The Soy Boy Man Crying: The Orange Man Won.

 

Of course he's equipped the wrist threads for his favorite political causes, the pretty ring everything.

And he has for sure zero toxic masculinity.

Great that The Benny Show caught it.

How Covid-19 does not stand up vs. the past stats.

June 2019, well before the coronoa virus pandemic, HELEN BRANSWELL wrote this article for Stanews,

The last pandemic was a ‘quiet killer.’ Ten years after swine flu, no one can predict the next one.

(https://www.statnews.com/2019/06/11/h1n1-swine-flu-10-years-later/)

some excerpts:

Since it started circulating in the spring of 2009, H1N1 has infected about 100 million Americans, killing about 75,000 and sending 936,000 to the hospital, the CDC estimates. Another virus, H3N2, is responsible for more infections, but “in terms of the severity, H1 is kind of this quiet killer,” said Dr. Daniel Jernigan, head the CDC’s flu division.

A study published in 2013 suggested between 123,000 and 200,000 people globally may have died as a result of the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. 

From the US CDC:

1968 Pandemic (H3N2 virus). The estimated number of deaths was 1 million worldwide and about 100,000 in the United States.

1957-1958 Pandemic (H2N2 virus). The estimated number of deaths was 1.1 million worldwide and 116,000 in the United States.

1918 Pandemic (H1N1 virus). It is estimated that about 500 million people or one-third of the world’s population became infected with this virus. The number of deaths was estimated to be at least 50 million worldwide with about 675,000 occurring in the United States.

So it all makes this covid-19 thing look whipped up by the media. It is all so convenient for its governing politics and governments.

Plane spotters spot a Concordsky

case in point: this clip about Russian plane spotters and aviation fans booking a flight around Moscow on the noisiest plane (Tu-134) that otherwise has genius features. So noisy it got banned at Euro airports.

They also landed at an airport housing a Soviet Tu-144, a Concorde equivalent that was also banned. The planes had the most powerful engines, which cannot be retrofitted, replaced, etc. and preclude all the chances of reinstating the planes that are otherwise the smartest and most innovative in a narrow-minded way. The point: the USSR was so bent on proving its intellect that they did not see far enough into the future, no strategic thinking, no multipurpose features, no parts interchangeable with anything else, no more parts available, all tailor made, one-time, one-model design.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ap5gVB3FZ7c

A patent: a time wasted or not

A comment from an inventor questioning whether or not to waste his time and money filing a patent (and disclosing his innovation), if he is going to get screwed by the PTO:

Personally I have been pausing in the wings before I submit several
patent applications, so that I am reasonably assured that it is
worth the time and effort to do so. It may very well be that I am
better off not filing anything at all, if the applications can be
construed as just revealing what I have invented, with very few
options if it costs too much to respond to the PTO, and thus very
little value conferred by doing so.

A great issue for the AIPLA, IPO, or ABA, if any of these groups actually
cared about everyone's interest in a healthy patent system.

If the Patent Reform efforts succeed, we are all just dog meat,
after all, and all of my efforts and my money spent trying to
acquire a US patent will be for naught. Somewhat frustrating, when
I sincerely believe that I have much to contribute in the alternative
energy field.

How PTO management incompetence is destroying small companies

Someone sent in the following ancedote, which is heard way too
often:

I was at an open house for a small IP law firm about a month ago and
was talking to the IP/research VP of a small biotech. They are a
start-up who have been waiting just over 2 years and still haven't
got a First Action on the Merits on their lead invention. They have
had to let almost everyone go and they are just holding on waiting
for that critical patent. It is so sad.

I am hearing this lament more and more, from biotech startups, software
startups, alternative energy startups. Because of PTO delays, they are
having to abandon patent applications, cripple their companies, and delay
hitting the markets with their products. Patent quality? It's suffering,
as everyone inside and outside the PTO is cutting back on searches (well,
that's more crap to bust in the future for me, though there is already
enough such crap).

If you have more such stories, please send them my way. Congress and the
Obama Administration need to hear this suffering, otherwise it is a waste
of billions of taxpayers' dollars to fund new energy/IT technologies, if
the startups, where much of the innovation will come from, can't protect
their breakthroughs in a timely matter. Otherwise, it is another signal
that the Obama Administration is pursuing an industrial policy that
favors large companies.

