USPTO Sued Over "Unqualified Appointment"

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."

Comments

Idea!

[Anonymous Coward]

If this ploy works, I suggest bringing a class action suit against the Presidency on the same grounds.

Re:Idea!

[ColdWetDog]

Nope, too much prior art.

Too late.

[SatanicPuppy]

from the preventing-fema-style-patent-problems dept.

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

[delong]

Sue today, gone tomorrow. The plaintiffs sure as hell don't seem to have standing to sue. This is a "generalized grievance" that will get kicked out of court if ever I saw one. No injury, no redressability, nada.

Re:no standing

[gurps_npc]

That is crap. They clearly have standing to sue. They represent people with pending business before the USPO, they are in immenent danger of an irreversible harm (having an unqualified person declare their patent invalid, opening it up to the entire world to steal).

Redressability is simple, having the federal government follow the law.

Re:no standing

[SatanicPuppy]

How do you figure? If the law states that candidates must have "professional experience and background in patent or trademark law" and the candidate lacks these (as she does), then they have grounds to open a civil action and attempt to prove it in court. This is right up with the EPA getting sued for not regulating carbon emissions

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

[Qzukk]

No injury, no redressability, nada.

Breaking the law isn't an injury? If the government refuses to enforce the law, is there no redress available?

Re:no standing

[nuzak]

> Breaking the law isn't an injury?

It gives the state standing. Not private parties.

Ohh, you're noticing the conflict of interest? Welcome to government.

Re:no standing

[jd]

Redressability is simple, having the federal government follow the law.

I followed you up to that "simple" part. The rest of the sentence, however, is giving me problems.

Re:no standing

[ClamIAm]

opening [their idea] to the entire world to steal

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 other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Source

Re:no standing

[Attila Dimedici]

If you believe that CO2 is a pollutant, than you should stop breathing, because every time you breathe you are polluting the atmosphere. If people had believed that the Clean Air Act could have extended to CO2, it never would have passed.

Re:no standing

[djasbestos]

Nobody said they were suing for damages...a suit (especially in government) can merely end up in the court ordering something to be done. So, it may not be illegal to *not* enforce the law, but it *IS* illegal to disobey a court order.

Re:no standing

[delong]

That's right. They represent people who may be harmed, they have no injury. What's next? Plaintiffs lawyers have standing to sue because their clients are harmed?

Re:no standing

[delong]

Breaking the law isn't an injury? If the government refuses to enforce the law, is there no redress available?

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:no standing

[dosius]

Dihydrogen monoxide. Never underestimate the stupidity of plebes.

-uso.

Re:no standing

[1ucius]

One of the few limitations on the judiciary has traditionally the concept of standing. Basically, federal courts can only resolve 'cases and controversies.' This, in turn, means that there must be a real plaintiff and a real defendant. To be a plaintiff, you must have suffered a concrete injury, and that injury must affect you in some generally particularized way. Thus, many, many courts have thrown out cases based on merely being a federal taxpayer.

Before last year, this case would get tossed out quickly on this ground - the plaintiffs really aren't hurt more than anyone else. Their one glimmer of hope is the global warming case you mentioned. It's probably easily distinguishable, though, because there the State of Mass itself alleged its tax revenues would go down because the EPA failed to enact regulations, which would have stopped global warming(!), which would have prevented sea levels from rising, which would have caused a net loss of coastline, which would have given some taxpayer an excuse not to pay their taxes. I kid you not.

Re:no standing

[sheldon]

If you believe shit pollutes the water, you should stop shitting immediately, because every time you shit you are polluting the water. If people had believed that the Clean Water Act could have extended to shit, it never would have passed.

Re:no standing

[HappyEngineer]

So the only people who would have standing would be people with patents that were rejected by this guy or people who are being sued over a patent that this guy let through?

Re:no standing

[Attila Dimedici]

"If people had believed that the Clean Water Act could have extended to shit, it never would have passed." Actually, no. The Clean Water Act applied to shit from day one. I hate to have to tell you this but shit does not automatically end up in the water. As a general rule if a person were to shit out in the middle of nowhere it would end up on the ground. Putting shit into water was a technological development. Putting CO2 into the air just happens, all the time. We have developed systems to keep our shit out of the streams, lakes and oceans. Exactly how are you going to keep the CO2 you breathe out out of the atmosphere?

Re:no standing

[Attila Dimedici]

Oh yeah, BTW, I was shitting in a system that was designed to filter the shit so it didn't enter the water supply since before the Clean Water Act was passed. The house I grew up in had a septic system that was installed when the plumbing was retrofitted to it (the house was built before indoor plumbing was in use in most of the U.S.). The septic system was periodically updated as technology improved. However, the purpose of the septic system from day one was to prevent the shit from getting into the water supply. When did people first start suggesting that CO2 was a pollutant?

