Following Backlash, White House Realizes Guy Who Opposed Obama's Own Patent Reform Plan Shouldn't Lead The Patent Office
from the how-did-it-even-get-that-far? dept
A little over a week ago, it came out that President Obama was on the verge of appointing a former pharmaceutical industry exec, who had spent years fighting against the very kind of patent reform that President Obama supported, to be head of the USPTO. It was a little odd how the news came out — as it seemed to be clearly “leaked” to a few folks in the press that Phil Johnson was likely to be the nominee. However, the move was pretty quickly condemned, and now the same folks are saying that the White House has changed its mind, and will not offer the position to Johnson.
At the very least, that suggests that the “leak” of his name was something of a trial balloon, to see how it would go over — and the vocal rejection (including by big patent reform supporter Senator Chuck Schumer) made the White House realize that it would be in for a pretty angry fight over the nomination. Hopefully, the next nominee isn’t someone who has vocally fought against the President’s own position on patent reform…
Filed Under: director, patent reform, patent trolls, pharmaceuticals, phil johnson, uspto
Companies: johnson & johnson
Comments on “Following Backlash, White House Realizes Guy Who Opposed Obama's Own Patent Reform Plan Shouldn't Lead The Patent Office”
Or perhaps they needed to make more job offers for future “work” to smooth the way.
Of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations.
It is certainly problematic to hire people with as sharp political opinions as this guy. Not saying they need a completely independent person for the job, but people as entrenched in a war as mister Johnson will have a hard time negotiating a satisfactory peace…
Re: Re: Re:
They keep hiring people who lobby for the status quo or pushing it further towards befitting corporations above all else. Maybe get someone from the otherside this time.
Heh, imagine me getting tapped to work on copyright reform.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That Anonymous Coward wrote:
But how do we know you haven’t been already?
Let’s see who you really are… /scooby
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Okay, that would be awesome…
‘And I propose that we douse the following people in cow manure.’
‘How is that involved with copyright reform?’
‘I like to start my day of with a smile, helps me handle the workload.’
Who shouldn't lead the Patent Office
Why don’t we call this attempt “Let’s hire the dingo as our babysitter!” effect. (with a tip of the hat to Jon Oliver).
Re: Who shouldn't lead the Patent Office
“I would like to state just for the record, I’m not a dingo”
Re: Who shouldn't lead the Patent Office
That’s a tad verbose. How about the Dingo Babysitter choice instead?
Re: Re: Who shouldn't lead the Patent Office
Dingositter it is.
And everyone who defends such choices are Dingo Deniers.
Par for the course
To be fair, nominee Obama has fought against president Obama’s own position on a whole lot of things.
Though of course one cannot rely on everybody else being just such a turncoat.
Re: Par for the course
Maybe were dealing with a clone then and nominee obama was replaced by a clone president obama. Since otherwise he would be full of shit
You’re right. The next one won’t be one that was vocal against patent reform. It will be a quiet one, who will implement the same kind of policies anyway.
You might say the White House felt…alot of Barack-lash. Thank you, thank you, I’ll be here all week
Could we not demand an answer as to why President Obama put this guy on the list or why he was even considered for the position.
I think it is time that politicians should answer for their actions.
1 simple question, why would you President Obama , want to put someone in a position of such power when he is obviously against everything you believe. Were you blackmailed, do we need an investigation to find out or are you going to answer the question and not try to weevil out of answering it.
The odds are good that he is either a big contributor or a bundler.
Why do you assume Obama knew who was on the list or cared what they opposed?
He does not seem to be much of a “details” kind of guy.
Are you talking about the presidency? I’ve puzzled over that for years.
Hide and watch. Someone obliquely responsible for hiring Johnson and funding his efforts as a lobbyist against patent reform will be appointed. Someone more prominent than Mr. Johnson, who has never gotten his* hand dirty. Of whom it can be said “He* brings a uniquely wide experience in the field and correspondingly impressive expertise.”
Because we need that kind of expertse.
*-Sorry bout the “incorrect though statistically defensible”…errr…misogynistic pronoun. I hope the usage didn’t trigger anyone. It’s like the War on Women all over again. Times a thousand.
If a misandrist gets upset over this, her bad.
I’m some unknown pharmacologist. I’d be perfect for the job. If American. If I actually wanted to get out of the lab…
They’ll just nominate somebody that will do the same job for their corporate overlords but that presents less resistance from the peons.
Lets face it guys our government is now a corporation , they aren’t even hiding it anymore .. the problem we have is that corporations go bankrupt close up shop dissolve , which is why America wasn’t meant to be a corporation, If it is then we need to unionize every citizen before we all obtain the position of sweatshop worker.
A corporation incorporated in the City Of London since President Grant according to some.
They stopped hiding it when 9/11 proved to our “board” how much of an existential threat they faced from within and without.
Smoke & Mirrors...
Nothing new here people.
Johnson may not get it based on his history, but another one just like him without the bad history will be put in his place instead.
Obama is same as Bush with the gumption to wipe his ass with more of the Constitution than Bush did and act even more truant with his Oath of Office to uphold Laws that are HIS RESPONSIBILITY NOT PLEASURE to enforce!
1. Nominate someone who strongly advocates for the death of puppies and kitten.
2. When backlash happens, act surprised and pull the nomination.
3. Nominate someone who strongly advocates for the death of only puppies.
4. New nomination looks moderate in comparison with previous, and is much more likely to be accepted by easily tricked morons(politicians/public at large).
every high ranking position that is able to be filled by someone recommended by the White house, is recommended simply because they are yes men for the White House and the industries concerned with that high ranking position. after paying a fortune out in bribes and lobbying fees, what would be the point of nominating someone who would look at what was going on without being bias towards the rules dictated by the industry heads themselves? being fair over something doesn’t keep the ‘fat cats’ in their plush offices for life or on their mega salaries!!