Now that's funny, really and truly funny.
Because my problems aren't
with either the Supreme Court or Congress.
Congress does not necessarily
agree with the Supreme Court, but so long as Congress doesn't pass a Law making
Abstract Concepts patentable subject matter - they effectively agree with the
Supremes.
The Supremes have made quite clear Abstract Concepts are not
patentable subject matter. See Mayo vs Prometheus.
The fact that -
according to Mr. Quinn - the Federal Circuit keeps trying to "overrule the
Supremes" is where my personal fundamental problem with regards patent
enforcement comes into the picture.
However, patent enforcement is only
one half of the equation. The other is the responsibility of the grant of the
Patents via an entity that is supposed to be properly vetting the patents such
that the Law is required to treat the patents as valid by
default.
Whatever excuse you'd like to present to somehow excuse the
USPTO from their role in this mess:
Doesn't alter the fact the USPTO is
responsible for vetting the patents!
In case you're unsure of what vetting
means, here's a couple definitions:
Make a careful and critical examination
of (something).
Investigate thoroughly, esp. in order to ensure
suitability
The Supremes certainly didn't make the USPTO grant the
Prometheus patent just so they could later reject it. Did Congress make the
USPTO grant that patent?
How about the patent owned by IP Innovation that
RedHat invalidated in a Federal Circuit Court in Texas by wheeling out a 1980's
Amiga. Who made the USPTO grant that patent?
You seem to want all blame
shifted from the USPTO, yet the only example you give lies squarely with the
USPTO:
Patent Examiners receive two "actions" for allowing a patent,
while receiving only one "action" for rejecting one - and examiners annual
performance reviews are largely based on the total number of administrative
actions they've taken in the year
Are you suggesting the Supremes
and/or Congress is responsible for the USPTO performance review rules? Or the
performance reviews themselves?
Or should that be laid squarely at the
feet of the USPTO management?
If USPTO management is arranging their
"corporate culture" in such a way that the examiners are sacrificing patent
quality: then USPTO management - the generic "USPTO" is most certainly at fault
for failing the proper vetting!
I agree with you that it's an
administration problem - the administration at the USPTO!
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|