Commerce Secretary, New USPTO Head Suggesting They Want More Patents, Approved Faster
from the that-doesn't-seem-good dept
Two separate stories concerning statements from those in charge of the patent system suggest that the new administration isn’t about to help fix the problems in the patent system, but is eagerly looking to make them worse. It starts with new USPTO Director David Kappos, who some thought would recognize problems with the patent system from his years dealing with those problems at IBM. While IBM is a massive patent stockpiler, over the past few years it’s at least indicated some recognition that the system is broken. But… his recent remarks suggest he wants to reverse the trend of patent examiners rejecting so many patents:
On the subject of quality, there has been speculation in the IP community that examiners are being encouraged to reject applications because a lower allowance rate equals higher quality. Let’s be clear: patent quality does not equal rejection.
I don’t think I could disagree any more strongly. Patent quality absolutely means keeping out bad patents — something the USPTO has failed at for years. Considering the massive monopoly power handed out by a patent, one should only be granted in the rarest of cases — when real quality, and a real need for the patent can be shown. After a lot of criticism about the way that patent system was run for the past few decades (where “when in doubt, approve” was the norm) since about 2004, the USPTO has finally started to become more aggressive in rejecting patents. Having the USPTO switch back in the other direction would be a massive mistake.
Meanwhile, an even more worrisome issue is that Kappos’ boss, Gary Locke, the US Secretary of Commerce, seems to buy into all sorts of disproved myths about the patent system. It doesn’t help that the journalists at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel seem to believe them too. Check out this quote, for example:
And economists concur that patents are the best known indicator of innovation.
Um, actually, a rather large number of economists do not concur at all on that statement (and note that two of those are Nobel Laureates), and can stack up study after study after study that suggests the opposite. But why let facts get in the way of an old myth?
The real problem, which becomes evident in reading the article is that since the USPTO is funded based on patent application fees, it has every incentive in the world, as an institution, to approve more patents. The more patents it approves, the more applications it gets, which means more money as well. This isn’t to say that the individual examiners don’t take their jobs seriously, and approve stuff just to get the fees. Obviously, they’re not directly a part of that calculus. But the incentives put in place at higher levels are to bring in more fees to better fund the USPTO. Of course, if it functioned as originally intended, and only narrowly approved patents that were clearly shown to be a new and non-obvious invention that promoted the progress, the staff and the budget could be cut down significantly. But since when has a gov’t agency ever willingly looked for ways to cut its own budget?
Filed Under: david kappos, gary locke, patents, uspto
Comments on “Commerce Secretary, New USPTO Head Suggesting They Want More Patents, Approved Faster”
disincentive
If every USPTO PHB had to deduct from their pay a certain amount for each approved patent, things might be a bit different.
I fear the stance taken here is just as dangerous as the one you argue about. I find it heartening that they are interested in in speeding up the process again. The backlog is growing and growing yielding shortened viable patent time. I gaurentee this is a dissencetive to innovation.
So while I agree that the each patent needs to be investigated thouroughly, and many more should have been dissmissed due to obviousness or prior work, expecting a certain percentage of approvals either higher or lower is a mistake.
Re: Re:
This is a disincentive to getting patent, not to innovation.
What we need is more patents, rejected faster.
“Um, actually, a rather large number of economists do not concur at all on that statement (and note that two of those are Nobel Laureates), and can stack up study after study after study that suggests the opposite. But why let facts get in the way of an old myth?”
True, many disagree, and I am sure many more think that Patents are not good for innovation. But I am also sure that many more are in favor of patents, and with good arguments.
I think this is a question of opinion and not facts. Stating indirectly (or directly?) that patents are not good for innovation is a fact, you are engaging in ideological dictatorship (not accepting others opinions). You, and all other people (economists or not economists) that think that patents are not good for innovation have a good point, and good arguments. I won’t battle that. But there are others who think the opposite, and they also have good points and arguments, so please don’t disrespect others OPINIONS.
Re: Re:
“don’t disrespect others OPINIONS”
He did not. Mike just wrote that there is no consensus on the issue, and that a very significant portion of economists “do not concur at all”. All Mike wants is a little respect for the “con” side of the patent debate.
