Slashdot Mirror
Lawyer Loses It In Letter To Patent Office
bizwriter writes "Nobody would ever say that the world of patent law is a roller coaster of excitement but every now and then something interesting happens. Take this attorney who was angry over a patent examiner's rejection of his client's application. Here are a few snippets from the lawyers letter to the examiner: 'Are you drunk? No, seriously... are you drinking scotch and whiskey with a side of crack cocaine while you "examine" patent applications? (Heavy emphasis on the quotes.) Do you just mail merge rejection letters from your home? Is that what taxpayers are getting in exchange for your services? Have you even read the patent application? I'm curious. Because you either haven't read the patent application or are... (I don't want to say the "R" word) "Special."....Your job is not a joke, but you are turning it into a regular three ring circus. If you can't motivate yourself to take your job seriously, then you need to quit and let someone else take over what that actually wants to do the job right.'"
Of course! Insulting the US patent office is a known technique to guarantee your submission will be calmly and objectively reviewed. Do it now.
would react. Seriously, who these lawyers think they are ? God incarnate ?
It would amusing to pick it apart and see how much prior art and how many ridiculous claims it contained.
So this is what Charles and Tara Carreon are doing now, huh? They represent "inventors" with dubious patent applications? And Tara still goes off on people. Nice to see some things never change.
To be shortly followed by a letter of apology from said patent attorney, whose business shall immediately take a dive.
*grabs popcorn and waits for rebuttal letter* Considering the rates of acceptance is going up, I think the problem with the patent "industry" is the expectation that any application should just get accepted and dealt with in courts later.
I completely agree with him in regards to how the patent office has been operating as of late. Although his numerous references to retards and special olympics is probably not going to win him any favor with the readers. In any case, I found the letter to be an amusing Monday morning anecdote.
Years ago, and it might still be the same, examiners received "points" for two specific acts. First office action, when they sent the first response back tot he applicant, and final action. Final action could be either granting the patent, or an appelable final action.
Well, the first is easy. Find any possible priot art even if seriously off, or requiring patching together several examples, and send a rejection. Job done.
He should be disbarred for giving lawyers a bad name (yes, that's possible...)
No sig today...
to patent the first post, but I failed due an $@&%$ patent examiner like this one.
A tripod sprinkler. Seriously, a tripod sprinkler with telescopic legs.
I agree with the patent office worker in this case, maybe the lawyer should try and patent a method of getting a patent application rejected, consisting of plurality of idiotic patent application and an angry letter by the said lawyer to the patent office.
MY OTHER COMMENTS
I wonder if the patent examiner could send the same letter to the lawyer for submitting such an obvious and worthless patent application?
I guess the lawyer is just upset that he won't be able to cash in when he sues someone for violating another ridiculously obvious patent.
Guess who's never getting a patent approved again, *ever*?
Would have been nice to know what the patent application was for and why it was rejected to provide context to see whether the lawyer was justified.
with all the horrible patents coming around today, automatically rejecting everything would be a boon for society in general.
I am sure the typical patent examiner can say the same thing about more than one patent lawyer.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Apple got it stricken from his record after hiring him.
Seriously, he's a lawyer, in what particular does he think the rejection is wrong?
The nearest thing to a substantive accusation is that the examiner is simply rejecting the application because he's lazy and that's easy. But it's my understanding that, in fact, patent examiners face a lot of pressure to approve applications, which is faster and easier than rejection, because it takes less effort to justify approval, and because approvals don't generally get appealed by the applicant. So while I am sure laziness afflicts patent examiners from time to time, it's not obvious that this is an example.
As for "doing his job", his job is not to approve applications, it's to examine them and make a determination. Rejection is one possible outcome, and is not by itself proof that the job wasn't done.
So, yeah, faceless bureaucrats are lazy and stupid, ha ha. Tell me again what problem you solved by making this assertion?
