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.” 

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.

Comments

[Bad Joke Ahead]

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."

[bleedingpen]

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.

[fatalist]

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

[Jules]

"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.

[IANAE]

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.

[Preacher]

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...

[Night Writer Patent Attorney]

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

[Preacher]

Forget about all that, here is the REAL problem...

[Preacher]

Let's try that again, here is the REAL problem:

[Jules]

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.

[broje TINLA IANYL]

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?

[John Boyd]

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.

[IANAE]

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.

[details]

Preacher, are all peer reviewed journals equal?

[Actual Inventor]

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 :-D

[7]

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?

[GF]

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...

[Mark]

"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.

[broje TINLA IANYL]

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.

[Angry Ohian]

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).

[mmm]

"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.

[Actual Inventor]

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.

[IANAE]

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.

[Malcolm Mooney]

ABA: my constitutional right to a patent.

So many mouthbreathers, so little time.

[J. Margolin]

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:
http://www.jmargolin.com/nasa/refs/doc016-1.pdf

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

[Night Writer Patent Attorney]

>>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.

[IANAE]

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

[Baboon King]

"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.

[Just Visiting]

"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.

[IANAE]

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.

[Just Visiting]

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.

[Examination? What Examination?]

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.

[IANAE]

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.

[fatalist]

"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

[IANAE]

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.

[Preacher]

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.

[Preacher]

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.

[Malcolm Mooney]

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?

[IANAE]

Hey, at least the Chinese are outperforming the Marxists by a significant margin. Or something.

[Just Visiting]

"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.

[Night Writer Patent Attorney]

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

MM you just so stink of working for the government.

[Preacher]

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

I forgot how much you enjoy being second-rate...

[Mooney's Mom]

God just hates you Mooney. Oh, and so do I.

[Malcolm Mooney]

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.

[Night Writer Patent Attorney]

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.

[Night Writer Patent Attorney]

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

[Preacher]

"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.

[Just an ordinary inventor(TM)]

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)
HOW LUCKY CAN WE BE TO HAVE SUCH BRILLIANT MINDS IN CHARGE OF OUR ONCE GREAT COUNTRY?

''Life's tough... it's even tougher if you're st’pid.''
- John Wayne

[IANAE]

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.

[Adam Smith]

"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.

[broje TINLA IANYL]

'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.

[Just an ordinary inventor(TM)]

Sorry Mr. Adam Smith,

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

[Adam Smith]

Mooney is always thinking about all of our well being...

LOL

[Adam Smith]

test

[Adam Smith]

test

[Adam Smith]

you're welcome...

[bored examiner]

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.

[IANAE]

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?

[bored examiner]

Oh good point IANAE

[A plurality of thresholding units]

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.

[Jules]

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?

[Preacher]

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.

[Adam Smith]

Oh, Preacher, you are very astute (and no doubt handsome too)

[You Can Do It Too]

Good point Adam

[Just an ordinary inventor(TM)]

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!

[We All Can Do It]

Oh, no. I disagree

[Malcolm Mooney]

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

Jimi knows the answer.

[broje TINLA IANYL]

Just turn that fr9wn upside down, Mr. Moonpie.

[Just an ordinary white rabbit(TM)]

Hey, don't youse guys/gals have any work to do?

You too boss!

[broje TINLA IANYL]

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

[Just an ordinary inventor(TM)]

Dear broje,

I invented something recently -- something Max wrote got me thinking...

PS:
Thanks Max.

[Ned Heller]

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.

[AnotherJuniorExaminer]

@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.

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/c0/fig00-18.htm

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

[6]

"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?

[Dennis Crouch]

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.]

[NIght Writer Patent Attorney]

IANAE: that is a better solution.

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

[6]

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.

[Teddy readbothways]

Another great quote:

A man a plan a canal Panama

[NewHere]

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 ?.

[Actual Inventor]

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.

[Malcolm Mooney]

Just turn that fr9wn upside down, Mr. Moonpie.

Are you pointing your plastic finger at me?

[Malcolm Mooney]

Just turn that fr9wn upside down, Mr. Moonpie.

Are you pointing your plastic finger at me? ;)

[Ned Heller]

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" http://www.constitution.org/jjr/ineq.htm

[NeweHere]

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.

[NewHere]

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.

[Ned Heller]

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.

[MaxDrei]

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?

[Ned Heller]

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.

[MaxDrei]

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.

[MaxDrei]

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.

[7]

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?

[breadcrumbs]

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?

[Night Writer Patent Attorney]

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.

[Night Writer Patent Attorney]

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.

[Night Writer Patent Attorney]

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.

[Night Writer Patent Attorney]

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.

[MaxDrei]

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.

[Night Writer Patent Attorney]

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.

[fatalist]

"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

[Lionel Hutz]

JAOI,

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