That, by no means, suggests that there is only one side to the debate. Au contraire, Mike is arguing that there ARE two sides to the debate, and he would prefer that the press recognize that fact.
Re: Re: Re:
I don’t agree, sorry. This sentence “But why let facts get in the way of an old myth?” suggest the opposite in my opinion.
“But since when has a gov’t agency ever willingly looked for ways to cut its own budget?”
There is a crossroads, and dead in the center is a $100 bill. At the end of each of the four roads leading to the crossroads is a person, all them an equal distance from the $100 bill:
1. An honest, non-beuracratic governmnt head, who runs his operation properly w/o constantly angling for more budget money and expansion
2. A dishonest, slow-moving beuracrat, who runs his operation by staffing it with government employed halfwits and is constantly vying to make his operation, and government in general, larger
3. The Easter Bunny
4. Santa Claus
So, which of them gets to the $100 bill first? If you said #2, you are correct. Do you know why?
BECAUSE THE OTHER THREE ARE FIGMENTS OF YOUR FUCKING IMAGINATION!!!
Re: Re:
LOL … Dude … old joke but really funny …..
Re: Re:
“BECAUSE THE OTHER THREE ARE FIGMENTS OF YOUR FUCKING IMAGINATION!!!”
Yet another example of why we should have a comment rating option…
I guess it is hard for me to see past my surroundings but I think they are a fair example.
I work for an innovative chemical company with around 100 granted patents. More than half of our employees work in R&D creating the next generation of tech. We can do this, and do it in America because of the protection the patents have given us. The combination of new scrutiny, explosion of patent applications, and change in time given a patent have caused a much smaller window for us to leverage the patent.
If it were up to me I think that the USPTO should be much bigger and faster. Not to grant me more junk patents but to get the job done in a timely, consistant way. I think it could have a very stimulitiver effect on the success of innovative companies in the US.
This site and others have argued that the concept of patents, copyright etc are to encourage creation. They may not be used as such, but that doesn’t mean the system is irrelevent.
What I would hope to hear more of is how the USPTO was/is totally unequipt/out of step. The explosion of knowledge technology has made everyone a musician/photographer/ movie producer/ journalist etc. why not a patent holder? So there may be a lot of things I want from the USPTO but to slow down is not one of them.
Re: @Dave
I believe this is what TD is arguing, that true patents like your companies are the minority or atleast swamped by “junk” patents. They are not saying that the “system is irrelevant,” they are saying that it is severely broken. There needs to be a massive restructuring of USPTO, not by making it bigger but simply more efficient. As everyone knows, once you give the government power it is VERY hard, if not impossible, to get them to give it up. Making it bigger would not increase its speed just make it more bloated and susceptible to “junk” patents.
I don’t think anyone would argue that we should not have patents, but the ones we have should only be given to promote innovation not stifle it. If they said tomorrow that they found a way to increase the output of patents and virtually eliminate all “junk” patents, I would think TD would be the first, or an immediate second, to prays them.
Re: Re: @Dave
I guess I was a little harsh on TD, but as much as I would love everything to be fixed by being more efficient, that doesn’t always work. Especially if two of the biggest issues I see are higher volume, and needed increased scrutiny I think some growth is inevitable.
Now as an aside the Supreme Court taking up more patent cases and helping to create more narrow structured guidence would be a big help. But I am in fantasy land if I expect that to happen.
Re: Re:
“I work for an innovative chemical company with around 100 granted patents.”
Fantastic. Also irrelevant. The question isn’t whether it works for your company, the question is whether it works for the economy as a whole. If you can’t compete without a patent portfolio, you’re inefficient.
Re: Re: Re:
I guess my expierience is narrow, but could you explain to me why using patents to recoup costs of innovation is somehow ineffcient?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“I guess my expierience is narrow, but could you explain to me why using patents to recoup costs of innovation is somehow ineffcient?”
Well, you already have first-to-market advantage, on account of your innovating. Why should we (i.e., everyone else) give you multiple bites at the apple? If someone comes along and can do it better, faster, whatever, why are you suddenly a coddled child?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Hey maybe we shouldn’t be given an advantage, but in my field it is very easy, and very cheap to have someone in India or China copy my work. We invest millions discovering a new compound, and a new application. It then takes years to get a company to decide to use it. A company then builds a machine around our tech, which has to get approved by the FDA etc. So it is around 10 years after we file that it starts making money. In that time we can get almost as efficient as the overseas companies. The problem is we would also like to fund the next generation of compounds.
