Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Patents Cellphones United States Your Rights Online Politics

USPTO Head: Current Patent Litigation Is 'Reasonable' 153

Posted by Soulskill
from the patent-lawyers-everywhere-agree dept.
elashish14 writes "David Kappos, head of the USPTO, today provided a strong defense of the patent system, particularly in the mobile industry. In his address, he implored critics, 'Give the [America Invents Act] a chance to work.' He then went on to proclaim the 'absolutely breakneck pace' of innovation in the smartphone industry and that the U.S. patent system is 'the envy of the world,' though he was likely only referring to the envy of the world's lawyers. Perhaps the most laughable quote from his address: 'The explosion of litigation we are seeing is a reflection of how the patent system wires us for innovation.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

USPTO Head: Current Patent Litigation Is 'Reasonable'

Comments Filter:
  • Hey, (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Sez Zero (586611) on Tuesday November 20, 2012 @02:22PM (#42045267) Journal
    David Kappos, you have a new enemy.
  • DUH (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 20, 2012 @02:22PM (#42045273)

    of course the boss is gonna say everything is peachy...

  • by dclozier (1002772) on Tuesday November 20, 2012 @02:25PM (#42045313)
    Only someone with a vested interest would think it's working great. Seriously.
    • by ColdWetDog (752185) on Tuesday November 20, 2012 @02:31PM (#42045411) Homepage

      This goes beyond 'regulatory capture', it's more like 'regulatory Stockholm Syndrome'

    • by ccguy (1116865) on Tuesday November 20, 2012 @02:39PM (#42045515) Homepage
      The thing is, the patent system is supposed to cover everything. Not just phones, where you needs a zillion things to get even the most basic (useful) device.

      Maybe he's right and the patent system is excellent for a lot of other areas where a patent covers one specific thing and it's indeed possible to invent something really new that doesn't step on anyone else's work.

      Here we tend to piss on anything that relates to USPTO, but then again we have a tendency to believe that if they let us we'd fix lots of broken things in a heartbeat because the problem here is just a lack of geeks in the relevant power areas.
      • by Baloroth (2370816) on Tuesday November 20, 2012 @02:44PM (#42045575)

        But he specifically brought up smartphones as an example of where the system was working well. Maybe the system does work well in other areas, but if the head of the office is trying to use smartphones as an example of patents inspiring "innovation", he is... an idiot, quite frankly (or a liar, either way, not trustworthy).

        Combine that with lots of other crap coming out of the office (like labeling any business that uses trademarks as an "IP-business" to defend IP laws, even if you're just working construction), and it doesn't paint a very pretty picture. I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say it's outright corruption, but it's incompetence, at least.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Tontoman (737489) *

          . . . if the head of the office is trying to use smartphones as an example of patents inspiring "innovation", he is... an idiot, quite frankly (or a liar, either way, not trustworthy).

          On the other hand, the Patent system works well when viewed in its historical context. They have been a net benefit for innovation. . For example, there are many fewer patents lawsuits regarding Smart Phones than there were in the time the original telephone was invented. Here is a god article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2012/02/09/no-the-patent-system-is-not-broken/2/ [forbes.com]
          What we need is general legal reform so that disputes can be decided simply and inexpensively without Lawyers g

          • by Baloroth (2370816) on Tuesday November 20, 2012 @03:39PM (#42046235)

            I believe this, and I really am not entirely opposed to hardware patents, it's just that when a device needs to license literally thousands of patents in order to provide basic, often completely obvious (slide-to-unlock, for example), functionality, something is seriously broken.

            • by bws111 (1216812)

              And here is the crux of the problem. What, exactly, makes slide-to-unlock 'obvious', other than the fact that someone else did it? 'Obviously it can work' is not a flaw in a patent, it is a requirement.