2*3*3*3*3*11*251
We don't need more patents - we need fewer. This isn't just good for intellectual freedom, it also enhances the value of existing patents. If the patent examiner allows a patent that's very similar to an existing one - then the value of the existing patent is eroded. The 89% acceptance rate that we currently have is *WAY* above the 59% historical norm...I very much doubt that this is because higher quality or more novel patents going into the system.
So, yeah. This lawyer is in trouble...nobody wants a lawyer who can't keep his cool and work on a professional level - so this is likely one of those career-ending messages that should never have been sent.
Wow I dream of sending emails like this to a number of people I work with haha wow this lawyer gets props from me :-)
Just be glad you don't have to pay a license fee for that technique. See, this lawyer tried to patent it, but...
"It's just the bad 95% of us that give the rest a bad name" -- Ray Beckerman (quoted from memory, might be inexact)
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Strange, somehow I would have expected such a rant after seeing some of the idiotics patents that have been approved. It's somehow even more disheartening to find that the rant is in regards to an apparently non-unique patent being rejected (as it should be).
If you were to take out all the particulars related to Patents and just keep the rest, this letter would be applicable to all areas of government.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
...is entirely possible. For the last several years, the U.S. Patent Office has been moving to a distributed model where comparatively few patent examiners live in the D.C. area except during their initial training period. I know two patent examiners, and both live in Ohio. In any case, this text-hissy-fit likely did no favors for the lawyer or their client.
"My life's work has been to prompt others... and be forgotten." --Cyrano de Bergerac
Soon to be followed by Rebecca Martinson / Patent lawyer sex tape.
Do you realize that these two people could.... breed?
I am amazed at how many Slashdotters fell for this story. The part that made it obviously fake was when the patent office rejected an application.Try to be a bit more discerning Slashdot.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
that the customary response to such a tirade would be "fuck off".
If this letter generates enough static around the patent situation (and I tend to agree, in general, with the spirit of the letter) then maybe it was a brilliant ploy on the lawyers part to drag the issues out into prime time news feeds using drama as the winch. Sometimes any exposure to a corrupt problem is better than none at all.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
I guess the examiner's rubber stamp was broken and this lawyer didn't submit a pantent application for a new fangled unbreakable rubber stamp.
The USPTO seems to be insulting itself worse. I'd rather everyone know I was drunk and on coke than everyone know I was a useless rubber stamp, enabling patent trolls to leech off of society.
OMG that dramatic reading (bit of adjustment) is a hoot!
First rejections are so common there is a theory that examiners are motivated to automatically reject patent applications the first time they review them. The theory goes like this:
Patent examiners are on a quota point system. They have to accumulate so many points for an acceptable performance rating. They get points for all sorts of activity. But one of the most visible ones is an office action.
So they could get a point for approving a patent. Do the work, get a point, move on to the next patent.
But they also get points each time they reject a patent. Naturally the inventor will file a response to the rejection. The examiner can now earn another point by responding to a patent he or she has already invested time reviewing and is familiar with.
This can go on several times until a statutory limit requires a final decision. Once they approve a patent or give a final rejection, the stream of points for that file ends.
So there is an incentive to find a trivial reason for initial rejection, especially if there is a chance it can be overcome. That just leads to a chance for a second rejection.
I don't know how true the theory is, but if you're trying to explain to yourself why you got a dumb rejection, it makes as much sense as anything else.
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
Probably misquoted as well, but I always liked, "It's just some of the lawyers out there that give a really bad name to the other three."
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
* Lawyer: "Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?"
* Witness: "No."
* Lawyer: "Did you check for blood pressure?"
* Witness: "No."
* Lawyer: "Did you check for breathing?"
* Witness: "No."
* Lawyer: "So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?"
* Witness: "No."
* Lawyer: "How can you be so sure, Doctor?"
* Witness: "Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar."
* Lawyer: "But could the patient have still been alive nevertheless?"
* Witness: "Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law somewhere."
You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
Given that the patent office is self-funded, and rejections only make more time-consuming work, it'd be silly for some Machiavellian Patent Office executive to hand out incentives for rejecting patents.