Re:no standing

[Anonymous Coward]

The Constitution requires actual cases and controversies, not generalized harms.

Actually, it makes no such requirement. There is a long line of precedent, but it has no grounding in the Constitution at all, beyond a few vague references to the 11th Amendment which only bans foreigners from suing the nation and citizens of one state from suing another state.

Re:no standing

[delong]

Actually, it makes no such requirement

Wow. Your version of Article III section 2 must be different than, well, everybody else's.

Re:no standing

[mabhatter654]

it's not what you breathe that's the problem.. but the fact that anything that BURNS (wood, coal, oil, natural gas, gasoline, etc) gives off 100x what you breathe per unit of time. That 15 gallon tank of gas turns almost entirely into carbon dioxide... that would be enough "air" for a person for weeks. Then account for the lack of green things to turn the CO2 back into O2 and it gets worse.

Re:no standing

[dss902]

Margaret Peterlin Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Margaret J.A. Peterlin was sworn in as Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in April 2007. As Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property, Ms. Peterlin advises the President, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Administration about intellectual property matters. As Deputy Director of the USPTO, she administers the laws of granting patents and trademarks, and the day-to-day management of the $1.7 billion agency and its more than 8,000 employees. As a leader in intellectual property (IP) policy, Ms. Peterlin helps develop and articulate Administration positions on all patent, copyright, and trademark issues, both domestic and foreign. She also promotes strong IP policy globally, including strategies to thwart the theft of U.S. IP around the world. As an agency leader, Ms. Peterlin implements policies and initiatives that provide innovators with quality and timely patent and trademark examinations. She also provides strategic leadership to employees to help them achieve organizational excellence. Before joining the USPTO, Ms. Peterlin was Counsel for Legal Policy and National Security Advisor for the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, J. Dennis Hastert. In this role, she advised the Speaker, House and Senate leadership, and senior staff on legislative policy and strategy, including judiciary issues such as IP protection, and international relations issues. She previously was General Counsel to Richard Armey, Majority Leader of the U.S. House. She clerked on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for Judge Jerry E. Smith. Ms. Peterlin also served as an Officer in the U.S. Navy for four years, working in the communications field. A native of Daleville, Alabama, Ms. Peterlin holds a bachelor of arts from the College of the Holy Cross. She earned a legal degree cum laude from the University of Chicago, where she was the founding Editor in Chief of The Chicago Journal of International Law. She is a member of the New York State Bar and lives in Virginia. United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Since 1790, the basic role of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has remained the same: to promote the progress of science and the useful arts by securing for limited times to inventors the exclusive right to their respective discoveries (Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution). Today, the USPTO is a federal agency in the Department of Commerce, headquartered in Alexandria, Virginia. Through the issuance of patents, the USPTO encourages technological advancement by providing incentives to invent, invest in, and disclose new technology worldwide. Through the registration of trademarks, the agency assists businesses in protecting their investments, promoting goods and services, and safeguarding consumers against confusion and deception in the marketplace. By disseminating both patent and trademark information, the USPTO promotes an understanding of intellectual property protection and facilitates the development and sharing of new technologies worldwide. http://tinyurl.com/368r59

Re:no standing

[mabhatter654]

That is why GW is still in the White House and the whole thing is fucked up in a nutshell. Our court system is purely adversarial. You can't sue Microsoft for illegal business practice because the practices are all "secret contracts", you can't stop the President from making illegal executive orders and illegally imprisoning and torturing people because "you" aren't being tortured. You can't sue for being spied on because the orders are "secret" so nobody can prove "they" were harmmed... it's crap.

As these justices will soon see, the reason the courts are so "liberal" is that they can only act upon what manages to get to them..no matter how much despicable stuff is going on. and as Bush has shown, many prosecutors are increasingly clever to collude with lower courts to keep important cases from ever being tried... Note that Bush has released his suspected "terrorists" just before their court date to keep them out of court so they court can't rule. That's an extreme case, but it happens more and more. That's why when they put smack down whenever they get the chance.

Re:no standing

[Attila Dimedici]

I don't believe that CO2 should be covered by the Clean Air Act. I remember what types of pollution that the Clean Air Act was passed to address. When the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act were passed, it was thought that it would take hundreds of years for the ecosystems to recover. Less than 20 years later, fish that had been driven out of a river near where I grew up over a generation earlier were returning. When those Acts were passed it was thought that those fish would not return without mankind's intervention, yet they did. I think that the Global Warming alarmists overrate man's ability to effect the environment. Yes people should make an effort to minimize their CO2 emmissions, but it is too early to call for government action. We don't know enough. In 10 to 20 years (5 at the minimum) we may start to understand climatology enough to pass laws.

