Obama Taps IBM Open Source Advocate For USPTO

langelgjm writes "President Obama has announced his intent to nominate David Kappos, a VP and general counsel at IBM, to head the US Patent and Trademark Office. This move is particularly notable not only because of IBM's much friendlier attitudes towards open source compared with some of their rivals, but also because Kappos himself is open source-friendly: 'We are now the biggest supporters of the open source development project,' explains David. 'Admittedly this policy is not easily reconcilable with our traditional IP strategy, but we are convinced that it is the way to go for the future.' Not just a lawyer, Kappos earned an engineering degree before working in the legal field. Kappos has been described as 'critical of the American approach to patent policy.' Given his background, could this mean a new era for US patent policy?"

Comments

Isn't that required?

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Not just a lawyer, Kappos earned an engineering degree before working in the legal field.

I thought an engineering degree, as well as passing the bar, was a requirement to practice patent law (at least in engineering-related branches if not in general).

So, given that he was a patent lawyer, that double degree is neither surprising nor unique.

Re:Isn't that required?

[John Hasler]

> I thought an engineering degree, as well as passing the bar, was a requirement to
> practice patent law

No. One must pass the USPTO's exam and be admitted before the bar in at least one state. If you are not admitted before the bar but do pass the exam you can be a patent agent.
 

Re:Isn't that required?

[Ungrounded Lightning]

I thought an engineering degree, as well as passing the bar, was a requirement to practice patent law (at least in engineering-related branches if not in general).

Ah, here we go. From the US section of the wikipedia article on patent attorneys:

Both Patent Attorneys and Patent Agents are generally required to have a technical degree (such as engineering, chemistry or physics) and must take and pass the Examination for Registration to Practice in Patent Cases Before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Re:Isn't that required?

[Gerocrack]

Patent prosecution (writing patents) requires you pass the US patent bar, which is different from a state bar. To sit for the patent bar, you must have an engineering/science degree. Patent litigation, however, only requires you be certified by the bar of the state in which you are practicing; Patent Bar and technical degrees are not required. You can also take the patent bar w/o going to law school, and become a patent agent. Still need the technical background, though.

Re:Isn't that required?

[John Hasler]

Also from the wikipedia article on patent attorneys: :

One can also meet the scientific and technical training requirement by qualifying under Category B[27] or Category C. Category B provides four distinct qualification options. Where each option sets a requisite number of semester hours in physics, biology, chemistry, computer science, and/or engineering. One can qualify under Category C through a showing that he or she has taken and passed the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) examination.

Thus no degree is required.

Re:Isn't that required?

[geekoid]

You don't need to have a degree. See section C on the qualifications document.

IBM is the Record-Setter

[Bob9113]

From the linked article:

IBM has a worldwide portfolio of 40,000 patents. About half are lodged in the USA and the remainder split between Europe and Asia (where, of course, China is increasingly featuring). So far this year, IBM has filed 3,000 patents and is on target, says David, to maintain its record for the past 14 years of consistently filing more patents than anyone else.

So, if the definition of "new era for patent policy" is "more software patents", then yes (though I fail to see how that is "new" except that it is pressing harder on the accelerator down this destructive road). Granted, IBM is opposed to business method patents, but that is no surprise since their ability to innovate in business models is legendarily lackluster.

Nothing to see here. Same old moneyed interests using their monopoly-built position to buy more government access so they can create more monopoly rent opportunities for themselves.

Re:Some other points...

[Dachannien]

A lot of what we think of as the really bad stuff, was undertaken by the patent office on its own with neither authorization from Congress nor truly applicable court ruling, but at the direction of an ambitiously expansive director.

Hey, who woulda thunk that Triantyfyllos Tafas was a Slashdotter?

Re:Some other points...

[Bobb9000]

A lot of what we think of as the really bad stuff, was undertaken by the patent office on its own with neither authorization from Congress nor truly applicable court ruling, but at the direction of an ambitiously expansive director.

Hey, who woulda thunk that Triantyfyllos Tafas was a Slashdotter?

My kingdom for some mod points, for someone who keeps up with patent law. For those who don't, Tafas is suing the USPTO because they tried to implement some policies that would have made it harder to get patents. While many of the problems of the current patent system can be traced to earlier policies implemented unilaterally by the USPTO, the office has been swinging quite the other way currently, and while not all of it is traceable to Congress and the courts, they (except for the courts, recently) have only made things worse.