He should be disbarred for giving lawyers a bad name (yes, that's possible...)
Lawyers are out there telling lies that lead to people spending time in prison and you think someone calling out a patent examiner for being a part of a broken machine gives lawyers a bad name? You have some things seriously wrong with you.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You know, if the patent office doesn't like it, why don't they just grant the next patent they see for "using words".
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
From the lawyer's letter:
Since when did the USPTO become a post World War II jobs program? What's the point of hiring 2,000 additional examiners when 2,000 rubber stamps would suffice just fine?
He has a point - during 2012, 89% of all US patent applications were granted, according to a University of Richmond School of Law study.
“It is a fool's prerogative to utter truths that no one else will speak.” - Neil Gaiman
In many cases the age is the salient factor....a given action from a 2yo is cute or precocious, but from a 5yo is just normal and from a 15yo is babyish. So the age is critically important, while the sex of the child is not relevant.
Also, given that it's not relevant, I think it's entirely reasonable to keep the gender of one's children a private affair rather than post it on the internet for all to see. I may not always do it myself, but it's still reasonable.
Chances are the patent application was so full of ambiguous legal gobbledygook that it would take someone on crack, or some strong mind-altering drug, to even begin to try and make sense of it.
But I think the problem is that the patent office has been slammed with just accepting everyone's bullshit that now they are probably rejecting everything out of spite.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Wait, the patent office can reject applications?
When you decided to confer this man with a degree, were you: a) drunk b) asleep c) bribed? Seriously.
Quote from an examiner: "We work 24 / 7. 24 hours a week. 7 weeks a year."
He should be disbarred for giving lawyers a bad name (yes, that's possible...)
Should someone who sends a snarky email to their boss once never be able to work with computers again?
Disbarring is taking away someone's profession, and a good part of the value of their entire education. A single stupid decision, other than perhaps something like intentionally stealing from clients, should almost never result in disbarment.
Of course! Insulting the US patent office is a known technique to guarantee your submission will be calmly and objectively reviewed. Do it now.
It always works for me at restaurants...
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
Is this for real? No decent lawyer should be foolish enough to put something like that in writing. I mean, is this lawyer sitting in front of the computer with a bottle of scotch and guzzling it down all day before writing boring tripe like this? You say stuff like that when you're on a nice, non-recorded phone call or in person. Then you write a letter that politely recommends to the reader: "Out of concern for your health, you consider consulting a medical doctor that specializes in treatment of people with a long history of latent work-related concussions", or something like that (anyone could do better than that lawyer if they took a bit of time and care). Petty and potentially actionable insults? Please. You've got to be more creative than that a lawyer, or you come across no better than an angry Lionel Hutz. Aim higher. At least refer to Arkell versus Pressdram or something.
Besides, if the patent office rejects a patent, that sounds like they are doing the job they should be doing rather than accepting some of the nonsense that has been accepted in recent history.
It's not the publicity that's going to hurt, it's the disciplinary action. The office of enrollment and discipline doesn't take too kindly to these kinds of thigns. The guy will surely loose his registration number and may one day, years from now, might be able to beg enough to be allowed to sit the exam again, but it's doubtful.
As a side note, it turns out that if you are drunk and on coke it is possible to fly a plane, it may not be legal, but possible,
As for being a patent reviewer I don't know if it's possible to be done while drunk and high on coke.
I'm a Patent lawyer and the most basic requirement of a patent examiner is to ensure that the invention is "non obvious" to a practitioner, based on existing knowledge.
This is the most basic requirement and the most common reason to reject a patent application.
Given all the existing tripod sprinklers on the market - this is an obvious invention, thus, it was rejected.
My advise to this lawyer:
(1) Read the law before you practice it.
(2) Fire your Patent Search department - assuming of course, that you know how patent law is practiced and did use search!
To the patent office - I hope you cancel this lawyers registration.