Re:no standing

[Anonymous Coward]

Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

A. (The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment [The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.].)

B. In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

C. The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

So yeah, let's see here.

A states that [federal] judicial power extends to all cases in law or equity that arise under the Constitution, the law and various treaties when those cases involve: ambassadors, public ministers, consuls, maritime law, the US, two different states, the citizens of two different states, and citizens of one state involving land grants in a separate state. Citizens suing another state and foreign agents suing a state were removed by the 11th amendment.

B states that the supreme court gets original jurisdiction for ambassadors, ministers, counsuls and states, and that in all other cases the supreme court has appellate jurisdiction in both law and fact, with exceptions and regulations by congress

C simply states that all crimes except impeachment shall be by jury, held in the state where the crime took place unless it was committed outside of a state, in which case Congress gets to decide.

Well, that's the version of the US Constitution that my government is supposed to be using. Still don't see a single thing in here about offices of the federal government being immune from breaking the law (given that cases in law against other public Ministers and Consuls are specifically mentioned as within the powers of the judiciary). Nor do I see a single thing in there setting any kind of standard for such cases other than that they be based in law or equity, and having broken the laws set by Congress, this is clearly the former case.

Re:no standing

[armareum]

Your example shows how quickly nature can recover from damage, given the chance. Laws were passed when (clearly) there was more to know about ecosystem recovery. They didn't wait until they could accurately forecast the 20 year recovery time, so why does that point to delaying making laws to regulate Climate Change and CO2 emissions?

Re:no standing

[Attila Dimedici]

When the law was passed, they knew pretty clearly what damage the targeted pollutants did. Now people want to pass laws when we have limited understanding of what role CO2 plays in climate. What role do other atmospheric factors play. The last I saw (about 6 months to a year ago), the Global Warming models had a less than 90% accuracy rate at predicting the historical temperature change for the time period which the data used to construct the models came from.

Re:no standing

[armareum]

climateprediction.net are doing a really good job of modelling climate change, and are getting lots more data all the time (due to their distributed computing project). Check out the Results and Climate Science sections (although I couldn't find anything about adherence to historical temperature changes in the 5 minutes I spent flicking through).

The BBC ran a programme in January using some of their data.

Re:no standing

[mabhatter654]

we know we're burning so much fuel it's crazy... it would be best to curb the use anyway to make our fuel last longer. Like the other poster said, we know the building is probably in trouble, start doing something about the problem. Rules never cut numbers fast enough anyway. It's better to start sooner than later because we don't know what damage we are doing right now.

Establish rules to assess what qualifies

[Anonymous Coward]

So they are saying that someone doesn't qualify despite the fact that there are no rules as to what qualifies?

Re:Establish rules to assess what qualifies

[DragonWriter]

So they are saying that someone doesn't qualify despite the fact that there are no rules as to what qualifies?

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 statute.

Re:Establish rules to assess what qualifies

[snooo53]

I guess it's good that if someone is going to bother to make a law about something, that it's at least enforced and brought to people's attention, even if it's a questionable law. I understand that people feel a need to have someone 'qualified' but what really constitutes that for a public office? Is there really that much to the job that a reasonably intelligent person couldn't pick it up within a month or two? I'll bet no.

She's a Federalist, that's not enough?

[nbauman]

She's a member of the Federalist Society, isn't that enough? http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/id.54/author.a sp

What more could you want?

Re:She's a Federalist, that's not enough?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I think qualifications and experience should come into play too. I don't think it matters what one's leanings are if they aren't qualified for the job.

Re:She's a Federalist, that's not enough?

[SatanicPuppy]

You clearly don't work for the US government. Politics have trumped competence for years now.

Re:She's a Federalist, that's not enough?

[SoulRider]

You must be new here!

Re:She's a Federalist, that's not enough?

[Intron]

I think she is very, er, qualified

Re:She's a Federalist, that's not enough?

[nbauman]

Oh, yeah, that's true too.

Re:She's a Federalist, that's not enough?

[Rufty]

Dude, you need an eyetest.

Re:She's a Federalist, that's not enough?

[rhizome]

She's a member of the Federalist Society, isn't that enough?

Strangely, I wonder if this is why they're protesting.

Re:She's a Federalist, that's not enough?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the patent thing doesn't work out, I've got a few "positions" she could fill!

Bow wow chicka chicka bow wow!

-- Anonymous Fuckwad

Re:She's a Federalist, that's not enough?

