First Amendment - unless you don't like the message
I think the public deserves to know what is going on around them, and I applaud the paper for printing it.
Yes, I realize people will pick on them; if they don't like the message, or think the people they relate to don't, they will (obviously) state the paper should/shouldn't have done X, and it was snide to do/not do Y, etc.
COMPLETE disclosure - as Thomas Jefferson said "democracy depends on an informed electorate" (something like that).
As an IP attorney, I can tell you. the examiner was thinking that by meeting the "performance vs. revenue" goals of the USPTO, which generally mean disallowing inventions while allowing anything that is easy and makes a lot of money, the Director will be pleased.
It is really strange that Ellsberg is one of our real heroes, and Manning is a "traitor", etc.
As Einstein said, "only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe".
Manning, to me, is a hero.
As an IP (aka "patent") attorney, I have given this a great amount of thought, as well as seeing the consequences with my clients.
I think three things are appropriate:
1. NO software patents,
2. Any action on infringement should be allowed only with a showing of USE, and that showing should be supported only with considerable evidence of use. If you aren't using it, you can't protect it.
3. Unless you want to sell our souls to the wealthy, we need to be sure small inventors can avail themselves of the lower cost fees mandated by Congress, and ignored by the USPTO.
He's right. I found out the hard way, as a manager. I found that we had customers who were beginning to find excuses NOT to do business with us, because some of our salesmen were so focussed on getting a commission (then jumping to another company) that they were actually abusive.
Our best salesmen (LONG term) were on a salary, and really cared about the company - that's what we ended up with, by the way.
DEFINITELY a problem (and as an IP (aka "patent") attorney I can see it better than most. It would be worthwhile at least
considering getting rid of the USPTO (which would put me out of business, but be good for the US).
So, maybe we should whine less and do more??
Obama, I think, actually does have an approach that will work, if he can get the Republicans in the House to go along (well, okay, his approach won't work - they are more concerned with personal power than saving the nation - sigh).
1. It will be 20 years before I retire (though I have considered founding a company, and doing that instead)
2. The real problems are relatively recent
3. Lawyers are ethically bound to represent their clients,
and if they resort to actually fighting the system, they
need to be ousted. They are NOT judge, jury, or politician,
and pretending they are is counterproductive.
That said, I am free to express my personal opinion, and
I would contribute to a politician, or even an individual,
who would DO something - most people would rather whine.
Seems like for trivia, you can always find a "champion" to step up and lead a movement. For really important stuff like this, everyone simply sits around bitching and moaning.
At 81, I am not much inclined to be a "champion", but I would contribute what I could to someone who worked at fixing this (even though I am an IP attorney, still working).
I think someone should start targeting members of Congress who are too happy with the money they get from business to work for the people, such as by dismantling this broken system (thereby putting me out of work, but I am okay with that).