Monday, April 21, 2008

Dudas unbundled, by Mike [?]

Slashdot refers to Techdirt on Dudas:

Techdirt is reporting that Jon Dudas, head of the US Patent Office, is lamenting the continuing quality drop in patent submissions. Unfortunately, while this problem is finally getting the attention it deserves, the changes being implemented don't seem to be offering the correct solution.

Of course, the guy quoted at TechDirt is Mike Masnick, who has blazed new pathways in cluelessness about patents over the last few years.

Mike's "bible" is Jaffe and Lerner. You may remember them? The ones that praised Qualcomm for the way it handled patents, shortly before Qualcomm went down for inequitable conduct and its head lawyer was summarily fired. The ones that referred to "George" Clarke, and who no better understanding of Robert Clarke's paper than they did of his name. Go for it, Mike -->

[Dudas] is now complaining that the Patent Office is being overwhelmed with really crappy patent applications. You think? Lerner and Jaffe pointed this out years ago and it's not difficult to see why. With the USPTO approving tons of bad patents, and the courts all too often siding with the patent holder and expanding what's patentable, combined with people who have done nothing getting hundreds of millions just for holding a piece of paper, is it really any surprise that the incentive structure would push people to file for as many bogus patents as possible, in hopes of getting them through the obviously questionable process?

Even the NAS/STEP study admitted there was no evidence for an increase in low quality patents, but a lack of evidence has never stopped Mike, and likely never will.

Further evidence of Mike's cluelessness resides in the link he was citing, which began:

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office recently received an application seeking a patent for what was claimed to be a better way to stand in line while waiting to use an airplane toilet.

Mike Masnick, wake up! That application (by IBM) already issued as a patent, and has been withdrawn. Nothing "recent" about it.

Further, Dudas had already used that story in Hollywood. San Jose was a recycle of old news. Mike, maybe you can try your schtick in the Catskills, or in Miami Beach, with the 80 year olds, but you're too dated for prime time. Maybe you should go on ice, with S.1145.


Blogger Unknown said...

Lawrence, this is weak, even for you.

Beyond the totally uncalled for personal insults (always the sign of someone lacking any real argument), you're wrong about almost every single thing you write about me. It's stunning and makes me wonder what sort of work you actually do for clients. Yikes.

1. I don't use Lerner and Jaffe as a bible. In fact, I disagree with both of them on many things. I merely pointed out that they *ACCURATELY* pointed out that the USPTO was being overhwelmed with questionable patent apps. Rather than refute that you simply associate me with them as if I agree on everything they say.

2. As part of bashing L&J you point to their statements on Qualcomm, which I don't agree with and never suggested I agree with. Surely you can do better than that.

3. You claim that there's no evidence of a decline in patent quality, despite the fact that it's DUDAS, not me, who was saying it.

4. Finally, you claim as evidence of *MY* cluelessness statements in a totally different article that I DID NOT COMMENT on. I said nothing at all about the patent discussed in that article. Why you would claim that I'm clueless for someone else's statements that I made no comment about has me mystified.

Clearly, it's only because you are unable to actually REFUTE any of the points I make.

Weak, Lawrence. Incredibly weak. Is this the quality of your normal work? I hope whoever pays your bills has someone who actually checks over your work for these type of errors. Otherwise, someone's getting really ripped off.

5:00 PM  
Blogger JD said...


Can you give us an example of somebody doing nothing but collecting pieces of paper (i.e. patents) and then collecting millions?

I was an examiner for 9 years and have been in private practice for the past 9 years. I read L&J's book. It is so INACCURATE that I laughed out loud several times when reading it.

You shouldn't cite L&J's book for anything if you are attempting to be accurate.

10:23 AM  
Blogger Unknown said...


I merely used L&J's book to point out that they correctly spotted that there has been a huge increase in questionable patent applications, in part due to some changes to the way the patent system has operated.

As for examples, where do we start... Nearly any patent holder who is not selling a product in the marketplace is clearly collecting money for their piece of paper, rather than by selling actual products.

That's not good for society and it's not good for the economy.

It's creating the wrong kinds of incentives.

3:24 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home