[OhHellWithIt]

I don't think it matters what one's leanings are if they aren't qualified for the job.

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:She's a Federalist, that's not enough?

[corbettw]

And that's why it's a bad idea to drink before reading Slashdot. That chick is only a 10 after adding a six pack (even then, she's more like a 7).

Wild Ideas

[Frosty Piss]

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.,/blockquote>

Where did these guys get the wild idea that this administration was required for follow things like laws? Certainly not from Congress, who lack even the appearance of a spine to keep the Executive Branch honest and legal.

She's hardly the only one...

[going_the_2Rpi_way]

Given their apparent difficulty in finding 'prior art' for a wide variety of patents, it seems the USPTO is probably full of "Unqualified Apoint[ees]".

Re:She's hardly the only one...

[darkmeridian]

Becoming a patent examiner in European countries is a great career choice. In the United States, a patent examiner is a job a science graduate gets while waiting for a better one. The pay is much lower, and people really take the job for the health benefits while searching for a better-paying job.

If you want to compete for the smartest people in the United States, you have to pay them more.

Re:She's hardly the only one...

[going_the_2Rpi_way]

[..] a job a science graduate gets while waiting for a better one. The pay is much lower, and people really take the job for the health benefits while searching for a better-paying job.

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 the United States, you have to pay them more.

How about just people who do their jobs? The job that's not getting done, by the way, amounts to doing literature review, patent examination and using Google and a bunch of in-house custom research tools to find prior art. Do we need the smartest people in the United States doing that?

This is a good thing

[MobyDisk]

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 want without oversight.

Re:This is a good thing

[ScrewMaster]

Better yet, I like the idea of being able to sue officials for being bumbling incompetents. Of course, if that were true half the Federal Government would be out on their collective ears looking for jobs in the private sector.

Okay, so maybe that's not such a hot idea after all.

Re:This is a good thing

[howlingfrog]

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 attention to stuff like this at all, most of us vote for the big-name candidate who agrees with us on the greatest number of current hot-button issues. Whether or not those hot-button issues have anything to do with the actual responsibilities of the office in question.

Lots and lots and lots of people voted for Dubya because he is (well, pretends to be) a religious conservative. But his positions on gay marriage and abortion have mysteriously failed to be as relevant to his job of running the Executive Branch and military as the facts that he's a multiple failure as a businessman and he was a National Guard deserter.

One of the power players in the corrupt political machine that was just collectively kicked out of office in my home state of Ohio was a woman named Betty Montgomery (also my last name, but no relation). She was Attorney General for some time, and if you had the same level of disregard for the same parts of the Constitution as her, you could call her a good one. When term limits prevented her from running for re-election, she ran for, and was elected, State Auditor. She had no training or experience in bookkeeping, accounting, or finance whatsoever--she was a criminal prosecutor her entire career. While she was auditor, the state government was victim of several cases of embezzlement and fraud, most uncovered by the press rather than by her office, and none uncovered until months or years after the fact. The nationally reported scandal of Worker's Compensation funds being "invested" in rare coins happened right under her nose. She was elected to a position she had no qualifications for because of party affiliation and name-recognition. Because of her ideology on issues unrelated to that position.

That kind of problem is totally avoidable. It's not always as easy to prevent them entirely as it should have been with Bush and Montgomery--you can never know for certain if an official isn't a screwup at all or simply hasn't screwed up yet--but the people do in fact have the power to stop them from screwing up over and over, by voting them out of office. If being firable isn't accountability, I don't know what is.

Re:This is a good thing

[MobyDisk]

We aren't talking about someone who didn't do their job well. We are talking about someone who did something illegal. Voting against them isn't the solution. They need to be sued and the invalid appointment needs to be overturned. If we wait 4 years then vote them out, they they got away with it.

Not just years now

[Anonymous Coward]

Politics have trumped competence for as long as we've allowed political appointments.

I say we stop handing out government jobs for incumbents to hand out like candy.

Total FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

This is total FUD, IMHO....no one's ever proven that America even exists, let alone the government or even the patent office. One thing at a time.

hmm

[nomadic]

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.

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

[Synic]

Wouldn't this invite more Cheney type behavior where a person representing a company like Microsoft for many years in patent litigation can become USPTO chief and then allow them to get patents on whatever they want?

Re:hmm

[Bloater]

The fact that they didn't say that when it would have been very easy to do so may be a useful defence - it could be argued to indicate that professionally advising legislators on intellectual property legislation is the sort of thing that is also supposed to be allowed.

Re:hmm

[Waffle Iron]

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."

To me, that sounds like putting the inmates in charge of the asylum.

