US Patent Operations May Shut Down In Second Week of February (bloomberg.com) 81
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bloomberg: The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office said it may have to cease patent operations in the second week of February if the partial government shutdown continues, though it has money for trademark work through mid-April. Any furlough of staff could mean significant delays in reviewing the tens of thousands of applications on inventions for things like telecommunications hardware and the next cutting-edge medical treatments. Now it takes on average 15.8 months before a patent applicant can expect a preliminary response from an examiner. More than 640,000 patent applications were filed in fiscal 2018.
The patent office, part of the Commerce Department, is funded entirely by user fees and gets no tax dollars, but it requires an appropriation from Congress to spend the money it collects. In fiscal 2018, it had a budget of $3.3 billion and has asked for $3.5 billion for fiscal 2019. The patent office sets aside authorized money in what's called an operating reserve to account for "temporary changes in our cash flow" and that's what it has been using to stay open since the partial shutdown began Dec. 22. At the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30, it said it had 1.3 months of operating expenses for patent operations and 4.9 months of expenses for trademark operations.
The patent office, part of the Commerce Department, is funded entirely by user fees and gets no tax dollars, but it requires an appropriation from Congress to spend the money it collects. In fiscal 2018, it had a budget of $3.3 billion and has asked for $3.5 billion for fiscal 2019. The patent office sets aside authorized money in what's called an operating reserve to account for "temporary changes in our cash flow" and that's what it has been using to stay open since the partial shutdown began Dec. 22. At the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30, it said it had 1.3 months of operating expenses for patent operations and 4.9 months of expenses for trademark operations.
Trumpsky the Russian Oligarch (Score:1, Insightful)
Get a rope!
The end is in sight? (Score:2, Interesting)
This might actually break the deadlock on the shutdown. Surely the corporate masters won't allow the patent system to shut down.
Re: (Score:3)
There was a budget last year - a bipartisan one - ready to be signed by the President. It included billions for border security.
Fake news. There was only a CR, no border security funding included at all. A proposal was floated for a CR with $1.5 billion for border security, but the Dems rejected it.
All this after Trump promised after signing a pork-filled spending bill, with no border funding, back in March that "I will not sign a bill like this again."
Re: (Score:2)
All this after Trump promised after signing a pork-filled spending bill, with no border funding, back in March that "I will not sign a bill like this again.
"Read my lips: no new taxes!"
Much as I hope Trump sticks to his guns, I have little faith in politicians. Only y faith in Trump's ego gives me hope.
Re:This would be the greatest coup for the America (Score:5, Interesting)
Besides, despite reports of "Solo" making a loss, I'm pretty sure that the revenue from the Star Wars, Marvel, and Pixar franchises (amongst others) that are under the Disney umbrella is more than enough to make up for any loss in revenue they might have from early versions of classic Disney characters - it's not like they sell much (any?) merchandise based around the "Steamboat Willie" version of Mickey, is it? Unless a miracle happens and we get a reduction in copyright duration, they're going to be under Disney's copyright for many decades before their turn comes to enter the public domain. Trademarks are also valid for as long as you care to enforce them, so expect them to enforce that just as aggresively once the critical copyrights do start to expire.
Re: (Score:3)
Besides, despite reports of "Solo" making a loss, I'm pretty sure that the revenue from the Star Wars, Marvel, and Pixar franchises (amongst others) that are under the Disney umbrella is more than enough to make up for any loss in revenue they might have from early versions of classic Disney characters - it's not like they sell much (any?) merchandise based around the "Steamboat Willie" version of Mickey, is it?
No, but they do use that rendition of Mickey in a currently shipping product, Disney Heroes. When you win a battle with Mickey in your lineup, he transforms into Steamboat Willie Mickey and blows some musical notes while spinning a ship's wheel. Presumably they've done this for the precise purpose you've pointed out.
