4. 298

    Dr. Taitz, I thank you for your post. However, I must confess that I am a bit skeptical as regards your intentions, in light of your previous postings. I might (humbly) suggest that immigration law and Constitutional Law are quite distinct fields. I’m not sure that insights you may have acquired from the first are readily transferable to the second.

    Have a very pleasant day!

  5. 297

    Mr. Hobbes, your subtlety is most delicious. However, I think it may be a bit too subtle for the likes of NAL and AI. They may find wikipedia to be of assistance.

  6. 296

    “Just for the record, The Resident Troll I referred to in my previous post was NOT directed at Ned Heller. I have respect for Ned’s point of view and have agreed with him far more than I have disagreed.”

    AI, upon first reading your munificent comment, my first instinct was to agree with you completely. But upon further reflection and contemplation, I wonder – should we be so sanguine, or is this precisely the slackening of vigilance that the anti-patent forces seek? Indeed, surely you find it impossible, as I do, to embrace the tenets of nihilism, as such a path inevitably and inexorably leads to the comprehensive obliteration of all (R)ights.

    And let’s consider Mr. Heller’s ideal society, the (R)omans, a bit further. Did the average Roman citizen (not to mention the average slave) have the right to apply for and receive a patent for his novel and nonobvious ideas? I think not! Shouldn’t we therefore be suspicious when a society that was based, at its core, on the suppression of free thinking and untrammeled invention, is set forth as an ideal to which we should strive to attain?

    In keeping with your open-handed gesture, I’m willing to give Mr. Heller the benefit of the doubt. But I feel compelled to remind you that the forces of darkness employ a wide variety of strategems in their relentless struggle – as we’ve witnessed here, those strategems obviously include sockpuppetry and sophistry (a term invented in ancient Rome, if I’m not mistaken), the latter representing the ultimate in the use of red herrings and obfuscation. Mightn’t those stratagems also include the use of quasi-historical allusions to the grandeur of Ancient Rome, to disguise the sinister agenda of those who seek to destroy the patent-based economy that we and our children currently enjoy?

    I appreciate your indulging me in these musings. I eagerly anticipate your response.

  7. 295

    Just for the record, The Resident Troll I referred to in my previous post was NOT directed at Ned Heller. I have respect for Ned’s point of view and have agreed with him far more than I have disagreed.

  8. 294

    “If indeed Ned does not believe in inalienable (R)ights or that the Constitution was ordained by the people then that is a philosophical fork in the road we must take.”

    Agreed, AI! It is eminently clear that you reach the only logical conclusion – when faced with such a fork in the road, where one path leads to nihilism, and the other to concordance with our founding fathers, the proper response is obvious – then we (those of us who strive for the continued viability and vitality of our patent system, at least) must take that philosophical fork.

    “I do appreciate you Noise for being an effective facilitator and scholar in this discussion which has kept us on track and advanced the awareness and knowledge for all that participates, and in effect rendered the resident troll and his minion of make believe followers impotent.”

    Once again we are in harmony. We simply could not have reached the present level of clarity without Noise’s patience and persistence. That said, however, I respectfully submit that perhaps we (or maybe just I?) owe the naysayers and nihilists a debt as well: the futility and lack of integrity of their postings actually served to reinforce the coherent vision of the founding fathers, and not to undermine it as was intended. It reminds me of the primary theme of the sermon that Mrs. Hobbes and I were privileged to hear this morning – that the more the forces of darkness strive to blot out the light of our Lord, they more they unwittingly act to magnify the Lord’s glory. (My apologies to those readers who do not share in my beliefs – no offense is intended. But I think it is undeniable that my musings are consistent with the approach to Law that our founding fathers took, is it not?)

    I’m looking forward to future debates, and hope that I can make some small contribution to those discussions.

  9. 293

    Posted by: Noise above Law | Feb 07, 2010 at 12:00 PM: “This may be the crux of the matter – The founding fathers fought and died for what you categorize as theoretical. Somehow, your classification seems to remove the reality of these (R)ights from the chicken-and-egg sequence, when it is these very theoretical (R)ights that seem to underpin AI’s position (please correct me if I am mistaken AI).”

    It is correct in that I subscribe to the belief in inalienable (R)ights as expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

    That I believe as Constitutional Scholars do that the word “ORDAIN” in the Constitution is a testament to these inalienable (R)ights.

    e.g…“ do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”

    If indeed Ned does not believe in inalienable (R)ights or that the Constitution was ordained by the people then that is a philosophical fork in the road we must take.

    I do appreciate you Noise for being an effective facilitator and scholar in this discussion which has kept us on track and advanced the awareness and knowledge for all that participates, and in effect rendered the resident troll and his minion of make believe followers impotent.

  10. 291

    AI – As you point out, the Constitution states: “The Congress shall have Power To: Promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” However, you incorrectly hold this to unequivocally mean that inventors have a Constitutional right to a patent.

    To actually unequivocally grant you a Constitutional right to a patent, the wording would need to state: “The Congress shall secure for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” Note that such language would require Congress to secure exclusive rights for inventors. It does not state this. Rather, it gives Congress the power to secure such rights. Granting Congress a power to do something does not require Congress to exercise that power (for example, Congress has the power to impose tariffs, but is not required to do so in every case; it may impose tariffs at its discretion).

    Furthermore, the founding fathers included the language “to promote the progress of science and useful arts”. This language can be looked upon as a statement of the spirit of the clause (i.e. that securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries will promote the progress of science and the useful arts), but it can also be viewed as a limit to the power that is granted to Congress (i.e. if by securing patent rights for an inventor, the progress of science and the useful arts is not advanced, but is hindered, then Congress does not have the power to do so).

    Lastly, regarding your previous statements to the effect that inventors have an inalienable right to their inventions and ideas, the patent clause uses the language “for limited times”. If man had an inherent right to a patent, Congress could not limit the length of a patent grant. This is not withstanding that the inalienable right to exclude everyone else from an inventive concept requires that someone be alienated from their inalienable rights if they independently came up with the same inventive concept.

    By the way, powers not given to the federal government in the Constitution are reserved for the states, not “WE THE PEOPLE”.

  11. 290

    “That is why the founding fathers added language making patent rights at the discretion of Congress rather than stating ……..”

    Even if this was true, which it is not, you still could not escape the FACT that it is WE THE PEOPLE, that would have the right to such discretion as to file or not file for a patent.

    Bottom line, no hypothetical rewriting of the Constitution can change or have any effect on what was actually written.

    At the end of the day Article 8 is and remains right in your face, and so remains THE PEOPLES constitutional right to a patent.

    What was written:

    Article 1 section 8: “The Congress shall have Power To: Promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”

    :

  12. 289

    “these very theoretical (R)ights”

    should read

    “these very same ‘theoretical’ (R)ights”

  13. 288

    Ned,

    First off – thank you for your time and energy in engaging so thoughtfully. I appreciate you not joining the skirt and track show club. I do hope that you are enjoying the discussion as well.

    “…because when Rome fell, it was no longer a republic, but a despotic empire.”

    Conclusion: ______ ? (you concede the point – but what is the end result of this? The Roman allusion is something you introduced – but I do not know why and I do not know how the failure of this point affects the discussion.

    [you note in response to three of my paragraphs of setting the stage] “I, in fact, said as much.”

    Absolutely not. If you had, then you acquiesce to a viewpoint that does not sustain the rest of your position. The three paragraphs you repeat nullify your purported position. You cannot say “I said as much”, hand waive the points away and then go on to maintain your position – it is not logically possible.

    “I say that rights are theoretical until government exists to protect them.”

    This may be the crux of the matter – The founding fathers fought and died for what you categorize as theoretical. Somehow, your classification seems to remove the reality of these (R)ights from the chicken-and-egg sequence, when it is these very theoretical (R)ights that seem to underpin AI’s position (please correct me if I am mistaken AI). You hand waive the very essence of what you need to disabuse AI of.

    “AI and we also do not disagree. He claims the source of the constitution is the people. I agree with this.”

    Not sure how to take the juxtaposition of these two sentences…

    “…basic argument that rights do not exist without those rights being recognized by other men.”

    This basic argument is a fallacy. It is a nihilist viewpoint that simply doesn’t square with the founding fathers. It is not supported by the mere fact that a (R)ight – (or even a (r)ight) – transgressed is still a (R)/(r)ight. Transgression does not make the (R)/(r)ight disappear. If it indeed disappeared, there would be no cause for Justice to be called upon.

    I’m not saying that you cannot believe such a position – I am saying that the founding fathers did not believe it. You cannot restate history as much as you repeat that this is what the founding fathers “were trying to say” – It isn’t. Plain and simple.

    “Common law did seek to understand basic human interactions…”

    I “get” what you are saying – I understand the structure you have set up – the problem is, that structure, no matter how sound it is in itself, is built on sand.

    “Whether they were or not,…”

    Again – you presuppose the importance or lack thereof in your foundation. This is a critical error. You need to stop building on sand.

    You also have not addressed the “shall” directive. Ideally, I would like to see your thoughts on this directive from a house you build on a solid foundation, but will settle for now on the vantage point of this legal point from your edifice listing precariously from its own weight.

    Since we know of one person that thrills at the mention of the phrase “teabagger”, it appears that we have (yet another) of those “rare” pseudonym occurrences. As usual, the comment is fluff, seeking merely to obfuscate with un-sustained political ideologies that do not add to the discussion underway. (The 0.002% rings a bell though – hmmm, must be close to the percent of time that the many-pseduonym’d hydra-purveyor of fluff actually adds a substantive point – but there goes my thoughts again, running amuck)

  14. 287

    As any good teabagger understands, the founding fathers could not have been Romans because they were fundamentally opposed to same sex marriage, NAFTA, and Al Gore, all of which the Romans supported (thus leading to their collapse). Furthermore, the founding fathers understood that WE THE (0.002% OF THE) PEOPLE have the inseparable right to exclude WE THE (99.998% OF THE) PEOPLE from making or using their ideas as long as WE THE (0.002% OF THE) PEOPLE documented the ideas first. That is why the founding fathers added language making patent rights at the discretion of Congress rather than stating “The Congress shall secure for limited Times to
    Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” Ned, do not question the will of WE THE (0.002% OF THE) PEOPLE.

  15. 286

    “Hobbes observed that we are saying the same thing.”

    Mr. Heller, respectfully: Given that I’ve withdrawn from the discussion, in light of my demonstratedly sub-par contributions, I might suggest that enlisting my name in support of your arguments is a losing strategy and, indeed, smacks of desperation. I further note that you still fail to acknowledge the essential difference between (r)ight and (R)ight, despite Noise’s repeated attempts to keep the discussion properly focused on this key point. I’m certainly no expert in Constitutional Law, but I know that our founding fathers were neither Romans nor nihilists.

  16. 285

    Alright, Noise.

    You said the Roman Republic failed. In a sense, it did, because when Rome fell, it was no longer a republic, but a despotic empire. The people hated the government, refused to defend it, and often welcomed the enemy.

    Next you argued:

    “Government is created by man in order to preserve those natural rights that exist independent of Government. Government creates Law in order to communicate and to set up a system that can fairly administer those rights. The sense of fairness is itself a type of natural right. It was violations of these natural rights by the then government that gave credence to the actions of our founding fathers. If we follow your line of thought, as there was a government in place with a rule of Law, there should not have been any justifiable reason why our founding fathers revolted. Having law is no guarantee of not having tyranny or worse.

    Our founding fathers tried to create a government in order to administer to something already there, but that they thought was not being served – they did not create a government that would then create the Rights to be administered.

    Further, Common Law also does not create Rights, but rather attempts to serve the natural rights already existing. Common Law is man’s attempt to react to and codify in a sense rights “out there”.”

    I, in fact, said as much. You say we created government to protect rights. I say that rights are theoretical until government exists to protect them.

    Hobbes observed that we are saying the same thing. Clearly we are.

    AI and we also do not disagree. He claims the source of the constitution is the people. I agree with this. It is consistent with my basic argument that rights do not exist without those rights being recognized by other men. Whenever men unite and set forth their basic charter of cooperation, they write their constitution.

    Common law did seek to understand basic human interactions and reduce to writing the common practice of man. But that presupposes that there was a common practice of man that all or most respected already. Which is my definition of law and its corollary, “right.” Rights flow from their recognition by other men.

    Circling back to our founding fathers, they tried to write down what was understood to be fundamental rights respected by all mankind. It was unnecessary to attribute these rights to a creator, but that was the mode of observance at the time, just as once Moses handed down the ten commandments, saying they were from God. Whether they were or not, linking them to God was a powerful tool to assure they were observed. Ditto the founding fathers when they linked the basic rights to the Creator.

  17. 284

    Posted by: Noise above Law | Feb 06, 2010 at 10:09 PM: Ned, do you recognize the difference between patent right and patent Right? Do you recognize the Constitutional foundation? How do you feel about the “shall” mandate?

    I would like to see everyone in this thread and the other that oppose Constitutional Patent rights answer these questions. I think they are very good questions and would move us further along in the discussion.

    Personally, I believe the Founding Fathers very much believed in unalienable rights and felt that these rights were inherent in the Constitution, even before the Bill of Rights were written.

  18. 283

    “I implore you to study the topic of Constitutional Law and return shortly. The exchange style is a welcome respite.”

    It was a pleasure to return from the symphony (Mrs. Hobbes was kind enough to accompany me to hear a little Rachmaninoff – generally a bit too Romantic for my taste, if you know what I mean, but performed very adroitly this evening) to find your generous encouragement. I fear that true expertise in Constitutional Law will probably remain an unfulfilled ambition for this glorified scrivener. But I shall redouble my efforts, nonetheless.

    A very good night to you!

  19. 282

    Posted by: Ned Heller | Feb 06, 2010 at 08:37 PM: As you know, the Constitution granted Congress the power to make laws protecting patents. ”

    May I remind you once again that WE THE PEOPLE make the Constitution. By itself the Constitution is nothing more than a piece of paper at best. It has no power and can’t do anything but decay. With that fact in mind my argument remains valid:

    “WE THE PEOPLE have the power to enforce Article 8 of the Constitution by instructing our representatives to enact appropriate legislation for Inventors to be granted patents. It is in every sense, our Constitutional right.”

    Nothing short of a Constitutional Amendment can take away this right.

  20. 280

    Ned,

    I respect that you believe in your convictions. However, just as in other discussions of ours, where I have provided legal reasoning and the appropriate framework, I am disappointed that you do not discuss the points that I bring up and make your arguments in disregard of established legal doctrine. Your silence is so deafening that I cannot hear your position.

    While you cling to your vantage point, and until you recognize the difference between (r)ight and (R)ight, you will be limited in your understanding of what our founding fathers did. You cannot dismiss, as you have, their beliefs and replace them with what you want to believe they were “trying to say”.

    The statement “there are no rights until there is a law creating them” completely misses the point – the essential point between (r)ight and (R)ight. Just as a trampled right does not destroy the underlying (R)ight – yet you ignore this reality.

    No matter how tightly you cling to a nihilist view – you cannot make the founding fathers change their beliefs.

    You only too readily throw the big R into your pile of theory, when it is so much more important than the little r that you put on the flip side of the coin of law.

    Ned, do you recognize the difference between patent right and patent Right? Do you recognize the Constitutional foundation? How do you feel about the “shall” mandate?

  21. 279

    AI, there is a difference between a power to make law and a law. In the case of the constitutional powers, the fundamental law is the constitution itself. It not only grants the power to make laws, but also limits that power thereby creating constitutional rights.

    Beyond the constitutional rights, as I have been trying to point out, there are no rights until there is a law creating them.

    As you know, the Constitution granted Congress the power to make laws protecting patents. Until Congress acted and made the patent law, there were no patent rights in the United States.

    Noise and Hobbes,

    What “liberty” did the King deny the colonists. I would argue several:

    the right to keep and bear arms;
    the right of free trade.

    Any others?

  22. 278

    “I would also invite you to comment on threads that fall into your realm of expertise.”

    Oh, the delicious irony.

  23. 277

    Hobbes, make that “self-designated role”. Speaking of subtleties, your comment is masterfully done.

  24. 276

    Might makes right?

    Seems this is true.

    The caveman and the colonist may think they have a right to life, liberty, …; but along come the band of pirates or the despotic King —

    This is almost proof positive that rights are almost always abstract unless there is a government that actually protects them. We can believe in rights, we can think about them. But to actually have them, we need government and we need law.