Re:hmm

[zenyu]

To me, that sounds like putting the inmates in charge of the asylum.

What about just requiring someone who has worked on overturning at least one patent more than the number they have worked on securing?

Re:hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

sigh. Congress has limited power to control appointments at the policy level, they MAY be able to set basic standards of competence and hiring processes (thus the current congressional review process for presidential appointments), but for non-career employees they would probably lose in court if they dictated specific requirements as this would illegally restrict the power of the executive. There is a difference between congressional REVIEW and congressional control of executive action.

Especially if those requirements were weighted toward only hiring private industry, as your suggestion implies.

Can i borrow them

[hurfy]

If they get that to work out someone point them toward WA and a litter tax that no longer addresses the litter issue the law says it is supposed to be addressing..... we now have a litter tax that exempts fast food joints WTF ?!?

Good luck with that although it sounds good. A boss that understands what their employees are actually doing would be a good idea.

Roe v Wade is legal guidance in repubican circles

[sjwest]

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).

Complain to President Bush

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF? Someone, who is otherwise unqualified, is getting a political appointment? What's going on here?

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

[MBraynard]

This is just an excuse to wage some other battle. Just because you don't like that this person has an 'R' after their name or don't like her interpretation of the rules doesn't make them unqualified. She's totally qualified given her background.

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, House and Senate leadership, and senior staff on legislative policy and strategy, including judiciary issues such as intellectual property protection, the Web site said.

Peterlin also served as general counsel to Richard Armey, majority leader of the House of Representatives, the Web site said. She clerked on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for Judge Jerry Smith and also served as an officer in the U.S. Navy for four years, working in the communications field, the Web site said. She holds a bachelor of arts degree from the College of the Holy Cross and earned a law degree cum laude from the University of Chicago, the Web site said.

Re:Hot Air

[SoulRider]

This is all about keeping someone in charge that is going to maintain the current status quo, the current patent system is a cash cow for lawyers. They just want to make sure nothing really changes in the patent system. Now you may begin to understand how horribly broken the patent system is in this country. Putting lawyers in charge of the patent system is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house, stupidity at best.

Re:Hot Air

[flynns]

Where exactly did you see the word "patent" in her biography? Me either.

Re:Hot Air

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it is about politics. No it is not about "this person has an 'R' after their name". The real issue is competence and honesty. Bush appoints incompetent and extremely partisan political scum, who proceed to destroy whatever they control. You want examples? How about the Iraq and the Coalition Provisional Authority: they recruited heavily from inexperienced people who served on the Bush campaign. Half the people who went over to build Iraq after the fall of Baghdad NEVER HAD A PASSPORT, they all had to apply. What about the joke they call FEMA? Except we shouldn't be laughing, we should be crying. Or FERC (E for ENERGY), who consistently voted in favor of letting the corporations that stole from California during the Enron created fake energy crises keep their illegal profits. It was only when the court cases came to trial years later that they had to give back the money. And even so FERC said that they could keep the contracts that were made under manipulated market conditions. And Gonzales at DOJ? He's done the equivalent of putting the KKK in charge of voting rights. And the list goes on and on.

Why are they suing? Because it's gotten so bad that the only way to get competent people running our governmental is to sue.

Re:Hot Air

[delong]

She advised Hastert, House and Senate leadership, and senior staff on legislative policy and strategy, including judiciary issues such as intellectual property protection, the Web site said

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:Hot Air

[starfishsystems]

She's totally qualified given her background.

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:Hot Air

[Anonymous Coward]

General counselships that include advising on EVERYTHING UNDER THE SUN (and so of course conveniently include IP--as part of that THEORETICAL everything)are hardly what anyone had in mind in requiring intellectual property & patent expertise for this position.

By that logic, Oscar Zeta Acosta qualifies. Or would have.

Re:Hot Air

[nagora]

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.

Okay, what part of her background qualified her to advise on IP?

TWW

Re:Hot Air

[gowen]

People somehow have developed the hubris that any sufficiently talented generalist can master a new field in short order and lead it to success.

What, you mean running a society for horse enthusiasts doesn't qualify you to run the Federal Governments disaster relief agency? I'm shocked.

Re:Hot Air

[mutterc]

People somehow have developed the hubris that any sufficiently talented generalist can master a new field in short order and lead it to success.

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:Hot Air

[starfishsystems]

I know it! It's perverse, but it happens as a corollary of the very same hubris. While executives may regard themselves as versatile and adaptable to any situation, it's obvious that someone still has to deliver the necessary expertise. Oh look, there are some technical people. Since the generalist role is already taken, we'll create roles for a few specialists and get them to do all that boring "expert" stuff that those people like to do.