They're just going to use trademark law (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, despite reports of "Solo" making a loss, I'm pretty sure that the revenue from the Star Wars, Marvel, and Pixar franchises (amongst others) that are under the Disney umbrella is more than enough to make up for any loss in revenue they might have from early versions of classic Disney characters - it's not like they sell much (any?) merchandise based around the "Steamboat Willie" version of Mickey, is it?
Maybe not much, but they do actually still sell some merchandise based on Steamboat WIllie's version of Mickey. Particularly now since it's the 90th anniversary year of Mickey Mouse. I've got such an item in my house.
My suggestion to fix copyright extension is to allow it to be extended but at a price. Giving it away like the Bono Act did is pure insanity. If these copyrights are so valuable then why aren't they costing the owners to extend? My suggestion is to keep the current law and allow exten
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mickey is trademarked. That will never expire. Disney has never been at any risk of losing control of Mickey merch. All this copyright horror has been over the 12 cents or so of revenue from the old films themselves; the characters are sill protected.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Democrats say Businesses have to much control of the government.
The Republicans say Government have too much control of business.
There seems to be symbiotic relationship between a business and government. Which both sides thinks the other is actually being parasitic.
What seems to be the problem, is really a good lack of a middle ground. They are government regulations that go too far, and needless hurt a company, while businesses need to realize some rules that may hurt their short term bottom line, ac
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
:-) What day was that?
Business and government need each other (Score:4, Insightful)
The Democrats say Businesses have to much control of the government.
The Republicans say Government have too much control of business.
This is a fair statement of their positions and the truth is they both are wrong. Business and government NEED each other. Not too much and not too little but they quite literally cannot exist without each other. Businesses need to be kept in check by government so that their interests don't run too far contrary to that of the greater society. Governments need businesses to channel profit motives in economically useful ways that governments aren't generally well equipped to handle. Without businesses, governments cannot raise the capital needed to govern properly and without governments, businesses don't have a stable ecosystem in which to operate. Businesses cannot enforce contracts without government. Government isn't very good at raising large amounts of capital. Businesses need regulation to keep the Tragedy of the Commons from becoming real and to keep incentives aligned with those of society. Governments need guidance on when they cross the line to too much regulation. They need each other and don't work well without a good relationship.
There seems to be symbiotic relationship between a business and government. Which both sides thinks the other is actually being parasitic.
There IS a symbiotic relationship between them. The problem is that a lot of bogus political rhetoric and self interest has gotten in the way of a lot of people recognizing this fact lately. But businesses and governments in our modern understanding of them both don't really exist without each other. We need each to keep the other in check and we need both to have a civil and prosperous society.
What seems to be the problem, is really a good lack of a middle ground.
The middle ground is and always has been there. Honestly they've generally done a pretty good job of figuring out where it is. The US and other major economies reflect this fact in their economic success. The process isn't always neat and tidy and there is a lot of debate and messy politics but it tends to get figured out. The problem lately is that the government politics at least in the US has kind of run away from the bargaining table for a variety of reasons. Sound bite ideology gets political power even when it bears no resemblance to evidence based governing.
Re: (Score:2)
There IS a symbiotic relationship between them. The problem is that a lot of bogus political rhetoric and self interest has gotten in the way of a lot of people recognizing this fact lately.
Most of modern politics is a smokescreen to hide just how much business and government have crawled into bed with each other.
Government without Businesses possible (Score:2)
Business and government NEED each other. Not too much and not too little but they quite literally cannot exist without each other.
That's not true government can exist withtout businesses but businesses cannot exist without government.
The Soviet Union had a government but had no businesses. While it was certainly a terrible government it does go to show that government can exist without business. Similarly if you go far enough back in history you can find other governments without businesses e.g. first nation tribes in North America. The reverse is certainly not true though since the laws which allow businesses to exist require a g
Re: (Score:2)
The Democrats say Businesses have to much control of the government. The Republicans say Government have too much control of business.
The businesses say "We have control, so shut up and learn your place."
Re: (Score:2)
Not in Europe.
Re: (Score:3)
I thought the government says that to the businesses.
