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!!
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?
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
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.
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.
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).
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.
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
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
What horseshit. The largest three conflicts in tech right now are Google being sued over Android by Oracle, Microsoft and Apple.
<p style="min-height:14px;"> </p>
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.
Comments
Why not?
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
That just might be illegal. But I don't know, I'm no lawyer.
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).
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.
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
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
That just might be illegal. But I don't know, I'm no lawyer.
Legality is always something lawyers are good at getting around.
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
Why not?
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.