  25. 275

    Very gracious of you sir – I implore you to study the topic of Constitutional Law and return shortly. The exchange style is a welcome respite.

    I would also invite you to comment on threads that fall into your realm of expertise. I look forward to learning from you.

  26. 274

    are saying that YOUR request was clearly out of line. Is this some type of Freudian slip?”

    Not at all – I’m simply trying to be polite. As I recall, after your facilitative response to my first comments above, I asked you direct questions about your position on the issues. I admit that I was a bit puzzled by your initial response to those questions (perhaps your delicous subtleties were over my head), but you subsequently explained (quite clearly, I might add) that it would have been unseemly for you to provide your own opinions, given your designated role as facilitator. My last apology was for asking those questions, and thus (unwittingly, I beg you to understand) putting you in a potentially embarassing position.

    I appreciate your suggestion that no apology was needed, but you’re being much too kind. Please permit me to to bow out of the conversation once more – I would regret it if my continued confusion and unpreparedness distracted others from the issues at hand.

  27. 273

    (hmmm, for my own information, my thoughts on the exchange above – while delicious in their subtlety, should not be conflated to think that a genuine apology from Mr. Hobbes would not be graciously accepted – given that Mr. Hobbes, no doubt did not, nor would not, attend the 6 school of reading comprehension and would have noted in my previous post that I treated his retreat as a gentlemanly maneuver, thus not needing any type of apology – and didn’t Malcolm tell me something about letting my thoughts slip onto the Trainwreck? – Oh I don’t remember – his writings are just too forgettable)

  28. 272

    Mr. Hobbes,

    Your sentence above does not make sense – you are saying that YOUR request was clearly out of line. Is this some type of Freudian slip?

    Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are not merely another sockpuppet and that you somehow mean to say that MY facilitation was clearly out of line, you must indulge me as to precisely, or heck – even generally, just how my setting the stage for a proper legal discussion on the merits of Constitutional Law was even close to, let alone clearly, out of line.

    Please, share your elucidation.

    Referee,

    To what would I owe a defense? I could infer that a defense would be required if I were under attack. Hypothetically, such things as juvenile trickery and obvious sockpuppetry would hardly rise to the level where I would need a defense – now would it?

  29. 271

    “actually stating my position would indeed be unseemly and quite biased”

    The best defense is to have nothing to defend, eh Noise?

  30. 270

    “…nor are my views on the subject even involved – except as only those pertaining to a facilitator role. As such – actually stating my position would indeed be unseemly and quite biased.”

    I must beg your pardon again. My requests for clarification of your facilitative comments were clearly out of line.

  31. 269

    Some referees are notoriously blind.

    The referee here belongs to that class.

    Mr. Referee, you need to read a little more carefully – I never said one side or the other was “WRONG”. I was merely pointing out that the question at hand is not answerable by diving into administrative law details. When discussing Constitutional Rights, the proper level of abstraction is required.

    The fact that Mr. Hobbes begs off on this point impacts my “involvement” in this discussion not in the least. Mr. Hobbes is perfectly welcome to exit the discussion, as he feels that he is not prepared to discuss the matter at hand. There is no shame in this. There is no “assailing” here, nor are my views on the subject even involved – except as only those pertaining to a facilitator role. As such – actually stating my position would indeed be unseemly and quite biased.

    Methinks that you are too eager to find fault – based solely on the name at the end of the posts. Such childish retorts are not to be unexpected – they simply don’t impact the grown-ups’ discussion.

    Carry on gentlemen.

  32. 268

    Posted by: Thomas Hobbes was here | Feb 06, 2010 at 11:23 AM: “Is it really your position that Congress could not do away with patents altogether? Or that an individual right to a patent is enshrined in the Constitution? I just want to be clear what we’re discussing.”

    [Since similar questions were asked of me in another thread I am taking the liberty to cut and paste my response from that thread to this one, with some elaboration to address your points of inquiry.}

    Are WE THE PEOPLE, in a position of vassalage to the United States Congress? Or is the United States Congress the servants of the American people? I hold the latter belief.

    Therefore WE THE PEOPLE have the power to enforce Article 8 of the Constitution by instructing our representatives to enact appropriate legislation for Inventors to be granted patents.

    It is in every sense, our Constitutional right.

    Now, I also acknowledge that WE THE PEOPLE, can instruct our representatives to enact legislation that weakens the law to the point that getting a patent would be virtually impossible or up on issue, worthless.

    That very act is occurring now by anti-patent forces that want to eliminate software and business method patents without going through the trouble of removing “useful arts” from the constitution and “process” from the 1952 patent Act.

    The same weakening could be done for any of our rights, such as voting rights, civil rights, abortion rights etc.

    But that would not change the existence of our rights, only our freedom to exercise our rights. And then of course WE THE PEOPLE can exercise the only right that can’t be denied by legislation, the right of protest and revolt.

    As it stands now WE THE PEOPLE have told Congress what to do in Article 8 section 1 of the Constitution, And until WE THE PEOPLE say otherwise Congress is duty bond to carry out our orders and the Constitutional right to a patent shall so remain.

  33. 267

    Good call, Hobbes. You’ll notice that Noise never actually has a position other than “your position is WRONG.”

  34. 266

    I’m afraid that I now have no idea what you’re talking about. I offer my apologies for not framing my comments (in response to AI) at the “proper abstract level.”

    Good day to you.

  35. 265

    Mr. Hobbes,

    I will leave the finding of particular administrative act sections or laws to you – nonetheless, how do you think that your Thursdays comment, or chemical compounds (as opposed to other statutory classes) have anything but an arbitrary basis in your post? Even deigning to put forth the above question runs the risk of indulging obfuscation and chasing red herrings – these points are insubstantial as compared to the point under discussion. Being more specific about (l)aw is exactly the wrong direction to take this thread – try to follow my previous post.

    As to the question concerning whether Congress could or could not do away with patents altogether – that is the question YOU need to answer. That is the task in relation to the Constitutional clause with the directive of “shall”. Are you asking me to supply you with your arguments?

    Let me give you a hint – ANYTHING in the constitution can be changed (contemplate the discussion between IANAE, Ned and myself if you feel that you can do so without confusing yourself), and then realize what AI is saying as to the power of the EXISTING Constitutional Patent Right. Now, if you take the Constitution as it is – you need to be able to explain just how “shall” can be negated if you want to be rid of Patent Rights.

    To be clear, my posts are not to change “what we are discussing” – they are just to frame that discussion at the proper abstract level. The proper level is NOT in the minutia of details of 35 USC. As I posted – you need to focus on (L)aw, not (l)aw.

  36. 264

    “…you do forget that the arbitrary and capricious examples you propose would not be permissible under other laws (including administrative acts), do you not?”

    Could you please be more specific? Which of my examples are arbitrary and capricious, and which would not be permissible under which administrative acts?

    Is it really your position that Congress could not do away with patents altogether? Or that an individual right to a patent is enshrined in the Constitution? I just want to be clear what we’re discussing.

  37. 263

    Mr. Hobbes,

    I realize that your points are in response to AI, but you do forget that the arbitrary and capricious examples you propose would not be permissible under other laws (including administrative acts), do you not?

    Further, would you remove the Patent Act, you are STILL stuck with the Constitutional clause – and that clause does have the directive of “shall” – as opposed to “might” or “if we feel like it”.

    Just as the abstraction of the discussion with IANAE can be raised from (r)ight to (R)ight, so can the Constitutional matter of “Patent” be raise from (l)aw to (L)aw. You must deal with the Constitutional “Shall” – dealing with the small (l)aw is a red herring.

    At this point, the discussion still favors AI.

  38. 262

    “It seems what Ned is saying, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that might makes right.
    In which case why would we even need a patent system, or even a Constitution for that matter?”

    Yes, that’s what Ned is saying. It’s also what my namesake said 360 years ago. If you really want an answer to your question, Wiki “social contract.”

    “Also, I am correct in thinking it would require an amendment to the Constitution to remove Article 8 from the Constitution which would in effect eliminate inventors right to a patent?”

    Well, yes, it would take an amendment to remove Article 8 from the Constitution, but since an inventor doesn’t have a Constitutional right to a patent, eliminating inventors’ rights to a patent would be much easier than that. Just eliminate the Patent Act (or just 35 USC 101, for that matter), with a simple act of Congress and a signature from the President. The fact that WE THE PEOPLE could do that, through our Congress, without touching the Constitution, is proof that there is no Constitutional right to a patent.

    Using the same approach, WE THE PEOPLE could modify 35 USC 101 to eliminate patent protection for chemical compounds, or communication devices, or inventions that involve mental steps, or anything we like. We could modify it to eliminate patent protection for inventions made on Thursdays, I suppose. Because of that pesky Constitution, we can’t modify it to selectively withhold patent protection from female applicants or African American applicants, or from citizens of Rhode Island. But there is absolutely no (Constitutional) problem with modifying 35 USC 101 to clearly say that you can’t get a patent on a method of hedging business transactions.

    “If so, then it would be logical, at least from a Constitutional law perspective to argue that Inventors have a Constitutional right to a patent.”

    NO, it would be completely illogical. Actually, it’s not very clear what the effect of simply striking the Patent Clause from the Constitution would be. I’m not sure that its absence would prevent Congress from acting anyway, or whether its absence (and the absence of Congressional action) would permit states to have their own patent statutes.

  39. 261

    Noise above Law | Feb 05, 2010 at 05:12 PM: When you recognize that a (R)ight exist whether or not it is enforced, whether or not it is trampled, you will see things as our founding fathers did – they recognized that their (R)ights were being trampled – in your manner of defining things – they had no rights since the then-Government would not enforce those (R)ights. I cannot see how you fail to see this.

    It seems what Ned is saying, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that might makes right.

    In which case why would we even need a patent system, or even a Constitution for that matter?

    Also, I am correct in thinking it would require an amendment to the Constitution to remove Article 8 from the Constitution which would in effect eliminate inventors right to a patent?

    If so, then it would be logical, at least from a Constitutional law perspective to argue that Inventors have a Constitutional right to a patent.

  40. 260

    “In your conflation, you are trying to define Right in a manner of tautology. That’s why you are going in circles.”

    Actually, Ned is simply defining (R)ight differently than you and I, which is why we’re talking past each other. Ned’s approach is valid; I just don’t think it results in the most useful framework possible.

  41. 259

    … (somehow truncated)

    In your conflation, you are trying to define Right in a manner of tautology. That’s why you are going in circles.

    “Regarding the Roman Republic, … The Roman system stood the test of time; it is the model for our own Constitution.”

    Actually, the Roman system FAILED the test of time – witness the fact that the system is not in current operation.

  42. 258

    IANAE, your post at 09:51 is a good half step – consider that the Constitution CAN be changed (sure it is harder to do and it is the bedrock as I mentioned, but change is indeed possible). As to making all the difference- it makes none when considering (R)ights as opposed to (r)ights.

    Ned,

    You are still conflating.

    Recognition simply has nothing to do with what makes a right a (R)ight. – you are conflating enforcement and law with the Right. To answer your question about naming any right that exists in the abstract – EVERY Right exists in the abstract. You said “Whether there is a [C]reater or not is beside the point.” – actually, that IS the point – something beyond man is the source – what is provided by that source does NOT need recognition by man in order to exist. Your nihilist view is not in accord with our founding fathers – it cannot be. Your view of what the foundign fathers were “trying” too say runs smack into what they DID say.

    As Hobbes reiterates – and if I may paraphrase, enforceability is not determinative of the existence of the Right. When you recognize that a (R)ight exist whether or not it is enforced, whether or not it is trampled, you will see things as our founding fathers did – they recognized that their (R)ights were being trampled – in your manner of defining things – they had no rights since the then-Government would not enforce those (R)ights. I cannot see how you fail to see this.

  43. 257

    Thomas Hobbes, who or what is Nature? How does this nature grant rights? If another being violates these “natural rights” where is the court or other official to hear my complaint?

    You might say as did our founding fathers that a “creator” is a source of natural rights. Whether there is a greater or not is beside the point. All that is required is that men believe that there is a creator and that there is reward or punishment in this life, or the next, for obeying God’s law.

    In the final analysis, it always comes down to whether or not men recognize the right, not whether it is created by nature or by God or by some other entity. My statement of this fundamental fact does not deny the existence of a Nature or a creator or a God.

    I think what our founding fathers were trying to say in the Declaration of Independence is that there are certain fundamental “rights” recognized by all men. That these rights cannot be abridged by governments without those government essentially becoming a tyranny, thereby granting the oppressed people the legal right to revolt.

  44. 256

    “Take the most fundamental right, the right to life. I say this is a right only so long as other men recognize it as such.”

    Ned, you wouldn’t be the first person to deny the existence of natural rights – see, e.g., Jeremy Bentham. But I must say that I find your particular argument a bit peculiar. Legal rights are often ignored, and are often practically unenforceable and/or suffer irremediable abridgements. But does that mean they don’t exist, or aren’t useful? I don’t know why it should be any different for natural rights.

    “All of mankind can be destroyed by a wandering asteroid. What does this say about our collective right to life?”

    It says that it’s probably unenforceable against wandering asteroids. Whether you can seek a remedy is a question for a higher court than any I’m admitted to.

  45. 255

    NAL, could give me an example of any right that exists in the abstract? Take the most fundamental right, the right to life. I say this is a right only so long as other men recognize it as such. Clearly, animals don’t recognize humans right to life. Also the random act of nature does not. All of mankind can be destroyed by a wandering asteroid. What does this say about our collective right to life?

    I submit to you that there is no such thing as a “right” independent of recognition of that right by other men.

    Regarding the Roman Republic, they early reduced the basic Law to writing and inscribed it on a Temple in the forum for all to read. They later provided tribunes so that the fundamental law could not be changed without the consent of the people. No new law could be passed without a vote of the people. Disputes were settled in court.

    The Roman system stood the test of time; it is the model for our own Constitution.

  46. 254

    AI: And WE THE PEOPLE Make the Constitution

    NAL: He just needs to take one extra step in realizing that the Constitution itself is “merely” law (merely being a rather admittedly volatile word as this particular law is the bedrock law of our particular Government).

    I admit it’s a fine distinction, but the framers knew the constitution was somehow more important than regular laws, and shouldn’t be subject to majority whim, so they made it much harder to amend. Basically it’s an extra procedural step before the government can take away your rights, but it makes all the difference.

    That’s why THEY THE PEOPLE drafted the constitution so WE THE PEOPLE can’t just change it whenever we want. So you can’t easily get together a big enough bunch of WE THE PEOPLE to pass an amendment against flag burning or gay marriage. Stuff like that (i.e. non-urgent policy-type stuff that doesn’t threaten the very fabric of the nation) has to be done through regular laws, and those laws are subject to judicial scrutiny based on the existing constitutional rights.

    The constitution exists to protect us from the WE THE PEOPLE who make the laws.

  47. 253

    AI’s point is lost amid Ned’s Roman Republic fascination.

    I think IANAE get’s closer with his cleaving of Rights into (r)ights by law and (R)ights that supersede law on the basis of Constitution, He just needs to take one extra step in realizing that the Constitution itself is “merely” law (merely being a rather admittedly volatile word as this particular law is the bedrock law of our particular Government). The “legal” rights distinction is without a difference, as I was not discussing (r)ights but rather (R)ights.

    Ned, the two may be intimately related, but they are not two sides of the same coin. A Right can be wronged regardless of law – and it does remain a Right even if wronged. Your whole “recognized by other men” aspect pertains to laws and their effectiveness. Such, as IANAE points out, do not impact Rights.

    Rights supersede Government as well – our founding fathers did their best to create a Government in response to their recognition that the previous government failed to address the inalienable rights. They knew that they did not create perfection and thus the living government that could adapt to better support Rights as those Rights were continually and better understood was born. – This only highlights the distinction between Rights and Law and Government.

  48. 252

    INANE: “Sure thing. I’ll post a link sometime yesterday that explains the difference.”

    Sorry, dude, everyone knows Barb Mikkelson’s got the hots for the Algore.

    Try to get some objective information. Something like, line up any 100 inventors and ask them to rate on a scale of 1 to 20 how “distinct” are the two statements from each other, “I invented a new fantastic widget” and, “I took the initiative in creating a new fantastic widget”. (Scale: 1 is nondistinct; 20 is completely distinct.)