In the US, the businesses buy the politicians that enact or remove the laws that the businesses demand. Baksheesh as it were.
Re: (Score:1)
In the US, the businesses buy the politicians that enact or remove the laws that the businesses demand.
And every other November the voters show their approval. So, I guess it's okay.
Re: (Score:3)
We've been voting out incumbents for about 20 years now (relative to historical incumbents). It's gotten to such an extreme that voters chose Trump over any politician. It's a fight of establishment vs democracy that ongoing, but seems to finally be tipping in favor of democracy.
Re:The end is in sight? (Score:5, Insightful)
On top of this, surely the guys flying their private jets around wouldn't like air-traffic to get grounded or for themselves to get in an accident? Just read [theguardian.com] today that many air-traffic controllers are now working second jobs out of necessity leading to sleep deprivation which sounds like the perfect combination of factors for some massive fuckups to happen. And that's what they're saying. Trump is playing with lives here.
I'm so glad right now that I'm not American because this shit is insane to follow even from the outside. Like, the government is essentially using close to a million people as slave labor right now and putting actual lives at risk because the guy in charge is a dude with the brain of a toddler that wants a massively expensive wall that will do nothing. I mean hell, didn't it just come to light in the el Chapo trial that the cartels are using planes, self-made submarines and tunnels to smuggle stuff in? And isn't it public knowledge at this point that most people who're in the US illegally have entered there legally? How many American lives is this shit worth? Because this keeps going and people will die as a result, that should be clear.
This shouldn't be a partisan issue at all. Like for fuck's sake Republicans: let Trump throw his tantrum about the wall and any other shit as much as you want, but do it without trying to actively ruin the finances and lives of hundreds of thousands of people. Why do they insist on letting him hold the country hostage? I thought there was supposed to be checks and balances. To top of the idiocy the republicans themselves don't want the wall, they could have passed the funding for that prior to the elections but they didn't, so what the fuck is this shit? They're letting a man-baby hold the entire government hostage for what, exactly? Are they this fucking spineless? Because it sure seems that way.
Of all of the outright moronic shit the Solarium Sultan with 'a very good brain' has said and done is this clusterfuck of a presidency, this shit takes the cake. This is beyond idiotic, and I hope you guys now that the longer this goes on, the more you're being laughed at abroad, because at this point it's the only thing left to do. It's absurd, and for the sake of the Americans I know and care about, I really hope you guys get your shit together, because this is some truly dangerous banana republic level bullshit. I expect this from like an African or a south American country, not the fucking US of A.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, the DNC runs the country, got it.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This might actually break the deadlock on the shutdown.
When the social support programs and welfare run dry, that will break the deadlock. Hungry people are desperate people. Most cities and urban centers only have enough food on hand for the next ten meals because of "just-in-time" logistics.
Re: (Score:2)
only have enough food on hand for the next ten meals because of "just-in-time" logistics.
And because of the inevitable food spoilage. On the other hand, it should be possible to irradiate food and kill harmful organisms, extending its shelf life.
Hey! That's a great idea! [Runs off to patent office]
Nope (Score:2)
When this happens, they've just been making people work unpaid. It happened when the people who verify income weren't showing up (threatening new mortgages). It happened when the people processing tax returns weren't showing up. It happened when the people sending checks to agribusiness weren't showing up. It happened when the people approving offshore oil rigs for safety weren't showing up (and thus new rigs couldn't open)
Now, the people who enable small business (e.g. those who approve craft beers) or
Re: (Score:2)
The shutdown will probably be resolved because of DHS or TSA issues.
TSA (Transportation Security Admin) slows down the airports. I have coworkers that have experienced this.
DHS (Department of Homeland Security) closures actually allows more illegal immigration, which is more than rather ironic (this should be the daily story from all Democrats, every day).
Re:might be good (Score:4, Insightful)
The original concept of patents wasn't bad. They were meant to cover the tangible implementation of an idea and give the inventor a way to protect profits for a period (the first patent was 10 years) and then the information about the invention was released freely after the patent expired so that others could make duplicates and/or improve on it.