              Before anyone ever did slide-to-unlock, how many different answers do you think you would get if you asked a roomful of phone designers 'how do you unlock a phone'? If the answer is more than one (slide), then it is NOT obvious. And I am betting you would get a whole bunch of answers (tap, press and hold

              • by Rob Y. (110975) on Tuesday November 20, 2012 @06:06PM (#42048349)

                The obvious part is that you need some kind of identifiable gesture to unlock the phone - otherwise it would unlock itself spontaneously when sitting in your pocket. You've suggested several different gestures, but they're all the same obvious 'invention'. And once a particular gesture is in common use, it becomes part of the 'language' of dealing with touchscreen devices. Same applies to 'pinch to zoom'.

                These standard vocabulary 'words' of touchscreen interaction are the exact equivalent of the universal 'walk' symbol or the stop sign, or the location of the gas a brake pedals in a car. For modern life to work, we have to agree on common standards. If you start granting monopolies on those things, there is chaos. If you deem these things worthy of patent protection, then they need to be FRAND patents. Perversely, however, the standards required to actually make a phone call on a cellphone are FRAND, but the trivial standard on how to interact with the device are not. So you have Apple trying to make a deal with Motorola on the standards that allow them to make a cellphone in the first place, while reserving for themselves the standards on how to unlock a cellphone display. This is insane.

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by d'baba (1134261)

                ... What, exactly, makes slide-to-unlock 'obvious', other than the fact that someone else did it?

                The slide latch on my front door makes it obvious.

              • by celle (906675) on Tuesday November 20, 2012 @08:31PM (#42049961)

                "What, exactly, makes slide-to-unlock 'obvious',"

                      Londo Molari on Babylon5. What do you think he was doing sliding his finger across the top of his monitor before accessing it? Slide to unlock. He wasn't the only one. An idea spread by a widely viewed(at least by the tech world) TV show from 1992 and in syndication ever since does away with the non-obvious. The idea was already public therefore unpatentable. Let's not forget slide functions have been in touch screens for several decades or even about the actual physical slide-locks that have been around for centuries.

          • by ultranova (717540)

            On the other hand, the Patent system works well when viewed in its historical context. They have been a net benefit for innovation. . For example, there are many fewer patents lawsuits regarding Smart Phones than there were in the time the original telephone was invented.

            That the patent system is putting less sand in the gears of industry now than it did in the past in no way implies that it's been a net benefit for innovation. Your example does not back your assertion.

          • On the other hand, the Patent system works well when viewed in its historical context. They have been a net benefit for innovation.

            Actually, one of the most comprehensive studies on that topic [mises.org] (Fritz Machlup, An Economic Review of the Patent System) concluded more or less the opposite:


            If one does not know whether a system "as a whole" (in contrast to certain features of it) is good or bad, the safest "policy conclusion" is to "muddle through" - either with it, if one has long lived with it, or without it, if one has lived without it. If we did not have a patent system, it would be irresponsible, on the basis of our present knowledge of its economic consequences, to recommend instituting one. But since we have had a patent system for a long time, it would be irresponsible, on the basis of our present knowledge, to recommend abolishing it. This last statement refers to a country such as the United States of America - not to a small country and not to a predominantly nonindustrial country, where a different weight of argument might well suggest another conclusion.

            Similarly, the FTC Innovation report from 2003 [ftc.gov] was also far from unequivocally positive about patents, especially in the hardware/software fields. Or Jim Bessen's research, as presented [ffii.org] (twice [ffii.org]) at an FFII conference in 2004.

            For example, there are many fewer patents lawsuits regarding Smart Phones than there were in the time the original telephone was invented.

            That does not exemplify how patents have supposedly been a net benefit for innovation. Additionally, you are wrongly paraphrasing the article you refer to below. It only says that nowadays, per filed patent there are fewer lawsuits than there were in the days of the fixed telephone. From that it concludes that there is no problem with the volume of patent lawsuits.