But just as the generalist role has been underconstrained, now the specialist role is overconstrained as well as subordinate. And because there's very little common ground between the two roles, they don't end up communicating well. You can see this in business and government both.

In my opinion, it all began with a false dichotomy in the first place. You need someone who is respected in both communities. We used to be really good at advancing such people to positions of high office, but not so much lately. Some organizations still have it, thankfully, though as a professional you have to really shop around to find it.

In government? Well, cynicism is easy. It's necessary to cultivate some optimism about that or you'll slit your wrists. But yes, it's possible to find excellent and able people in high places. And I think we just have to keep on pushing for that and not sit back cynically and watch it all run down.

Do we really want a *qualified* candidate?

[DoofusOfDeath]

This is a bit like hoping that the president of North Korea has qualified nuclear physicists on staff.

..a tinfoil hat moment..

[bombastinator]

At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist here, why are they doing this?

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 curioser

Re:..a tinfoil hat moment..

[mpapet]

The question is why and how. What has either this law or woman woman done or not done to engender this kind of hostility?

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:..a tinfoil hat moment..

[rilian4]

What has either this law or woman woman done or not done to engender this kind of hostility?

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 is needed in government).

Re:..a tinfoil hat moment..

[bombastinator]

mmmm.... We're back to investors again. I think I have yet to meet a major investor who is a Democrat. This seems extremely unlikely to me. We are approaching the tail end of an 8 year republican administration. If it were true these people would have to go after almost every civil servant in the government.

    Your reply however seems to state that you know in particular who is pushing this suit. Could you name them please we are all curious.

Re:Roe v Wade is legal guidance in repubican circl

[Anonymous Coward]

And if Hillary wins next year, just how many pro-lifers does she plan to appoint to her cabinet, since democrats apparently have the monopoly on open-mindedness?

Huh?

[jd]

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).

Re:Huh?

[fyngyrz]

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, non-enumerated power grabs, failure to provide access to representation, failure to provide speedy trial, warrentless searches and seizures, government support of particular religious outlooks, etc.

It'll never happen, though. We even let these buffoons set their own salaries; we've entirely forfeited control of a federal government that was supposed to serve us.

Patriot citizen boxes: ballot, soap, jury, ammo, cell, coffin.
Typical citizen boxes: Television.
Political repr. boxes: Soap, PAC, junket, pocket, rider.

Re:Huh?

[Nimey]

Much of our political system is staffed by people who have no idea what is constitutional and what is not.

More like they simply don't give a shit. And why should they? We're not holding them accountable.

Re:Huh?

[rifter]

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 result of all personnel decisions being made on the basis of ideological purity. This even went so far as to become an issue in the firing of CIA agents and most recently federal prosecutors. It's no surprise that he'd be responsible for screwing up the USPTO, since his legacy has basically been one of proving that despite our incredulity at the very idea, things really can be made even worse.

Re:Huh?

[arth1]

We don't hold them accountable because that would be unconstitutional. :-)

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:Huh?

[cryfordawnsend]

Every time a law is struck down as unconstitutional, all the folks in congress that voted for that law should have to pay a fine. Say, $100,000. Might be a good way to get them to actually ready the laws they vote on. Too bad the folks in congress will never impose such a restriction on themselves...

Re:Roe v Wade is legal guidance in repubican circl

[Anonymous Coward]

> democrats apparently have the monopoly on open-mindedness?

This administration would appear to be proof of that.

Tell me I'm misreading the article

[noiseusse]

I don't get it. They want Peterlin dismissed because she doesn't meet criteria that is to be determined after her dismissal?

Patent Lawyer vs Inventor...

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it interesting that you need to have experience with patent law, not with inventing things, to be in charge of this bureau. Remember, folks, it's patent consultants and patent lawyers that advocate allowing patents for software, business methods, and everything else imaginable. Their only stake in the game is that patents need to exist, and the more patents, the better. More jobs, mo money...

Whether it actually benefits inventors, or society, might not matter to them.

There should be inventors and engineers in charge of this agency, I say!

Re:Patent Lawyer vs Inventor...

[Anonymous Coward]

You moron, the only people who can work at the Patent Office and the only people who can be patent lawyers are required by law to have studied engineering or hard science (i.e., physics, chemistry).

What do you know.

You speak of competent people in govt Where? When?

[HornWumpus]

Hasn't been the case in my lifetime as far as I can see.

Denny likes little boys

[oliphaunt]

Wonder what she's got on Denny that earned her this job offer? Maybe she booked the hotel rooms for his "visits" with future voters.

