USPTO Sued Over "Unqualified Appointment" 125
Techdirt is reporting that a small group of patent lawyers and investors are suing the US Secretary of Commerce in order to prevent the appointment of Margaret Peterlin to Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the US Patent and Trademark Office. "According to the suit, filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Congress amended the Patent Act in 1999 to require that the Director and Deputy Director of the USPTO each have "professional experience and background in patent or trademark law." Peterlin's appointment, announced May 8, violates the statute because she "lacks the requisite professional experience and background," the suit said. [...] They are asking the court to order Gutierrez to dismiss Peterlin immediately and establish rules to assess what qualifies as a professional background and experience in patent or trademark law. They also want the court to order Gutierrez to appoint a replacement for Peterlin who fulfills those requirements."
Idea! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Idea! (Score:5, Funny)
Huh? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, it would be a hell of a good thing if, in order to serve as a congress-critter or a US senator, you had to pass a detailed test on the content of the constitution. Much of our political system is staffed by people who have no idea what is constitutional and what is not.
Hence our broad complement of unconstitutional federal activities - ex post facto laws, federal restrictions on keeping and bearing arms, taking of property for non-public use, abridgment of speech, commerce clause inversion, n
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
More like they simply don't give a shit. And why should they? We're not holding them accountable.
mod parent up AND become active in society! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
For good reason too -- fear of repercussions from the executive and judicial branches must not be allowed to cripple congress. Imagine what would have happened if certain presidents or had the power to fire or imprison congressmen for "misconduct".
Yes, there's a bad side to the immunity, but that's a small price to pay for the representatives being able to speak and vote freely.
Re: (Score:2)
The appropriate professional experience for a President - or any politician - is as a liar, con-artist or conjurer. I can't think of any political types - in America or Europe - who failed to meet these requirements other than the former BBC war correspondent Martin Bell (who later revealed that British parliament was far more hazardous to human health than any war zone).
I think the OP was referring to the President's practice of hiring and promoting the least qualified people for the position as a direct
In England it's called a Quango. (Score:2)
The current President's practices are, admittedly, much more grievous than many of the Thatcher-era or Blair-era quangos - generally they didn't create such groups with the power to seek (or bestow) death sentences. Well, apart from a few do
Too late. (Score:2)
It's about 10 years too late for that, at a bare minimum.
Still, anything to prevent another craptacular old-boy style crony appointee.
no standing (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:no standing (Score:5, Informative)
Redressability is simple, having the federal government follow the law.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I followed you up to that "simple" part. The rest of the sentence, however, is giving me problems.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Thomas Jefferson trumps you:
If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every ot
Thomas Jefferson didn't like black people either.. (Score:1)
Re:Thomas Jefferson didn't like black people eithe (Score:1, Flamebait)
Bit of a Hypocrite (Score:1)
How can you
a) be against slavery,
AND
b) have a slave (that maybe you also have a kid with)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
That's technically what you just did
Re: (Score:1)
proper cite (Score:2, Informative)
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Isaac McPherson, August 13, 1813
Here's a link to the complete transcript [temple.edu] of the letter. The University of Chicago only published about 1/7 of it.
For those who cannot understand the relevance, Jefferson was a Founder of America and Third President. This is a primary document regarding the original intent of patents. Original intent is considered to be the gold standard by many conservatives. In this letter, Jefferson even covers the concept of 'prior art', as well as makes
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:no standing (Score:5, Insightful)
And the obvious redress would be to kick the unqualified candidate and replace her with a qualified candidate...One whose credentials include more than being J. Dennis Hastert's Counsel for Legal Policy.
Re:no standing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Before last year, this case would get tossed out quick
Re: (Score:2)
Denny likes little boys (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
-uso.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Suck it, hillbillies (Score:2)
My shit may stink but it's intercepted and biodegraded before it gets out of the sewers.
Re: (Score:2)
Breaking the law isn't an injury? If the government refuses to enforce the law, is there no redress available?
Re: (Score:2)
It gives the state standing. Not private parties.
