USPTOExaminers.com
There is a comment by Tom Kulaga on the patentablydefined website speaking of USPTOExaminers.com:
I learned a long time ago to take responsibility for what I do and say. If you don’t have the guts to say something directly to a person, then don’t say it behind their back, that is, anonymously.
An August 5 post on USPTOExaminers is titled Awful - no understanding of the law, rules, or the technology and is posted by Anonymous.
An August 6 post has the text:
I am sorry but I think the inventor who is complaining about PTO does not understand that your attorney should have told you that whether the patent is expired or not has nothing to do with how it is applied in rejection. A prior art is a prior art as long as it has a date that can be used and either teaches or render obvious claimed invention. I am sorry but change your attorney because he or she is not telling you the truth. and if 20 years old patent reads on your claim then please dont write broad claims, the fact that 20 years old patent reads on your invention should tell you that your invention is not patentable (at least not the way your attorney is trying to write claims).
So please do us all a favor and before criticizing examiners, look at your attorney and before that look at your invention and ask yourself is this really what my invention is?
****
In the case of the two female students at Yale Law School claiming defamation via internet postings, one of the anonymous posters has been identified.
An AP story on the matter observes:
The case is not unprecedented, but it is a reminder that anonymous postings on the freewheeling Internet can be traced, legal experts say.
"A lot of people don't really think about that," said Daniel Solove, a professor at George Washington University Law School. "I do think it's going to have an effect on what people say. It's one of the most prominent cases of its type."
Mark Lemley is an attorney for the Yale students.
I learned a long time ago to take responsibility for what I do and say. If you don’t have the guts to say something directly to a person, then don’t say it behind their back, that is, anonymously.
An August 5 post on USPTOExaminers is titled Awful - no understanding of the law, rules, or the technology and is posted by Anonymous.
An August 6 post has the text:
I am sorry but I think the inventor who is complaining about PTO does not understand that your attorney should have told you that whether the patent is expired or not has nothing to do with how it is applied in rejection. A prior art is a prior art as long as it has a date that can be used and either teaches or render obvious claimed invention. I am sorry but change your attorney because he or she is not telling you the truth. and if 20 years old patent reads on your claim then please dont write broad claims, the fact that 20 years old patent reads on your invention should tell you that your invention is not patentable (at least not the way your attorney is trying to write claims).
So please do us all a favor and before criticizing examiners, look at your attorney and before that look at your invention and ask yourself is this really what my invention is?
****
In the case of the two female students at Yale Law School claiming defamation via internet postings, one of the anonymous posters has been identified.
An AP story on the matter observes:
The case is not unprecedented, but it is a reminder that anonymous postings on the freewheeling Internet can be traced, legal experts say.
"A lot of people don't really think about that," said Daniel Solove, a professor at George Washington University Law School. "I do think it's going to have an effect on what people say. It's one of the most prominent cases of its type."
Mark Lemley is an attorney for the Yale students.
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 10:46 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home