Gold-plated debate?
The words "invention" and "gold-plated" both arose in the third presidential debate on 16 Oct. 08, but not in the context of patent law. [For anyone interested, the Joe the Plumber video can be found here]
One commenter on Patent Docs (on a discussion of the Obama/McCain patent law debate by surrogates) had this to say:
As an Obama supporter, I am disappointed to see that he is consulting with Professors Rai and Lemley, because I strongly disagree with previous statements they have made about the patent system and the PTO. On the other hand, Professor Rai's comments above sound much more reasonable and less anti-applicant than the points made in the amicus brief she recently submitted along with Professor Lemley in Tafas v. Dudas. This might suggest that academics feel pressure to write articles or submit briefs that are more controversial than their actual views in order to attract attention,...
Patent Docs had noted of Rai in the Colorado discussion-->
In response, Prof. Rai explained that the gold-plated patent plan (which she noted was first set forth in a paper by Prof. Lemley) had nothing to do with fee structure, but rather, focused on the rigorousness of the examination. She added that "if you want really secure patent rights, you presumably want a rigorous examination." Mr. Reines, however, was skeptical that the USPTO, which is already facing an enormous application backlog, would be able to offer independent inventors and other small entities bulletproof patents (as Prof. Rai alternatively referred to them) without a significant increase in fees.
Just another example of Rai's utter cluelessness. If one wanted a "rigorous examination", one would study the prior art and submit the most relevant prior art to the USPTO on a PTO-1449 form. Beyond that, Lemley (and Rai) were talking about submarine patents in the Tafas brief. Where have they been?
See also
http://www.iptoday.com/news-article.asp?id=2976&type=ip
which suggests Patent Docs statements
neither the Senator's website nor his 83-page "Blueprint for Change" (available at his website) make any mention of such patents.
(as mentioned above, Senator Obama's website no longer mentions the gold-plated patent plan).
are in need of revision, depending on what one means by Senator Obama's website. [Obama has, in the past, Sikahema'd some of his past positions.]
***UPDATE on Oct. 18, 2008, an email -->
Your email below ended up in my SPAM folder, and I just opened it today (Oct. 18).
If you follow the link to my IPT posting that appears on your blog, patent docs, you will find my quote from Obama's patent policy and a link thereto
[ http://obama.3cdn.net/780e0e91ccb6cdbf6e_6udymvin7.pdf], which as of right now seems to work fine. Thus, what Barack Obama said in November 2007 is still available on the internet.
In your text
> Also, my point in yesterday's post (and maybe I needed
> to spell it out) was
> that Obama appears to have changed his technology issues
> webpage between the
> time Kevin wrote about his plan last November and my post
> last night. All
> one needs to do is compare the paragraph on patent policy
> that Kevin quoted
> in his piece with the paragraph that is on that page right
> now (
> http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/).
you raise a different point. If Obama has changed his policy between Nov. 2007 and now, as it appears on barackobama.com, that is one thing, but the "old words" may still be found.
On my blog, IPBiz, I have raised issues as to situations wherein people completely remove something that was previously posted, and I have referred to that as the Sikahema effect.
Lawrence
Oct. 18 at 11:10am
One commenter on Patent Docs (on a discussion of the Obama/McCain patent law debate by surrogates) had this to say:
As an Obama supporter, I am disappointed to see that he is consulting with Professors Rai and Lemley, because I strongly disagree with previous statements they have made about the patent system and the PTO. On the other hand, Professor Rai's comments above sound much more reasonable and less anti-applicant than the points made in the amicus brief she recently submitted along with Professor Lemley in Tafas v. Dudas. This might suggest that academics feel pressure to write articles or submit briefs that are more controversial than their actual views in order to attract attention,...
Patent Docs had noted of Rai in the Colorado discussion-->
In response, Prof. Rai explained that the gold-plated patent plan (which she noted was first set forth in a paper by Prof. Lemley) had nothing to do with fee structure, but rather, focused on the rigorousness of the examination. She added that "if you want really secure patent rights, you presumably want a rigorous examination." Mr. Reines, however, was skeptical that the USPTO, which is already facing an enormous application backlog, would be able to offer independent inventors and other small entities bulletproof patents (as Prof. Rai alternatively referred to them) without a significant increase in fees.
Just another example of Rai's utter cluelessness. If one wanted a "rigorous examination", one would study the prior art and submit the most relevant prior art to the USPTO on a PTO-1449 form. Beyond that, Lemley (and Rai) were talking about submarine patents in the Tafas brief. Where have they been?
See also
http://www.iptoday.com/news-article.asp?id=2976&type=ip
which suggests Patent Docs statements
neither the Senator's website nor his 83-page "Blueprint for Change" (available at his website) make any mention of such patents.
(as mentioned above, Senator Obama's website no longer mentions the gold-plated patent plan).
are in need of revision, depending on what one means by Senator Obama's website. [Obama has, in the past, Sikahema'd some of his past positions.]
***UPDATE on Oct. 18, 2008, an email -->
Your email below ended up in my SPAM folder, and I just opened it today (Oct. 18).
If you follow the link to my IPT posting that appears on your blog, patent docs, you will find my quote from Obama's patent policy and a link thereto
[ http://obama.3cdn.net/780e0e91ccb6cdbf6e_6udymvin7.pdf], which as of right now seems to work fine. Thus, what Barack Obama said in November 2007 is still available on the internet.
In your text
> Also, my point in yesterday's post (and maybe I needed
> to spell it out) was
> that Obama appears to have changed his technology issues
> webpage between the
> time Kevin wrote about his plan last November and my post
> last night. All
> one needs to do is compare the paragraph on patent policy
> that Kevin quoted
> in his piece with the paragraph that is on that page right
> now (
> http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/).
you raise a different point. If Obama has changed his policy between Nov. 2007 and now, as it appears on barackobama.com, that is one thing, but the "old words" may still be found.
On my blog, IPBiz, I have raised issues as to situations wherein people completely remove something that was previously posted, and I have referred to that as the Sikahema effect.
Lawrence
Oct. 18 at 11:10am
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 9:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home