Vindu Goel responds to patent reform critics, sort of
Vindu Goel presented further commentary on patent reform in his blog, sort of responding to the criticism his earlier piece received.
Goel quotes Margaret Peterlin, which is unlikely to enhance his standing with patent reform critics: Margaret Peterlin, deputy director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, recently told me that improving the quality of patent decisions is a huge priority of her office. Right now, she said, about 87 percent of initial patent exams result in disapproval, but upon further review, more like 50 percent of patents are granted. She’d like to get the two numbers closer together so there’s more certainty in the initial decision.
Goel also does not seem to understand that final approvals frequently arise BECAUSE the claim scope is changed ("amended") as a result of dialog between examiner and applicant. His commentary reveals his lack of familiarity with the USPTO.
Although Goel writes: Despite the complaints of critics, Big Tech has actually been working pretty hard to deal with the concerns of the Bush Administration, the drug industry and smaller inventors in the negotiations over the Senate bill, one recalls the critics were literally frozen out of the House hearings in February 2007. This is Goel's idea of "working hard with concerns"????
Goel writes: Fundamentally, it [reform] would streamline the patent process, lock in some operational improvements in the patent office and set guidelines for damages, which are currently completely up to the judge and jury. Earth-to-Goel, ADDING an entirely new process to challenge issued patents is NOT ANYONE'S IDEA of streamlining the patent process. Of damages, the CAFC has been following prior precedent on damages (Georgia-Pacific) so that guidelines are NOT up to a given judge/jury.
Goel quotes Margaret Peterlin, which is unlikely to enhance his standing with patent reform critics: Margaret Peterlin, deputy director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, recently told me that improving the quality of patent decisions is a huge priority of her office. Right now, she said, about 87 percent of initial patent exams result in disapproval, but upon further review, more like 50 percent of patents are granted. She’d like to get the two numbers closer together so there’s more certainty in the initial decision.
Goel also does not seem to understand that final approvals frequently arise BECAUSE the claim scope is changed ("amended") as a result of dialog between examiner and applicant. His commentary reveals his lack of familiarity with the USPTO.
Although Goel writes: Despite the complaints of critics, Big Tech has actually been working pretty hard to deal with the concerns of the Bush Administration, the drug industry and smaller inventors in the negotiations over the Senate bill, one recalls the critics were literally frozen out of the House hearings in February 2007. This is Goel's idea of "working hard with concerns"????
Goel writes: Fundamentally, it [reform] would streamline the patent process, lock in some operational improvements in the patent office and set guidelines for damages, which are currently completely up to the judge and jury. Earth-to-Goel, ADDING an entirely new process to challenge issued patents is NOT ANYONE'S IDEA of streamlining the patent process. Of damages, the CAFC has been following prior precedent on damages (Georgia-Pacific) so that guidelines are NOT up to a given judge/jury.
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 2:07 PM
1 Comments:
Bugs Bunny would consider Goel a "maroon." Goel's second and third paragraphs of that initial article pretty much nail it. First he says that the patent system has helped inventors earn billions of dollars, and given the public incredible inventions like the inkjet printer and ipod, then he says the patent system is broken.
What will happen if it gets fixed? Trillions of dollars? Super ipods?
Post a Comment
<< Home