or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by ash471

Just saw the link on SolipsismX signature.  Agreed, jragosta will be missed.  When 55 year olds pass away, it makes you think how short life can be.
I'm not surprised. Big companies a generally not better at innovating. Apple has a few employees working on photo compression. If those two people don't think of the solution, then it doesn't get developed at Apple. In contrast, there are hundreds of thousands of other engineers with diverse experiences that could make the invention. The odds greatly favor outside development. BTW, the increased likelihood of invention outside of the market leader is the reason the patent...
First, look at your post 97. You were clearly chiming in about the conflict issue.Secondly, I said Kappos did a better job than Dudas. And he did.  Dudas created an army of poorly trained examiners that rejected everything 5 times and then allowed stuff for no rational reason. Kappos, turned the ship around (or at least started the process).  Do you have any experience with the the patent office during the Kappos and Dudas administrations or are you just talking out of...
I'm sorry to be so harsh, but your comments are replete with examples that illustrate you don't understand patent law.  Let's begin with your statement than an idea is patentable. Guess what, "ideas" are not patentable.  An invention is a article of manufacture, chemical composition, or process.  The law requires that you embody your idea in a device, composition or process.  The mere idea is not patentable.  (although I suppose we can give you a mulligan if what you meant...
Completely false.  The patent system is very much a motivator for advancement in software arts.  Yes there are examples of software that wasn't patented. However, there are two principle reasons for this.  First, companies in the early days developed software for their hardware and patented the hardware because they thought it was more valuable.  It wasn't that they couldn't patent software. Rather they chose to patent a different component of their invention.  However,...
LOL, finally someone else on this blog who has a clue about what the Director of the Patent Office does.  Seriously, I'm sitting here laughing about how stupid all these comments are about a conflict of interest. The chances of the Director drafting an Office Action are about as good as the chances the CEO of Ford Motor company will be working on an assembly line installing oil filters.  
I'd like to think the SC would exercise judicial restraint. But I'm not too hopeful.  The computer industry has it stuck in its head that the patent system is broken and needs to be fixed and they have screamed loud enough and for long enough that others have begun to believe.What they don't realize is nascent technologies have always created the same kinds of problems and wars.  If you look at the patents that were issued in the mid to late 1800s they were all about...
I've prosecuted hundreds of patent applications and visit the patent office regularly. I assure you Ms. Lee has no interest in trying to influence the outcome of Google's patents.  These people have more important things to worry about.  Besides if Ms. Lee attempted to influence the outcome of a Google patent she would almost certainly get caught. An examiner wouldn't hesitate for a second to turn her in for something like that. She would get fired instantly.  It would be...
And why is that bad? See post 71 above.
If any of you are interested in helping save the patent system, there is a website with good information and a link to contact your congressional representative.  www.savetheinventor.com
New Posts  All Forums: