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