    I’m guessing after you tally and average, you’ll come up somewhere in the range of 2 to 5.

  49. 251

    AI, when the government is bound by the law and the fundamental law cannot be changed without the consent of the people, we have an ideal government. The US is very close to ideal. So was the government of the Roman Republic.

  50. 250

    IANAE : The government makes the laws, but the constitution makes the rules.

    And WE THE PEOPLE Make the Constitution

    Check and Mate

  51. 249

    In my view, rights and law are flip sides of the same coin.

    That’s true of legal rights.

    Constitutional rights are a whole different animal. If the government amends a law to take away your legal rights, your legal rights change. If the government amends a law to take away your constitutional rights, the law is invalid and your rights stay the same.

    The constitution tells the government what rights they’re not allowed to take away. The government makes the laws, but the constitution makes the rules.

  52. 248

    “Rights are the set of privileges that we’ve agreed to give each other and not take away by act of law or government.”

    It is clear that Noise you and I, IANAE, are not on the same page. In my view, rights and law are flip sides of the same coin. If the I have a right not to be assaulted, that in fact is also the law. If I have a patent on land, what rights do I have. What the law provides.

    In nature, one has no rights not recognized by other men. A violation of a right implies a remedy that will be enforced, in this life, or the next. If I steal, the remedy of other cavemen might range from corporal punishment to death. But I know this and do not steal.

    In essence, my right of ownership of property is secured by law regardless of government.

  53. 247

    Rights are still rights in the face of violation or non-enforcement.

    But rights are not rights if you don’t have a remedy. That’s why they don’t make sense “without regard to any actual government or law in place”.

    Rights are the set of privileges that we’ve agreed to give each other and not take away by act of law or government. The founding fathers may or may not have believed they came from a nobler source, but that doesn’t change what they are. They’re a set of rules that we can change whenever we want, but we made them harder to change than regular laws in case crazy people try to change them.

  54. 246

    Ned,

    I think that perhaps you wish we were talking about different things, but I think we are talking about the same thing.

    You take a step in the right direction by recognizing tht the founding fathers recognized some type of “universal” rights. However, you vere sharply off course when you add “But, he has no rights except to the extent they are recognized by other men.”

    Rights are still rights in the face of violation or non-enforcement. (Certain) Rights are universal – without regard to any actual government or law in place.

    It’s a bit of semantics to say that these rights flow from a higher law (back to the chicken and egg scenario). For the sake of argument, let’s say that such hgher law does indeed exist and does provide for the flow of these universal rights. At the same token, this higher law is NOT the law of man and everything we want to discuss about rights being independent and precedent to the laws of man still follows.

    For men, rights come first. It is governemnt and law that serves those rights. The fact is that the “implicit punishment” is not enough to guarantee those rights, and explicit punishment must be drafted and carried out. The explicit function is found in government and law (including common law).

  55. 245

    Noise, I think you and I are talking about different things. Man in nature is free. But, he has no rights except to the extent they are recognized by other men. Our founding fathers believed the rights universally recognized were the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    But our FF also recognized that source of this implicit recognition was a higher law all men obeyed without government. They attributed its source to a creator. George Lucas would say it was the “Force.” But either way, there is implicit punishment if one violated the “law.” As the gladiator would say to even the Emperor, “I am Maximus Decimus Meridius, commander of the armies of the North, leader of fearless legions, loyal servant to the true Emperor, Marcus Aurelius, father of a murdered son, husband of a murdered wife; and I will have my vengence. In this life, or the next.”

  56. 244

    possibly you could actually address the question at hand and pray tell us the vast distinction between the untrue shorthand bandied about version of his quote, and the actual.

    Sure thing. I’ll post a link sometime yesterday that explains the difference.

  57. 243

    Interesting Ned, but not universally accepted.

    Some say that Rights are indeed natural, and exist independent of Government. Some say our founding fathers believed this to be exactly the case.

    Government is created by man in order to preserve those natural rights that exist independent of Government. Government creates Law in order to communicate and to set up a system that can fairly administer those rights. The sense of fairness is itself a type of natural right. It was violations of these natural rights by the then government that gave credence to the actions of our founding fathers. If we follow your line of thought, as there was a government in place with a rule of Law, there should not have been any justifiable reason why our founding fathers revolted. Having law is no guarantee of not having tyranny or worse.

    Our founding fathers tried to create a government in order to administer to something already there, but that they thought was not being served – they did not create a government that would then create the Rights to be administered.

    Further, Common Law also does not create Rights, but rather attempts to serve the natural rights already existing. Common Law is man’s attempt to react to and codify in a sense rights “out there”.

    Semantics can make this a bit of a chicken and egg scenario. To use your caveman/pirate example, the natural Rights are still there even if the Pirates violate those rights. The violation does not mean that the rights did not exist in the first place – quite the reverse – you must have some sense of something being violated to even begin the conversation.

  58. 242

    “rapes your women”

    Ned, I am shocked that you are advocating cave-slavery and cave-polygamy.

  59. 241

    Mr. Ned Heller writes, “Imagine the wilderness and you a caveman. You claim you have a right to life. The next thing you know a wandering band of pirates comes and steals everything you have, rapes your women, and tortures you to death. So much for your right to life.”

    Mr. Robert Anson Heinlein offers his heartfelt support for this portion of your post.

  60. 240

    You think rights exist apart from law? Nonsense.

    Imagine the wilderness and you a caveman. You claim you have a right to life. The next thing you know a wandering band of pirates comes and steals everything you have, rapes your women, and tortures you to death.

    So much for your right to life.

    Rights depend on government and law. Governments without law provide no rights. Law provides rights. The absence of law is tyranny or worse.

    Your rights depend upon the existence of government, the existence of law and the existence of some enforcement mechanism.

    Other theories are just that. Theories.

    What does it mean then when our constitution says that the “people retain a right?” It means a right they had under common law. It does not mean a right granted by nature as nature provide no rights, only the guarantee of cruelty and death.

  61. 239

    IANAE, “Yeah, except that one statement is false and the other is true.”

    Um, reading compromised much?

    I already stated that the first was not an actual Algore statement, while the second is.

    Duh.

    Now, other than the obvious and now twice stated truism that one is not an Algore quote, while the other is an Algore quote, possibly you could actually address the question at hand and pray tell us the vast distinction between the untrue shorthand bandied about version of his quote, and the actual.

    Thanks awfully.

  62. 237

    Lionel Hutz asserts, “Al Gore never said “I invented the internet” ”

    Keerect.

    Here’s what he DID say – “During my tenure in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the internet”.

    Get it, JAOI? He NEVER said he invented it. He merely took the initiative in creating it.

    Those statements are so miles apart you could probably drive a razor blade between `em.

    Sheesh!

  63. 236

    “We read dozens of other patents in the effort. ”

    LITERALLY DOZENS? OMG HOW DID YOU SURVIVE?

    Seriously though, I commend your effort and you did a fine job from what I can tell.

    I will tell you though, there is a rumor going around that it is at least worth it to have an attorney glance over your claims.

    Much luck to you. I can’t say I want one of your products myself though. If you had one in base 6 then I might get one though.

  64. 235

    As an Actual Inventor I would be interested in hearing about your experiencing with the PTO. Did you, as I believe the article stated,
    prosecute your application yourself?

    Yes, Jack and I did a month long patent search(international as well as U.S.). Satisfied that our idea was unique, we wrote our patent(two months), I did the drawings(two weeks) and with I remember was just one change got the patent(2.5 years).

    If so how was that experience for you?

    Jack and I went to a USPTO meeting in Columbus. There an examiner told us that many inventors prosecute their own patents. Doing our own patent helped us understand the superiority of our design. We read dozens of other patents in the effort. We visited the patent depository at the Cleveland Public Library. We also used the book Patent it Yourself and the companion book on patent drawings from the same publisher. I’m happy with what we accomplished.

    Now that you have your patent what is going to be your branding strategy?

    Jack and I designed a logo and took the name Timeghost. It comes from the German word zeitgeist- “the spirit of the times”.

    James

  65. 234

    Now if you want to discuss the constitution in a scholarly fashion then I am most willing to oblige you.

    Okay. As soon as you start, I’ll join right in.

  66. 233

    IANAE : Where do you think the constitution inherently stands on slavery? On booze?

    AI: Those topics are not in discussion or contention so what’s the point of bringing them up?

    WE THE PEOPLE GRANT THE POWER!

    IANAE: It’s not about who granted the power.

    AI: Whoa! Stop right there. Its ALL about who grants the power because he who grants the power has the power, and power is and always will be with The People!

    AI: it shall so remain until We the People as Inventors decide otherwise.

    IANAE : Until We the People decide otherwise according to the prescribed formalities for amending the constitution.

    AI: There is no need to amend the constitution when it’s already there..again..

    “Article 1 section 8: “The Congress shall have Power To: Promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”

    And again just so you know we do have inherent rights not mentioned in the Bill of Rights please read…

    “Amendment 9 – Construction of Constitution.” Ratified 12/15/1791: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

    Now if you want to discuss the constitution in a scholarly fashion then I am most willing to oblige you.

    But silly, snarky, Oprah Winfrey remarks will do nothing but get you quickly marginalized to Mooney status.

  67. 232

    Posted by: JScurlock | Jan 30, 2010 at 10:00 AM: “Wow you guys did not ask me any questions about my invention; about why I choose to invent on calendars, about what I really think my invention is worth, is this my only calendar invention or what is my next step. No questions?

    Hello James:

    As an Actual Inventor I would be interested in hearing about your experiencing with the PTO. Did you, as I believe the article stated,
    prosecute your application yourself?

    If so how was that experience for you?

    Now that you have your patent what is going to be your branding strategy?

    I have more that will do for now.

  68. 231

    So I remind you once again, The Bill of Rights did not add to the constitution, and only spelled out specifically that which already inherently existed therein.

    Where do you think the constitution inherently stands on slavery? On booze?

    WE THE PEOPLE GRANT THE POWER!

    It’s not about who granted the power. It’s about what the power is. The power is “Hey Congress, you can grant patents if you want, if science is important to you.” It’s not “You get a patent! You get a patent! Everybody gets a patent!”

    it shall so remain until We the People as Inventors decide otherwise.

    Until We the People decide otherwise according to the prescribed formalities for amending the constitution. And if you do ever amass enough political capital to amend the constitution, is a permissive clause allowing Congress to grant patents really your top priority?

  69. 230

    Posted by: broje TINLA IANYL | Jan 28, 2010 at 10:58 AM: “Generally, things that can be withdrawn are called privileges, not rights. A Constitutional right is one that is granted in the Constitution and cannot be withdrawn without a Constitutional amendment. So you do not have a Constitutional right to a patent. Congress has a Constitutional right to grant patents or not to grant patents.”
    ________

    Broje, I do appreciate the time you have taken to explain the technical use of the term, “rights”. But using your logic “We the People” would have no constitutional rights at all because every “right” in the bill of rights, including Habeas Corpus which is actually in the constitution, can be suspended or taken away without an amendment to said constitution. This is especially true in our post 9-11 patriotic acting world.

    So I remind you once again, The Bill of Rights did not add to the constitution, and only spelled out specifically that which already inherently existed therein.

    That’s why I also reminded you of the 9th amendment in my original reply and reiterate it here:

    Amendment 9 – Construction of Constitution.” Ratified 12/15/1791: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

    And again I urge you to not ignore nor underestimate the purpose and importance of the preamble; WE THE PEOPLE.

    For it is within these words that our constitutional rights, including the right of a patent, find their power to exist.

    Congress has no authority for that but which we grant it. And only We the People can cause and allow any of our constitutional rights to be suspended or revoke.

    Yes, We the People as an Inventors have a constitutional right to a patent.
    Article 1 section 8: “The Congress shall have Power To: Promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”

    The King, Queen, or President did not grant Congress the Power.

    The Supreme Court did not grant Congress the Power.

    The Framers did not grant Congress the Power

    WE THE PEOPLE GRANT THE POWER!

    WE THE PEOPLE DO SO ORDAIN!

    “WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

    And yes, We the People as Inventors grant our representatives in Congress the Power and privilege to administer our patent rights through appropriate legislation and it shall so remain until We the People as Inventors decide otherwise.

    God Bless You!

    God Bless America!!

  70. 229

    Dear The Donald,

    t’anks

    plez don’t let anybody eat my bunny

  71. 227

    1. Why are you so concerned with having worldwide patent rights? If you were actually planning on producing this product, US rights should be enough to go forward with the project. Why is it contingent on global protection? It appears from your response above that you are planning on selling the rights to the invention anyway, which makes me think that your concern stems not from an intent to sell your invention in other nations, but by a desire to be able to collect licensing fees in other nations.

    The U.S. calendar market is just a subset of the world market. I don’t think its wrong to want better protection.

    If I succeeded at the town meeting it is my intention to build in Ohio.

    I’m not interested in licensing deals at this time. Let others invent their own new consumer products.

    That also answers question 2.
    James

  72. 225

    Dear Malcolm,

    I recall you mentioning something a few days ago about another case being settled regarding the demise of the Troll Tracker blog –

    got any more dope on that case?

  73. 224

    Dear IP Took Mah Job,

    Re:
    “Actual Inventor wants to get rich, and patents are the crutch that are going to get him there without having to work too hard.”

    With all due disrespect, I think you are an asswhole for saying something so ridiculous – offense intended.

  74. 223

    @ NewHere
    As you can see, when Actual Inventor refers to jobs, he means his job, not jobs for other people. Actual Inventor wants to get rich, and patents are the crutch that are going to get him there without having to work too hard.

  75. 222

    Here are some questions.

    1. Why are you so concerned with having worldwide patent rights? If you were actually planning on producing this product, US rights should be enough to go forward with the project. Why is it contingent on global protection? It appears from your response above that you are planning on selling the rights to the invention anyway, which makes me think that your concern stems not from an intent to sell your invention in other nations, but by a desire to be able to collect licensing fees in other nations.

    2. If you’re planning on selling the rights to the invention, then why the talk of creating jobs in Ohio? It’s very disingenuous. If you sell majority rights to the invention, you won’t have a say in where it gets made.

  76. 221

    Dear Max,

    You bettcha’.
    You got that right.
    One of your most insightful and best comments ever!

    Thank you from all us private inventors.
    Please keep ’em coming.

  77. 220

    And that is why many/most self-employed, independent inventors are “non practicing entities,” NPEs; thus, NPEs should not be associated with Cisco et als’ bull & cowshit “troll” propaganda

  78. 217

    Thanks JScurlock. I note the key word “If” that starts your 3rd para. A patent attorney can help you to protect your innovation. But to commercialise it, something more is needed, like Presidential Endorsement. The commercialisation process is, believe it or not, even more difficult and expensive than getting the patent.

  79. 216

    Ok Max,
    1What do you really really think your invention is worth?
    Ask yourself; How many people around the world buy and use calendars?. I can produce them in any language, Muslim style or Jewish style.

    What I wanted was a product that had the ability for unlimited sales worldwide, was well known, was useful, would be easy to manufacture and that had not seen recent innovation in design. The plastic company designs look awesome.

    If I did get the right introduction for my calendar, then; my innovation has the possibility to capture the imagination of the world. Had the President liked my design and started to hand a few calendars around as novel campaign memorabilia…he could have given away hand-fulls and sold the rest to the world on the DNC website; then I would have that introduction. Same results if the government bought my NASA design, my Homeland Security design, my Coast Guard design, my National Parks design, etc…etc…

    2What will be your next step?
    Looking for another big buyer. That has already begun.

    3 What makes you think anybody here might want to ask you such questions?
    They didn’t ask.

    4What do others think it’s worth?
    I call my design the Advantage Calendar. It has no restrictive start day. It lasts many years. It has good business design. It is green design; it kills no trees, uses no batteries, uses no electricity, is made with recyclable plastic. It can advertise any product or company. It can promote any cause. It can be sterilized if sneezed on.

    If you saw the computer renderings of the final product, instead of the plain patent drawings, you would be amazed. I especially like the Area 51 calendar in transparent lime green acrylic.
    James Scurlock

  80. 214

    Wow you guys did not ask me any questions about my invention; about why I choose to invent on calendars, about what I really think my invention is worth, is this my only calendar invention or what is my next step. No questions?