On the one hand, yes, the lawyer goes a bit overboard. But on the other, let's consider this: http://www.google.com/patents/US6368227 Aside from other strange patents, the swinging method patent illustrates a couple of problems. First, regardless of the current state of validity of the patent, the fact that it was granted in the first place shows that prior art doesn't mean what a lot of people think it means. Apparently, to the patent office, it means "we have nothing on file" as opposed to "kids have been doing this since the swing was invented". Second, the patent was granted and then later revoked. That means that examiners time was spent looking at it, then granting it, then subsequently looking at it and revoking it. It should come as no surprise that it takes so long to get a patent seriously looked at when stuff like this is in the pile.
On a related note, I'm not convinced that the new "first to file" rule is a good thing. Suppose you spend years working on an invention and somebody breaks into your offices, copies all the application documents, and then mails them in. How then can you get back what was stolen?
Honestly, if he wanted to impress us, he should have used social media spelling; "r u stoopid omg lmfao"
He sure whines a lot for a guy who's job could be trivially done by an expert system that can parse and send form-letter emails.
My epiphany as far as patent lawyers are concerned took place when I got the patent application document from a patent lawyer. I was the originator of the idea and could not understand what the patent was all about. That's the day I lost whatever little faith I still had in the patent system and patent lawyers.
That's a joke, not something that actually happened. I can tell because of the pixels and because I saw quite a lot of 'shops in my time.
Also because the brain is removed during the autopsy, so it doesn't even make any sense.
I'm going to steal and then patent this idea of insulting the patent office to get your patents approved. Well played.
I for one completely understand the rage. I think I was assigned this examiner - some of the things done must have been very similar to what he describes. It enraged my otherwise calm, quiet reserved patent attorney to the point he had to wait a week before responding or it would have been in much the same way. This poor bastard just didn't wait the week.
Depending on the nature of the injury, sometimes the brain comes out before the autopsy begins and they just try to send in all the pieces they could find. Car accidents, shootings (I've heard of a shotgun to the face leaving a hole big enough for a brain to fall out), blunt force trauma - there's all kinds of ways to crack a brain out of a skull.
It would have been more interesting if the lawyer was complaining about certain patents being accepted. Every patent needs to be rejected anyway, in my opinion.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Agreed, this should be instant disbarment
even though the links you posted are in the UK, are those products patented in the US or have international patents covering it? It's possible that the US "inventor" is doing the equivalent of squatting the invention on US soil. Morally an asshole move, but technically not a prior art....?
Then again, I'm not a lawyer.
I for one completely understand the rage.... It enraged my otherwise calm, quiet reserved patent attorney...
Perhaps it's time that patent lawyers got used to having patents rejected if they think that putting a sprinkler on a tripod is patent-worthy. I've no idea whether rejecting this patent was legal but, given the available details, common sense indicates that it should not be. Of course the law has no regard for common sense but still it is refreshing to see at least one stupid patent getting rejected.
That is not the same thing at all. Your job is not to suck up to the boss. As to if its a good idea to strain your working relationship that is your business. Unless it rises to the level of harassment or something that requires HR to get involved; my guess nobody else in the organization really cares what form and tone correspondence between you and your boss takes.
The lawyers job on the other hand is to try and secure a favorable outcome for his/her client. Acting in a way that is obviously likely to result in the opposite outcome is a breach of professionalism. Just like if an Architect went around drawing plans for a bridge they expected would collapse.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
There's an old legal saying that if the facts are against you, you should hammer the law; if the law is against you, you should hammer the facts; and if both are against you, you should hammer on the table. Since this guy doesn't cite any particular laws or facts to defend his position, he's apparently resorting to hammering on the table.
Uhm, it's prosecutors who send people to prison. Lawyers are on the defense side.
There are some patents that merit acceptance. They are characterized by substantial up front investment more than by innovative brillance. Given the current population there is sufficient brilliance around that it's not in short supply. Diciplined foregoing investment of time and money is scarcer, and that's what needs protection. So I'll grant that 95+ percent of the patents that were granted should have been rejected, but not all of them...unless you invent an alternative approach.
