Does the Googler tapped to run the US Patent Office still believe in patent reform? The nomination of former Google lawyer Michelle Lee to run the US Patent and Trademark Office has been hailed as a victory for Silicon Valley. In 2007 Lee said the patent system was "out-of-balance" and needed "to be remedied". But does she still think that? Lee was appointed deputy director of the USPTO last year, having …
For years, government and industry have had close ties with industry types working in the government and government types going to industry and stroking each others backs all the way. IOW, business as normal. Look about at the defense, oil, agriculture types... now it's the 'Net types turn. Funny thing.. the USPTO is supposed to be independent and judge patents on merit. I guess those days are long over.
I suspect that her success or failure will be if she's perceived as doing Google's bidding or if she really believes there's a better way. I'm betting she'll figure out a way to help Google as there seems to be as much loyalty to them as some of the Apple employees (past and present) have of Apple. Which raises a point... would this be considered a victory if an Apple-ite filled the position?
Of course people in the patent industry genuinely agree with patents. It is their life's work.
No scummy anti-patent engineer will ever be appointed because they would not be experts in patents.
So the system is self perpetuating to a large degree.
The expedited process, called "Track One", was launched in 2011, and Google has bagged 875 patents through the scheme. That's 14 per cent of the 6,187 patents passed via fast track. The next highest is Huawei, with 147 Track One patents.
Please don't think I'm defending Google, I don't like many of their business practices. Nor am I defending Lee, I know no more of her than I have gleaned from this article. However, your highlighting the fact that Google got 6 times as many fast track patents as the next highest company has absolutely no meaning whatever without comparison to the total submissions and analysis of the timeline.
So Google had 14% of the granted fast track patents, how many did they submit? If Google submitted 875 requests the story is very different to if they submitted 8750. Are the Google submissions 14% of the total submissions or 0.14%? How does Googles grant/reject ratio compare to that of Huawei? When did they submit them is pretty relevant too. If they submitted the first 4000 patents lodged under the scheme the question becomes one of how were they able to react so quickly rather than why did they get so many passed.
I hear the biggest problem with the USPTO was that it was expected to be self-funding. The more patent applications leading to approved patents, the more money to pay its staff, etc. No surprise then that rather more stupid and dangerous patents become approved than one might consider desirable.
With the best will in the world, Ms Lee might not be able to square patent reform with those elements in Congress who are lobbied by firms which benefit from the current regime.
I was thinking along the same lines. There might be helpful changes she can initiate inside the system. But given the morass that is the legal system, I'd bet a month's salary there are at least three ways for other staff to block any positive changes she tried to implement. Moreover, the job of an Executive is to execute the law as it exists, not change the law from their office. Congress needs to change the law, not her.
That is the old USA. Three branches of government providing checks and balances. It is now cash and carry as much one can while in office and a multimillion dollar consulting job when one leaves.
Nowadays, Congress does nothing useful, takes as little action as possible. Leaving it up to the Executive Office to issue Executive Orders that for reasons of Super Classified National Security change the rules at the Patent office to speed vital patents for National Security.
The practice of handing government posts to industry insiders is common around the world. Japan has the same problem with their nuclear industry. Government officials are picked from within the industry to run the regulatory body and then when they are finished their term, they often wind up at cushy jobs back in the industry. And Obama is incredibly consistent. Check out the movie "Inside Job" about the financial crisis, it will make you want to vomit.
The problem is, who else knows enough about what is going on in these highly specialized industries besides the insiders? Truly self serving. But I'm only angry about it because I'm not getting my piece!
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