I am not arguing for a less stringent patent system. I just know all the garbage applciations that everyone here complains about has slowed the process.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Dave, your experience IS narrow. A fully efficient market will produce the goods demanded by society at the lowest possible cost. Giving you a monopoly artificially suppresses supply, inflates prices, and causes you to overproduce at an artificially high cost to the detriment of the rest of the market.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
So you think all Research should be funded by new investors just trying to play the lottery? or do we count on the NIH for everything? My work goes into new medical diagnostic testing. Our share of the patient cost is around 0.05%. A 3rd world knockoff would drop that down to 0.03%. Forgive me if I fail to see the massive price differential.
And yes we enjoy a monopoly over our tech but we have to compete with dozens of other technologies.
Without the patent protection we could probably still make money, but 5 or 10 years down the road, when doctors are clamoring for better tests ……..
Re: Re:
I believe you’re full of crap. If you had misspelled some other, non-science word like amelioratier or something like that, then maybe, but ‘stimulativer’?
Aside from that, even if you are what you say you are, which I grant is possible, I know plenty of crappy spellers. Even so, your statement is full of circular logic that deconstructs itself under scrutiny.
“We can do this, and do it in America because of the protection the patents have given us. The combination [i.e. long patent process]…have caused a much smaller window for us to leverage the patent.”
Leverage assumes leverage over and above your competition who would be in exactly the same patent-boat as you. You’ve got the same factor in the numerator and the denominator there, Dave.
What you’re failing to calculate is the additional HUGE market inefficiency created by the increased flow of additional artificial monopolies. You may think that’s good for you, but it’s actually bad for us all.
Re: Re: Re:
I may be a crappy speller but
http://www.lumigen.com/
That’s me with goatee in the blue and white photo.
What I was getting at with the “leverage” comment was that while things are under patent we recieve a royalty payment for use, as well as charge a cost for the goods. As an enabling technology we think this is appropriate, and our customers agree. Our competition in this case is not other innovative tech makers but copycat chemical makers in india/china, because when the patent expires royalty goes away and we compete on price alone.
“But… his recent remarks suggest he wants to reverse the trend of patent examiners rejecting so many patents: “
Mike, his comment was to allay the rumors of “reject reject reject” amongst practicioners so they’d stop btching.
“Patent quality absolutely means keeping out bad patents — something the USPTO has failed at for years.”
That is what his very next fews sentences say.
“But the incentives put in place at higher levels are to bring in more fees to better fund the USPTO.”
Perhaps you could shine me some light on these particular incentives. Because I myself have never witnessed them.
“Of course, if it functioned as originally intended, and only narrowly approved patents that were clearly shown to be a new and non-obvious invention that promoted the progress, the staff and the budget could be cut down significantly.”
Did you know that the original patent laws in this country had no obviousness requirement (that is, 103 did not exist and had no equivalent) and that many decades went by before the courts stepped in and made a judicially required obviousness requirement? It was later made statutory.
“I believe this is what TD is arguing, that true patents like your companies are the minority or atleast swamped by “junk” patents. “
That is not necessarily true. While the office does have a huge number of biz method etc. patents it simply does not follow that the rest are being swamped by them. The rest are being swamped by similar applications in their respective AU’s. Nobody cares if the backlog in the business method AU’s goes through the roof (or at least nobody worth mentioning) but that won’t impact the other AU’s (electronics, chemicals, etc.).
The heart of the issue behind the ills of the patent system is the judiciary reviewing the agency and patent litigation decisions, with the laxity of all the parties concerned as an ancilliary concern.
“I believe this is what TD is arguing, that true patents like your companies are the minority or atleast swamped by “junk” patents. “
That is not necessarily true. While the office does have a huge number of biz method etc. patents it simply does not follow that the rest are being swamped by them. The rest are being swamped by similar applications in their respective AU’s. Nobody cares if the backlog in the business method AU’s goes through the roof (or at least nobody worth mentioning) but that won’t impact the other AU’s (electronics, chemicals, etc.).