            I would argue that the reason for this is that patents are used in a very different way today compared to how they were used back then (there were much less large companies back then amassing patent war chests just for defensive purposes). Arguably, the standards for patentability were also higher [ffii.org] back then, which means that actually going to court rather than only looking for the players you can convince to settle out of course was a much less risky business.

            While I appreciate that shooting the messenger by itself is not a very strong argument, that's an opinion piece by "the vice president and head of strategic acquisitions at Intellectual Ventures". That's patent troll central. Suing companies, or threatening to sue them, based on all kinds of patents is their bread and butter.

            Moving on to substance, he's most definitely wrong when he claims that "Every major technological and industrial breakthrough in U.S. history [..] has been accompanied by exactly the same surge in patenting, patent trading, and patent litigation that we see today in the smartphone business". Do you remember the massive patent wars from the eighties and nineties that came with the personal computer revolution? No? Me neither. There were a few lawsuits (e.g. Stac vs Microsoft), but there most definitely was no surge like what we see today.

            What we need is general legal reform so that disputes can be decided simply and inexpensively without Lawyers getting all the goodies.

          • by tragedy (27079)

            Ha! You're using the invention of the telephone as an example of the patent system working well? I suppose, from Bell's point of view, it worked well. Of course, it looks like he had a mole in the patent office to slip his patent into the pile ahead of Gray's when he filed his. If he hadn't been on the ball, he might have ended up being cheated out of cheating Gray out of the patent.

            Face it, the patent system has been bad for just about everyone pretty much since its inception. Not particularly surprising f

      • by Alex Belits (437) *

        Here we tend to piss on anything that relates to USPTO, but then again we have a tendency to believe that if they let us we'd fix lots of broken things in a heartbeat because the problem here is just a lack of geeks in the relevant power areas.

        Yesss!!! Stupid people are solution to everything, don't touch them!

    • by Attila Dimedici (1036002) on Tuesday November 20, 2012 @02:40PM (#42045527)
      He does not have to own stock in any of the companies that profit from the current, broken patent system to have a vested interest in the current system. He is the head of the Patent Office. Most of the suggested reforms would reduce the significance of the Patent Office, which would reduce his significance.
    • by Jeng (926980) on Tuesday November 20, 2012 @02:42PM (#42045551)

      He does have a vested interest in not changing things, changing things would require work and all he wants is a paycheck, and once he goes back to the private sector he is going to get some absolutely massive paychecks if the system he wants to game is not changed.

  • by DoofusOfDeath (636671) on Tuesday November 20, 2012 @02:26PM (#42045331)

    I mean, he gets paid either way, so it's fine, right?

  • by Blue Stone (582566) on Tuesday November 20, 2012 @02:26PM (#42045353) Homepage Journal

    David Kappos [fingers in ears], "Lalalalalalalala ... everything is fine ... lalalalalalalalala..."

    Clearly determined to be part of the problem, rather than part of the solution.

  • In other news (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Threni (635302) on Tuesday November 20, 2012 @02:27PM (#42045361)

    The head of the SEA agrees all current drug laws are spot on and he expects, with his multi billion dollar annual budget, to announce the complete cessation of all illegal drug taking any day now.

    • The head of the SEA agrees all current drug laws are spot on

      To be fair, Aquaman has always been pretty conservative...

    • by Threni (635302)

      I posted from my phone, with handy word completion and spell checking, and for some reason Slashdot persists in not allowing edits to posts. You know what I meant....

  • by jerpyro (926071) on Tuesday November 20, 2012 @02:28PM (#42045365)

    ... another Bureaucrat defending his corporately lobbied position.

    Remember folks: government officials have an interest in securing and maintaining their department's funding, not (unless they're exceptional) in making progress.

    • by drinkypoo (153816)

      The basic fundamental problem with the USPTO is that they get paid for granting patents.

      Of course, if you changed that, you'd have to find a way to fund them that wouldn't be abused equally, by simply keeping people's money.

      Or just abolish them entirely, but that would make too much sense...

