or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Former head of Google patent strategy appointed to run U.S. patent agency
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Former head of Google patent strategy appointed to run U.S. patent agency - Page 2

post #41 of 100
Sorry, inadvertent double post.
post #42 of 100
 
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

.... Speaking as a software developer, a lot of the patents I see granted are not really original ideas, just things that any qualified engineer would think of.
 

So Why don't they ???

See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
post #43 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Yes there is such a person. You just described Michelle Lee.

1. An MIT graduate with a Masters in computer engineering and another degree in
2. Electrical engineering who went on to work in
3. HP's Research Labs as well as MIT's Artificial Intelligence Laboratory

before she decided to add a law degree from

4. Stanford Law School eventually landing at
5. Law partner at Fenwick & West, specializing in patent law and intellectual property. Also worked in the federal judiciary serving as
6. Law clerk for the Honorable Vaughn R. Walker on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and in the
7. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for the Honorable Paul R. Michel
8. Built the IP legal team at Google from the ground up drawing from her extensive experience in engineering, computer science and intellectual property law. (thanks Digitalclips)
9. Served two terms on the USPTO Advisory Council before agreeing to serve as
10. Director of the Silicon-valley satellite office of the USPTO.


Sounds like just the experienced, educated, hands-on, not-satisfied-with-the-status-quo person you'd like to see at the US Patent Office

 

There is nothing that there that gives me any confidence this is a good choice.  From the face of it, her background makes me suspect that she will be a defender of software patentability, both as a matter of personal philosophy and livelihood.

post #44 of 100
Dang! Double post again.
post #45 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fake_William_Shatner View Post

 

I could find a few dozen in a day. I'm sure that with ~350 million people in the country there are many, many qualified people who have tech and legal backgrounds. Sounds like Alan Greenspan who was shocked that people on Wall Street might take a low oversight system and abuse it for personal gain.

That's great, but my question was what job would they have been doing? I'm certain that are lots of people with legal and tech backgrounds, but to avoid a conflict you need one that hasn't worked for a tech firm or legal firm. But has also gained enough experience to be in a very senior role.

 

Other that working at the patent office all you life, I just don't get what job you could have been doing to gain that much knowledge / proven talent without creating a situation where there could be a conflict of interest.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post

 

Having worked at Google though, how much GOOG does she own?  That's a source of conflict of interest right there if she has significant holdings.

Your right that would be a conflict. As would owning any stocks in any company that has a patent while in this role.

post #46 of 100

Patent attorneys don't lead acquisitions.  Merger and acquisition teams do, along with help from investment banks and restructuring lawyers.

 

Also

 

post #47 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post

 

Your right that would be a conflict. As would owning any stocks in any company that has a patent while in this role.

 

Did you somehow miss or choose to ignore, for the sake of saying something snarky, the phrase "significant holdings"?  Does one need to elaborate what the phrase means?

post #48 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post
 

 

Did you somehow miss or choose to ignore, for the sake of saying something snarky, the phrase "significant holdings"?  Does one need to elaborate what the phrase means?


Not sure what you mean, I was agreeing with you. If you have shares in a company that could be affected by a job that your doing and your in this kind of position. Then there would be a conflict of interest.

 

All I added was that having stocks in any company that could be affected by a patent would create a conflict of interest. If she bought a load of stocks in medical company that relies on patents that would also be a conflict.

post #49 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post
 


Not sure what you mean, I was agreeing with you. If you have shares in a company that could be affected by a job that your doing and your in this kind of position. Then there would be a conflict of interest.

 

All I added was that having stocks in any company that could be affected by a patent would create a conflict of interest. If she bought a load of stocks in medical company that relies on patents that would also be a conflict.

 

I apologize if I had misread or misunderstood your post.  So hard to detect sarcasm and irony, or the absence thereof, on the web.

post #50 of 100
This does seem like putting Dracula in charge of a blood bank. Not because of some particular issue to do with Google/Apple, but rather that any big software company will have such an advocate in that position.

Software and business process patents predominantly protect giant companies and today damage innovation by smaller companies. Putting a corporate patent lawyer from Google in this position only strengthens a particular monopolistic view of intellectual property within the patent system.
post #51 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by realpaulfreeman View Post

This does seem like putting Dracula in charge of a blood bank. Not because of some particular issue to do with Google/Apple, but rather that any big software company will have such an advocate in that position.

Software and business process patents predominantly protect giant companies and today damage innovation by smaller companies. Putting a corporate patent lawyer from Google in this position only strengthens a particular monopolistic view of intellectual property within the patent system.

With any luck your concerns regarding those software/business method patents may be settled by this time next year.