The heart of the issue behind the ills of the patent system is the judiciary reviewing the agency and patent litigation decisions, with the laxity of all the parties concerned as an ancilliary concern.
“I believe this is what TD is arguing, that true patents like your companies are the minority or atleast swamped by “junk” patents. “
That is not necessarily true. While the office does have a huge number of biz method etc. patents it simply does not follow that the rest are being swamped by them. The rest are being swamped by similar applications in their respective AU’s. Nobody cares if the backlog in the business method AU’s goes through the roof (or at least nobody worth mentioning) but that won’t impact the other AU’s (electronics, chemicals, etc.).
The heart of the issue behind the ills of the patent system is the judiciary reviewing the agency and patent litigation decisions, with the laxity of all the parties concerned as an ancilliary concern.
Re: Re:
Get your keyboard fixed
“If you can’t compete without a patent portfolio, you’re inefficient.”
What if all his company does is dream up new chemicals? Is his company inefficient at doing that? How would his inability to compete at selling bulk amounts of chemicals to the mass market indicate that?
I might agree with you Tucker if you said that as a matter of policy we don’t need “think tanks” that aren’t a part of manufacturing facilities to provide the fruits of those tanks. However, I’m not 100% convinced of that.
Re: What if all his company does is dream up new chemicals?
So what? As has been pointed out before on this site, ideas are a dime a dozen. They’re of no value by themselves. What is of value is applying those ideas in useful ways. That takes actual hard work, and patents don’t help with that.
That’s why worrying about others “stealing” your idea is a waste of time: they can’t just “steal” all the hard work that you’ve already invested in your product. They still have to do that for themselves. And if they can do that better than you, why shouldn’t they be allowed to?
Dave, at the risk of putting words in his mouth I believe he means to suggest that your company is not efficient enough to compete selling your product without protection.
I don’t think he has any idea how much money goes into making some “inventions”. Sure, some could be dreamed up and scribbled down on paper and be enabled and fully patentable. And this is where the current laws, in large part, fail the current age. There is however, a class of inventions which requires a lot of capital and man hours to figure out. You don’t usually read about these particular patents in the news, and many people presume that they are a minority (which they may well be) and that this is bad (perhaps, perhaps not) or they are ignorant of these inventions development entirely.
In short, his off hand comment should be taken for what it was, nothing.
Instead of getting money by giving people patents, why doesn’t the USPTO charge the full fee for any patent application it receives. That way, they still get funded (in fact, they would probably get funded more) and they don’t have the financial pressure to approve wasteful patents.
Re: Re:
Instead of getting money by giving people patents, why doesn’t the USPTO charge the full fee for any patent application it receives. They already do, but by approving more patents they can incentivize companies to file more patents, and in turn collect more fees.
I believe angry dude will likely weigh in with one of his infamous succinct comments. At the risk stealing his thunder, I must say that the in my view this is one of techdirt’s more uninformed articles, feinting in one direction where the facts, if truly understood and presented, feint in the precisely the opposite direction.
So as not to not copy Mr. Dude’s distinct style and wit, let me just say that this article is an excellent example of what I would term “bovine offal”.
Mr. Kappos is making several key points, and those points are contained in a much larger body of remarks that those very few “cherry-picked” quotes noted above.
1. The process must be sped up so that it clears its backlog and is responsive to those who avail themselves of its services.
2. The laws are to be rigorously applied, and not to be given short shrift as this article might have you believe. Novelty, utility, non-boviousness, and enabling are the mainstay of what an applicant must meet in order to secure a patent, and nothing in Mr. Kappos’ remarks in any manner suggest otherwise. What he is calling upon is for the USPTO to meet its obligations under law in a manner that proceeds faster than the “glacial pace” of the current examination process.
3. “Patent quality does not equal rejection” is a shorthand way of saying “Patent examiners are to perform their duties with alacrity, ever mindful that the mandates of law must be paid heed. No more shortcuts to clear their desks in order to receive ‘counts’ that figure prominently in examiner evaluations. The evaluation system must and will be changed to reflect much more accurate metrics.”
4. The application process is an ex parte process that demands a high degree of candor between both applicants and examiners. It is expected that applicants and examiners will engage as early as possible so that issues are clearly identified such that examiners and applicants are talkking to, and not talking past, each other. This is important in order for the USPTO to perform its responsibilities as required by law.