  • Of course (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 20, 2012 @02:28PM (#42045371)

    The "value" of his job is directly related to how complex the system is. Why should anyone be surprised at this? The last thing he wants is to lessen or even streamline the impact of patent law on doing business -- in terms of either monetary cost or justice itself.

    The more complex, ambiguous, and exploitable the law, the more money there is to be made in administration. This applies to the bottom of the pyramid all the way up to the top.

  • by the computer guy nex (916959) on Tuesday November 20, 2012 @02:35PM (#42045453)
    Push your agenda in the comment section, where it belongs. The article summaries should be much more neutral.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 20, 2012 @02:56PM (#42045729)

      Come on, the idiocy of some USPTO issued patents is not a matter of opinion. If you push neutrality over facts you're gonna have a bad time-

      • by the computer guy nex (916959) on Tuesday November 20, 2012 @03:04PM (#42045817)

        Come on, the idiocy of some USPTO issued patents is not a matter of opinion. If you push neutrality over facts you're gonna have a bad time-

        Personally I believe there are 2 sides to almost any story, including this one. Are there fundamental problems in the USPTO? Absolutely. Companies with no intention of bringing a product to market should *never* be allowed to litigate. The USPTO definitely lets too much through.

        However I do believe there are many things the USPTO does right, and I do believe they are still needed.

        • by LoyalOpposition (168041) on Tuesday November 20, 2012 @03:26PM (#42046091)

          Personally I believe there are 2 sides to almost any story, including this one.

          There is some evidence to suggest that any monopoly privilege grant, such as patents, will be expanded with time. The benefits to owning monopoly privileges are concentrated amongst the few owners, while the costs of being excluded are diffuse amongst the population at large. Under those conditions, the political incentive will be to expand monopoly rights, regardless of the current state of those rights. The reason is that it pays the benefactors to lobby congress, whereas it's a net loss to individuals to do so, even when they win.

          Although it's in a different area, copyrights instead of patents, no doubt this explains why the copyright expiration has been repeatedly extended.

          ~Loyal

          • Personally I believe there are 2 sides to almost any story, including this one.

            There is some evidence to suggest that any monopoly privilege grant, such as patents, will be expanded with time. The benefits to owning monopoly privileges are concentrated amongst the few owners, while the costs of being excluded are diffuse amongst the population at large. Under those conditions, the political incentive will be to expand monopoly rights, regardless of the current state of those rights. The reason is that it pays the benefactors to lobby congress, whereas it's a net loss to individuals to do so, even when they win.

            Although it's in a different area, copyrights instead of patents, no doubt this explains why the copyright expiration has been repeatedly extended.

            On the contrary, while your analysis is correct with regard to copyright (few owners with $$$ to lobby congress vs. population at large with little political pressure), it's incorrect with regard to patents. With copyright, the copyright owners have a strong interest in protecting (and extending) their rights on their own works - hence the RIAA and MPAA lobbying for ever longer terms. They don't care about seizing each other's works, however... Disney has more interest in making Cars 4: The Search for more

        • However I do believe there are many things the USPTO does right, and I do believe they are still needed.

          I am a scientist. I use logic and reason to make up my mind. You clearly do not. You believe patents are still needed. I do not. Let us test your hypothesis, that they are still needed? If you are rational you will realize that the only thing to do now is run the experiment. Yes? So, let's abolish the patents and see if they're needed. You have no supporting evidence for your claim that they are needed otherwise. I mean, the Information Age happened, and is rocking the world's economies. Perhaps

          • by ProfBooty (172603)

            Trade secrets?

            Of course scientists will still publish their work, but I would imagine that the publication system might change a bit.

    • by leppi (207894)

      Ya, annoys me too. Slashdot isn't the worst, but for as long as it's been around, you would hope editors would clean it up before putting things up on the front page. (they already do clean a lot of stuff up).

