Home | Subscribe | Post a Job | Advertise | Contact
« Obviousness as a Question of Law |
| Disavowal of Claim Scope and Beauregard Method Claims »
by Dennis Crouch
The expected number of grants for 2012 is based upon a straight extrapolation from the number of patents granted thus far in 2012.
Posted on Mar 11, 2012 at 07:50 AM | Permalink
| Save to del.icio.us
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Good luck explaining
You can't wash away the Gray,
You surely can't use Bleach.
You surely must use MARKS-A-LOT,
without the legal reach.
Good luck explaining Gray,
the one that smells of PIG.
The one like you big pooper,
who tried but failed to rig.
Mar 11, 2012 at 08:04 AM
Nothing like a patent thicket to create jobs.
Scott Dunn |
Mar 11, 2012 at 09:07 AM
Prof. Crouch, where is the note that accompanies information like this that tells the rest of the story? That tells of the record rejections and abandonments?
Don't you realize yet that posts like this are used as fodder by the anti-patent groups? Without a complete and balanced view, it appears that you wish to enable those groups. One can easily believe that this is a part of your agenda.
Let me just add the post from the last time such misdirection was posted ( http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/01/2011-patent-grants-a-new-record.html ):
Articles like this are fodder for the anti-patent crowd. Fuel for Something, alright
Let's see the rest of the story:
The previous regime's suppression of rightful patents being stopped and the backlog of those finally being acted upon.
The "record" rejections and other Office actions that paint a more complete and less misleading picture (the Office is not rubber stamping everything "Accept Accept Accept."
Come now, Prof. Crouch, this call for balance in your reporting is not the first time.
Reply Jan 05, 2012 at 07:51 AM
P. Harvey |
Mar 11, 2012 at 09:15 AM
Too late Mr. Harvey. See the prior post by Scott Dunn.
But thanks for the link. The link has a supreme smackdown of MM, which was most enjoyable.
Anti-Patent Fodder |
Mar 11, 2012 at 09:46 AM
"Don't you realize yet that posts like this are used as fodder by the anti-patent groups? Without a complete and balanced view, it appears that you wish to enable those groups. One can easily believe that this is a part of your agenda."
So D goes out of his way to provide you with a nice graph of patent grants and you accuse him of giving anti-patent people ammo? Seriously?
Mar 11, 2012 at 05:18 PM
Did you happen to read the post Before P. Harvey's?
Where do you get your powers of observation? From under a rock?
Mar 11, 2012 at 08:01 PM
License or invent around.
Why does a thicket worry you so?
Too hard to be lazy?
But that would mean I have to work |
Mar 12, 2012 at 05:51 AM
So are we to hide away facts and data?
There is not even statistical creativity applied. It is merely a bar chart of data. The only text with the graph explains that the last bar includes an extrapolation.
It's just such a strange reaction.
Facts are the Devil's work |
Mar 12, 2012 at 07:34 AM
Read closer you devil.
P. Harvey is not calling for facts or data to be hid away. He is calling for a full disclosure.
You might try "googling" Paul Harvey to figure this one out.
The Devil is in the Details (but you have to READ the details) |
Mar 12, 2012 at 07:42 AM
LOL, so you don't even know anyone who has attempted a startup?
Try asking them how hindering and useless patents are. Then ask them what the first question was that their potential investors asked.
bad joke ahead |
Mar 12, 2012 at 07:51 AM
" expected number of grants for 2012 is based upon a straight extrapolation from the number of patents granted thus far in 2012"
I am curious to know whether or not here is a reasonable basis for doing this. For example, did the 1st 10 weeks of 2010, 2011 compare in straight fashion to the respective full-year number?
Or were the 1st 10 weeks on a considerably higher target vis-a-vis actual full-year?
I don't know either way but it'd be interesting to learn. It does seem to me that many of the AU's I deal with tend to "pull back" on allowance rates as the year matures.
Ima arrow as a straight, Uroner! |
Mar 12, 2012 at 11:30 AM
"You might try "googling" Paul Harvey to figure this one out."
Is he that frothy mixture of lube and matter that is sometimes the byproduct of law school?
Mar 12, 2012 at 11:26 PM
Without a complete and balanced view, it appears that you wish to enable those groups. One can easily believe that this is a part of your agenda.
So says the stain in P. Harvey's diaper.
Man, this blog has the dxmbest trolls.
Mar 12, 2012 at 11:37 PM
"Man, this blog has the dxmbest trolls."
Oh, lookie, one of those rare self-authenticating comments.
Schnicker, Doodle, Dee! |
Mar 13, 2012 at 04:23 PM
It's not that rare.
Mar 13, 2012 at 04:38 PM
This surge in patent grants and filings is welcome news. I only hope that an increasingly-likely new war in the Middle East doesn't reverse all progress made in the global economy's recovery.
patent litigation |
May 01, 2012 at 10:04 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
Jason Rantanen, Associate ProfessorUniversity of IowaCollege of LawSSRN Articles
Occasional guest posts by IP practitioners and academics