Patent Rights??

Jim Thompson wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

so,which posted opinion was yours?

None. Though I don't like that first to file scheme. Makes theft of ideas so... so... so... Democrat ;-) ...Jim Thompson

I'm not sure I like all the bill but that editorial's hysterics doesn't help.

Calling this a 'Pelosi' is ridiculous as patent reform has been on the table for 6 years or more, partly because the Clinton Administration royally screwed it up, and in this latest round House public hearings were held back in February. That is hardly a 'Pelosi' just because that fellow didn't know what's going on.

There are surely advantages to harmonization. For example, let's consider what the editorial thinks is the 'current state of affairs' and a U.S. 'inventor' claims an invention already filed in the EU. How is a reciprocal patent recognition agreement to work if we don't recognize their patents and they don't recognize ours?

Having said that, until someone gives me a better reason I don't think it's a good idea to abandon "first to invent" just to make things convenient.

=A0 =A0...Jim Thompson

Just a minor correction as I see it -- the US Supreme Court screwed it up. Following by many lame (and often incorrect & conflicting) interpretations by the lower courts and the USPTO appeals process.

But what we really need, are Patent Examiners who can understand the prior art and apply it correctly when making a 103 rejection for obviousness.

It is clear to me, that "standard procedure" is to do keyword searches, and then cobble the invention together using as many prior art references as it takes, and maybe a dash of highsight bias. I don't know if they do this to weed-out the amateurs, or what??

We have a patent pending now, up for its third Office Action, and honestly, two examiner interviews later, I'm still not 100% convinced she actually understands what we invented.

On a Republican note, this patent (if we ever get it), will be very highly prized. So, even though I'm a hard-core democrat, please sign me up for that 0% capital gains tax. I know I can do my part to help stimulate the economy... :)

-mpm

You're close. It's just the motivation is all wrong. The USPTO is a profit center of the US government and examiners are judged by the number of patents granted. Given the measurements, do you really expect a different outcome?

So you're just another money-grubbing two-faced liar. Figures. Lefties never live where they want everyone else to live.

...

profit

ents

ome?

ies never

Yeah,... I hear you. But I don't know how the USPTO makes any money. Our Examiner has easily spent 10x what we paid in filing & examination fees. And even in you add-on the issuance fees, they're still underwater.

I wonder if their budget is public? Would be interesting to see if they truly are a profit center (or just intended to be). I don't know of any government agencies that "make" money. Well... except the Mint, of course. :)

Don't get me wrong on taxes: I've certainly paid my fair share over the years (...sure feels like more than my "fair share"). But those are regular income taxes, etc.. And the government pisses it away anyway.

I support a carve out on Capital Gains for patents. Whether that's 15% or 0% can be debated. But to not have CGT treatment of patents I think would be a huge disservice.

-mpm

Do you really see the bill for the USPTO?

They are.

Seems with Geitner, they're losing enough. Oops, that's the IRS.

...and you want to give them more? ...so they can break even more pissing records?

Not sure I follow. Why would IP be treated any differently than other sales?

e:

p_p...

the

gs

How

ink

s a profit

patents

utcome?

gn

efties never

ing

es?- Hide quoted text -

Because patents can be viewed unfavorably as long-term assets. My understanding is that even an ungranted patent application can benefit at the CGT rate.

profit

patents

never

Hide quoted text -

Ah, so there is a "Patent Depletion Allowance" on them. ;-)