OTOH, I'm not sure that even with proper patent examination the current system could be made to work, as it depends on lawyers and the court system for enforcement. But that's a separate argument.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Actually, he is pissed because he took the Patent on contingency and it was rejected, and now he isn't getting paid. Just a guess.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
There are some patents that merit acceptance.
I disagree. There, done.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
In a professional context, you should behave professionally or you're not very professional. This doesn't mean you should take everything lying down, but acting like a total ass is definitely not something you should do.
I for one completely understand the rage. I think I was assigned this examiner - some of the things done must have been very similar to what he describes. It enraged my otherwise calm, quiet reserved patent attorney to the point he had to wait a week before responding or it would have been in much the same way. This poor bastard just didn't wait the week.
or didn't call the examiner's supervisor. The supervisor's name and phone number are provided with every official notice that explains a rejection. And there is more than one option to appeal and get the Examiner's reasoning reviewed by people with higher pay-grades.
Full-blown appeals are admittedly expensive, but are far more worthwhile than raving and ranting like an unprofessional. Such rants will simply be ignored at best, or (at worst) circulated around the Patent Office as an example of a bad patent attorney to watch out for. And the inventor/applicant? On the hook for attorney fees, regardless.
Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
Spoken like someone that's never thought of anything of value in his lifetime.
I suppose you also feel that all creative works should be given away for free too? I'll go ahead and say, "you're spoken like someone that's never produced anything of value in his lifetime."
Not everyone is a useless nerd making minimum wage.
Uhm ... prosecutors still have to be lawyers ... at least for the time being.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
It is a breach of professionalism, and enough that a client should almost always fire you, but there's a huge gap between that and making it impossible for you to work in the field ever again. Like the difference between your boss firing you and the entire industry collectively deciding you can't do any work, even tech support for your mother.
He should try patenting a hissy fit. He could invent a "telescoping hissy fit with water dispersing attachment"
Well, that depends on the jurisdiction technically.
E.g. prosecutors in Austria need to fulfill the requirements that judges need, both career path do not involve being a lawyer. Germany OTOH, has basically one generic exam for the classical legal career paths.
I looked at the application in question and it appears to have been rejected for very good cause. Does it enrage you that you are not allowed to patent old things that many other people are already doing?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
facepalm
Even I know you have to add "on a mobile device" to the application for it to be accepted.
From the letter itself:
Perhaps you might want to take your job seriously and actually give a sh.t! What's the point in having to deal with you Special Olympics rejects when we should just go straight to Appeals? While you idiots sit around in bathtubs farting and picking your noses, you should know that there are people out here who actually give a sh.t about their careers, their work, and their dreams.
I think it's appropriate that he's speaking in the third person.
or didn't call the examiner's supervisor. The supervisor's name and phone number are provided with every official notice that explains a rejection. And there is more than one option to appeal and get the Examiner's reasoning reviewed by people with higher pay-grades.
Full-blown appeals are admittedly expensive, but are far more worthwhile than raving and ranting like an unprofessional. Such rants will simply be ignored at best, or (at worst) circulated around the Patent Office as an example of a bad patent attorney to watch out for. And the inventor/applicant? On the hook for attorney fees, regardless.
All that you say is true. But I will admit that I have been tempted to write a response like this in the past. I once went three rounds with an examiner who insisted that a controller read directly on a sensor. I've had examiners tell me that they don't personally believe in certain non-obviousness factors announced by the Supreme Court. I've had examiners create their own drawings of what they want a reference to show as the basis for 102(b) rejections. The shadow of Dudas still has not completely left the patent office.
Here's one that was from a court transcript:
Lawyer: Is this the person who threatned to kill you? ...and did he kill you?
Witness: Yes, this is him.
Lawyer:
Spoken like someone that's never thought of anything of value in his lifetime.
Spoken like someone who's talking to someone they've never met. I suppose you think all 'creators' think exactly alike?