Also Christians come out against patent reform

A group of generally conservative Christians have written to Congress, opposing this year's patent reform bill:

- "To put the matter plainly, this bill is written to devalue patents" - "We cannot afford to jeopardize what is in effect America's balance sheet with an ill-advised, special-interest bill, particularly in the midst of a severe economic crisis." - "The proposed system [post-grant review] would expose patent holders to a perpetual threat of abusive, serial attacks, and, as a result, undermine the benefits of patent ownership for patent-holders and their financial backers." - "In effect, the bill invites an infringe-now-and-(maybe)-pay-later business strategy [the effect of apportioned damages], which destroys the "exclusive use" given to the patent ..."

(From Opposition Mounts to Patent Reform Act of 2009, Kevin L. Kearns, March 18, 2009) http://americaneconomicalert.org/view_art.asp?Prod_ID=3199 Dear Senators Reid and McConnell, Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Boehner: We are writing to ask you to strongly oppose the passage of The Patent Reform Act of 2009, S. 515 and HR. 1260, legislation sponsored by Senator Leahy and Rep. Conyers, respectively. These bills, under the mantle of "reform", will actually severely damage U.S. international competitiveness and threaten most American businesses - along with the jobs they create - by undermining America's historically strong intellectual property rights. This legislation will threaten America's smaller inventors, large and small domestic manufacturers, venture capitalists, agricultural entities, biotech and pharmaceutical firms, non-profit research consortia, and research universities, among others. Downgrading patent rights - which are fundamentally property rights - will seriously constrict innovation and the ability of domestic manufacturers to turn good ideas into products consumer want, and thus good jobs for working Americans. A series of U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Circuit decisions have already shifted the legal balance of power to favor patent users, tightening standards of patentability and narrowing patent rights and remedies. These judicial reforms eliminate any need for sweeping legislative changes to the patent system. Foreign interests, who for years have been trying to slow America's innovation engine through measures to weaken and devalue patent rights, are very happy with the proposed changes. In fact, commentary by patent experts in the Chinese and Indian press indicates they believe that intellectual property theft will be much easier under the proposed bill. Unfortunately, these foreign experts are correct in their assessment. Yongshun Chen, former Senior Judge and Deputy Director of the Intellectual Property Division of Beijing High People's Court China, said this about the patent bill: "This bill will give companies from developing countries more freedom and flexibility to challenge the relative U.S. patent for doing business in the U.S. and make it less costly to infringe.... The bill will weaken the rights of patentees greatly, increase their burden, and reduce the remedies for infringement" (Intellectual Property News, November 2007). This bill will lead to many additional American factories and jobs, even entire industries, being lost to overseas competitors. During this economic recession, more market uncertainty is the last thing that our economy needs. To put the matter plainly, this bill is written to devalue patents - to the detriment of almost every industrial, service, and financial sector of the economy. Certain high-tech companies who are pushing this bill want to make it cheaper and easier to infringe others' patents. But Congress should safeguard innovation as the backbone of our economy and reject this legislation. The patent system is rooted in the Constitution. Congress is charged with "securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective discoveries". The Founders understood that protection of intellectual property was vital to innovation and progress. James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers, "The utility of this power will scarcely be questioned." Yet, today it is being threatened in the Congress. Small enterprises often drive innovation. About one-third of all patent applications are made by independent inventors, small companies, universities, and nonprofit research groups. Small businesses produce more patents per employee than larger businesses, and small-firm patents are more "innovative" and technologically important than large firm patents. Because small firms must work with others