I post this here with appropriate context …
I provided the following comments in view of Joe Trippi’s “MyWhiteHouse.gov” concept with an eye to identifying real issues that can be observed at http://www.uspto.gov/ – REALITY CHECK – the Patent Office is the ONLY US Government Agency that actually MAKES MONEY – the specific Executive Office Department is the Commerce Department for reference.
YES – the *allegedly* faulty USPTO is a money maker !!! So much so that the Legislative Branch has seen it fit to divert moneys to other overnment Activities on the backs of folks who are *funding* the Patent Office with an interest to Patent !? Amazingly, all the talk about “protecting small business” is mirrored in the effort to “protect individual rights” including all that 99% perspiration & 1% inspiration talk … We the People Need to Protect Free Speech & Patentable Subject Matter … They are one in the same …
Americans would be wise to observe the following comments as NO OTHER AGENCY CAN CLAIM PROFITABILITY (FORGET “drill, baby, drill”, Interior Dept does not make money even with Casinos) we are talking about our living national treasures & job creation machine[s] – independent inventors & small entities/start-ups !!!
It is perfectly acceptable for Mr. Trippi to ignore &/or filter the following comments which have also been provided to the President-elect’s “Change.gov” launch – but, THE *political capital* spent on allegedly INNOVATIVE FIRMS who seek to diminish the importance of inventors including those that benefited from the system … Inventors TRULY engage the Federal Government in pushing & prodding the status quo to the future.
Absent real anti-trust activities, the Copyists will win & Patent Pirates, not Patent Trolls will deplete these American Inventors to the detriment of all Americans and our shared Future !!!
The SCOTUS even acknowledges “pioneer patents” – those instruments which actually create NEW INDUSTRIES … Success lies in acknowledging that the “unknowable” too plays a role in success & all barriers to providing public notice of “novel & nonobvious” inventions should be reduced – we are all Free Thinkers & can all be Inventors …
In the interests of clarity the suggestions and observations are provided here “AS IS” & comments are welcome … Government crowds out true innovation when individual inventors & small entities need to spend upwards of $30-50K to prosecute a patent – Pro Se prosecution distorts protections when individuals are pitted against legal expertise accessible to the few – n contrast, Copyrights are registration-based and cost about $40 per registration :::
This is not “dicta”
“It would seem to be the way to do things; but, one anecdote for an agency that *makes* money & is not funded by taxpayers – namely the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office – has largely has ignored its constituents even with objective & transparent systems in place (most folks would not believe that every patent prosecution, with very few exceptions, is publicly accessible via the “PAIR” system at uspto.gov)
Forget about the 35-40% of filers, who are small entities & independent inventors, the large patent agent & patent attorney coalitions have “negotiated” away rights over inventions for many years in a transparent “land grabs” while “harmonizing” our technical prowess. Instead of paying attention to the folks that file & pay their way, literally, the Office has reached out to academics & business school students for suggestions. It is a mind-boggling.
For something as basic as patent prosecution (I did not say “easy”), it would seem that a MyWhiteHouse.gov would suffer far worse complexity & expectations.
Some potential flaws for consideration:
1) How much ID would be required? Could there be true privacy (a cryptographic credential) when their is no “right to privacy” in any meaningful objective sense? Patent Applicants provide vast amounts of ID information and *must* fulfill the various requirements of the Patent Act to provide “definiteness” in public notice of novel & nonobvious claims (the “metes & bounds” of the invention). Anything they file can & will be used if the patent is subject to litigation – the USPTO, on the other hand, is not involved in litigation. As with voting rights, would this not be the time to define “privacy” beyond – “the right to be left alone”?
2) How is attribution designed? Who gets credit? Would it be like a private company that claims ownership over information concerning errors or crashes of an application on a PC? Why is that appropriate if the crash itself is a *cost* on the user that is not covered by warranty or liability. Simply, if the crash is a *value* to the provider (they cannot legally patent what they did not “invent” but claims of ownership over this information is a movement in that direction) & and *expense* to the user, why shouldn’t the user get paid & receive proper attribution? Would MyWhiteHouse.gov assist in defining liability over information, not simply the machines themselves as per the first point on privacy?
3) What is the consideration involved? If we can balance privacy & attribution who gets the consideration? Government contractor? The individual[s] involved? How is abuse limited in that particular case. Can we bring the Government further into the 21st Century by defining when a network starts (my machine) and when it “connects” to the Internet? For instance, when will we recognize the *value* in information be it structure, form or function & unlike the recent CAFC Bilski decision, recognize that machines have no value without “signals”, “software” and “business methods”. Consideration too should be defined – be it tax incentive, bandwidth, recognition (akin to copyright or patent depending on whether you simply want registration of ideas or examination of ideas).
I guess my major issue is that the Constitution reserves to the States & the People all “rights” not expressly stated in the Constitution as “belonging” to the Federal Government, yet we have plenty of inconsistencies over history over just what that means. Call it violating Constitutional rights. Heck, we have originalists that cannot agree with constructionists and progressives and so on, what would they do about *context* that arose on MyWhiteHouse.gov?
We have suffered a lack of American leadership. We have had assistance with corporate interests in spades.
That said:
Great idea. I suggest we save the Patent Office first, as it is our industrial policy & is badly in need of proper attribution itself. Plus, the greatest invention in history, The United States of America, has not done a good job at protecting the individuals that create & innovate. The past 15 years has disrupted historical notions of equity in the inventive process itself and masked fundamental flaws in how to encourage value adding disclosure vis-a-vis the unique patent system.
MyWhiteHouse.gov, you see, might very well be USPTO.gov as The People do not buy technology (or generally patents) but can see the process & engage if they so choose. The People do *buy* goods and services (that may be based on patentable subject matter even if the patents have long expired). What is largely ignored is that all those “bad” patents belong to us all after 20 years. And, if I had a dollar for every “bad” copyright or trademark or domain name …
Mr. Trippi, I always enjoy your perspective!
Sincerely,
Wesley”