Besides, do you think what I say would be any more valid if I were to prove that I have indeed thought of something of value (What is 'valuable' is subjective, anyway.) in my lifetime? You really think the people who stand to directly gain from the patent system are the only trustworthy people here? Really? Your statement makes absolutely zero sense to me, so I'll treat it as an irrelevant personal attack.
I suppose you also feel that all creative works should be given away for free too?
Oh, they can try to sell anything they want, but I just don't think they're entitled to a government-enforced monopoly over an idea or procedure.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Why are we as a society obligated to protect your investment?
We are giving people protection to make something new. New things didn't previously exist and can often give you an advantage over someone else who still does not have that thing, think machine gun, or plow.
If you want a safe investment, buy treasury bonds. I have not obligation to subsidize your investment, although that fact seems to be forgotten or ignored by those currently in power.
Cheap storage VM.
i'll never take a plane or submit a patent again...
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~spikep/Humor/Legally%20Laughing.htm
Hilarious.
There's an old, probably ancient stress relief technique where you write a nasty letter but never send it.
Abraham Lincoln practiced it - they found scathing nasty letters after his death addressed to various generals during the war that were never sent.
Occasionally, one gets sent out by mistake...
I don't read AC A human right
Since the context of the discussion is U.S. Patent laws the jurisdiction is not in question.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
when you didn't even bother to alter your own subject line to satisfy your own desire.
Given the teleworking pattent attorney I know (also lives in Ohio), it would probably make him laugh, email it to his boss, and accept that his quote is about at the "barely manageable" level.
In the US, it depends on the jurisdiction:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Do_you_have_to_be_a_lawyer_before_becoming_a_judge
and
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=67949
Even when the idea is worth the patent, by the time the lawyers get through with it, it's entirely worthless to actually try and duplicate it. General and vague references that paint a broad picture of the problem supposedly solved and hints of how to do it.
I always find it amusing when someone who claims to be pro-free market supports patents and/or copyright. When I think of the free market, I think of monopolies sustained through the threat of violence that infringe upon other people's property rights. Clearly.
The discussion is not about Judges. It is about prosecutors.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
the PTO sometimes rejects patent applications.
Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
"When lawyers take Viagra they get taller ..."
- Bowser and Blue
The "inventor" (who might have invented the idea, but not before many others) need not have seen any prior art. If he looks for prior art and finds any patents, his use of the idea becomes a willful violation of such. Treble damages. If he does not search, it isn't willful (and sufficient hectoring and bullying from his patent attorney might even get HIS application approved which would help if one of the prior inventors sues him). This kind of talk to an examiner is part of the corrupt game of getting junk patents approved. Note that individuals tend not to be able to afford this game, another reason the system is abusive and does not in fact help small inventors very much if at all.
HEY! Don't be messing up a perfectly good "outraged at government Incompetence" posting romp with your uncommon sense...
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
But was it an insult or an outbreak of reality. The patent office is a joke, the patents are a joke, the whole concept has been legislated down the shitter. The lawyer was right. The Patent Office is wrong. We want a total reset to it's original form. We've seen the mistakes made. If we can do it to the patents, we can do it to copy and even the rest of the government. We're mad as hell and we're not gonna take it anymore! Resetvolution NOW!
he should have mailed ricin.
...
Well Done. So crafty , in fact, that you may color yourself plagiarized.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
As for me and mine, we'd much rather be on the plane piloted by the drunk who possessed the common decency to save some cocaine from the night before so he could be awake at work. Snark snark.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
or at least share on the way down.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Dear sir,
I received your correspondence rife of ad hominem attacks against me. I was going to respond in kind, then I remembered you are a lawyer.
Regards,
Your patent examiner
remind me never to go out to dinner with you
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Right you are!
Sorry, I wasn't paying attention.
He actually appears to have waited quite a while before filing that, not that it helped him any.
The dude is trying to claim a tripod with 2 legs (or more). And he says the examiner is "special"... haha.
As a hint, the patent officer mailed back the patent for Prozac.
Table-ized A.I.