    Who’s going to win the SuperBowl?

  81. 213

    Go on then James, just to show you somebody’s reading, I’ll ask:

    1. What do you really really think your invention is worth?

    2. What will be your next step?

    3. What makes you think anybody here might want to ask you such questions?

    4. What do others think it’s worth?

  82. 212

    “AI: Ummm So? What is your point here?”

    Posted by: NewHere | Jan 29, 2010 at 11:26 AM VC + patents do not create jobs !. The *VC + patents creates jobs* sell doesn’t hole water;

    AI: Thats not the point I was making. My point is that …..

    Patents for small business start ups creates jobs. Thats a fact.
    Now you want to argue that small business start ups with patents go out of business like everyone else. Umm right. Thats called the free market system. Everyone is allowed to go into business, compete and succeed or fail. But according to your logic you would say; don’t have strong patent rights for small business start ups because businesses can fail and put people out of work.

    Well, Mr. NewHere, I simply do not share your ideology. I want the opportunity to pursue the American Dream and take my risk to succeed or fail like anyone else. And if my new VC funded, patented protected business start up fails, I can live with that, knowing I gave it my best and can start again. But what I could not live with is knowing I never even tried, or worse never even had the opportunity/funding to get started.

    NewHere: On jobs, what jobs as examples that are “better” then say the auto worker that the VC + patents create ?.

    Oh, lets see, C.E.O of your own multimillion dollar patent protected business or auto worker that screws a bolt in 12 hours a day, everyday, for the rest of your life. I choose the millionaire life and power of being my own boss. Maybe you choose the robot workers life. No shame there. Patent owners need and greatly value good, competent, honest, strong workers that want to work for them.

  83. 211

    Wow you guys did not ask me any questions about my invention; about why I choose to invent on calendars, about what I really think my invention is worth, is this my only calendar invention or what is my next step. No questions?
    James Scurlock

  84. 210

    MaxDrei wrote:

    Meanwhile, substantive national law in all these European nation States is the EPC substantive provisions. If they want to be in the EPC they have to conform their national law.

    The national laws may well conform to the wording of the EPC, but national patent offices still very much keep to their traditions even with the parallel grant of European patent rights. Take France for instance. To put it bluntly, her national system is still very much has a registration system in the spirit of the law of 1844, which remained in force until 1969 when the revolutionary concept of “claims” was introduced. Despite having brought the patent law with the EPC in 1977, the French patent examiner is basically only allowed to decide whether the invention blatantly lacks novelty. His work is very formal, and consists of affixing a yellow or a red stamp on a generic cover letter accompanying the search report drafted by the EPO for the INPI. Any finer determination such as inventive step can only be made by a judge in later proceedings. (The written opinion which is also provided by the EPO has no legal value).

    Yet the system works, and the French are in Europe only second to the Germans in terms of filings. The genius of the EPC was to be able to bring together such different traditions together.

  85. 209

    MaxDrei wrote:

    Meanwhile, substantive national law in all these European nation States is the EPC substantive provisions. If they want to be in the EPC they have to conform their national law.

    The national laws may well conform to the wording of the EPC, but national patent offices still very much keep to their traditions even with the parallel grant of European patent rights. Take France for instance. To put it bluntly, her national system is still very much has a registration system in the spirit of the law of 1844, which remained in force until 1969 when the revolutionary concept of “claims” was introduced. Despite having brought the patent law with the EPC in 1977, the French patent examiner is basically only allowed to decide whether the invention blatantly lacks novelty. His work is very formal, and consists of affixing a yellow or a red stamp on a generic cover letter accompanying the search report drafted by the EPO for the INPI. Any finer determination such as inventive step can only be made by a judge in later proceedings. (The written opinion which is also provided by the EPO has no legal value).

    Yet the system works, and the French are in Europe only second to the Germans in terms of filings. The genius of the EPC was to be able to bring together such different traditions together.

  86. 208

    7 wrote:

    Don’t infringement actions often have very different results depending upon what country in which they are brought in europe? Say, Germany vs. the UK?

    Europe is certainly not as uniform as the US where infringement cases are so perfectly uniformly assessed by the various jurisdictions that patent holders flock to the most uniform jurisdiction of them all somewhere down in Texas.

    I wouldn’t bet in identical outcomes everywhere if the same cases were to be simultaneously tried in a plurality of districts in the US. The cases which bubble up to the top courts in Europe (and presumably elsewhere) are those where the case is enough muddled and borderline that there will always be a party willing to take it onee step further. Judges in Europe do see and comment their colleague’s work and also the EPO’s (I particularly remember a certain Dutch decision), and even hold seminars to compare their approaches.

    Comparing decisions between continents, I remember that the Plavix decisions by SCOTUS and the Canadian Supreme Court made me somewhat cringe when I compared their reasonings with the EPO’s BoA on the same issue (novelty of enantiomers). However it made really not much difference in the end, as even the narrower EP patent was valid and made a lot of money for its owner.

  87. 207

    Dear broje TINLA IANYL,

    Re:
    “Did you lose any people who joined the army on 9/12…”

    The way I figure, every American lost a person when any single soldier was lost in efforts for American causes – not all of our Country’s causes, of course, being equal.

  88. 206

    JAOI, I’m sorry to hear you lost people on 9/11. I’m curious. Did you lose any people who joined the army on 9/12 and/or got back door drafted long after they were ready to come home?

  89. 205

    Re:
    “I don’t think it covers the circumstances you probably have in mind…”

    I doubt you have anything meaningful in your mind, and I am certain you have no knowledge of what’s in anybody else’s mind. Give it a rest — you’ve nothing to contribute.

  90. 204

    With all due respect, Just Get Bent, JGB.

    Isn’t that adorable, a conservative is defensive about his inconsistent principles. You don’t see that every day.

  91. 202

    Do you think that military tribunals under apt circumstances are not “due process” under American jurisprudence?

    That obviously depends on the “apt circumstances”. I don’t think it covers the circumstances you probably have in mind, even using a broadest reasonable interpretation.

    I suppose it would be instructive to ask whether you would want the white guy who bombed the WTC and the Al Qaeda guy who bombed the WTC to be tried in the same forum.

  92. 201

    Dear IANAE.

    Do you think that military tribunals under apt circumstances are not “due process” under American jurisprudence?

  93. 200

    We can only pray, and pray hard.

    However, some think that the “fad” (I pray you are right) started circa the crusades,

    You’re thinking of Christian extremism, which is still alive and well in the US and still threatens to destroy its culture.

    The speech I crave from Pres. Obama is that he has come to his senses, and will sternly interrogate the underpants bomber (etc.)

    Hear hear! Due process for the innocent!

  94. 199

    Dear broje TINLA IANYL,

    Re: “Hope you enjoyed it while it lasted.”

    Please, gimme a brake. I lost people on 9/11; did you?

    Re: “… muslim extremism is a fad.”

    Your lips to God’s ears!
    Your pen to God’s ears!
    Your keyboard to God’s ears!
    We can only pray, and pray hard.

    However, some think that the “fad” (I pray you are right) started circa the crusades, but I’m no historian.

    The speech I crave from Pres. Obama is that he has come to his senses, and will sternly interrogate the underpants bomber as a phuckin’ terrorist and enemy combatant and try him and the other terrorists in a military tribunal out at sea on one of our aircraft carriers, and after a fair and full hearing, make them walk the plank, but only if they survive keelhauling – all in camera.

    After which, an obituary saying only that they were found guilt after a fair trial and put to death for their horrific crimes against God and humanity.

    O’Lord, hear my prayer.

  95. 198

    How many times did Obama use the word “I?” I saw a You-tube post that said he mentioned things like “health care” “middle class” a few times, but he used the word “I” 132 times. One hundred thirty two times!!

    I don’t think even Mooney is that self absorbed. And I don’t mean that as a compliment to Mooney.

  96. 197

    JAOI, muslim extremism is a fad. It will pass like the Hippies, or any number of other fads that were around during the 60s, which was another divisive era full of polarizing speeches. The reason the US President is not engaging in the kind of polarizing speech you crave is that it is already going out of style. Hope you enjoyed it while it lasted.

  97. 196

    Dear Lionel,

    Thank you for your comment. I hope you find this as amusing.

    Obama’s 70-minute speech sucked. The following remarks were paraphrased from an email from a friend.

    Striking among the president’s remarks were the things he did not say — or even touch on more than in a passing nod, things that represent menacing problems on the international stage and include some of the most important threats to the safety and future of our country, one of our closest allies, and an entire region.

    In more than an hour’s worth of carefully chosen words, among the ones Obama chose not to utter, not even a single time, were terrorist, Israel, the Middle East, al-Qaeda, jihad, Islamism, Palestinians, Gaza, mullah, Iran or any other word or phrase that would give an inkling of the tremendous threats we face from the fanatics of Islam who would kill infidels and destroy our cities.

    Indeed, President Obama devoted much of his time to berating Republicans for their refusal to conspire with his administration to pass unpopular and unwanted legislation, but not even a whisper about challenges of confronting an existential enemy.

    He did, however, make sure to throw a sop to the friends in the world of his childhood and his sympathies: We are working with Muslim communities around the world to promote science, education and innovation.

    What does this teach us about Mr. Obama’s real concerns and sympathies, and the cavalier disregard he has for the threat of Khalid Sheikh Mohammeds and their ilk who would destroy our civilization utterly if they could?

  98. 195

    Posted by: Actual Inventor | Jan 28, 2010 at 02:18 PM | “NewHere:Small business takes the large up-front cost to start a business, ok VC money, must be paid back with a return added in to pay the VC investors. I never found anyone that does it for free. That added return get passed on to customers whom must have/find the money to pay for it in a downturn or not as the case is somethimes.”

    “AI: Ummm So? What is your point here?”

    VC + patents do not create jobs !. The *VC + patents creates jobs* sell doesn’t hole water; so I ask you, at 10% unemployment and as you have mentioned 85% of the jobs are small business (start-ups …so on), would not a large number of people in that 10% be from the small (start-up …so on) you talk about. To stay in business ?, patents have nothing to with it !, and the reason I mentioned those large corps, business it comes down to what you have and what people will pay for. For small business though using VC money, most small business end up doing layoffs anyway as we see has happen already because they don’t have the money to keep people working when people are not buying/using !. Patents do not withstand downturns nor just change in spending and jobs go !. The auto workers I mentioned, displaced because of patents to those one-arm computer …so on, that makes money.

    On jobs, what jobs as examples that are “better” then say the auto worker that the VC + patents create ?.

  99. 194

    JAOI,

    “However, when I met Al in the mid ’90s trying to sell him one of my patented systems, he did imply to me that he invented the Internet, and he also said that he stayed at a Holiday Inn Express the night before.”

    OK, that was mildly amusing. I’ll gie you that.

  100. 193

    fatalist, we get it. You’re a utopian Marxist. That system has failed multiple times. It cuts against human nature and reality. You can move on now.

    Or, you can regail us with stories of your crusade against other civil liberties and Constitutional rights. I’m sure others would get a kick out of it too.

  101. 192

    Posted by: Actual Inventor | Jan 27, 2010 at 11:24 AM | “You have failed or simply chosen not to understand the point.”

    NewHere: No, I understand it, just don’t agree with it. Jobs because of VC and/or patents have not shown they withstand a downward change in spending for whatever reason, Toyota, GM, GE, what do they have in common ?, patents !. Patents also, that have taken auto workers off the line to allow computer equipment to take over and create the displacement of people that cannot find like work just around the block.

    AI: Those are examples of big corps with patents, not small business start ups with patents. Small business start ups with patents create jobs.

    NewHere:Small business takes the large up-front cost to start a business, ok VC money, must be paid back with a return added in to pay the VC investors. I never found anyone that does it for free. That added return get passed on to customers whom must have/find the money to pay for it in a downturn or not as the case is somethimes.

    AI: Ummm So? What is your point here?

    NewHere: as for the Jobs and patents question, the past layoffs along with the fact most are not to hire anytime soon, if that has anything to with if they own, or are licensing patents or not, they have money marked, just not for jobs.

    AI: I did not understand your point at all. But as far as those auto workers being laid off, that’s a perfect opportunity for workers with mind numbing and dulling jobs to jump start their imaginative creative genius and start inventing.

    For, example perhaps one of those former auto workers has a creative idea for a new never before tried or thought of technological process for reducing the time and improving the quality for a car assembly line. He or she should be able to get a patent on a stand alone technological process and license the invention to any car company in the world.

    In fact maybe the process could be used with any assembly line manufacturing process. And if the invention is pioneering enough then I say allow the broad claims.

    And with all the licenses and royalties this inventor will get he or she will need help and hire an assistant, or maybe two! And operate an office that will require a cleaning service and office supplies, which will help employ more people at other businesses. This is how Capitalism works at it’s best. So seriously NewHere, what, if anything do you have against inventors getting patents and creating jobs in this fashion?

  102. 191

    “Really? Because whenever a public company does anything else that costs it money, it tries to make that thing as cheap as possible.”

    You mean engineer’s salaries ?

    Yeah, I agreee, the’d replace all native engineers with dirt-cheap H1Bs or relocate their entire R&D to India or China (which they gradually do BTW) to save a buck or two

    Executive salaries and bonuses, corporate headquater’s construction costs ?

    No way

    AS far as patents are concerned they just want to have their cake and eat it too

  103. 190

    Posted by: Erez Gur | Jan 27, 2010 at 11:36 AM :

    Actual Inventor,

    Excellent points, but nothing will help under the current examination regime.”

    Then we need regime change! If the likes of mm and 6 really do exist at the PTO then fire them. If their public sector service unions make it too difficult to fire them, abolish those unions.

  104. 189

    The point I was proving is that big tech monstrosities like MSoft, Intel, HP, Cisco etc. are not trying to cancel patent system entirely, they just want to make it as expensive to use as possible, a “sport of kings”

    Really? Because whenever a public company does anything else that costs it money, it tries to make that thing as cheap as possible.

  105. 188

    “What’s the business model there?”

    You are right

    The point I was proving is that big tech monstrosities like MSoft, Intel, HP, Cisco etc. are not trying to cancel patent system entirely, they just want to make it as expensive to use as possible, a “sport of kings”

  106. 186

    Without this clause the nature of corporate employment will drastically change…
    for better, as far as I’m concerned

    It would certainly reduce headcount.

    Why would you ever pay a person to develop technology if you didn’t own it? That would be like paying someone to assemble cars and then just giving him the cars at the end. What’s the business model there?

  107. 185

    “no they are trying to abolish the system by making it weak, useless and a money drain rather than a money source”

    You think so ?

    Affraid not

    They’d still very much love to have “IP clause” in all employment contracts, the one that forces every engineer and scientist to assign all inventions to his corporate employer
    Without this clause the nature of corporate employment will drastically change…
    for better, as far as I’m concerned

  108. 184

    fatalist,

    Your ignorance of patent law is now matched by your ignorance of employment law. Please stop.

    “…rather than weakened – that’s what those big-tech corporate thiefs and their buddies in SCOTUS and Congress are trying to achieve at present”

    no they are trying to abolish the system by making it weak, useless and a money drain rather than a money source

    once those objectives are met closing the doors would be comparatively easy

  109. 183

    One last comment before I go to lunch (not a free one)

    It’s worth about what I paid for it.

    Abolishing patents will greatly improve employment opportunities and job satisfaction for corporate-employed engineers and scientists

    Abolishing patents would make only one kind of engineer worth hiring – a reverse engineer.

  110. 182

    One last comment before I go to lunch (not a free one)

    Abolishing patents will greatly improve employment opportunities and job satisfaction for corporate-employed engineers and scientists

    With patents they are disposable material: get your patent on file, assign it to us and you can go

    Without patents corporate employers will have to (gold)chain ther most creative minds so they don’t go work for competitors

    And to hell with public disclosure and “promoting the progress”

    Progress does not buy you free lunch

  111. 181

    “if you observe 6 for any length time you begin to observe that he is a narcissist in the mold of Caligula.”

    Well at least Caligula was famous (as opposed to being simply famoose). He is a wannabe narcissist filling a small fraction of the mold of Caligula. You know, “thousands of people are reading my posts” – delusions of grandeur and all that.