Ohh, you're noticing the conflict of interest? Welcome to government.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's a generalized grievance. There's a long line of precedent that holds you can't sue the government for doing something that you think is wrong, or the government fails to follow its own procedures, where there is no direct harm to the suing party. The Constitution requires actual cases and controversies, not generalized harms.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it makes no such requirement
Wow. Your version of Article III section 2 must be different than, well, everybody else's.
Re: (Score:2)
As t
Establish rules to assess what qualifies (Score:2, Insightful)
Roe v Wade is legal guidance in repubican circles (Score:1)
In a book Imperial life in the Emerald City, by Rajiv Chandrasekaran legal opinion of the above case was probably the reason why the job was obtained.
Who cares about experience - and no im not making this up (read the book).
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think that's not a moronic question?
I don't know how many Italians (for example) she plans to appoint to her cabinet, but even if she turns out not to appoint any, that wouldn't justify someone else's policy of only hiring Italians in his cabinet. Use your head.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh what a load of crap. Not everyone has a lizard brain.
Re: (Score:2)
No. They are saying that there are rules, since the law explicitly requires experience. They are asking that the court interpret and apply that requirement to the specific case, and they are saying that they believe that under any reasonable interpretation, the incumbent falls outside of it.
Its not really uncommon at all for less than every word in a statute to be specifically defined in that statut
Re: (Score:2)
She's a Federalist, that's not enough? (Score:5, Funny)
What more could you want?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not sure if she's qualified or not. I haven't done an exhaustive search, but I don't see anywhere that she's been a big GOP donor, and that seems to me to be the most important qualification after ideology in the current administration.
Re: (Score:2)
Strangely, I wonder if this is why they're protesting.
Wild Ideas (Score:2)
She's hardly the only one... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to compete for the smartest people in the United States, you have to pay them more.
Re: (Score:2)
You could probably say the same about most jobs in most fields. People want/look for better jobs (better everything, really). If you think people are fundamentally happier as a result of being better off elsewhere than in the US, I'd urge you to re-evaluate that premise.
If you want to compete for the smartest people in
This is a good thing (Score:2)
There are two ways to look at this: either it's a noble attempt to ensure the right people are in place to oversee the patent and trademark office and to keep out political hacks, or (as Techdirt might see it) an attempt by patent people to keep their business protected from outsiders.
I am not qualified to say which one it is, but I do like the idea that this is happening.
What I would like to see more of:
1) Laws that state that appointees must have appropriate requirements. This enables citizens to:
2) Sue officials for violating the rules and their oaths
We would be in a lot better shape if people could hold the government more accountable for their actions. The way things are today, Congress can just establish the department of whatever, and then that department can do whatever they w
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, so maybe that's not such a hot idea after all.
Re: (Score:2)
We would be in a lot better shape if people could hold the government more accountable for their actions.
It's called voting against the offenders. Even in the case of appointees, you can vote against the elected officials who appointed them. The problem is not that we can't, it's that we don't. The general public almost always votes for the incumbent, so once someone is in power, it'll take more than a little incompetence or corruption to get them out. And even among the very, very few people who pay
Re: (Score:2)
hmm (Score:3, Interesting)
It would have been so much easier if Congress had just made the law say "must have been a registered U.S. patent attorney for at least 5 years before appointment."
Re:hmm (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To me, that sounds like putting the inmates in charge of the asylum.
Re: (Score:2)
What about just requiring someone who has worked on overturning at least one patent more than the number they have worked on securing?
Can i borrow them (Score:2)
Good luck with that although it sounds good. A boss that understands what their employees are actually doing would be a good idea.
Complain to President Bush (Score:3, Funny)
This is outrageous - does President Bush know about this? Probably not. I'm sure if he did he'd do something about it - that's his no-nonsense way.
Hot Air (Score:2, Informative)
Before joining the USPTO, Peterlin was Counsel for Legal Policy and National Security Advisor for the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dennis Hastert, according to biographical information on the USPTO's Web site. In this role, she advised Hastert, Hou
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Patent is intellectual property. You don't have to be a "patent attorney", ie someone who has passed the specialized patent bar for bar examiners, to be knowledgeable and qualified in patent law.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, what part of her background qualified her to advise on IP?