The above is but a small sampling of what has thus far been disseminated to both USPTO examiners and applicants. While the above will not be an easy task, Mr. Kappos does for all appearances seem committed to take a languishing agency and return it once more to its legislative imprimatur.
Of course, no matter how well the USPTO may do its job and weed out what many are prone to call “bad patents”, that will likely never satisfy those at techdirt, and particularly Mr. Masnick who has repeatedly made it clear that patents are a “pox” on our economic system, that the law should be promptly rescinded since government granted “monopolies” distort the market and retard innovation, and that he has never seen, and likely never will, a patent claiming an invention where the invention meets his view of what is new, useful and non-obvious.
I could continue, but surrender my time for the benefit of Mr. Dude.
Dave's comment
Some patents are useful and do help to ‘promote the progress’, but many many more are totally bogus junk that does nothing except prevent progress (unless you pay the trolls to license their patents).
To give an example that might make more sense in your industry, lets imagine that someone was given a patent on ‘using 3 ingredients to produce a chemical product’ (this is similar in theory to the ‘using 3 knowledge bases’ patent that was discussed recently here). Would that make any sense in your industry? Would it be ‘non-obvious’ to one skilled in the arts? Or would it just be a big ‘roadblock’ to producing things?
Most people don’t have a problem with specific unique patents in certain industries, what they have problems with are the generic obvious combination of existing idea patents that seem to get approved like they were reviewed by a blind monkey on crack with rubber stamp, rather than a human patent ‘officer’ (no disrespect intended to blind monkeys on crack).
Oh well, time to patent ‘thinking before opening one’s mouth’, but I guess I wouldn’t really be able to enforce that one against anyone, since nobody uses common sense these days anyway.
Ignoring the status quo
The discussion of whether intellectual property is harmful is a distraction because intellectual property is already here. The question should be are we better off ditching the patent system than keeping it. I believe Congress commissioned an economic study before the most recent rewrite of the Patent Act which concluded that if we were starting from a blank slate we should not have patents but given they already exist we are better off keeping the patent system.
stop the shilling!!!
“I don’t think I could disagree any more strongly.”
Masnick, what the bleep do you know about the patent system. Have you ever filed or prosecuted a patent application? Bleep, no!!!
The only thing you know about patents is 1) you don’t have any, and 2) a bunch of serial infringers pay you to write this junk.
Patent reform is a fraud on America…
Please see http://truereform.piausa.org/ for a different/opposing view on patent reform.
Re: stop the shilling!!!
SERIOUSLY??? HAHA!! You should all check that site out. It looks like it was created circa 1995.
WHAT AN INNOVATOR!!!!
Re: stop the shilling!!!
You assume that just because someone hasn’t filed or persecuted a patent application must mean they don’t know anything about our patent system. I suspect Mike probably knows more about the patent system than you and has probably read many more studies than you on the subject matter.
Re: stop the shilling!!!
Sorry staff1, but you can keep your army of strawmen.
Re: stop the shilling!!!
Leave Britney alone !!!
“ideas are a dime a dozen”
Coming up with the content of an enabling disclosure for multi million dollar pieces of equipment can be about 10 million apiece. How does that factor into your thinking?
For what it’s worth, I agree with you that the current patent system incourages too many things that only tangentally resemble an “invention” or “innovation” as we now understand the word. The law takes time to catch up. Talk to the judiciary. And talk to congress for any statutory changes you might suggest.
“What is of value is applying those ideas in useful ways.”
Funny enough, all “valid” patents are for “an application of an idea”, or a physical object/composition.
You are simply far out of touch with the subject on which you are commenting. I understand that you’re dismayed with some of the decisions that have been made as to what the system should protect. I am as well. But we must persuade the judiciary or the congress on solid grounds and not muddy the waters with red herrings like this one you are presenting.
“And if they can do that better than you, why shouldn’t they be allowed to?”
Well that depends. I do know that there are many instances where someone has gone through the time and trouble to demonstrate that something can be done, and once they have done it then everyone wants to join up. But, without that first person taking a risk, none of them would have done it. Without a financial reward for the first person, why would they take the risk? You can tell me, I don’t know the answer. Being first to market isn’t always that big of a financial incentive, how much do we want to incentivize? A little, or just the minimum? It’s a public policy question.