    Note to 6: as for the alleged “too many women,” digital girlfriends, blow up dolls, magazine pages, sheep, et al. don’t count.

  112. 180

    “Does that about sum it up fatalist?”

    You got the logic wrong

    good patent (the one that actually advances the progress in the field) can be worthless money-wise if it’s in the wrong field and in the wrong hands

    and visa versa

    bad (utterly obvious) patent can have a lot of monetary value if in the right field and in the right hands

    point proven: all patents should be abolished (rather than weakened – that’s what those big-tech corporate thiefs and their buddies in SCOTUS and Congress are trying to achieve at present)

    The system is broken, Mr. Prez

    Fix it or get rid of it

  113. 179

    And best I can gather from fatalist:

    He opposes all patents because they’re worthless wastes of money, except for the ones he has gotten which are extremely valuable, but no one will pay him for them because corporations are masked groups of theives.

    Does that about sum it up fatalist?

  114. 178

    Max, it was a lament that we have done away with the requirement of personal initiative and responsibility here. We are now an entitlement society and it pains me to look back on what we once were. I know guys who are moving to China because it’s a capitalist’s wildest dream right now. They’re loving it (except for the pollution, they really do need to get a grip on that). That’s what we used to be, and I’d really like to live in the country that we used to be, the greatest bastion of capitalism in the world.

  115. 177

    “Does your experience run to the US medical device mega corp’s?

    As soon as they get the smell of $$$, they do each very much want to be the doctor’s (only) exclusive licensee”

    I doubt it

    Better ask Ray Damadian, the MRI inventor, about his experiences with corporate monstrosities

    As for me, I’m out of luck being in the field of … let’s say signal processing … with applications to wireless telecom etc.

    Paul Heckel’s Principle of Dealing with Big Companies stands true today:
    “There is no such thing as a free lunch, unless you’re the lunch”

  116. 176

    Welcome to the real world, fatalist, where big fish eat little fish for breakfast. Do you really mean to say that it could ever be otherwise, except in a “command economy”?

    Or would that be a free lunch, or affirmative action, or some other sort of Government hand out or Rule skewing that you’re demanding?

    Does your experience run to the US medical device mega corp’s? Have you any idea how fast they run after an intelligent doctor with a track record of competence, a neat idea and a patent application already on file at the PTO. As soon as they get the smell of $$$, they do each very much want to be the doctor’s (only) exclusive licensee.

  117. 175

    Is it any wonder why the big bad meanies spend so much time and effort demonizing the “trolls” and their perfectly legal business mode?

    The only real problem with patent trolls (and with most patentees, to some extent) is that they got injunctions when their harm was entirely monetary, all they were ever really after was royalty payments, and monetary compensation would have made them whole.

    Somewhere along the way, someone forgot the sacred common law distinction between a right and a remedy.

  118. 174

    “trolls” are the natural market response to the positions put forth by IANAE and fatalist above.

    The inventor is paid and rewarded for his work. The big bad meanies cannot run roughshod over the little guy since the big bad meanie nuclear patent portfolio is the wrong weapon for such a business foe as a non-practicing entity.

    Is it any wonder why the big bad meanies spend so much time and effort demonizing the “trolls” and their perfectly legal business mode?

  119. 173

    “What is the difference between a constitutional right and a legal right?”

    Generally, things that can be withdrawn are called privileges, not rights.

    An inalienable human right is one that is popularly viewed as existing regardless of whether it is recognized by law.

    A Constitutional right is one that is granted in the Constitution and cannot be withdrawn without a Constitutional amendment.

    A property right is actually a privilege.

    So you do not have a Constitutional right to a patent. Congress has a Constitutional right to grant patents or not to grant patents.

    If you obtain a patent, the patent then conveys a property right to you. You must pay property taxes on it in the form of maintenance fees, just like you must pay property taxers on real property.

    The “owner” of land, in reality, rents real property from the government. It can be taken away for failure to pay the property taxes or because of imminent domain.

    So can your patent. That’s why the govenrment can infringe your patent without paying you under certain circumstances, or create a type of easement across it for public use by denying you injunctive relief where the public interest is overiding.

    It’s just reality. Accept it or not; it will still be reality.

  120. 172

    Only problem is that you don’t get infringer to license your patent until you sue him in court for patent infringement.

    If the Flash of Genius guy had built a house and the CEO of General Motors moved in and started living there, what would you have him do? Lament the injustices of the system, or use the remedy provided by the system to assert his property rights?

    there is no criminal punishment for willfull patent infringement or, at the very least, a real threat of court-imposed injunction

    All infringement costs you is money. All you can get back is money. You can get back whatever money you can prove it cost you.

    Okay, it would be nice if the infringer had to pay your court costs, but other than that I’m not sure you really understand the system here. Sounds like you’re looking for some kind of legally sanctioned revenge.

    The advice I’m getting from attorneys is this: do not attempt to contact potential licensees until you are ready to sue them for patent infringement

    Something is seriosly wrong with this situation

    Sounds about right to me. If you’re not willing to enforce your right, why should anyone else pay you for it? If you come up to me and say “get off my lawn, pay me rent, or so help me I’ll walk away and never bother you again”, what’s my motivation?

  121. 171

    “If only there were some sort of way for another entity to pay you money in exchange for the right to use your patented invention in their complex product.”

    It’s called “patent licensing”, my friend

    Only problem is that you don’t get infringer to license your patent until you sue him in court for patent infringement.
    Especially if you are undercapitalized small entity and the infringer is a huge corporate monster and there is no criminal punishment for willfull patent infringement or, at the very least, a real threat of court-imposed injunction

    Heck, after Medimmune I would not dare even to send a license proposal to those corporate monsters out of fear of being DJed across the country

    The advice I’m getting from attorneys is this: do not attempt to contact potential licensees until you are ready to sue them for patent infringement

    Something is seriosly wrong with this situation

  122. 170

    IN most other fields a product is a combination of many separate technologies developed and patented by many different entities.
    In high-tech products this number can reach into hundreds

    Do you want the guy to start his own auto manufactoring business in order to be paid for the intermittent windshield wiper invention ?

    If only there were some sort of way for another entity to pay you money in exchange for the right to use your patented invention in their complex product.

    Hey Obama, get on that!

  123. 168

    grayson said:
    “AI, your problem is that you equate a patent grant to a constitutional right to get rich simply because you had an idea. Go make one of your “actual inventions”, market it, generate a demand for it, and make it successful. That’s the hard part and that’s what generates jobs. You don’t deserve a big fat payout just because you did the easy part.”

    Dear grayson,

    your problem is that you are totally ignorant

    Only in pharma and in fields like simple handtools sold at HomeDepot
    one patent = one product

    IN most other fields a product is a combination of many separate technologies developed and patented by many different entities.
    In high-tech products this number can reach into hundreds

    But, to simplify it for your primitive mind, just go rent the movie “Flash of Genius”
    It’s all in the movie
    The guy in the movie actually designed and built a working intermittent windshield wiper and wants to manufacture it.
    But his only potential buyers are big automotive manufacturers who stole his invention
    Do you want the guy to start his own auto manufactoring business in order to be paid for the intermittent windshield wiper invention ?

    Nonsense, my little under-educated friend

  124. 167

    IANAE. Thanks. I can see now, that “requires” was a poor choice of word, in the context of “society”. It was Mrs Thatcher who informed us (some say, provocatively) that “There is no such thing as “society” : only individuals and families.”

  125. 166

    I continue to think of the USA as the best exemplar of a society that requires its denizens to show personal initiative and responsibility. It’s what the American people want, isn’t it?

    America doesn’t require initiative and responsibility. At best, it rewards those attributes. You can still get by without them, because someone who has shown initiative will pay you to toil in his factory or greet customers at his department store so he can extract further reward from his initiative.

    Also, some people show remarkable initiative at getting free stuff without having to show any initiative. It was bound to happen. Someone always games the system.

  126. 165

    Bad, I’m perplexed. It’s got to such a pass that I have no idea whether your question is rhetorical and whether your statement that precedes it is sarcasm or a genuine lament. I continue to think of the USA as the best exemplar of a society that requires its denizens to show personal initiative and responsibility. It’s what the American people want, isn’t it? Public investment in the health of citizens, or any other aspects of the infrastructure of society? What’s the free world coming to? Nein danke.

    In these threads, Dennis, it is increasingly evident that we really do need that recent invention in the technical field of punctuation marks, namely, the SarcMark.

  127. 164

    IANAE, “Canadian money is accepted in the US, you just can’t pay for stuff with it. ” for now….

    If we keep destroying the dollar, I’m going to be taking Canadians in leu of monopoly money.

  128. 163

    As for Canadian patents; they are already accepted in the U.S., as are most foreign patents, and visa versa. They are just not enforceable.

    Canadian money is accepted in the US, you just can’t pay for stuff with it. But man oh man, do they ever know it exists!

    A Canadian patent has about the same standing in the US as an article about the product in a magazine. It’s a public disclosure with a date stamped on it, nothing more. No country gives you rights in any other country, and no court listens to courts from another country unless they feel like it.

  129. 162

    Max, that’s because we’ve done away with personal initiative and responsibility here in the US. That was just dumb, huh?

  130. 161

    Don’t know who “grayson” is but I bet that Gene Quinn would second his assertion, that the road to making millions from innovation is much longer and harder than the first step along it. Admittedly, very few exceptional people today can make that first step of conceiving something that strikes investors as a new, clever, practical and economical way to meet a long felt want. But it is only a vanishingly small percentage of even those few that have the different drive and different talent to keep going, until they are at the point of having a saleable product to sell, that eliminates that want.

    To be realistic for a moment, what people name “positive thinking” is, sadly, nearly always self-delusion. But, of course, they don’t like you telling them that.

  131. 160

    AI, your problem is that you equate a patent grant to a constitutional right to get rich simply because you had an idea. Go make one of your “actual inventions”, market it, generate a demand for it, and make it successful. That’s the hard part and that’s what generates jobs. You don’t deserve a big fat payout just because you did the easy part.

  132. 159

    One would think so, Bread, wouldn’t one. Yet, in the rarified conditions of the Appeals Directorate of the EPO, with 24 Boards of Appeal, of equal standing (and populated by patent experts all) vying with each other to lay down the purest line of legal logic, and Darwinian “survival of the fittest ratio decidendi” deciding the direction of the EPO’s caselaw, it performs better than if some patent-ignorant European Supreme Court once every 5 years or so lays down some barmy binding precedent which then all 24 Boards are bound to follow for ever after.

    But don’t trust me. Ask your European patent counsel whether the EPO’s view of “what is technical” is getting sharper every year, or fuzzier. How well can your European patent counsel (and I mean one who specialises in the patentability of data processing algorithms) predict what DG3 will say about your precious claim, currently, as opposed to ten years ago? Me, I think the EPO caselaw is a good deal more coherent and focussed today than it was ten years ago, thanks to the pressures imposed by a sort of “natural selection”.

    But maybe it’s me that’s missing something?

  133. 158

    MaxDrei,

    Is it because it is you that vaunts the one system over the other?

    I am puzzled by the seeming contradiction of

    “There is less need (because of the absence of Binding Precedent” and

    “with >1000 decisions per year at the EPO informing it, the sense of “What is technical” gets more sure every year”

    If you do not have Binding Precedent, the number of decisions cannot be causally linked, can they?

    Without Binding Precedent, I would imagine that the greater number of decisions, and the years rolling by, will paint a quirky amalagam of incongruent definitions of “technical”, especially as the cases are decided in the various Nation courts – as you have indicated will decide to their own national flavor. If anything, the “what is technical” would seem to be less clear every year.

    Or am I missing something?

  134. 157

    Readers, once again I am challenged to define “technical” (because of the way obviousness is examined at the EPO). There is less need (because of the absence of Binding Precedent in a civil law system) for me to define “technical” than for US patent law to define “obvious”. I wonder then, is there a non-circular definition of “obvious” that binds all the courts that try the validity of US patents?

    I wonder because, in English patent law, the Pozzoli obviousness test procedure ends up with the word “obvious”) and in US law I suspect that the Graham factors don’t avoid the difficulty, only illuminate it. EPO-PSA just avoids the impossible question “Was it obvious?” by not even asking it. I admit that “technical” takes its place but, with >1000 decisions per year at the EPO informing it, the sense of “What is technical” gets more sure every year. EPO jurisprudence is handy too when reflecting on the meaning, in GATT-TRIPS, of “all fields of technology”.

    Or is it just as self-evident to an American judge and an American jury as it is to an English patents judge, what the word obvious means?

    And, in that case, why must it be me, AI, that defines technical before you define obvious?

  135. 156

    As debugged of a program as it’s gonna get…

    NWPA_program()
    {
    for (i = 1; i < max; i ++) { if (i % 3 == 0) information_processing_comment(); else if (i % 4 == 0) energy_time_space_comment(); else baboon_comment(); } NWPA_program(); } Judge: CTRL-ALT-DLT Judge: "Ok, that's enough." NWPA: "B-b-but, h-he's a b-b-b-aboon!" Judge: "I SAID ENOUGH!"

  136. 154

    Often we forget the little guy, the SMB, in our discussions of the comings and goings of the Internet marketing industry. Sure there are times like this when a report surfaces talking about their issues and concerns but, for the most part, we like to talk about big brands and how they do the Internet marketing thing well or not so well.

    http://www.onlineuniversalwork.com

  137. 153

    THE PRESIDENT: “I want a jobs bill on my desk without delay,” 9:33 p.m. — Obama moves on to programs he says are designed to lay “a new foundation for long-term economic growth.”

    President Obama please call for the American Inventors Jobs Recovery Act!!!

  138. 152

    “What is the difference between a constitutional right and a legal right? And is congress not the “people” ?”

    Oh, heavens.

    You’re up, broje. I can hardly wait.

  139. 151

    broje : “AI, you are still using the wrong words. While the Bill of Rights that was added on to the Constitution reserves certain rights to the People, the Constitution empowers Congress to to grant a privilege to a patent to the People, if it so chooses. What you have is a legislative privilege to a patent, not a Constitutional right. ”

    What is the difference between a constitutional right and a legal right? And is congress not the “people” ?

    Our representatives and senators work for the people.

    They are there to do the peoples business.

    Without the people the congress has no reason to exist.

    So it stands to reason that if the constitution empowers congress it certainly empowers the people.

    And if you want to argue the people have no rights to a patent because its not included in the bill of rights, then I would remind you of the Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Bottom line, yes we the people have a right to a patent, and such right shall remain until “we the people” decide to give up such rights.

  140. 150

    As long as they can be called my rights; I’m willing to not say constitutional if that bothers some.

    As for Canadian patents; they are already accepted in the U.S., as are most foreign patents, and visa versa. They are just not enforceable. My patent cannot be re-patented in Canada. It is prior art around the world. The USPTO therefore considers it infringement to make, without my permission, my invention, even in Canada. All that is lacking is enforcement rights. Dual connected patent courts could solve that problem. I could prosecute hear while they defend there.

    If I had the funds to obtain enforcement protection in Canada, sounds like a tariff; then, the Canadian Patent I file must be identical to my U.S. Patent. Same for all foreign filings. That is why I made a prior art foreign patent search before filing.

    Finally; no, labor costs are not important to me, protection is. I plan to build my calendars in Ohio.
    JScurlock

  141. 148

    *******So once the privilege is granted it becomes a right; until revoked.******

    It does not become a Constitutional right. It is a property right. Big difference.

  142. 147

    broje So if you are wondering why the attorneys that frequent this site take issue with your claim to a Constitutional right to a patent, that is the reason. If I were you, I would stop saying it. It is inaccurate.

    AI knows it is inaccurate. I’ll leave the implications of that fact for others to ponder.

  143. 146

    So once the privilege is granted it becomes a right; until revoked.

    Take the privilege away from one state or territory only:
    Jobs, money, power will move to that state from the others. Does that sound familiar?

    I really don’t know what to tell you. Your US patent gives you the same rights throughout the entire country. If you had a Canadian patent, would you expect to be able to enforce it in Arizona simply because Parliament has a constitutional power to grant patents?

  144. 145

    My point is that “patent powers” in this new economic territory should have remained in the hands of the U.S. Congress, and U.S. courts, as was intended by the founding fathers. I don’t think you can modify the U.S. Constitution by treaty.

    Wait, wait, you want the US Congress to have the power to make (and presumably enforce) laws in foreign countries?