Of course it only took a few decades for people to start patenting stupid shit like salt. That lead to problems and a sort of patent reform in the 16th century that invalidated virtually all previously granted patents. After that, new inventions had to be novel and unique. For a while , patents worked reasonably well and helped drive the industrial revolution.
Sometime around the early 1800s, patents started being allowed for improvements to existing devices (not entirely a bad thing) and ideas that had no specific use (which was an entirely bad thing and is the basis for the patent trolls we suffer from today).
The late 1800s/early 1900s saw the rise of the use of patents to block competition and create monopolies. From there on, things have generally gone downhill with patents increasingly being granted for stupidly simple things like rounded corners, business models, software that does nothing special and overly broad patents.
We've pulled back a bit and the overly broad patents used by patent trolls have increasingly been being invalidated, but patents are still problematic. Still, the fundamental idea isn't a bad one. The problems primarily stem from the constant expansion of the scope of what can be patented.
(and yes, I've left out about a billion pages of details and significant moments in patent history, but I'm not writing a novel... there are lots of good websites that discuss the history of patents if you're interested in a more comprehensive history)
Re: (Score:2)
and then the information about the invention was released freely after the patent expired so that others could make duplicates and/or improve on it
Not quite. The information contained in patents is in the public domain from the outset. And it is available for limited use for further research and development and education.
let it shut down (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The patent system is a farce
Pretty much. A modern patent is typically a mass of deliberately Incomprehensible, usually overreaching, assertions tossed into what is effectively a lottery system where manufacturers face a choice of paying Danegeld to patent holders or turning to the legal system where patent metaphysics will be debated by lawyers until an arbitrary decision about scope and validity is reached.
Shutting the system down would be one small step for mankind.
Re: (Score:2)
A modern patent is typically a mass of deliberately Incomprehensible, usually overreaching, assertions
This.
Whatever happened to the requirement to provide a description of the invention [wikipedia.org] "in sufficient detail for the notional person skilled in the art to carry out that claimed invention"? Better yet, bring in a working prototype. But try imposing such requirements and watch the bogus inventors scream. Patents have become as much a tool to attract venture capital to finance the inventor to start working on some technology as a means to secure the rights once R&D is done. And it is not unheard of to run t
Re: (Score:2)
While I don't consider the framers semi-divine, as some people seem to, they were men of considerable practical experience and intelligence. They understood the negative aspects of monopoly; since the beneficial effects of patents and copyrights are all *front loaded*, they made a practical compromise by giving creators a monopoly with a *limited period*.
They would not have even recognized the term "intellectual property", a phrase which only came into use in the 1870s and carries the implication of these
At last, Freedom. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
/Oblg. And nothing of value was lost. =P
OT: Your .sig is accurate.
The typical bullshit excuse "haters gonna hate" is a pathetic attempt to dismiss another person's POV with irrational emotions instead of logically actually learning WHY somebody dislikes or ever hates it in the first place.
Fanboi Bob: (grew up watching ALL the Star Wars movies) :-/
Fanboi Bob: The Last Jedi sucks.
Asshole Alice in whiny nasal voice: "Haters gonna hate"
Fanboi Bob: **Facepalm**
Mauler: Hold my beer [youtube.com]
On the upside (Score:2)
Stupid design (Score:2)
funded entirely by user fees and gets no tax dollars, but it requires an appropriation from Congress to spend the money it collects.
Where we have a government service run by user fees: the affairs should be structured so that user fees collected
are automatically appropriated to providing the service without the need for further intervention by congress;
that way congress can spend their budgeting time focusing on allocating the Tax revenues correctly.
I see some hope here (Score:2)
If that East Texas district court that always rubber-stamps the patent trolls has to shut down too, that will give us a window of opportunity to ram through some major technological advances before the submarine patent machine can reawaken to stifle them once again.
Good or bad? (Score:2)