Those useless rubber stamps get paid well over $100k/year with the barest of education and tenure. They probably go home and drown their self-loathing with really expensive liquor, dreaming about being a homeless alcoholic.
and you wonder why you always get pinkeye.
That's a joke, not something that actually happened.
It is apparently from a book called "Disorder in the Court: Great Fractured Moments in Courtroom History".
Blurb reads: "Sit back and enjoy a collection of verbatim exchanges from the halls of justice, where defendants and plaintiffs, lawyers and witnesses, juries and judges, collide to produce memorably insane comedy."
So it is likely a true record of the exchange.
Also because the brain is removed during the autopsy, so it doesn't even make any sense.
As someone else posted, there are many reasons the brain can arrive separate to the body in an autopsy, so that part at least does make sense.
You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
Zero tax dollars go to the PTO. It is entirely fee funded on the backs of thousands of broken dreams by hopeful inventors.
Ohhh, cause lawyers are dicks. I get it.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
<letter re="patent">
;-).
<translat source="english" target="legalese">
Are you drunk? No, seriously... are you drinking scotch and whiskey with a side of crack cocaine while you "examine" patent applications? (Heavy emphasis on the quotes.) Do you just mail merge rejection letters from your home? Is that what taxpayers are getting in exchange for your services? Have you even read the patent application? I'm curious. Because you either haven't read the patent application or are... (I don't want to say the "R" word) "Special."
Numerous examples abound in terms of this particular Examiner not following the law. Clearly, the combination of references would render the final product to be inoperable for its intended use. However, for this Special Needs Examiner, logic just doesn't cut it. It is manifestly clear that this Examiner has a huge financial incentive to reject patent applications so he gets a nice Christmas bonus at the end of the year. When in doubt, reject right?
Since when did the USPTO become a post World War II jobs program? What's the point of hiring 2,000 additional examiners when 2,000 rubber stamps would suffice just fine? So, tell me something Corky...what would it take for a patent application to be approved? Do we have to write patent applications in crayon? Does a patent application have to come with some sort of pop-up book? Do you have to be a family member or some big law firm who incentivizes you with some other special deal? What does it take Corky?
Perhaps you might want to take your job seriously and actually give a sh.t! What's the point in having to deal with you Special Olympics rejects when we should just go straight to Appeals? While you idiots sit around in bathtubs farting and picking your noses, you should know that there are people out here who actually give a sh.t about their careers, their work, and their dreams.
Your job is not a joke, but you are turning it into a regular three ring circus. If you can't motivate yourself to take your job seriously, then you need to quit and let someone else take over what that actually wants to do the job right.
</translate>
</letter>
And if he'd only used a standard Open Source XML Validator to check his source before compiling his letter.
John_Chalisque
It was a joke. Only an idiot insults waiters...
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
If the lawyer wrote a letter like that to the client then yes he should just be fired, but writing a letter like that on behalf of a client is malpractice. Clients paying good money for legal service deserve not have their interests endangered by incompetent, reckless or both representation. This is why attorneys are required to be licensed ( join the state bar ) in the first place.
So I don't agree it absolutely with you; I think this is egregious behavior that should get them kicked out of the profession.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Just close the patent office. Getting a patent is just getting permission to litigate endlessly to hold on to your patent. The protection it affords only has meaning if the legal system makes it affordable to do so. But the reality is just the opposite. You are much better off releasing it under CC or some other open-source licence and then going into production yourself. Any other "competators" that rise up and utilize the same design are only expanding the market for you. Use trademark instead and market your product as "original". It takes effort to even get the patent, and then it will wind up in the hands of whoever has the biggest bank account to hold it with.
Most people are mostly good most of the time.
Depending on the nature of the injury, sometimes the brain comes out before the autopsy begins and they just try to send in all the pieces they could find. Car accidents, shootings (I've heard of a shotgun to the face leaving a hole big enough for a brain to fall out), blunt force trauma - there's all kinds of ways to crack a brain out of a skull.
yes, if you sneeze during orgasm from anal intercourse your brain will come out of your ears. Don't try this
It's NOT the idea that's worth protecting. That's what copyright's for. Patents should cover specific implementations.