to commercialize and manufacture their innovations, they need strong patents to realize a return on investment. American manufacturers do about 65 percent of the R&D in this country and hold 60 percent of the patents. Over the last 40 years, we have witnessed a startling transformation of our economy. Whereas previously about two-thirds of a company's wealth was in physical assets, such as land, buildings, and machinery, now the opposite is true. The vast majority of a company's worth is in its intellectual property, not its physical assets. We cannot afford to jeopardize what is in effect America's balance sheet with an ill-advised, special-interest bill, particularly in the midst of a severe economic crisis. The legislation creates a new, expensive quasi-judicial system within the USPTO to challenge the validity of a patent throughout its entire life. The proposed system would expose patent holders to a perpetual threat of abusive, serial attacks, and, as a result, undermine the benefits of patent ownership for patent-holders and their financial backers. In addition, it would create even greater operational challenges within the USPTO. Incentives to seek patents would be weakened, and venture capitalists, who supply the life blood of the patent system with their investment monies, would face far higher risks when backing new ideas. The Leahy bill raises multiple barriers to independent innovation. The pending legislation would also make it harder for patent-holders to enforce their rights or win just compensation from those who steal their ideas. Under the bill, it would be harder to prove "willful" infringement, which serves as an important deterrent to deliberate theft. Perhaps, most significantly, the bill strikes at the very core of the patent system by changing the way infringement and resulting damages are treated. Instead of restoring the pre-infringement parity between the patent holder and the potential licensee, the bill calculates damages in an after-the-fact manner that lessens the value assigned to patents in most products. It throws out the window the venerable Georgia Pacific case and with its time-tested factors in determining a patent's value. In effect, the bill invites an infringe-now-and-(maybe)-pay-later business strategy, which destroys the "exclusive use" given to the patentee by the Constitution and the risk/reward ratio that has so successfully driven American innovation for over two centuries. According to a recent study, the proposed damages amendment would reduce the value of U.S. patents by as much as $85.3 billion; reduce R&D expenditures by up to $66 billion per year; and potentially cost the U.S. economy 298,000 manufacturing jobs. This bill is bad for American businesses; it is bad for American workers; it is bad for American inventors; it is bad for American research universities; thus it is bad for America. We ask that you oppose this legislation, protect the property rights enshrined in the Constitution, and preserve a patent system that for over 200 years has provided great technological advances, material progress, and a high standard of living for all Americans. Thank you for your serious consideration of our views. Sincerely, Kevin Kearns, US Business and Industry Council David Keane, American Conservative Union Rev. Lou Sheldon, Traditional Values Coalition Jim Backlin, Christian Coalition of America Susan Carleson, American Civil Rights Union Jim Martin, 60 Plus Association C. Preston Noell III, Tradition, Family. Property, Inc. Harry Valentine, Capitol Hill Prayer Alert Barrett Duke, Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention Gary Aldrich, CNP Action, Inc John Kwapisz, VA Coalition for Common Sense on Climate Change Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum Morton Blackwell, Conservative Leadership PAC Frank Gaffney, Center for Security Policy Colin A. Hanna, Let Freedom Ring Ron Pearson, Council for America Jeffrey Gayner, Americans for Sovereignty Alex St. James, AARLC Organization Connie Marshner, American Family Business Institute Jim Backlin, Christian Coalition of America Carmen Mercer, Minuteman Civil Defense Corps. Mark de Bernardo, Council for Employment Law and Equality Laszlo Pasztor, National Federation of American Hungarians Kevin L. Kearns is President of The United States Business and Industry Council. Prior to joining USBIC in 1993, he was a Senior Fellow at the Manufacturing Policy Project, a Washington, DC think tank. For 13 years before that he was a U.S. Foreign Service Officer with overseas assignments in Germany, Korea, and Japan, where he witnessed firsthand the operation of highly cartelized, mercantilist economies.