      To be fair though, if he changes "laughable" to "Interesting", I think it's fine. The thing about the lawyers didn't seem too bad. Lawyer jokes are pretty standard fair even at reputable news sites.

  • by Runesabre (732910) on Tuesday November 20, 2012 @02:35PM (#42045461) Homepage

    The current patent ecosystem, at least in regards to computer technology in general, has incentivized an environment of innovative litigation schemes rather than incentivizing true product innovation. Too many businesses and lawyers making money from schemes that do not produce (and never intended to produce) tangible results other than to sue for money on white paper ideas that never saw (and never expected to see) the light of day until some other entity actually (often unknowingly) puts in the effort of true innovation while tripping over hidden patent traps.

    • by Minwee (522556) <dcr@neverwhen.org> on Tuesday November 20, 2012 @03:08PM (#42045861) Homepage

      The current patent ecosystem [...] has incentivized [...] product innovation. [...] many businesses [...] produce [...] true innovation [...]

      See? Everyone agrees that David Kappos is right and our patent system is the envy of the world.

      • The current patent ecosystem [...] has incentivized [...] product innovation. [...] many businesses [...] produce [...] true innovation [...]

        See? Everyone agrees that David Kappos is right and our patent system is the envy of the world.

        See ... David Kappos r ... a ... p ... e ... the world.

        I see what you did there.

  • They told me if I voted for Romney, we'd continue to see a patent office beholden to the interests of multi-national companies... and they were right!

    • This wasn't really an agenda item on the table in this election.

      Both candidates, despite all the b.s. about "socialism," were clearly corporatists. There wasn't going to be any discussion about patents and "I.P.", lobbying, campaign finance, or anything that the biggest corporations have no disagreements one.

  • by ItsJustAPseudonym (1259172) on Tuesday November 20, 2012 @02:39PM (#42045509)

    ...a reflection of how the patent system wires us for innovation.

    Meaning electrical wires attached to the testicles.

  • Incomplete Story (Score:5, Informative)

    by eddeye (85134) on Tuesday November 20, 2012 @02:42PM (#42045549)

    The Ars Technica piece is very slanted, pulling quotes our of context. Here's the full text of the speech itself: http://www.uspto.gov/news/speeches/2012/kappos_CAP.jsp [uspto.gov]

    For instance, compare these quotes, which give a very different perspective:

    "But it is equally important that patent protection be properly tailored in scope, so that programmers can write code and engineers can design devices without fear of unfounded accusations of infringement. And we know that inconsistency in software patent issuance causes uncertainty in the marketplace and can cause threats of litigation that in turn can stifle innovation and deter new market entrants."

    "Software experts have long observed that programming is incremental in nature, with modest improvements not worthy of patent protection. KSR gave us the ability to recognize this valid observation and incorporate it in our examination process."

    "Should we just accept the problems, given the importance of the innovation and the illogic of discriminating against great technology that happens to be implemented in software? Of course not. The right point of inquiry is quality. By getting that right, we grant patents only for great algorithmic ideas worthy of protection, and not for everything else. This administration and its innovation agency understand that low-quality patents do no good for anyone. Low quality patents lead to disputes, uncertainty, and lost opportunity. Quality is central to our mission. All of this especially for software."

    "One such initiative has already begun crowdsourcing searches for software prior art. It's called Ask Patents and is an online network hosted by Stack Exchange, where software experts engage in robust discussions of possible prior art for given applications, then submit the best prior art along with helpful commentary."

    "You know, the history of software patents is not a perfect one, although things are improving. Some of the most troublesome patents have expired; others can be challenged with new post-grant proceedings; and newer patents are quantifiably clearer, and aligned with current legal standards."

    "For those who feel more needs to be done, we encourage you to keep reaching out to us at the USPTO, as well as to other actors who also have an important role to play. The USPTO administers the laws, while Congress and the courts write the laws and interpret them, respectively. Working together, we can find the right balance for software patents. We can find a balance that ensures market certainty, encourages investment and research and product development, and guarantees that patents issued going forward are appropriately tailored."