The Supreme Court has agreed to rule on whether software programs are patentable in the first place. If in the end IF they are deemed patentable we can at least hope for clear rules on what the requirements would be, putting at least some limits on them. My hope is that SCOTUS decides software programs and/or business methods aren't patentable to begin with for the most part and it's certainly a possibility that may happen.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #52 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by IQatEdo View Post

As much as I was disappointed when I read the headline, this woman must be given the benefit of the doubt. To suggest that she will pressure staff to rule against Apple simply because of her employment history would be quite outrageous.
No more outrageous than laws that seek to prevent "revolving door" employment of former legislators or staff regulators as lobbyists for the very industries they ruled on. Given Apple and Google's contentious patent history, this has conflict of interest written all over it. Even the appearance of conflict should be avoided
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #53 of 100
In other news: Fox Hired To Guard Henhouse.
post #54 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


The previous director, David Kappos, was formerly general counsel at IBM responsible for their intellectual property policies and enforcement. After Apple developed the iPad and began a push into the education market Obama appointed an Apple executive, Karen Cator, as Director of the Office of Educational Technology at the Education Department. Are those ducks too?

For David Kappos -- that's a definite Duck. In the case of Director of the Office of Educational Technology -- that's just Product Placement. ;-)

 

All kidding aside; I think that when it comes to oversight and enforcement -- you cannot have the appearance of a duck. In the 2nd instance, it's non-critical in my opinion. Their guidance would not affect law or oversight.

 

It just bothers me that there are so many "executives" put in these positions. There need to be more people AFFECTED BY the good or bad decisions of Executives. Whatever degrees or sweet deals or political connections someone had to become an Executive, doesn't magically make them a better decision maker. And when you put people of means and power in position of government all the time, you end up with a culture where "rich people problems" outweigh issues like the poor people eating, or being able to afford to live on an 80 hour a week salary.

post #55 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

Given Apple and Google's contentious patent history, this has conflict of interest written all over it. Even the appearance of conflict should be avoided

Apple and Google have completely avoided filing patents claims against each other. I'd say they're one of the least contentious pairs IMO. Additionally Apple and Google software patents are only a teeny part of the USPTO's workload. There were over 265,000 patent applications filed with the US patent office last year, adding to the 700,000 patent application backlog.IIRC. Generally petty arguments between Google and Apple are hardly their first priority.

You should also keep in mind that Ms. Lee will only be filling the position temporarily while Obama searches for a permanent director. Perhaps he can find someone more amenable. Maybe someone who has some background at Apple so that AI readers are more comfortable with it? 1wink.gif
Edited by Gatorguy - 12/12/13 at 10:03am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #56 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitol View Post

Isn't this a Conflict of interest


Very few people stay loyal to their previous employer who is no longer paying them. 

 

Vested shares?

 

Dianne Feinstein's husband, a senior exec at CBRE, has been instrumental in making sweetheart deals to buy taxpayer property at firesale prices.

 

Business interests collide all the time with political ones. Expect corruption whenever / wherever possible in the USA oligarchic 'democracy'... 

post #57 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post

Let's see... She's claiming to be separate from Google, who ran her flag to the top of the pole, hmmmm... Her last name is Korean, no conflict there, I don't suppose.

More shameless racist crap. 

post #58 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by IQatEdo View Post
 

As much as I was disappointed when I read the headline, this woman must be given the benefit of the doubt. To suggest that she will pressure staff to rule against Apple simply because of her employment history would be quite outrageous.

 

Good of you. Glad to see proper perspectives here. 

 

Funny that others see conflict of interest in her hiring, but don't see conflict of interest in their ridiculous assessment of her background. At the end of the day, they have to hire someone with patent experience. Would the idiots herein be more assured if it was someone from Apple, GE, Microsoft or GM? Or someone with zero experience in dealing with patents? 

post #59 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by cferry View Post

In other news: Fox Hired To Guard Henhouse.

Your analogy is stupid and ignorant... It is not like she is going to be able to award all parents to google... Please process it in your mind just once before posting...
post #60 of 100
And you are a rude jerk who decided to make this personal. And who can't type. How's life in your "parent"'s basement?

She may be honest as the day is long, but if you can't can't see that the optics of this stink, then I have to wonder about your vision. She's coming from a corporate culture at Google/Googlorola that shamelessly profits from serial IP violations, where she was in charge of that legal strategy.
If you don't believe she might have a mindset related to her experience there or that someone in her new position can have a pervasive effect on her entire agency I have to wonder how much experience you have had in large hierarchies.
post #61 of 100
Originally Posted by j4zb4 View Post
It is not like she is going to be able to award all parents to google... 

 

Why not?

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply
post #62 of 100
What a bunch of bull!! I think Al Gore needs to step up and pull some strings and get her out of that position if he has the ability. That is a conflict of interests and she has no right to be in that position!!
post #63 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitol View Post

Ridiculous and disappointing. Isn't this a Conflict of interest,or am I missing something? Shameful Google, I think.