The Cross Coalition and Its Star Chamber Letter About Patent Battle

This is an interesting turn in the patent reform battle: The Cross Coalition, a group of companies doing business in green and environmental technologies wrote to Congress opposing the proposed patent reform bill. The Coalition is made up of big biochem companies, startups and similar environmental technology operations. The self-hype about anything green in Washington, the Cross Coalition might just succeed. This is similar to a letter that 430 bio and green companies wrote to Congress in 2007, also opposing the patent reform bill. These patent reform bills should be dumped until a new PTO Director can be installed and can put together respectable consensus within the patent world. The text of the Cross Coalition's letter:

We write today regarding the importance of the United States patent system to our transition to a clean energy economy. Our companies and those we represent are committed to nurturing the innovation pipeline and subsequent domestic manufacturing capacity that will build the next generation of energy efficient, renewable energy, and renewable fuel technologies, creating thousands of American jobs in the process. However, we are concerned with recent legislative proposals to make fundamental changes to the US patent system that we believe would weaken, rather than strengthen, patent protection, putting this innovation pipeline and subsequent American manufacturing capacity at risk. The patent reform legislation that has been introduced would reduce penalties for patent infringement by changing the law of damages. This change would elevate the importance of one of the factors now considered in calculating patent damages. By giving this one factor - apportionment - a preeminent position in damage calculations, proponents of the legislation would have achieved the goal of reducing damage awards. This type of reduction in the value of intellectual property rights could adversely affect the future of our industries in the United States in two ways. First, in order to meet the demands of a low-carbon energy future, the need for innovation in the areas of energy efficiency, energy crops, advanced biofuels, renewable energy, renewable fuels, carbon capture and storage, and environmental technologies is great. Our ability to rapidly innovate in these sectors is critical to ensuring that we and others will be able to effectively meet our mutual goals of reducing carbon dioxide emissions, thereby reducing the impact of global climate change and reinvigorating the American economy with the creation of green jobs. A significant reduction, or elimination of much of the value of the intellectual property that will be generated through this process will have an effect on the availability of the venture capital required, decreasing the speed at which innovation will occur. Second, we anticipate that our economy will flourish as innovation in environmental and climate technology sectors drives the creation of green jobs. Our companies and our members create these jobs as we manufacture and market our patented products and technologies to domestic and international customers. If the current patent system is modified, making it less costly to infringe on existing or future patent rights, we anticipate that our competitive advantage in the global marketplace will be reduced, impacting the creation of green jobs. As proposals are made to change the U.S. patent system, we encourage you to take into account the impact of these proposals on the viability of our burgeoning green economy and its associated green jobs, as well as our ability to attract the capital required to innovate at the necessary pace to effectively combat global climate change. Drastic changes, such as reducing penalties for patent infringement, will only discourage innovation, resulting in reduced investment and lost jobs at a time when the country can least afford it. We believe the American patent system is the best in the world and we look forward to working with you to ensure that it becomes even stronger. Thereby we can continue to encourage the kind of investment, product creation, and job creation that has been the hallmark of our economy for decades, and will ultimately drive our ability to meet the challenges posed by global climate change. Thank you for considering our views on an issue of fundamental significance to innovation in America.

Members of the coalition include: American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE) - Washington, DC Biomass Coordinating Council - Washington, DC Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition - Darnestown, MD EESTech Inc. - Chino Valley, AZ Southwest Windpower - Flagstaff, AZ Ceres, Inc. - Thousand Oaks, CA Fallbrook Technologies Inc. - San Diego, CA Viryd Technologies Inc. - San Diego, CA Mendel Biotechnology, Inc. - Hayward, CA IP Checkups, Inc. - Berkeley, CA Environmental Energy Solutions - West Hartford, CT GreenWorld, LLC - Arvada, CO DuPont - Wilmington, DE EarthLinked Technologies - Lakeland, FL International Applied Engineering, Inc. - Marietta, GA Unicoi Energy Services - Marietta, GA Industrial Resource Group, LLC - Schererville, IN Konarka Technologies, Inc. - Lowell, MA Syngenta - Golden Valley, MN Monsanto - St. Louis, MO Solutia Inc. - St. Louis, MO Energy and Environment Research Center (EERC) - Grand Forks, ND Greentech Capital Advisors - New York, NY ECR International, Inc. - Utica, NY ArborGen, LLC - Summerville, SC PetroTex - Cedar Hill, TX The Stella Group, Ltd - Arlington, VA Powered Green LLC - Madison, WI Terra Moya Aqua, Inc. - Cheyenne, WY

How a senator blocked a Nevada businessman from trade marking the phrase "Last Best Place."

Baucus inserted language in the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus appropriation bill that would prohibit the slogan "Last Best Place," which is an unofficial motto of Montana, from being trademarked.

"Trying to trademark "The Last Best Place" is as ludicrous as someone trying to patent a Montana sunset," Baucus said. "If I have to insert this provision for the next 20 years, I will because that is how important this saying is to our state."

He and the businessman have slugged out over the trademark since 2002, when Nevada businessman David Lipson tried to gain exclusive rights to the term for his Paw's Up lodge in the Blackfoot Valley. Baucus' provision would prohibit using any funds to approve the trade mark, effectively killing any chance of the slogan being trademarked. Baucus has included similar provisions in past appropriations bills.