The real reason

[rollingcalf]

The lawyers filing the lawsuit want former patent lawyers running the USPTO, because former patent lawyers would be more sympathetic to their "patent everything under sun" goals.

What do you mean not qualified?

[HangingChad]

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:What do you mean not qualified?

[the eric conspiracy]

Either that or she has experience running horse shows.

mod parent up AND become active in society!

[Xiph]

The purpose of this text is to highlight the subject.

In England it's called a Quango.

[jd]

Well, technically quangos are committees of totally unqualified individuals who are appointed on idealogical grounds, but for the sake of argument I'll assume they all have multiple personality disorder and can't be distinguished from a committee even as an individual.

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 dodgy shoot-to-kill types, who were investigated. Well, would have been, but Stalker got kicked off the job for political reasons. However, most of the sordid scandals have involved relatively petty financial irregularities. Both Thatcher and Blair sold honors, for example, and both "fixed" illegal arms contracts.

Thomas Jefferson didn't like black people either..

[tjstork]

so, um, does that make him right?

Suck it, hillbillies

[Scrameustache]

If you believe shit pollutes the water, you should stop shitting immediately, because every time you shit you are polluting the water. I have been on the guided tour of the city's sewer treatment plant, I've looked down the 13 stories deep shit silos.
My shit may stink but it's intercepted and biodegraded before it gets out of the sewers.

^fails by analogy--a rebuttal by autoattendant.

[Anonymous Coward]

"THANK YOU for calling 911 to report 'my house is on fire.'

"The fire department will arrive as soon as they've fully studied the problem and have been able to calculate how to best respond with the minimum expense and danger, and have had time to operationalize that understanding and test the resulting plan until almost all risk of overestimation or overreaction has been eliminated.

"We regret that your emergency may have run its course by that time. Please accept our apologies for any inconvenience. Due to high crisis volume, it is not possible to respond pro-actively at this time. Please reincarnate in a different era. Have a nice day."

Re:Thomas Jefferson didn't like black people eithe

[Dun Malg]

Thomas Jefferson didn't like black people either.. so, um, does that make him right? Your point might have had merit if not for the fact that a) Jefferson was against slavery, and b) very likely fathered children by one of his slaves, Sally Hemings. So instead, you just look like an ignorant moron.

Remember anyone???

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember anyone... about that job you didn't get because you didn't have enough (professional)experience? You know why? Because you weren't going to be a team player. It doesn't matter about the person's experience. i.e. They knew they couldn't buy you off. Same old sitcom different level of government(corporate) corruption. They couldn't buy her off, so they cry like a spoiled baby, and yell LAWSUIT! Tired of it. That's why I quit IT/corporate life. And life has been so much better.

really?

[mojoNYC]

From the plaintiff's letter to the judge: While we appreciate Ms. Peterlin's accomplishments, we are nonetheless surprised that her biography does not include any apparent references to professional activity concerning patents or trademarks, in either a practical, corporate, academic, or publishing capacity. http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2007/06/letter-questions -credentials-of.html Also, given the Cheney/Bush regime's attempts to politicize all levels of our government, usually at the expense of competency, *every one* of their appointments should be viewed with extreme jaundice. See Gonzalez, Alberto, amongst many others.

Re:Roe v Wade is legal guidance in repubican circl

[MillionthMonkey]

And if Hillary wins next year, just how many pro-lifers does she plan to appoint to her cabinet

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.

Makes no Sense

[Anonymous Coward]

People like her are administrators. They set policy, pay the bills, pay the employees. They don't examine patents. It's like saying a hospital administrator has to be a neurosurgeon, or an airport administrator has to be a pilot.

Bit of a Hypocrite

[Namors]

Jefferson was against slavery, and b) very likely fathered children by one of his slaves
How can you
a) be against slavery,
AND
b) have a slave (that maybe you also have a kid with)

proper cite

[vague_ascetic]

Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Isaac McPherson, August 13, 1813

Here's a link to the complete transcript 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 an assertion that ideas are without the realm of private ownership.

We aren't even discussing the real question here:

[Opportunist]

Why?

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 true for patent holders and investors.

So it's time to dig up who this person is and why patent lawyers and investors are against her appointment. That way, you can see just why they are against her in the first place, and what goals they want to achive. And I have a hunch that I am more against those goals than an "incompetent" politicians.

He's horny

[Anonymous Coward]

you can be against slavery and still for some things be an arse.

And anyway, what the feck does this have to do with TJ's quote? So what if he had slaves? Does that mean that an idea CAN be exclusive property when told? Does his having slaves mean that in sharing his thought about the sharing of thought, he is lessened, or the thought worn down?