Yes it is inappropriate. The patent office needs massive reform. That's not going to happen by putting a patent agent from a monster of the computer industry in charge. I'm glad to see this is not a man, for a change, but there's definite conflict of attitudes and interests. Patent law needs a massive reboot. It is currently stifling invention and the growth of small business by protecting the ridiculous patents of huge businesses that can lawyer the smaller ones to death.

Also... Article's first sentence has an obvious typo. Why don't they ever proofread?
post #64 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post
 


Not really. Unless the article is missing something it sounds like she no longer works at Google. Very few people stay loyal to their previous employer who is no longer paying them. In most cases the opposite happens as people poach the good people and ideas from their previous employer.

 

In this instance Google also now has the disadvantage that the deputy director of the Patent office knows everything about their patent strategy. That's not exactly a particularly great position to be in.

Do we know for sure if she is no longer receiving any money from Google?  Google could be slipping money to an offshore account or paying one of her relatives. However, I doubt that anyone in Washington cares since they all do it.  There are lots of ways to hide "compensation", typically you hire a spouse or offspring or brother and then they get paid a huge amount for doing nothing.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post
 

 

Having worked at Google though, how much GOOG does she own?  That's a source of conflict of interest right there if she has significant holdings.

She can hide the holdings by putting them under another name or selling them to someone in her family.

 

Either way there's a clear conflict of interest

post #65 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post
 

 

Having worked at Google though, how much GOOG does she own?  That's a source of conflict of interest right there if she has significant holdings.

She can hide the holdings by putting them under another name.

post #66 of 100
On the surface, there appears to be a conflict of interest. Beyond the surface, I imagine it's up to Apple to pursue any formal complaints

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #67 of 100
She won't have any influence on an individual case. Anyone that works in management knows that you don't interfere with the work of individuals three layers down.

What is more important is her personal views on the importance of patents and whether she can hire good people and implement policies that will result in more and better patents.

The best thing she could do is ignore the current debate on "Patent Trolls". Playing politics will F up the patent system. The Patent Troll campaign is just a smear campaign against the patent system. To the extent there is a problem, it is a litigation problem, not a USPTO problem. Hopefully Ms. Lee will stay the hell away.
post #68 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by old-wiz View Post

She can hide the holdings by putting them under another name.

That just might be illegal. But I don't know, I'm no lawyer.
post #69 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

Speaking as a software developer, a lot of the patents I see granted are not really original ideas, just things that any qualified engineer would think of.

Of course most patents cover ideas that a qualified engineer could think of.  If a qualified engineer can't do it, then who can?  Our patent system would be seriously fucked up if we had a standard that only allowed patents for ideas that no qualified engineer could think of.  There would be like 5 patents a year. 

 

The point of the patent system is not to reward people for inventing things that no one else is capable of inventing.  It rewards people for being first to invent.  The goal is to be first, not supernatural. 

 

And it's a damn good system.  It creates risk for entrenched companies.  If an entrenched company doesn't invent themselves or doesn't buy up the inventions of newcomers they will eventually be locked out of the market.  The risk to entrenched market players is the lifeblood of the American innovation engine.  Patents keep companies focused on development rather than bribing politicians or engaging in anti-competitive antics.  Patents are the reason companies like Apple can dethrone RIM.  Patents increase the odds that a startup will succeed. Patents encourage investors to make risky bets on startups. What is there to not like about patents?

 

I am absolutely flabbergasted that an American engineer or scientist would support any propaganda that diminishes our patent system.  What is it that makes people think a patent owner shouldn't be able to sue a big company like Microsoft for patent infringement?  Is Microsoft's desire to add to its 50 Billion dollar cash pile that important to you?  Oh I know, if we kill the patent system, MS will charge us less for their product. Right..../s.  Oh I know, it must be that you think Steve Ballmer is more capable of spending that cash wisely than the entrepreneur who invented the technology and spent the time to get a patent issued.  Oh I know, you must think we need more of the world's wealth concentrated in the few individuals who run big companies.  We wouldn't want that wealth distributed to inventors (who are mostly engineers and scientists).  Or maybe you just don't want money flowing to patent attorneys (again, scientist and engineers).

 

When faced with these questions everyone says, "oh, I support the patent system, but I think we need better patents".  The problem with this attitude is illustrated in ascii's comment above. The only "good patent" is an idea that no qualified engineer can think of.  Your standard of patentability is fucked up.  And yes I'm pissed as hell at the computer science industry because they are the ass holes that started this campaign against the patent system. They think they understand patent law........but they don't. The only thing they've done is created a movement that is seriously damaging the goose that lays the golden egg (as evidenced by the shitty anti-patent legislation that was passed by the House last week).      


