To frame that question in a more positive way, I offer the following. In initiatives I just told you about, this is something conceived to help an important part of the economy that does not include the large business sector.
The proposals and approach that I have been championing relative to post-grant opposition, which is something that we still need to talk about, is since I’ve been at the USPTO, has been to tighten post-grant, to make it harder to get into post-grant, which is something that favors again the small inventor community, and the university community. And many would say the chemistry and pharma community, and it’s not something that’s been a position that the information technology sector as taken up.
We even put into place for post-grant opposition a whole series of changes that we recommended to Congress. They’re all about tightening post-grant opposition to make it harder to get in and to make it impossible to have serial oppositions in the USPTO and to ensure we get those done quickly so that patents that do go through post-grant get certainty and assurance as to title.
All of those initiatives are initiatives that are informed by my deep understanding of the system, but with absolutely no backing from the information technology industry. (The initiatives) are about doing the right thing for the system, not the right thing for any one customer.
IPBiz: the problem is that the creation of a post-grant review ["opposition"] system does not in any way favor a small inventor.
The presence of any enhanced cost review, to those already in place, will be to the detriment of the small inventor.
Further, "product inspection" steps are not a quality approach, as Deming would note.