    You’ll only get your “world patent” if WIPO becomes a giant EPO. In the meantime, it’s not reasonable to expect US laws to give you any benefit at all in other countries. That’s why they give you a foreign filing license, though. Sucks that it’s expensive, but it’s just as expensive for foreigners to file in the US, and they’re more likely to want to do that.

    Patents also, that have taken auto workers off the line to allow computer equipment to take over and create the displacement of people that cannot find like work just around the block.

    Patents don’t do that. Companies would do that with or without patents, because skilled people are too expensive when unskilled people can do the job, Americans are too expensive when foreigners can do the job, and people are too expensive when machines can do the job.

  145. 144

    U.S. Constitution
    Section 8 “Powers of Congress”
    “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;”

    So once the privilege is granted it becomes a right; until revoked.

    Take the privilege away from one state or territory only:
    Jobs, money, power will move to that state from the others. Does that sound familiar?
    James Scurlock

  146. 143

    Posted by: Actual Inventor | Jan 27, 2010 at 11:24 AM | “You have failed or simply chosen not to understand the point.”

    No, I understand it, just don’t agree with it. Jobs because of VC and/or patents have not shown they withstand a downward change in spending for whatever reason, Toyota, GM, GE, what do they have in common ?, patents !. Patents also, that have taken auto workers off the line to allow computer equipment to take over and create the displacement of people that cannot find like work just around the block. Small business takes the large up-front cost to start a business, ok VC money, must be paid back with a return added in to pay the VC investors. I never found anyone that does it for free. That added return get passed on to customers whom must have/find the money to pay for it in a downturn or not as the case is somethimes. Choice(s) must be made about how important it is to buy, use everything on the market as for the Jobs and patents question, the past layoffs along with the fact most are not to hire anytime soon, if that has anything to with if they own, or are licensing patents or not, they have money marked, just not for jobs.

  147. 141

    Preacher, if you observe 6 for any length time you begin to observe that he is a narcissist in the mold of Caligula.

  148. 140

    *****Exactly, to the people, not corporations

    Since when corporations usurped that right ?******

    Corporations still cannot be patent applicants. Only the invenotrs can apply for the patents.

    But, that said, SCOTUS just found that corporations are “persons” for constitutional free speech purposes, and therefore, the amount of money that corporations contribute to political candidates cannot be limited. I was wondering how long it would be until Microsoft ran for President, but then someone pointed out that presidential candidates must be “natural” persons.

  149. 139

    “And I’ve definitely been with too many women to be a boy. ”

    A real man would not have to say that…

    QED.

  150. 138

    “…the Constitution empowers Congress to to grant a privilege to a patent to the People”

    Exactly, to the people, not corporations

    Since when corporations usurped that right ?

  151. 137

    Although, 6, the one thing you did say that was clear is that you thought I had be speaking with JD with Ph.D.’s, which I very clearly said was not the case.

  152. 136

    AI, you are still using the wrong words. While the Bill of Rights that was added on to the Constitution reserves certain rights to the People, the Constitution empowers Congress to to grant a privilege to a patent to the People, if it so chooses.

    What you have is a legislative privilege to a patent, not a Constitutional right. If you had a Constitutional right to a patent, and if Congress repealed 35 USC tomorrow, you would be able to sue and get your patent. But that is not the case. It is a privilege that can be withdrawn without requiring an amendment to the Constitution.

    So if you are wondering why the attorneys that frequent this site take issue with your claim to a Constitutional right to a patent, that is the reason. If I were you, I would stop saying it. It is inaccurate.

  153. 135

    6, that was one twisted strange answer.

    I’m glad to support any of my positions and refute any of your points that I disagree with, but frankly, at this point I have no idea what you are talking about.

  154. 134

    Night, for shame. You’re not being honest with us. Come on, go ahead, get honest.

    If you were being honest, you should apologize to those phd’s for exposing their stu pidity to the world 🙁 Go on, apologize.

    “You see little 6, the point is that an inventor who is not being paid to publish articles as in academia, has little motivation to slave away for years to come up with new algorithms when the benefit to them is small”

    Could we get to the point at some time in the near future?

    “So, the patent system is a way to reward the inventor for the greater benefit and to motivate them to find that new algorithm.”

    Still not really a point. But I’m going to be honest with you, I don’t see anything about that in the law. Perhaps you can show it to me.

    What I do see in the law is numerous occasions that courts have said that within the patent system the practice of patenting algorithms has been banned.

    “Good things your brakes work eh?”

    People that invent and make brakes are much appreciated.

    “6, admit it. You are an ignorant little boy.”

    I’ve had too much schooling to be considered ignorant in the common sense of the word. I weigh too much and am too tall to be little. And I’ve definitely been with too many women to be a boy. So I’m sorry, I can’t admit that.

    I will admit for you that I am largely ignorant of the ins and outs of starting a new business and I haven’t “worked with” too many inventors or people who dream up algorithms.

    Your ad hominem is funny tho. It shows off that you can’t discuss the merits, since there are no merits to your position.

  155. 133

    It constantly amazes me that people that have never really invented or worked with inventors or starting companies or launching products are so willing to opine on these matters. 6, admit it. You are an ignorant little boy.

  156. 132

    Many, by the way, of the inventors I have worked with have ph.d.’s. Inventors from German, U.S., Korean, Japan, Russia, etc.

    Not one real inventor that I’ve worked with sees information processing algorithms as not an invention. In fact, I worked on an invention with a ph.d. in physics who invented a commercially successful product, who said almost the same as what was said above: any part of this can be done in hardware or software. Except for of course a few elements that interact with the physical world.

  157. 131

    You see little 6, the point is that an inventor who is not being paid to publish articles as in academia, has little motivation to slave away for years to come up with new algorithms when the benefit to them is small, but to the society the benefit can be hugs. So, the patent system is a way to reward the inventor for the greater benefit and to motivate them to find that new algorithm.

    Good things your brakes work eh?

  158. 130

    Posted by: jack scurlock | Jan 27, 2010 at 02:09 PM:

    “The U.S. Constitution gave the power to issue and regulate patents to only the U.S. Congress. ”

    That’s right!

    My point is that “patent powers” in this new economic territory should have remained in the hands of the U.S. Congress, and U.S. courts, as was intended by the founding fathers. I don’t think you can modify the U.S. Constitution by treaty.

    “If these were voting rights:
    People cross a river to vote. Over the river is a rope bridge that people find hard to cross. Then the government builds a new covered bridge only for white voters. All others must walk the rope.
    Not going to happen!”

    Dam straight!

    Jack, welcome to the blog. Good to see real inventors post here. We need need to fight for our constitutional rights for patents same as any right, voting, civil or otherwise.

    I am impressed with your invention and your determination, drive and tenacity to see it profitable. Check out the TV Show Shark Tank and submit your invention to the show. The investors on that show regularly shell out millions of dollars for patent inventions not half as innovative as yours.

    And don’t let the anti patent crowd, big corps and pro socialist that troll here get ya down.

    Above all keep working and inventing until you realize your dream!

  159. 129

    >>I think you meant phd/jd’s right? Be honest.

    Uh, no. Ph.D.’s who start companies and create jobs. You know the real engine that drives this country.

    6, what is amazing about you is that you are willing to say ridiculous things repeatedly.

    Have you no shame?

  160. 128

    “simply by doing all important stuff in software on a general purpose CPU (e.g. they can sell a device with no firmware/software preloaded and then have users donwload it from the web)”

    If they do that then they aren’t an infringer are they? Oh wait, no they’re not! Funny how that works.

  161. 127

    “Software and hardware are two sides of the same coin : there is just no way to separate them, legally or otherwise”

    Except by recognizing that neither is a coin and calling each one different names, like “software” and “hardware” respectively. Right?

  162. 126

    ” I’ve heard from a couple of ph.d.’s how ridiculous it is that they could invent a better matching algorithm that would enable thousands of new applications and yet the algorithms per se would not be eligible for patentability.

    I think you meant phd/jd’s right? Be honest.

    Furthermore, I think you meant “dream up” not “invent”.

  163. 125

    jack, I agree with you. See my post on a possible solution on the previous page. We really, really need one world patent. But, FYI, most third worlders believe that patents are tools of oppression by the rich against the poor. They have been taught this by the left who predominate in the third world. So, don’t hold your breath. We will need a fundamental shift in world politics before we get a world patent.

  164. 124

    Ned, you left out the most fundamental point. Disrespecting private property rights is tyranny, the heading under which all of your isms fall under.

  165. 123

    Hi,
    I’m the guy with patent#7397731.

    My point on international patents is I, a U.S. patent holder, only have provincial protection in the new “global economy”. Every other aspect of the once national economy has gone global with the help of new trade treaties. All barriers to trade were dropped; but not for patent holders.

    The U.S. Constitution gave the power to issue and regulate patents to only the U.S. Congress. As the nation grew; protection expanded into new states and territories. Now that the country appears to be finished expanding its boarders its’ economy was artificially expanded through the trade treaties. Only my patent coverage still remains provincial.

    My point is that “patent powers” in this new economic territory should have remained in the hands of the U.S. Congress, and U.S. courts, as was intended by the founding fathers. I don’t think you can modify the U.S. Constitution by treaty.

    If these were voting rights:
    People cross a river to vote. Over the river is a rope bridge that people find hard to cross. Then the government builds a new covered bridge only for white voters. All others must walk the rope.
    Not going to happen!

    P.S. I’m intend to start selling my patent model calendars on EBAY to raise the money needed for plastic injection molds. Search the patent #7397731.
    James Scurlock

  166. 122

    MaxDrei,

    Per Wikiquote:

    “The good patent gives the world something it did not truly have before, whereas the bad patent has the effect of trying to take away from the world something which it effectively already had.”
    Giles Sutherland Rich, 1978 60 JPOS 271,288, cited in CIPA Guide to the Patents Act, page 83 and Gaster/Marlow, CRi 1/2009 pages 3-4

  167. 121

    NewHere, I don’t know how to respond to you exactly as I think I see from your posts a lack of understanding of many fundamentals of law and patents. Perhaps you should hang out here for awhile and learn.

  168. 120

    broje said,

    *****To those who were surprised that a socialist would favor patents, you truly did not listen to what Obamas said. He is in favor of licensing IP, not in favor of exclusive rights.*****

    That’s not how I interpret President Obama’s comments. Seems to me he is saying that we are not trying to oppress other countries, like preventing them from having access to drugs and other patented technologies. I think he is responding to a lot of unfounded fears that seem to be prevalent outside the US, and that are exploited by the anti-patent crowd.”

    Oppress?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Exactly my point in spades. The kind of thinking expressed here is what is so wrong with the left, and why the third world is poor. The only way forward to a bright new world is to respect property. Respecting property is not, repeat, not oppression. Disrespecting property, on the other hand, is piracy, barbarism and socialism — all fundamentally the same thing. These are these sources of poverty and oppression, not the rule of law.

  169. 119

    “Ah, I see what you did there. Your idea will create 3 million jobs for patent agents and 12 million jobs for patent examiners.”

    No, you don’t. Every inventor that builds a business around their new patent will be the CEO of their own corporation with all the rights and privileges as the largest corp in America.

    1. 15 million new novel patented inventions

    2. 15 million new corporations

    3. 15 million new CEO jobs.

    And that’s just the beginning! Next comes the staff and yes increased spending with others businesses and professionals that creates even more jobs!

    You gotta love the USA!

    Please Obama steal this idea and RUN with it!

  170. 118

    Ben, I totally agree with you. I don’t trust Obama on patents unless and until he does an about face on the pending legislation.

  171. 117

    ABA As only someone could that has never invented anything or created a single job in their life.

    Why would anyone on earth believe that Actual Bullshxt Artist ever “created a job” or invented something?

  172. 116

    Posted by: MaxDrei | Jan 27, 2010 at 12:08 PM: Great comment on the 15 million jobs. First laugh of the day.

    As only someone could that has never invented anything or created a single job in their life.

    “But Actual makes a good point when he equates a patentable invention with a new (and enabled) solution to a (objective technical) problem. Hooray. Vindication for the EPO.”

    Now define technical

    ::silence::

    And so goes the party at the EPO.

  173. 115

    “And there’s nothing wrong with other people using our technologies. We just want to make sure that it’s licensed and you’re getting paid.”

    It’s not what he says, it’s what he does. Pushing what they call patent reform will NOT help inventors get paid. I guess what he really meant was he wants to be sure the big companies get paid and in contrast don’t have to pay.

    Patent reform is a fraud on America.
    Please see link to truereform.piausa.org for a different/opposing view on patent reform.

  174. 114

    fatalist, we rarely agree. However, you’re dead on with the software/hardware problem. The problem is that what used to be done by ASIC is now done by flashing instructions to a micro (i.e., software). It’s just a better setup because it allows tweaking at very low cost.

    Essentially, if you outlaw software, you’re going to outlaw most electronics. That’s not exactly a genius move there. I don’t mind the Bilski drafting restrictions that require you to tie the method to a physical machine, device, system, etc. Otherwise, you’d end up with overly broad and ambiguous claims all over the place. It would add to the confusion in the art of what is and is not patented.

  175. 113

    Great comment on the 15 million jobs. First laugh of the day.

    But Actual makes a good point when he equates a patentable invention with a new (and enabled) solution to a (objective technical) problem. Hooray. Vindication for the EPO.

  176. 112

    The point about needing a patent to get VC can’t be overemphasized. However:

    This idea will create 15 million jobs in one year!

    1.) Makes computer software and technological processes statutory subject matter for patents in the USA, and provides that any inventions in this category will be given a guaranteed 1 year accelerated examination.

    Ah, I see what you did there. Your idea will create 3 million jobs for patent agents and 12 million jobs for patent examiners.

    And there will always be INSTANT demand for any novel method or process for solving a problem and fulfilling a need, no matter what the economy.

    That depends on who is the customer and who experiences the problem/need. To take one groundbreaking invention as an example, a passenger on an airplane has a pressing need to go to the washroom as soon as one becomes available, but he’s not the guy who designs or buys the airplanes.

    And he still needs a method for getting around the fat guy in the aisle seat.

  177. 111

    Dear Lionel,

    I stand corrected – thank you.

    However, when I met Al in the mid ’90s trying to sell him one of my patented systems, he did imply to me that he invented the Internet, and he also said that he stayed at a Holiday Inn Express the night before.

    I concluded that he was a jerk (o¿õ) .

  178. 110

    Q: “what do you do on the 06th, 16th, 26th of each month”

    A: “Ignore Mooney, I do it on all the other days of the month too.”

  179. 108

    Posted by: NeweHere | Jan 27, 2010 at 12:26 AM: “ Patents have little to do with what people spend their money on, the unemployment shows that as many markets are hit. So patents after all, they are subject to the forces of the markets they belong, with no way out because patents do not offer new ideas about how one can change, to meet change…sad.”

    You have failed or simply chosen not to understand the point.

    YOU ARE MORE LIKELY TO GET FUNDING FROM A VC TO START A NEW BUSINESS THAT CREATES JOBS IF YOU HAVE A PATENT!!!!!

    That’s a FACT that can’t be ignored or denied. Now of course there needs to be a market demand for your product or service. And there will always be INSTANT demand for any novel method or process for solving a problem and fulfilling a need, no matter what the economy.

    However, most individuals don’t want to spend the time and effort to come up with ideas if they can’t own and profit from them. Especially if they know a big corp will steal and run with it as soon as it’s proven a money maker, and then lay employees off to boot!

  180. 107

    MY LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA

    This idea will create 15 million jobs in one year!

    Please introduce and sign into law the American Inventors Jobs Recovery Act! Here is how it works:

    1.) Makes computer software and technological processes statutory subject matter for patents in the USA, and provides that any inventions in this category will be given a guaranteed 1 year accelerated examination.

    2.) Provides a grant to pay all patent examination fees to anyone that successfully invents and patents a new technological process, business method, algorithm or software program.

    3.) Provide a web site exclusively for Venture Capitalist and the patent owners to meet up and negotiate funding for building a business around their inventions with the requirement that the business must create at least one new job.

    Mr. President, if you push this bill through congress and promote it to the American people I promise you at least 15 million unemployed people will invent innovative new products and services, start their own businesses and start pumping money into the economy like never before!

  181. 106

    ******To those who were surprised that a socialist would favor patents, you truly did not listen to what Obamas said. He is in favor of licensing IP, not in favor of exclusive rights.*****

    That’s not how I interpret President Obama’s comments. Seems to me he is saying that we are not trying to oppress other countries, like preventing them from having access to drugs and other patented technologies. I think he is responding to a lot of unfounded fears that seem to be prevalent outside the US, and that are exploited by the anti-patent crowd.

    In particular, I do not think that he is advocating eliminating the right to an injunction in the US or anywhere else such laws already exist. But at the same time, he is not going to try to force other countries to implement laws that will include such injunctive relief where there is resistance to that remedy. I think his focus is going to be on persuading other countries that do not have a strong track record on patent enforcement to at least enforce a reasonable royalty. And that’s a start.

  182. 105

    In any deliberation, even when construing a claim, there’s no getting away from a requirement for reasonableness. If a jury, collectively, has to eliminate all doubt before it can come to a guilty verdict, it would never get done, and no case would ever close. Jury members just have to get over their “reasonable” doubts. So, the only claim construction fit to be put forward for discussion is the one that survives the test of reasonableness.

    Snag is, some people are just not reasonable.

    Thank goodness then for the EPO “jury”, the three member “Examining Division” that, collectively, tests each filed claim for compliance with all the criteria for patentability.

  183. 103

    Some posters seem to confuse an every man for himself attitude with rational self-interest.

    There’s only a one-word difference between the two. Pity that one word is “rational”.

    Incidentally, it’s the same as the difference between “broadest reasonable interpretation” and “broadest interpretation”.

    Also, I love how Barack Obama can say something like “we want you to get paid for your ideas, instead of other people taking your stuff for free”, and people start crying that this “socialist” wants to take away inventors’ valuable patent rights.

  184. 101

    Posted by: Ned Heller | Jan 27, 2010 at 02:38 AM | “What are patents?”

    That is a very good question, I believe an answer to it isn’t a single one, but a matter of who you ask and a given opinion. So that is what I will offer, an opinion. Patents once only an idea too, were offered as they are today to claim and have “new” ideas protected. Today they are tools and have gone far beyond new ideas in claims. Point, the corps you mentioned, play a patent card game and all try to keep the best hand in a game that has high bets today playing with 6 deck stack, none know what is to come next. I do not believe that patents have become the final word on ideas and the information within, and because a win to the PTO is a gold seal stamp on ownership. If ownership of what is given to people as in schools and places of higher learning, that they build their ideas upon, I can’t help see a house of cards. Will my 1 year old need a license to say da da ?, because some patent owner patent that because his/her product is designed for childern of that age ?. When do patents start to eat each other ? – and people because they are just too late to own a thing because a patent system can no longer offer them a fair chance on their ideas. Heads I win tails you pay ?. You may find what I say funny, but think about this, the problem of “ideas” is to knock on everyone’s door soon enough, patent owners will (if not already), will have to trade and deal with each other to save money on lawsuits: Where is a value to be found for patents with a system that is not working for anyone ?.

    Imo.

  185. 100

    JAOI,

    Try to not get your news filtered through propagandists like Faux News. Al Gore never said “I invented the internet”

  186. 99

    “Its my hope that soon the SCOTUS will take software patents off the table forever.”

    You must be liberal arts major far removed from any tech

    Software and hardware are two sides of the same coin : there is just no way to separate them, legally or otherwise

    Abolishing “software” (method) patent claims will just create a huge loophole for unfringers to infringe on “hardware” (apparatus) claims, simply by doing all important stuff in software on a general purpose CPU (e.g. they can sell a device with no firmware/software preloaded and then have users donwload it from the web)

    I feel bad already about upcoming SCOTUS’s Bilski decision . In the best case they’ll just KSR it, in the worst case they’ll Ebay it
    This is what happens when you allow ignorant idiots run your country

  187. 98

    Maxdrei, I seem to remember that the highest officials in the EPC say that the implementing laws of the member countries don’t conform very well, and that what the EPO needs is a federal circuit where all appeals from all countries go to one court. In fact, I seem to remember the former head (or whatever the title was) of the EPO saying this.

  188. 97

    Europe standardised substantive patent law but then baulked at European-ising the handing out of injunctive relief or a supra-national court to judge validity. Understandably, individual Nation States get a bit nervous about courts in other nation States shutting down their manufacturing industry from a courtroom outside the jurisdiction.

    Meanwhile, substantive national law in all these European nation States is the EPC substantive provisions. If they want to be in the EPC they have to conform their national law.

    A presumption of validity is just that, isn’t it: a presumption. If the fact is that there is no novelty, that fact overwhelms the presumption. Why shouldn’t novelty-destroying art emerge only after issue? In Europe, it happens all the time, despite the quality of the EPO search.

  189. 96

    I think too that there is very important point with the ph.d.’s:

    This is something few people understand about patents, but is probably the most important.

    That the prospect of getting a patent, will encourage a person to expend more energy to solve a problem than they individually will be rewarded for solving the problem without the incentive of a patent.

    Think very hard about that. The incentive described above is as important to patent law as any incentive, but it gets lost when you are arguing with baboons.

  190. 95

    As an example of the vast ignorance in the technology, hardly a day goes by that the NY Times doen’t have on its front page a story about how difficult information processing inventions are.

    The other day it was a $1 million dolloars for recommending a movie. Baboon’s opinion was that you should go ask your uncle or that it was easy to build the software you just needed to somehow get in things like what other movies they watched and demographics stuff and then you somehow just get a good result. You know–gee seems easy to me.

    Today:
    >>While Technology Surges, Safeguards Lag
    >>By WALT BOGDANICH
    >>New and more accurate radiation treatments >>come with their own risks: errors in software >>and operation that may be more difficult to >>detect.
    Gee, that software must be so easy, and it must not matter how well it is done. Let’s see, in the last week, I’ve heard from a couple of ph.d.’s how ridiculous it is that they could invent a better matching algorithm that would enable thousands of new applications and yet the algorithms per se would not be eligible for patentability.

    So, you see, Jules, the person you are defending is a baboon. In a fair debate, I am fine with people holding different opinions than me. In an unfair debate, I think the person that is acting unfair should be booted.

  191. 94

    I wish I had at my fingertips an opinion that J. Rich wrote, where he said that he believed that computer programs should be eligible for patentability, but in his reading of SCOTUS cases, he just didn’t think he could support this position.

    We need someone with integrity like that to be appointed to the Federal Circuit. Not someone like Lemley (MM or J. Moore) who will bend and contort the law and the facts to suit the outcome they want.

  192. 93

    MaxDrei,

    What never ceases to amaze me is that you English or whatever part of that island you are from think that you can analyze us as if we are your children.

    Jules: MM is a baboon because he consistently present ridiculous arguments regarding patenting of information processing inventions. He has shown (1) that he is completely ignorant regarding the technology, and (2) that he openingly abuses the law to get the outcome he wants.

    For example, what is the definition of abstract in patent law, MM? I have asked him this question now for months because he used to try to use this term to describe claims in information processing.

    I would go so far as to say that MM and the like are responsible for the problems in this country. This because there is no longer a discourse that takes place. If a group wants something or thinks that something is right, they lie, cheat, and steal to get it, and don’t care about integrity, truth, or anything else.

    We see this play out in patent law just as it does in other national issues. We see it in the right and left.

  193. 92

    MaxDrei,

    Are you sure there are a not a few other edits needing to be made?

    Regarding “2) Most claims turn out to be invalid, once the knowledge of the PHOSITA and the relevant prior art has been determined”

    – Do you mean this statement to apply to the application rather than to the patent. Otherwise, what is the examination for? Are you dismissing the presumption of validity?

    Regarding “it wiped out national patent law, all over Europe,… In the EPC there’s nothing redundant.”
    I am not quite sure on either account. I still have to obtain and pay for national patents in each country I choose to enter after EP processing. Cannot challenges arise independently as well in each of several national states?

  194. 91

    Max,

    Don’t infringement actions often have very different results depending upon what country in which they are brought in europe? Say, Germany vs. the UK?

  195. 90

    Readers, Dennis, I apologise for the presence in the comment above of the rogue sentence “My advice to the USA was so helpful”. It makes no sense and appears between two sentences that ought to have nothing in between them. I did edit out a long block of text but, self-evidently, not all of it. I’m now deeply embarrassed by the appearance of text that will for some contributors confirm what they have long been saying about my contributions. An illustration of the perils of trying to do two things at the same time.

  196. 89

    Looking in from Europe, Ned, it all seems so simple. The Rules of Play would include the following:

    1) There’s only one meaning to any claim, whether in the PTO or the court, and whether for infringement or validity

    2) Most claims turn out to be invalid, once the knowledge of the PHOSITA and the relevant prior art has been determined

    3) The owners of claims that are valid and infringed are entitled to injunctive relief; and

    4) Those who do damage to others (for example by wilfully bringing proceedings for infringement of a claim that turns out to be invalid) should be required to compensate fully for the damage they cause.

    As usual, what screws things up is the practical problem, of getting from where we are today, to where we want to be. That’s why the dawn of the European Patent Convention in Europe in 1977My advice to the USA was so helpful. At a stroke, it wiped out national patent law, all over Europe, and replaced it with a system brand new, from the ground up. In the EPC there’s nothing redundant. It is the irreducible minimum of substantive law for a functioning patent system.

  197. 88

    Sounds like something Oliver Wendell Holmes would have written.

    Indeed, the whole point of patents is to disclose in print new and useful ideas for the benefit of all mankind, and to incent, by providing exclusive rights, the original investment in reducing the invention to practice and its subsequent disclosure in the patent.

    A patent that discloses nothing new is by definition a bad patent. A patent that bars new inventions with broad claims beyond the scope of disclosure is also a bad patent.

    But it is equally bad to deny an inventor his injunction on the grounds that he is not producing a product.

    It is equally bad to deny an inventor his damages by trick and fraud, which is what happens when a patent is reexamined based on BRI.

  198. 87

    There once was a judge long ago who wrote something like:

    The good patent gives the public something it didn’t have before, whereas the bad patent takes away from the public something it already had.

    Even more true today, yes?

    That judge was smart. Hand or Rich, right?

  199. 86

    New Here

    What are patents?

    Do patents protect products?

    Or

    Are patents property, providing exclusive rights to the inventor?

    If you listen to Obama, to Microsoft, to IBM, to Intel and to the eBay court, you would know what they think. What they think is fundamentally hostile to patents are property metaphysics.

  200. 85

    Posted by: Ned Heller | Jan 27, 2010 at 12:13 AM | “To any who doubt the fundamental hatred by socialists of property,”
    Whatever, I don’t recall the idea.

    Mr. Heller, the link you provide, is a subject not all agree with. Not to try to be ugly, but the patent system has for some years been a race to a rubber stamp. Once the patent system worked, today it is a danger. The SCOTUS from many readings of those there Nov 9, 09, is the high court imo, does not share the idea of patents with owners. Its my hope that soon the SCOTUS will take software patents off the table forever. The age of someone owns the square, or picking scabs, because someone can get a patent on those if someone did not get there first, should never be.

  201. 84

    Posted by: Actual Inventor | Jan 26, 2010 at 11:30 PM | “Most VC are reluctant to invest in a new/start up corporation without that company owning a patent or at least having a patent pending.”

    The layoffs are not all big corps. The mention of investment, not just VC, has its problem well defined within the unemployment today. No matter what patent(s) in what market(s), if people whom spend their money slow or even stop, the smallest of business will be forced to make a choice, that we all see what it has been so far for 10%+ of the 85% workforce ?. Corp job loss is smaller vs small business. Patents have little to do with what people spend their money on, the unemployment shows that as many markets are hit. So patents after all, they are subject to the forces of the markets they belong, with no way out because patents do not offer new ideas about how one can change, to meet change…sad.

  202. 83

    To those who were surprised that a socialist would favor patents, you truly did not listen to what Obamas said. He is in favor of licensing IP, not in favor of exclusive rights. But without the right to exclude, royalties will ultimately be set by the government, which fits in right well with socialism and with the eBay decision.

    To any who doubt the fundamental hatred by socialists of property, just read this (esp. Part II), Rousseau, Jean Jacques, “On the Origin of Inequality, 1754” link to constitution.org

  203. 82

    Just turn that fr9wn upside down, Mr. Moonpie.

    Are you pointing your plastic finger at me? 😉

  204. 80

    Posted by: NewHere | Jan 26, 2010 at 11:21 PM :”If patents have anything to do with jobs ? where is the value in patents that I should understand better ?.”

    Welcome NewHere!

    You are correct the big corps are laying off people. The value is to small businesses and start ups which create 85% of all new jobs. For these ventures to get off the ground they will need venture capital. Most VC are reluctant to invest in a new/start up corporation without that company owning a patent or at least having a patent pending. In short, more patents for small businesses, more jobs for everyone.

  205. 79

    If patents have anything to do with jobs ?, I don’t believe he is making a point. Ohio has unemployment as high as 14%+ in some parts. If a patent pitch is to mean anything, I see he will have to show patents are important to create / keeping jobs in Ohio first. Fact is many corps and companies are patent owners, they have done the layoffs to max profits while in a downturn; where is the value in patents that I should understand better ?.

  206. 77

    I like the base 6 idea better. I should file. Then I can sell them in an online store as 6 related merchandise without fear of someone making knockoffs and stealin on mah market share.

  207. 76

    IANAE: that is a better solution.

    DC: see IANAE solution above. Works for 0-31 with 01-09 included.

  208. 75

    The better way to do this is to have one die have the numbers 1-6 and the other 0-3 and 7-8. Any number between 1-31 can be represented with that pair of dice with the caveat that the 6 can be flipped upside down to serve as a 9. [As I was posting, I just saw that someone else has already done so.]

  209. 74

    “Ok I might be wrong as I am just bored, but displaying the days between 01 and 31 using 2 six sided die is impossible as you only have 12 faces leaving room for the numbers 0-9 and 2 of each of 1 and 2. There is no possible way to display the days 01-09, since in any possible configuration 3 of these dates would not be represented.

    OMG yr Patent fails in yr preferred embodiment.

    Represent the days in base 6 math instead of base 10?

  210. 73

    @Preacher AND IANAE – YOUR POSTED GRAPH IN FACT PLOTS THE % INCREASE IN ARTICLES OVER TIME BASED AT 1990 NUMBERS, NOT THE OVERALL NUMBER. Instead they just list the overall 2008 numbers on the right hand side of your graph.

    Below you’ll find a link the real graph showing the real data, and it includes the source data used.

    It’s not as bad as you make it out to be!

  211. 72

    Perhaps what we need is something like the Universal Copyright Convention where patents have universal effect provided they are in English; are examined by the USPTO, EPO or JPO, the prior art good against any patent application in any of these three offices applies during examination; and where post grant oppositions apply to all offices, with a common set of rules and a common international court of appeal available.

  212. 71

    Dear broje,

    I invented something recently — something Max wrote got me thinking…

    PS:
    Thanks Max.

  213. 70

    Unfortunately, no. People are no longer inventing things. They just go see Avatar over and over again.

  214. 65

    Mr. Adam Smith,

    I have tried numerous times to undo the bolding or italicizing after I phucked up but have never been able to undo the damage.

    You are a genius!

  215. 62

    If you wait long enough, “Jules” (Mooney) the baboon will start co-opting your insults and calling you a baboon. It’s just the way he works.

  216. 61

    IANAE, that is interesting. It puts NWPA’s proposal to shame. Kind of makes his baboon comments look dull as well. Guess we shouldn’t be so quick to cast insults, even if in retaliation, but I thought us grown-ups would know that by now?

  217. 60

    You know, one might take Obama’s comment (the one in the title of the blog entry) as favoring compulsory patent licensing.

    He probably didn’t really mean it that way, but that’s kind of what it sounds like nonetheless.

  218. 58

    displaying the days between 01 and 31 using 2 six sided die is impossible

    Two-cube-type calendars have existed for an awful long time. I’m surprised you’ve never seen one.

    You put the 0, 1, 2 on both dies, fill out the first with 3, 4, 5 (for example) and the second with 7, 8, 9.

    Pop quiz: what do you do on the 06th, 16th, 26th of the month?