Edited by ash471 - 12/12/13 at 3:25pm
post #70 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post


That just might be illegal. But I don't know, I'm no lawyer.

 

This whole discussion about conflicts of interest with Google is ridiculous. The previous Director (David Kappos) came from IBM.  IBM has a bigger portfolio than Google.  It wasn't a problem then.  David Kappos was a way better director than the one before him (Dudas) who was a life-long USPTO employee.

You need to understand the prestige of being appointed to this position?  Trust me, she isn't thinking about getting a stupid Google patent issued.  She's thinking, what am going to say when I get called to the White house to brief the president on the pending patent legislation.

For what its worth, I am a patent lawyer. 


Edited by ash471 - 12/12/13 at 3:29pm
post #71 of 100

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

post #72 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post
 

 

There is nothing that there that gives me any confidence this is a good choice.  From the face of it, her background makes me suspect that she will be a defender of software patentability, both as a matter of personal philosophy and livelihood.


And why is that bad? See post 71 above.

post #73 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post
 


Not sure what you mean, I was agreeing with you. If you have shares in a company that could be affected by a job that your doing and your in this kind of position. Then there would be a conflict of interest.

 

All I added was that having stocks in any company that could be affected by a patent would create a conflict of interest. If she bought a load of stocks in medical company that relies on patents that would also be a conflict.


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 absolutely humiliating. (about like Winona Ryder getting caught shoplifting....hilarious).

post #74 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Michelle Lee has been with the USPTO as a regional director working out of "the valley" since last year, and spent several years before that serving on the USPTO Advisory Panel. Her latest position isn't even technically Acting Director due to some Senate rules on appointments. She'll just be doing the things the Acting Director would... if she was. 1bugeye.gif

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/12/11/michelle-lee-appointed-deputy-director-of-the-uspto/id=46699/
 

 

It’s quite incredible how the anonymous Gatorguy can instantly provide Google talking points on virtually any subject. It's almost like he's being fed what to say by the Samsung-like Google message board police.

post #75 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post
 

Patent attorneys don't lead acquisitions.  Merger and acquisition teams do, along with help from investment banks and restructuring lawyers.

 

If you do a tiny bit of research, you'll see Lee is credited with handling the Motorola acquisition, which was primarily about (according to Google) patent acquisition.

post #76 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Apple and Google have completely avoided filing patents claims against each other. I'd say they're one of the least contentious pairs IMO. Additionally Apple and Google software patents are only a teeny part of the USPTO's workload. There were over 265,000 patent applications filed with the US patent office last year, adding to the 700,000 patent application backlog.IIRC. Generally petty arguments between Google and Apple are hardly their first priority.
 
 

What horseshit. The largest three conflicts in tech right now are Google being sued over Android by Oracle, Microsoft and Apple. 

 

Apple and Microsoft are suing licensees (including Google's Motorola) because when you sue Google itself for stealing your IP, they shrug and say they didn't earn anything directly from stealing it, as Oracle found out. 

post #77 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post


That just might be illegal. But I don't know, I'm no lawyer.

Legality is always something lawyers are good at getting around.

post #78 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by ash471 View Post
 

 

This whole discussion about conflicts of interest with Google is ridiculous. The previous Director (David Kappos) came from IBM.  IBM has a bigger portfolio than Google.  It wasn't a problem then.  David Kappos was a way better director than the one before him (Dudas) who was a life-long USPTO employee.

You need to understand the prestige of being appointed to this position?  Trust me, she isn't thinking about getting a stupid Google patent issued.  She's thinking, what am going to say when I get called to the White house to brief the president on the pending patent legislation.

For what its worth, I am a patent lawyer. 

 

Yes, everyone agrees that the US patent system has been working really well. /s

post #79 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

Why not?

 

Fair question.
 
But then, who can they hire that wouldn't have any conflict of interest? They do have to hire someone with patent experience, don't they?
post #80 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

What horseshit. The largest three conflicts in tech right now are Google being sued over Android by Oracle, Microsoft and Apple. 

 



Apple and Microsoft are suing licensees (including Google's Motorola) because when you sue Google itself for stealing your IP, they shrug and say they didn't earn anything directly from stealing it, as Oracle found out. 

I didn't talk about Microsoft or Oracle at all but it's obvious why you brought them up. Apparently you're unable to cite a single case that Apple filed against Google or that Google filed against Apple. So rather than "horseshit" I believe that would make you incorrect in your assertion sir.
Edited by Gatorguy - 12/12/13 at 4:58pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Former head of Google patent strategy appointed to run U.S. patent agency
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Former head of Google patent strategy appointed to run U.S. patent agency