    • by Anonymous Coward

      The reality is the rest of the first world thinks and has laws stating software patents are bullshit. The USPTO represents the legal profession and will continue to rubber stamp the most trivial things so their industry can rake it in via the courts.

    • by langelgjm (860756) on Tuesday November 20, 2012 @10:40PM (#42050947) Journal

      I was at the CAP event this morning, and I wouldn't say the Ars story is that slanted. Did Kappos say that there is absolutely no improvement to be made to the US patent system? No. Are there some positive things going on at the patent office? Yes. However, he frankly came off as a total hack. Here is why:

      He led off with a statistic about how "IP intensive industries" account for 40 million jobs, and 35% of GDP. Even if you accept the methodology behind those numbers, the vast majority of the jobs and GDP come from trademark intensive industries (e.g., retail) rather than patent intensive industries (or copyright). I called him on this in the Q&A, and he gave a politician's response (e.g., a non-answer).

      He kept mentioning how "critics" don't have the "facts" but failed to even once suggest why high-profile innovative companies like Google are critical of software patents.

      He claims that "Our founding fathers enshrined patent rights in our Constitution, an affirmative right here, that in other countries is only issued grudgingly. It’s one of the few, if not only, clauses in the Constitution that gives Congress the right to create personal property." This is inaccurate. The Constitution mentions that Congress has the power to secure to inventors their discoveries for limited times. It does not say that this must be done through patents, and it certainly does not analogize whatever method Congress chooses to property.

      He claimed that "our IP system is the envy of the world." Well, I've actually talked to European Commission officials about what they think of our patent system, and they don't share his view. Actually, much of the world doesn't want our ultra-strong IP laws. Maybe he meant to say our "economy" is the envy of the world (although that's also a hard sell). He also seemed to think that our system was best because it was strongest... shockingly, I think there are a lot of people who don't think that strongest = best, yet he doesn't address this.

      Essentially the bulk of his logic boils down to a post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy: The U.S. has software patents, the U.S. has software innovation, therefore the software innovation must come from the software patents. This is logically false, and I would also argue empirically false.

      • For software patents the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy doesn't even apply, since monumental software innovation came before the court decisions that authorized software patents.
  • Somebody patent being a slimy weasel already...

  • There is no other comment possible here. This is derp.

    • You're being too kind, frankly.
      My first reaction was, "this guy is clueless", but on second thought, he knows what's going on, he's just a derpbag. And now I've been too kind.
  • by NotSanguine (1917456) on Tuesday November 20, 2012 @02:55PM (#42045715) Journal

    Everything looks like a nail.

    This guy runs the USPTO. What's he going to say? "We've really cocked things up and need to rethink our IP framework." I think not. The real incentive here is for Kappos to give the impression that what his organization is doing makes a positive difference, whether it does or not.

    I'm not against IP, I'm against the *insane* IP framework that's in place in the US.

    Sadly, we're not likely to see any positive change since our legislators are all firmly in the pockets of the corporations who use our incredibly unfair IP to stifle innovation and ensure fat profits.

    This situation reminds me of how Ambrose Bierce, in his superior lexicon, defined an 'alliance':

    ALLIANCE, n. In international politics, the union of two thieves who have their hands so deeply inserted in each other's pockets that they cannot separately plunder a third.

    I submit that this is true in domestic as well as international politics.

    • by MickyTheIdiot (1032226) on Tuesday November 20, 2012 @02:58PM (#42045757) Homepage Journal

      I put "IP" in quotes. This is because these items are not property. It abuses the word property. Only one person can own a piece of property and billions can have the same idea. It's the wrong term to use for these items. There needs another term coined.

      The whole thing needs to be rethought. Throw out the term "Intellectual Property" and go back to the constitutional reasoning behind why it was created in the first place.

