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.'"

16 of 342 comments (clear)

  1. I'm not a patent lawyer, but I can tell you this by Burb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Of course! Insulting the US patent office is a known technique to guarantee your submission will be calmly and objectively reviewed. Do it now.

    --

  2. that's how a 15 years old teenager by etash · · Score: 5, Insightful

    would react. Seriously, who these lawyers think they are ? God incarnate ?

    1. Re:that's how a 15 years old teenager by Dins · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My 15 year old is considerably more mature than that.

    2. Re:that's how a 15 years old teenager by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, it's just you.

    3. Re:that's how a 15 years old teenager by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh, let's not stop at gender! Anyone who doesn't specify they're child's race mix, body type, astrological sign, and major areas of academic and extracurricular focus in _every_ conversation is treating their child as nothing more than a lump of protoplasm!

    4. Re:that's how a 15 years old teenager by NatasRevol · · Score: 1, Insightful

      (I can't believe I'm writing this, feels like feeding a troll, but whatever)

      Because gender doesn't (usually) change. So it's not important to qualify.

      Age does, so it's important to qualify.

      Apparently, you don't realize this?

      My two kids want to punch you in the nuts for cringing over this.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    5. Re:that's how a 15 years old teenager by HappyHead · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They stated the relevant qualifier. Is it really related to their point if said 15-year-old is named Ezekiel, or has a large collection of shoes? Would their gender be relevant? All that is being expressed here is the qualifier that means "This supposedly grown adult who has passed law school should be more mature than the person they're being unfavorably compared to because of reason X, and in this case, reason X is they're only 15 years old, and has nothing at all to do with their preference of orange juice over grape juice. Gender is not relevant here - male versus female 15-year-olds are both still supposed to be less mature than grown and theoretically adult persons who have graduated from law school. The lack of personal details about the child aren't important here to anyone but a creepy stalker.

    6. Re:that's how a 15 years old teenager by hackula · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Let me guess, you're the guy who starts stories with "I was with my black friend the other day..."

    7. Re:that's how a 15 years old teenager by jbeach · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Have you considered the fact that it wasn't just Reagan, it was Cater, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush II and now Obama that have all promised government will help you, and yet we have Black people in the worst shape in three decades? Oh right, because Obama, Clinton and Cater are all (D) and inherited their problems from (R) and the (R)s are all responsible.

      So, because government hasn't fixed everything, that totally negates the actual fact that American conservative policy doesn't work?

      Because the facts to be considered are that Reagan and Bush 1 did awful things to the economy and the country *and* gave us both Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden. And that Clinton gave us 8 years of peace and prosperity, by following the exact opposite of conservative economic and foreign policies. And that Bush 2 then went back to the standard conservative plan which resulted in 8 years of bad news, culminating in the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression.

      It's pretty clear what the deal is: rather than admit that American conservative policy in government is bad, American conservatives would rather say that **all government** is bad.

      Which is a pretty clear definition of total immaturity, at best.

      --
      The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
  3. Actual substantive complaint missing... by Urban+Garlic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  4. Re:Shame the patent application isn't linked... by steelfood · · Score: 3, Insightful

    For starters, he mentioned taxpayers in the letter.

    The patent office, like the postal service, is self-funded. Taxpayers don't pay a dime to these people. In fact, a part of the money the patent office brought in used to go back into the bigger federal budget to fund other things.

    I'm highly suspicious that this is an actual patent lawyer.

    --
    "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
  5. age is often the important factor by Chirs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re:I'm not a patent lawyer, but I can tell you thi by Etherwalk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  7. Tripod + Sprinkler != Patent by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:I'm not a patent lawyer, but I can tell you thi by WheezyJoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...
  9. Re:I'm not a patent lawyer, but I can tell you thi by Arker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.