That said, I haven't seen ANY patents in the last 10 years, so you may be correct. Perhaps there aren't any that are worthy of protection. But I doubt it, I just think that the percentage is very small.
FWIW, I agree that any patent that doesn't "make patent the invention", i.e., render it implementable by one skilled in the art, should be considered invalid, as it doesn't fulfill the purpose of patents. So I rather agree with you about the mangling of language done by lawyers.
Perhaps there aren't any patents that deserve to be issued, but there ARE inventions that deserve patents. This is, perhaps, a distinction I should have made earlier. Still, if the 95+% of the patents that should never have been issued because the "inventions" didn't merit one were removed, that alone would improve the system markedly...as long as new patents maintained the quality of the remaining ones. And even so your argument about patents that ought to be invalid because they were unintelligible (i.e., of no use to designers) remains valid...even for the ones that actually cover inventions that are worthy of being patented.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
We are not obligated as a society to protect the investments of the inventors. However, if we wish to encourage such investments, then it is appropriate that we protect them. If we don't, they are likely not to occur.
The traditional tradeoff was that the inventor revealed specific information about his invention sufficient that another individual "skilled in the art" would be able to reconstruct the invention. This has never been properly implemented. It has failed in two ways: 1) the individual inventor has needed to expend significant time and money to defend the patented invention and 2) the patents have not been specific enough in their disclosure of methods and techniques to enable reasonably easy replication.
There is a third failure, which is that the system as currently constituted punishes independent invention of the covered material. This should require that the ownership of the patent is shared, rather than that the first to acquire one is able to prohibit competition. Look up the history of the Telephone or the Airplane for examples of this being a brutal failure. (At least of the stated intent. If one considers that the purpose was to create monopolies of power that could be manipulated, then it was a great success.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
So investing time and money into an unoriginal idea makes it somehow more deserving for "protection" via patents than the unoriginal idea by itself? I think not.
I always find it amusing when someone who claims to be pro-free market supports patents and/or copyright. When I think of the free market, I think of monopolies sustained through the threat of violence that infringe upon other people's property rights. Clearly.
It makes sense once you redefine property to include "intellectual property" and someone's ideas become IP. At that point it the government's job is to enforce property rights, like it always has, you just expanded the definition of property.
or didn't call the examiner's supervisor. The supervisor's name and phone number are provided with every official notice that explains a rejection. And there is more than one option to appeal and get the Examiner's reasoning reviewed by people with higher pay-grades.
You apparently have no idea what you are talking about. The patent is followed through by a single examiner, and all and any appeals all way until the final rejection ALL go through the said bastard. There are no balances and checks, if the examiner says an "A" in your patent is a "Z", you can argue all you want and that won't make a difference. I had three rounds with an examiner who returned completely irrelevant references to the patent, and in the end, he just said -- I don't give a fuck, I'll still reject your patent... Only after final rejection you can file an appeal that will be reviewed by a different examiner(s). But the chances are this new bastard(s) will be just sitting next to your old bastard ... so you can guess how that might play out ... In the meanwhile, you are $10k-20k, or whatever, out of your budget. And again, there is nowhere to appeal - if the examiner in final decision says that "A" is "Z" ... well, good luck with that ... arguing is like talking to a wall ... good luck with the #$%@ US patent system
There are a ton of those funny transcripts from courts. Just as way of explanation, then end up being funny like that because the attorney is trying to get certain things on the record. It isn't very funny in context, but it very funny out of context:)
Today my mind was expanded.
Wait, so it's not based on technical brilliance but simply investment? So only the largest and most financially able entities should be able to patent?
From my understanding, in order to maximize their income, the patent offfice always rejects the first submission.
Has anyone tried to patent the Law and lawyers yet? And then sue them all?
Lawyer joke.
98% of lawyers give the rest a bad name....