  • Isn't this just another "It isn't a bug, it's a feature!"?

    The litigation is going on because everything is in doubt and they are using the legal system to clarify every little detail. The patent system is being abused and the courts should be used for justice, not cleaning up the problems with the patent system.

  • Breakneck indeed! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Captain Spam (66120) on Tuesday November 20, 2012 @03:07PM (#42045845) Homepage

    He then went on to proclaim the 'absolutely breakneck pace' of innovation in the smartphone industry [...]

    In that each smartphone manufacturer is using the patent system in new and innovative ways as a legal bludgeon to break each other's necks, right?

  • The patent system is an exercise in frustration, correct? You can't find anything you're looking for, and when you get sued, it's something that even having a good lawyer on your side protecting your intellectual property, chances are someone somewhere will have invented something similar to what you did so it's an exercise in futility.... What does this have the net effect of doing? Now think carefully on this, and I'll clue you in: IT creates a FREE DISTRIBUTION of your intellectual property. Is this go
    • by PPH (736903)

      Distribution of ideas? Then why are patent claims written in some bizarre legalese that makes them difficult, if not impossible, to parse or search.

      The patent application system is a game where the 'inventor' tries to write claims as generally as possible. This captures the maximum amount of 'idea space' while skirting, or just paraphrasing prior art. Or making something trivial sound like a major breakthrough. Furthermore, if you want an opinion as to whether your idea infringes on some other patents, yo

  • by Nyder (754090) on Tuesday November 20, 2012 @03:12PM (#42045925) Journal

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kappos [wikipedia.org]

    Only reason he likes the patent system, imo.

    • by Jeng (926980)

      What I did not expect is that he actually has an educational and career background in technology.

      Then again he probably has quite a few patents himself.

      • What I did not expect is that he actually has an educational and career background in technology.

        It would be more unusual if he didn't have one... To be a patent attorney, you have to have a scientific or technical background - it's a requirement for eligibility to take the patent bar. Many of us have PhDs or years of engineering experience. If Kappos didn't have one, then he'd be a non-patent attorney in charge of the PTO, which would probably piss off the patent bar and examining corps more than anything else.

  • He's just making sure he has a job tomorrow ... and for years to come ...

  • He's obviously tired of hearing how broken, abused and utterly bukkake'd the patent system is yet he has no intention of fixing any of it. Sounds to me like a guy who's making lots of money off keeping it broken.

    I love these quotes:
    "The explosion of litigation we are seeing is a reflection of how the patent system wires us for innovation,"

    The job thing....
    "supported the jobs of 40 million American workers, or 27.7 percent of all US jobs."

    Really? Which world?
    "Our patent system is the envy of the world,"

  • Now we know where the trouble in the patent system is coming from. A fish rots from the head.

  • and graft does not prepare the US for an increase in innovation, it demonstrates to the world our deep level of corruption.

  • by Ryanrule (1657199)

    What an asshole.

  • The America we knew and loved is dead...

    Fascism has gripped it. And it's all about government/corporate interest, and welcome to the new feudalism.

  • They need to do away with the let's sit back and wait until company A makes billions off the product before suing. Let's setup a scenario where company B holds a patient for a something WiFi related and they learned company A released a product that infringes on their patient. Company B should start the infringement paperwork no later than x months from the time it first found out.
  • Lets take out a patent on a new patent system with a new patent office and head.
  • They must take the most amazing hallucinogens at the Patent Office! I've met drunks at the end of a 2 week binge who have a FAR better grasp of reality than this idiot does!
  • Is this really the best we can do? If you have a financial and career interest in some topic then that fact renders you literally incapable of processing reality in any meaningful way. He's not too stupid to understand the issue, but the fact that his department makes money off of a broken system, and the bigger the department the bigger the paycheck of the guy who heads it, is all that matters. It's disgusting, sure but even more, it's depressing. One snort of the money and power coke up their noses and ev

Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable.

Working...