Now, like I’ve said, there are still plenty of issues to deal with, but the notion of patents as a whole may have some use to it and cannot just be dismissed out of hand.
Re: Re:
“Coming up with the content of an enabling disclosure for multi million dollar pieces of equipment can be about 10 million apiece. How does that factor into your thinking?”
In my thinking the original multi-million dollar pieces of, ahem, equipment probably should’ve been able to be produced for much less. Your thinking is a black hole of circular logic.
“Two separate stories concerning statements from those in charge of the patent system suggest that the new administration isn’t about to help fix the problems in the patent system, but is eagerly looking to make them worse.”
Hopefully this will cause enough people to rebel against our broken patent system to finally cause some meaningful change.
Commerce Sec or Masnick praises Inventors Wisdom
Mike thanks for recognizing that a Nobel confers a special quality on those deserving of the award. Of course mistakes can be made, but in general all scientist approve the wisdom and insight of Nobel.
You know Alfred Nobel the INVENTOR whose monopoly on smokeless gunpowder and dynamite has funded his vision for promoting science and the arts?
Almost without exception there has never been a patent including the Wright Brothers airplane and the Tesla 3 phase motor that covered a major area with high financial value that was not successfully challenged or compromised by new invention, this is something you chose to ignore. Only the MS and RIM kind of straight theft usually has to pay outrageously large license fees for their fraudulent acts.
“On the subject of quality, there has been speculation in the IP community that examiners are being encouraged to reject applications because a lower allowance rate equals higher quality. Let’s be clear: patent quality does not equal rejection.”
This is just more reason why unelected officials should have no say in law. The people are complaining about the fact that patents last too long, they’re too obvious, and too restrictive. So what do unelected officials do? They respond with a, “I disagree with what the American people want and am going to do exactly the opposite of what they want instead. Since I’m not elected what does it matter, try and stop me.” This is simply not acceptable, the government is supposed to serve the will of the American people, it’s not supposed to impose its own will on the American people.
“And economists concur that patents are the best known indicator of innovation. “
Even if patents are somehow an indicator of innovation this does not mean that patents help create more innovation.
Ha Ha.. What a Joke.. Google patent after 5 yrs.
Ha ha.. This is one of the best joke I have read today on the cybermedia.
It took 5 years for google homepage patent to get approved.. How can they approve other patents faster.
As the technology advances, the complexity rises. So you need to be well prepared in advance to face more patents and at the same time you should be ready to approve it also.
To get more information read my BLOG or follow me on TWITTER
“In my thinking the original multi-million dollar pieces of, ahem, equipment probably should’ve been able to be produced for much less. Your thinking is a black hole of circular logic.”
You sir have no exposure to industry. A simple shop lathe will run you 30 thousand dollars. What of the machines PM USA has that make 4 million cigarettes in an hour? Trust me, there is a reason these machines cost millions. And there is a reason their development cost millions as well.
Allowing Patents
Hello all, If the PTO does not start granting patents, the system will breakdown completely. Then, the big, well funded companies will be able to hold back innovation by their ability to snuff out competition.
Think Microsoft.
A 1,000 bad patents out of 100,000 granted patents is 99% correct. Better than most businesses.
David Kappos and Iviewit Trillion Dollar Lawsuit
Perhaps the changes at the USPTO is due to the TRILLION DOLLAR FEDERAL LAWSUIT LEGALLY RELATED TO A WHISTLEBLOWER LAWSUIT OF A NY SUPREME COURT STAFF ATTORNEY that IBM is a named defendant in, regarding stolen patents. Check IBM’s balance sheet, I am sure the liability is there somewhere or is it?
Why did Foley & Lardner host David Kappos, Obama’s new candidate at the USPTO? The answer lies perhaps in the Trillion Dollar Lawsuit too. Read on.