  219. 57

    Ok I might be wrong as I am just bored, but displaying the days between 01 and 31 using 2 six sided die is impossible as you only have 12 faces leaving room for the numbers 0-9 and 2 of each of 1 and 2. There is no possible way to display the days 01-09, since in any possible configuration 3 of these dates would not be represented.

    OMG yr Patent fails in yr preferred embodiment.

  220. 52

    Sorry Mr. Adam Smith,

    Ooops, I remembered but I struck a typo — < / b ) – sorry. Too late now...

  221. 51

    ‘Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.’
    – John F. Kennedy[/b]

    I’ve always been horrified at how fascist a sentiment this one is. Fascisim is an ideal of selflessy sacrificing one’s own individual freedom for the good of the state. It’s the opposite of the primary principle on which the US was founded – that of individual freedom.

  222. 50

    “Italics & Bold on:

    – Italics & Bold off:

    — Remember to close your commands in reverse order.”

    PLEASE TAKE NOTE JAOI. You keep mucking up your HTML.

    “most people are not as self-absorbed as you are”

    Correct, they are MORE self-absorbed than you can ever imagine. Take Mooney for instance…

    It’s called rational self interest. Check it out.

    It’s waaaaaay better than liberal guilt and leads to a far more accurate understanding of human motivation. Hint: most humans are NOT motivated by altruism. Even the ones who say they are aren’t.

  223. 49

    Misquotes are valid if you bold them, right? Pretty sure that’s the rule. It would explain why so many agents think that anything underlined is a persuasive argument.

  224. 48

    Dear Mr. Six,
    You may like these remarks.

    Great Orators of the Democrat Party

    ‘One man with courage makes a majority.’
    – Andrew Jackson

    ‘The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.’
    – Franklin D. Roosevelt

    ‘The buck stops here.’
    – Harry S. Truman

    ‘Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.’
    – John F. Kennedy

    And, from today’s genius Democrats…

    ‘It depends what your definition of ‘Sex’ is.” “It depends what your definition of ‘is’ is.
    – Bill Clinton

    ‘That Obama… I would like to cut his NUTS off.’
    – Jesse Jackson

    ‘Those rumors are false… I believe in the sanctity of marriage.’
    – John Edwards

    ‘I invented the Internet’
    – Al Gore

    ‘The next Person that tells me I’m not religious, I’m going to shove my rosary beads up their bu’t’
    – Joe Biden

    ‘America is… is no longer, uh, what it… it, uh, could be, uh, what it was once was… uh, and I say to myself, ‘uh, I don’t want that future, uh, uh for my children.’
    – Barack Obama

    ‘I have campaigned in all 57 states.
    – Barack Obama (Quoted 2008)

    ‘You don’t need God anymore, you have us Democrats.’
    – Nancy Pelosi (Quoted 2006)

    ‘Paying taxes is voluntary.’
    – Sen. Harry Reid

    ‘Bill is the greatest husband and father I know. No one is more faithful, true, and honest than he.’
    – Hillary Clinton (Quoted 1998)

  225. 47

    “MM you just so stink of working for the government”

    Or maybe academia?

    “And that would be the worst thing ever. Why?”

    According to information received by The Independent (UK), by 2012 China may cease all exports of rare earth elements, reserving them for its own economic expansion.

    This could be devastating to the continued development of western technology. Not that rare earth metals in themselves have anything to do, necessarily, with R&D or patents, but the point should be clear to those capable of tying shoes as opposed to slipping on Birkenstocks.

    That means that hacks like Mooney won’t “get” this point.

  226. 46

    MM: And, (3) you don’t deny being an examiner or in the examining ranks. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

  227. 45

    MM: I notice that (1) you don’t deny working for the government, and (2) you don’t deny not being an attorney.

    And, you tend to try to be provactive to get me off the subject of (1) and (2) above.

  228. 44

    MM you just so stink of working for the government.

    When you finally manage to internalize the fact that most people are not as self-absorbed as you are, your guesses about their motivations will become more accurate.

    In the meantime, please continue to enjoy the company of your “friends” here. Patents uber alles, and all that.

  229. 42

    “And that would be the worst thing ever. Why?”

    I forgot how much you enjoy being second-rate…

  230. 41

    >>And that would be the worst thing ever. Why?

    MM you just so stink of working for the government.

  231. 40

    “Guess Obama can use the guy’s invention without making him a billionaire after all, since it’s clearly not enabled”

    No, you are right after all.

  232. 38

    Make fun at your peril broje. At the present comparative growth rates, they will overtake us in a year or two.

    And that would be the worst thing ever. Why? Because God hates Chinese people. Or something. Now where did that silly script go?

  233. 37

    Make fun at your peril broje. At the present comparative growth rates, they will overtake us in a year or two. I hope you are ready to learn Chinese… aswhole.

  234. 36

    What the graph shows is that while we in America sit around with a broken political system that has been hijacked by Marxists, jibber jabbering about patents, the Chinese, the biggest manufacturers in the world and owners of our debt, have increased their R&D contributions to the literature by thousands of percentage points.

    Hacks like Mooney won’t “get” this point. And its not even a nuance.

  235. 35

    I got 80% allowance in the first OA (after 4 years of waiting)

    Your one data point sure does allow for some accurate statistics.

    Odd to hear a patentee complaining about his patents getting allowed, though.

  236. 34

    “I’m a little stunned. I would have thought that the field of desktop perpetual calendars would at least have enough art for at least ONE half-hearted 102 or 103 rejection”

    Big deal

    I got 80% allowance in the first OA (after 4 years of waiting) in the field with about 500 issued and 100 pending US patents solving pretty much the same technical problem
    The poor sob examiner understood the problem but could not grasp the solution

    perpetual calendar… you gotta be kidding..
    don’t need PhD for this

  237. 33

    Your proposal would not work. It would not leave enough sides to print all 12 months.

    Funny you should say that, since my proposal happens to be exactly what’s disclosed in the spec. Column 4, lines 39-42, and again in column 5.

    Guess Obama can use the guy’s invention without making him a billionaire after all, since it’s clearly not enabled.

  238. 32

    Has anyone looked at the file wrapper for this patent? It’s amazing–one office action with a 112 rejection for indefiniteness, one amendment with a 3-line remarks section stating that the amendments overcome the technical objections and define the invention over the prior art (interestingly, there were no rejections in view of any prior art because the claims were too indefinite for such a rejection to be made), and then issuance. I’m a little stunned. I would have thought that the field of desktop perpetual calendars would at least have enough art for at least ONE half-hearted 102 or 103 rejection.

  239. 31

    IANAE

    “It’s way more user-friendly to have one plate with Saturday”

    Your proposal would not work. It would not leave enough sides to print all 12 months.

  240. 30

    To finish this out, use one Saturday plate having January on the reverse and another Saturday plate with February on the reverse.

    It’s way more user-friendly to have one plate with Saturday on the front and nothing on the reverse. That way you don’t grab the wrong Saturday and spend all day looking for the January.

    Come on, you guys. This is why we need smart people like Q to rescue the economy.

  241. 29

    “Presto”

    To finish this out, use one Saturday plate having January on the reverse and another Saturday plate with February on the reverse. That way only 10 plates (backs and fronts) are needed for months and weekdays.

  242. 28

    “I’ll bet a baboon could never have done that.”

    Dont worry, I am sending my Best Baboon here to stink up the thread in no time.

  243. 27

    There are ten plates (five top and five bottom), which is plenty of space for twelve months and seven days.

  244. 26

    >>but two six-sided dice and five calendar plates

    without looking at the patent (off the top of my head):

    the calendar plates aren’t there six so you have 12 faces.

    dice:

    7,8,9,1,2,0
    1,2,3,4,5,6

    and presto it works.

    I’ll bet a baboon could never have done that.

  245. 25

    It’s not just China. The U.S. Government does not respect the intellectual property of others, either.

    See Margolin v. Bolden, Second Amended Complaint:
    link to jmargolin.com

    BTW, it turns out that the humble peanut butter-and-jelly sandwich is a good metaphor for patents.(Bottom of page 17)

  246. 23

    There is no way anyone can extend US patent rights to foreign countries

    If I were standing in Obama’s shoes, knowing as I do that the only answer to the person’s question is “there is no way”, I’d dodge the question too.

    Unless the world comes up with some kind of EPO-style central patent examining body (which, frankly, I’m surprised even Europe managed to agree on), the only thing Obama can do for that inventor is use foreign policy to make foreign patents a little more worthwhile.

    Still, he’ll never solve the problem that people in some foreign countries will always be willing to do unskilled labour more cheaply than Americans, and he’ll never fill those empty factories or derepossess the homes they were helping to pay off.

  247. 22

    broje: “I don’t know why people view socialism as anti-patent.”

    Hey, its only the “anti patent socialist” I have a problem with. The pro patent socialist can buy a license from me anytime 🙂

    In fact you can have any political view you like as long as it does not tread on my constitutional right to a patent.

  248. 21

    “Q If you can’t use it, the government could use it, and I could build a multibillion-dollar business here in Ohio. (Laughter.)”

    I’m not sure if this was meant as a joke, but it really captures the inventor as person-who-can’t-figure-out-the-value-of-his-invention stereotype. His invention seems to be some version of modified desk calendar. The market is going to be kind of small. It’s usability is lacking. It perhaps has some value in a novelty category.

    Also, perhaps I’m missing something, but two six-sided dice and five calendar plates (assuming double sided) doesn’t seem to cover the breadth of possible days/months.

  249. 20

    There’s an obvious clue being missed (not THE clue, for sure): This was in Ohio.

    Ohio has enjoyed being a pivotal state in presidential elections for the last several cycles.

    All it has to show for it are the same broken promises. We can at least put those broken promises in the empty factories and repossessed homes.

    I would like to see more of these jobs (and would like to see them sooner rather than later).

  250. 19

    I don’t know why people view socialism as anti-patent. Maybe people are mixing up socialism and nationalisation. But it’s not really anti-private property at all. For example, the existence of the US post office doesn’t seem to bother UPS all that much. And if the enterprising gentleman that started UPS had enjoyed a patent on his business method for a limited time, that would not have interfered with the post office at all.

    I have to say that I know a lot of “liberal lefties” who are pro patent. To my knowledge, anti-patent is not part of the “liberal agenda.” I mean, all that stuff happened during the Bush administration, primarily at the hands of Republican appointees. It just seems to me that it’s big business that is pushing for weaker patents, and we all know which way that wind blows.

  251. 18

    “And one of the things that we’re also doing is using our export arm of the U.S. government to help work with medium-sized businesses and small businesses, not just the big multinationals to protect their rights in some of these areas, because we need to boost exports.”

    Except for this rather vague reference, I don’t think President Obama actually answered the inventor’s question:

    “With all this free trade and trade barriers falling, it’s really hard for an individual like me with a global-scope patent to file all over the world and get patent protection everywhere, and having to go overseas to fight infringement. So if you’re going to drop trade barriers, maybe you can extend my patent rights to the foreign countries.”

    The truth is that obtaining foreign patent protection is expensive, about $15K to $20K per country, and independent inventors have a real difficult time paying just for the US patent. PCT helps a little by allowing deferment of the most expensive part (national stage prosecution and language translation) until later, when maybe there is a little money coming in from US marketing of the invention.

    There is no way anyone can extend US patent rights to foreign countries (other than the importation protections already in US patent law), but maybe the US can do more to help small entities obtain adequate international breadth of patent coverage, e.g., with some kind of grant system for funding overseas applications for patent.

  252. 17

    Ha-Nice one,7.

    Obama is right on China. They talk a good game, even the laws (on paper) may look pretty good, but essentially *zero* enforcement…

  253. 16

    how about that. at a quick reading, obama seems to actually get the importance of intellectual property.

    did that dem loss in mass smack the socialism out of obama or something?

  254. 15

    THE PRESIDENT: Look, our competitive advantage in the world is going to be people like this who are using their minds to create new products, new services.

    THE ACTUAL INVENTOR: Right! This President, at least in this speech gets it! It’s all about Actual Inventors, not about anti patent socialist or incompetent examiners that never invented a single thing in their lives or made a single positive contribution to the free enterprise system. It’s especially encouraging to see the President use the language “new services”. This indicate this President understands that not only products, machines and the like are patentable subject matter and needed but also processes and stand alone business methods are patentable as well. To get this economy rolling and put people back to work we need strong broad patents on innovative processes. After all how can you create new services without inventing new processes? So on this day, on this issue I say Go Obama!

    THE PRESIDENT: And one of the problems that we have had is insufficient protection for intellectual property rights.  That’s true in China; it’s true for everything from bootleg DVDs to very sophisticated software.
    THE ACTUAL INVENTOR: Okay did you read this people????? The President considers “software” as patentable subject matter. Let’s hope the wise men and women on the Supreme Court heard that as well.

    THE PRESIDENT: And there’s nothing wrong with other people using our technologies.  We just want to make sure that it’s licensed and you’re getting paid.

    THE ACTUAL INVENTOR: Amen brother, Amen! Someone from the administration has been reading my post! 😉

    THE PRESIDENT: Five percent — maybe a million jobs, well-paying jobs.  So we’re going to have to pry those markets open.  Intellectual property is part of that process.

    THE ACTUAL INVENTOR: Can I get an Amen? Bring on Bilski! Bring on the world! There is going to be a revolution, an information age revolt and this revolution will be televised! And maybe patented 😀

  255. 13

    just what does the vertical axis represent?

    The vertical axis represents the number of articles published in peer-reviewed journals, “rebased” so that for each country the number of articles in 1990 is 100. It’s kind of like how they rebase the Consumer Price Index to 100 every now and again – it’s meant to show percentage growth since a reference date.

  256. 12

    Just in, DOJ just filed a declaratory judgement action on behalf of the US gov’t against the guy for mentioning the patent. They filed it in some court house in Guantanamo.

  257. 11

    Oh no. Scholarship in China is on the rise! It may one day equal that of the US!! It’s the apocalypse!!!

    More seriously, just what does the vertical axis represent? The graph looks ominous, but the US, with les than 1/4 as many people as China, still publishes about 3 times as many scholarly articles, so what’s the big deal?

  258. 10

    Preacher, I don’t understand that graph, and I suppose it has something to do with the “Rebased” portion. But the way I see it, the US has 332,916 articles, which is more than any other country. Because it is not easy to understand, that was a bad choice of graph. Let’s take it down to a 2nd grade level.

  259. 7

    Wow, that sounds good–sophisticated software! Maybe information processing patents will live on despite the baboons.

  260. 6

    Obama says :”There’s nothing wrong with other people using our technologies. We just want to make sure that it’s licensed and you’re getting paid.”

    Notwithstanding the misguided notion of enforcement of U.S. patents overseas, The first part sounds like he forgot about the exclusive right.

    Maybe that’s how they do it in Kenya…

  261. 5

    Obama either thinks that US patent rights extend overseas or he, like the CAFC, doesn’t realize that the Patent Laws allow an inventor the right to exclude others.

    He seemed pretty clear on the concept that China is in charge of patent rights in China.

    Also, he seemed pretty clear on the concept that the right to exclude isn’t so you can exclude people. It’s so you can charge people money to be un-excluded. That’s why the profits come later, but first you need an enforceable patent in the jurisdiction where people will be practicing your invention.

  262. 4

    “it’s true for everything from bootleg DVDs to very sophisticated software”

    lol. That’s a wide spectrum of inventions (insert Sarcmark here). This administration is very IT savy, but I don’t know if they’re savy in anything else. In all honesty though, IT and its impact on business, the economy, and the workplace is certainly notable.

  263. 3

    Obama: “And one of the problems that we have had is insufficient protection for intellectual property rights. That’s true in China; it’s true for everything from bootleg DVDs to very sophisticated software. And there’s nothing wrong with other people using our technologies. We just want to make sure that it’s licensed and you’re getting paid.”

    yeah right, Mr Prez

    Only the main problem is in good old USA
    Fix the US Patent System first before going to China
    Talk to your SCOTUS buddies – they’ve done a great job putting a lot of independent inventors in US out of business

  264. 2

    Obama either thinks that US patent rights extend overseas or he, like the CAFC, doesn’t realize that the Patent Laws allow an inventor the right to exclude others.

  265. 1

    Wait, “build a multi-billion dollar company”? Isn’t this the same president that scoffs at profits? Afterall, “this is not the time for profits, that will come later.”

Comments are closed.