Posts Tagged ‘politics’

By: Mark R. Malek

In a blog post in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, the $3.7 Trillion (yes, with a  “T”) was praised as being good news for patent attorneys.  The post notes that this was good because it provides for a “temporary surcharge” on patent fees which would go to helping reduce the backlog of patent applications.  The blog post cites an article on Nasdaq.com as its source.

I am not sure what the surcharge is.  I suppose this could relate to the three track patent examination proposal.  I posted an article on this earlier in the month.  If that is the case, then I really do not have a problem with the scenario.  Essentially, if you decide to stay on the path that everyone is currently on, then you do not have to pay any extra fees.  If, however, you want an accelerated examination, you will pay a little more.  Alternately, you can have your examination delayed for a period of time.

The issue that I am concerned with is that a “temporary surcharge” does not sound like the fees discussed in the three track patent examination proposal.  Instead, it sounds a little like raising the already high patent filing fees.  If that is the case, then how is this good news for patent attorneys, or inventors?   The government already skims money off of the patent office to subsidize other government entities.  I have a better solution – STOP DIVERTING FEES AWAY FROM THE PTO!

Let me be sure I understand the way things currently operate – you skim money off the top of the PTO, there is not enough left to skim, so you charge more to the customers, i.e., the inventors?  Is it just me, or is someone running a racket here.  If the U.S. Post Office, for example, is not profitable, then raise the charge for mail (or run the organization a bit better).  Somehow, private industry is making a profit in the mail industry – see FedEx, UPS and DHL.  Last time I checked, they were not subsidized by a completely unrelated industry.  By the way, I poke fun at the Post Office, and I do not really know that they are the culprits.  Someone in Washington, however, has come up with the brilliant plan of taking money away from the Patent Office and, when the quality of their product becomes so unbearable that enough noise is made, came up with an even more brilliant plan to charge the customer more money.  Sorry President Obama – this one just doesn’t add up to me.

by Jason Fischer

Victoria the Not-so-Terrible

Victoria the Not-so-Terrible

On Friday, President Obama appointed the first “Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator,” a new position created last year by the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act (a.k.a. the PRO-IP Act).  While many criticized that legislation as further enlisting U.S. law enforcement to do the dirty work of the RIAA and MPAA, some of those same voices are praising the president’s choice of Victoria A. Espinel as a fair compromise.

“We believe she will be fair in her approach to intellectual property enforcement issues,” said Gigi Sohn, president of Public Knowledge, a left-leaning digital-rights advocacy group. (source)

This commentator hopes that Ms. Espinel’s understanding of the complex landscape of international trade, combined with a history in academics — where the value of citation and accretion is recognized over draconian exclusion — will help move copyright policy towards something a bit more sensible than life-plus-70.


This story has also been published on The Legal Satyricon.

SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 05, 2012

Bad Behavior has blocked 1581 access attempts in the last 7 days.