TWW
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You speak of competent people in govt Where? When? (Score:2)
Re:Hot Air (Score:5, Insightful)
She has a generally strong political background but appears to be qualified in no particular whatsoever. That's a far cry from being "totally" qualified.
Totally qualified would mean qualified in all respects, not just maybe a vague hand wave because she knows how to work the political machine.
That appears to be the essential problem. People somehow have developed the hubris that any sufficiently talented generalist can master a new field in short order and lead it to success. Not so. A senior position in any field requires someone who knows the field. And at our present level of complexity, that degree of mastery takes a lifetime.
You can settle for less in the name of political expediency, but don't fool yourself that it's just as good an appointment as someone who actually knew the field well. A totally qualified candidate would know the field and be able to get along with the political establishment. You're getting half a slice of pie.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But that makes the challenge doubly hard. It still does no good to bring some unqualified individual in from out of nowhere. That just serves to shuffle the oligarchy around a bit without adding any merit. The ideal individual has to be expert in how the present system works, and also somehow untainted by it.
Now if you could parachute in some respected executive from some other patent jurisdiction,
Re: (Score:2)
Interestingly enough, this doesn't seem to apply when looking for software jobs. It doesn't matter how long you've been a Linux kernel programmer or that you have a master's in computer architecture, if you don't have 7 years' experience with Visual C# 3.1, you're obviously not qualified.
Re: (Score:2)
But just as the generalist role has been underconstrained, now
really? (Score:4, Interesting)
Do we really want a *qualified* candidate? (Score:2)
..a tinfoil hat moment.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Lawsuits are soul sucking, time consuming, and really really expensive. I could see how some legal body or activist group may be interested for idealistic reasons, but investors?
If they are putting the big dollars in they will be wanting the big dollars out again. That's what investors do. The question is why and how. What has either this law or woman woman done or not done to engender this kind of hostility?
curiouser and
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent interesting. This is the crux of the matter.
I would buy a subscription to _something_ that gave me this bit of news in 500 words or less. Unless of course, it leads to far more interesting things. Then I'd wade through more than 500 words.
Re: (Score:2)
Quiet simple. All she did was get nominated by a Republican. This wouldn't have been news if a Democrat had nominated someone of the same background. It has become obvious to me that liberals are far more interested in contesting anything done by government simply for the sake of making that government look bad rather than for the sake of any real improvement (and I will be the first to admit that much improvement
Tell me I'm misreading the article (Score:1, Interesting)
The real reason (Score:2)
What do you mean not qualified? (Score:2)
I'll bet she graduated from Oral Roberts University and proved her organizational and people skill as a Republican fund raiser.
That makes her as qualified, for any job, as anyone else in the Bush administration. Hell, I'm surprised she didn't get the number two or three spot in the Justice Department with those qualifications.
If this doesn't work out put her in charge of FEMA.
Re: (Score:2)
We aren't even discussing the real question here: (Score:2)
That's basically the question that begs to be asked. Why are they suing? Because of an incompetent person filling a political office? Hardly. Hasn't ever been the reason for a suit, much less from some industrial body. If anything, industry WANTS incompetent politicians.
By the very way power is distributed in commerce, the industry wants no politicians to meddle with their affairs, of if that's impossible to achive, at least politicians who're too inapt to take any kind of influence. And the same is tru
Patents Shmatents (Score:2)
clear violation of the separation of powers (Score:1)
Congress can make whatever laws they want about presidential appointments. They would be just be unconstitutional.
Although it is popular (as of late) to argue that congress has pretty much unlimited power, especially when it comes to trampling executive powers.
Cost of Politicization of this Post (Score:1)
This administration USUALLY staffs appointee positions with partisan know-nothings (know a littles sometimes, if a partisan one is available) with the intent of overtly politiciz
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, this movie in particular and all of the five so far made in general dramatically tone down the political themes of the books. As the series has gone on, it has incrementally progressed from subtle jokes about the idiosyncrasies of the British government to more serious, more general, and more overt discussions of political philosophy.
Although I agree wholeheartedly that the politics of Order of the Phoenix ar