MADOFF + STANFORD + DREIER + SATYAM + FISERV + ALBERT HU + The 1031 Tax Group LLC – Edward H. Okun = PROSKAUER ROSE + FOLEY & LARDNER
Investors who have been burned in these scams should start to seek redress from the lawyers who were involved with these scams. I personally have been trying to notify regulators and authorities of a ONE TRILLION DOLLAR liability that is putting states like New York and Florida at huge risk, as well as, companies like Intel, Lockheed, SGI and IBM. The states and companies involved in the fraud fail to acknowledge the risk exposing shareholders and citizens to impending liabilities. Investigators, courts and federal agents ignoring the crimes and evidence, including a car-bombing attempt on my life. I know how Harry Markopolos felt trying to expose Madoff in a world without regulation.
Did I hear Proskauer Rose is involved in Madoff (involved many clients too) and acted as Allen Stanford’s attorney. Investors who lost money in these scams should start looking at the law firm Proskauer’s assets for recovery. First, Proskauer partner Gregg Mashberg claims Madoff is a financial 9/11 for their clients, if they directed you to Madoff sue them. Then, Proskauer partner Thomas Sjoblom former enforcement dude for SEC and Allen Stanford attorney, declares PARTY IS OVER to Stanford employees and advises them to PRAY, this two days before SEC hearings. Then at hearings, he lies with Holt to SEC saying she only prepared with him but fails to mention Miami meeting at airport hanger. Then Sjoblom resigns after SEC begins investigation and sends note to SEC disaffirming all statements made by him and Proskauer, his butt on fire. If you were burned in Stanford sue Proskauer.
Proskauer Rose and Foley & Lardner are also in a TRILLION dollar FEDERAL LAWSUIT legally related to a WHISTLEBLOWER CASE in FEDERAL COURT. Marc S. Dreier, brought in through Raymond A. Joao of Meltzer Lippe after putting 90+ patents of mine in his own name, is also a defendant in the Federal Case.
The Trillion Dollar suit according to Judge Shira Scheindlin is one of PATENT THEFT, MURDER & A CAR BOMBING. For graphics on the car bombing visit http://www.iviewit.tv.
Federal Court cases
US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circ Docket 08-4873-cv – Bernstein v Appellate Division First Department Disciplinary Committee. – TRILLION DOLLAR LAWSUIT
(07cv09599) Anderson v The State of New York – WHISTLEBLOWER LAWSUIT
(07cv11196) Bernstein v Appellate Division First Department Disciplinary Committee
(07cv11612) Esposito v The State of New York
(08cv00526) Capogrosso v New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct
(08cv02391) McKeown v The State of New York
(08cv02852) Galison v The State of New York
(08cv03305) Carvel v The State of New York
(08cv4053) Gizella Weisshaus v The State of New York
(08cv4438) Suzanne McCormick v The State of New York
John L. Petrec-Tolino v. The State of New York
Eliot I. Bernstein
Inventor
Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – DL
Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – DL
Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – FL
Iviewit Technologies, Inc. – DL
Uview.com, Inc. – DL
Iviewit.com, Inc. – FL
Iviewit.com, Inc. – DL
I.C., Inc. – FL
Iviewit.com LLC – DL
Iviewit LLC – DL
Iviewit Corporation – FL
Iviewit, Inc. – FL
Iviewit, Inc. – DL
Iviewit Corporation
2753 N.W. 34th St.
Boca Raton, Florida 33434-3459
(561) 245.8588 (o)
(561) 886.7628 (c)
(561) 245-8644 (f)
iviewit@iviewit.tv
http://www.iviewit.tv
http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/
http://iviewit.tv/wordpresseliot/
“Hi, my name is Context. It’s nice to meet you.” The fact is that examiners are being pushed to merely reject applications based on top-down decisions. Does anyone know why Masnick doesn’t know this, or at least doesn’t acknowledge this? Because he has no connection to the patent bar or to the USPTO. So he sees Kappos’ quote and says, “Aha! Something new to complain about!” In reality, Kappos is saying that just because a bunch of applications are rejected does not mean that those that are not rejected are suddenly of higher quality. Applications should be rejected if the facts warrant rejection, and those rejections should be based on a sound reading of the law (MPEP in an examiner’s case). Applications should be allowed if there is no sound rejection to be made. You can’t just point at something and yell “obvious!” without showing why. If you can’t say why, then it’s not obvious. Of course, I wouldn’t expect an MBA to understand this. You can get those degrees out of Crackerjack boxes these days.