Re:He's horny

[halivar]

It doesn't have anything to do with the quote. He's simply poisoning the well.

Re:He's horny

[Namors]

It doesn't have anything to do with the quote. He's simply poisoning the well.
That's technically what you just did ;)

Re:He's horny

[armareum]

Surely he'd have to post before the person he's referring to in order to do that?

Re:He's horny

[Namors]

Drunkenly Backing out

Wouldn't it just be relative to how you viewed the posts

/Drunkenly Backing out

Re:He's horny

[armareum]

Drunk, and it's not even tea-time yet [here]. Good work! :)

Re:He's horny

[Namors]

It's always Tea-time... somewhere in the world

Because the rules are being disobeyed

[Anonymous Coward]

when you fail to follow the ToS of your ISP, you're disconnected. If you fail to obey the law you get jailed. If you lie about your qualifications you will be sacked.

The rules say that the holder of this position must have certain qualifications. The person filling the position did not obey the rules. This should result either in the postholder AND the person making the appointment being sacked (one doesn't have the qualifications, the other disobeyed the rules about their behaviour) or the person making the appointment removing the appointee from that position.

Or can I take the position of "Doctor" because I've seen Casualty?

"Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.

It's been 33 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment"

Patents Shmatents

[CopaceticOpus]

If the patent lawyers (who make their money from patent disputes) don't want her in this position, then I hope she will be appointed.

clear violation of the separation of powers

[mark_jabroni]

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.

But...

[N8F8]

considerign how broken the USPTO is they probably need to get soem new blood in that isn't brainwashed to the status quo.

Re:But...

[starfishsystems]

That's a valid point. If part of what's broken is due to mindset then the solution needs a new mindset.

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, that might do it. There would still be significant friction and mistrust at first, but the move would also generate optimism and a flow of new ideas.

Re:Roe v Wade is legal guidance in repubican circl

[Anonymous Coward]

Get a grip on reality. The post I was responding to was making the claim that the only test Bush's appointees have to pass is "Roe v. Wade". If they support the right to choose, they don't get appointed, because Bush and company are close-minded. My point is that the Democrats have the exact same test for their appointees, and won't appoint anyone who supports the right to life of a fetus.

This issue is almost as black and white as you can get in American politics. Either you are pro-choice or you are pro-life. Your Italian strawman is non-sensical in that regard. Hillary could appoint a hundred people, all pro-choice, and by coincidence not one of them is Italian. Since there are hundreds of ethnic groups in the US, that is not a big deal.

Cost of Politicization of this Post

[zzmook]

There are definite rules to patent law, and patent lawyers know them. Having one in charge of this office makes sense. If this office gets politicized, you run a very real risk of getting an institution that picks and chooses who gets the gravy based on general political demographics (i.e., pharma gets gravy, software gets shaft).

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 politicizing all institutional decision making to either stifle annoying social welfare programs (HUD, FEMA) or gain advantage for their supporters (AG's office, this). They certainly aren't the first to do this, they've just taken what was a tendency towards political favoritism with the occasional called in "favor" staining a lot of administrations (most) and turned it into a core policy with the affected institutions' new overlords brazenly throwing SOP into the dumper to further the partisan agenda. Their intent seems to clearly lean towards "get in line or pay the price" and I applaud any institution which stands up to this. You go patent boys!!!

On a side note, I posit that the above rant supports my contention that the current Harry Potter movie is a scathing indictment of the Bush Administration.

Re:Cost of Politicization of this Post

[howlingfrog]

...the current Harry Potter movie is a scathing indictment of the Bush Administration

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 are highly applicable to the Bush administration, it's probably coincidence. The book was written from late 2000 to early 2003, when the major troubles and scandals of the Bush administration had barely started. In the first almost-year of his presidency, before 9/11, he was merely a bumbling incompetent--passively a failure. I point to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, by which time Phoenix was nearly ready for publication (June 2003), as the beginning of his active failure--when he started doing things that were fundamentally wrong, rather than just doing nothing at all or doing the right things the wrong way. Remember that in early 2003, the Democratic Party was still giving him the benefit of the doubt on many issues, including preemptively voting to authorize the invasion because he claimed he only wanted to be able to act more quickly if the action became absolutely necessary. By the time Rowling finished Phoenix, the debate over exactly how imperialist and authoritarian Bush actually was had barely begun even here in the relatively well-informed and strongly libertarian Slashdot community.

Re:Roe v Wade is legal guidance in repubican circl

[MillionthMonkey]

My point is that the Democrats have the exact same test for their appointees, and won't appoint anyone who supports the right to life of a fetus.

Oh what a load of crap. Not everyone has a lizard brain.