"When you walk down a main street in any Montana town, or have a good conversation at a coffee shop, you know Montana truly is "The Last Best Place," Baucus said. "And folks should be free to use that to describe our great state."

Senator Jon Tester supported Baucus' measure. "As a third generation Montana farmer, I know that folks in our state treasure our status as The Last Best Place," said Tester. "Montana's slogan isn't for sale."

This IBM patent clogs sewers:

One rumored candidate to be the next Director of the Patent and Trademark Office is David Kappos, one of the head patent lawyers at IBM. Given IBM's many abuses of the patent system and patent policy over the past few decades, I think it is inappropriate, nay, wrong, for anyone from IBM to be head of the PTO. Might as well as make Bernie Madoff head of the SEC as part of his upcoming jail-time work-release program. IBM patent lawyers for too long have abused the patent system. Case in point. Last week IBM was issued its usual batch of patents, many of which are crap - crappy patents whose sole value is to clog the PTO's patent examination pipelines to the detriment of everyone else. A patent application policy actively embraced by David Kappos. If I was an IBM investor, I would applaud David for doing his best to help IBM. In fact, sometimes I recommend people to buy IBM stock because the company will do anything to maintain its market value. Kudos to David for his efforts in this regard. But the reward for abusing the patent system for the benefit of IBM should be a gold watch at retirement - and should not be the reward of being appointed head of the PTO. One of the many crappy patents issued last week is the one below, an expert system at a server that analyzes incoming messages (such as news), checks lists to see which subscribers want to be alerted to such messages, and sends the message to such subscribers. That is, methods Marimba used (and patented) to push software in 1996, IBM decides six years later to patent as methods to push other stuff. As usual, the patent cites an inadequate amount of non-patent prior art, based on IBM's inadequate IDS and the examiner's lack of experience in searching the non-patent prior art. Further, it looks like this patent, crappy as it is, was a First Office Action issuance - usually a good indicator of crap. After the application was submitted, an amendment was submitted, maybe with a bit of talking with the examiner, and then the patent was allowed to issue. Don't you all wish you had such clout with the PTO to get such crap issued? Part of the problem is that the claim language is IBM's usual excessively wordy, baffle-them-with-bull's shirt, confusing verbiage - again, another IBM patent policy actively supported by Kappos. Let's look at the abstract, which is almost easy to understand, and then claim 1, which gives me a headache to read:

United States Patent 7,487,550 Methods, apparatus and computer programs for processing alerts and auditing in a publish/subscribe system Abstract A message broker receives a published message from a publisher program. Responsive to identification of one or more subscriber programs subscribing to messages of the type of the received message, the broker forwards the received message to the one or more subscriber programs. Matcher components compares the received message with stored subscriptions to identify subscriber programs, generates an alert when an alert condition is satisfied, and compares the generated alert with stored subscriptions to identify subscriber programs subscribing to the alert. The alert is then forwarded to the subscriber program subscribing to the alert.

The patent only cites five or six prior patents, inadequate, grossly inadequate, especially in light of a Sun Microsystems patent whose title kills IBM's patent outright:

United States Patent 5,761,662 Dasan, June 2, 1998 Personalized information retrieval using user-defined profile

Now, for those of you who know anything about expert system database alert systems (i.e., a database with alert triggers, a decades old field), look at the crappy non-patent prior art considered:

Other References "Design of a General Clinical Notification System Based on the Publish-Subscribe Paradigm", A conference of the American Medical Informatics Association. By, A. Geissbuhler, M.D., W. W. Stead, M.D., Oct. 25, 1997, pp. 126-130, XP002179981. cited by other . "Exploiting an Event-Based Infrastructure to Develop Complex Distributed Systems", Proceedings of the 1998 International Conference in Kyoto, Japan Apr. 19-25, 1998, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, IEEE Comput.Soc, US, Apr. 19, 1998, pp. 261-270. cited by other . Icc.net Internet Commerce Corporation on website ICC.net/Services/Infosafe and ICC.net/Services/Infosafe/

Technology, 2001. cited by other . Arnold et al, "Discourse with Disposable Computers: How and Why You Will Talk to Your Tomatoes", USENIX Proceedings of the Embedded Systems Workshop, Mar. 29-31, 1999. cited by other.

Not one article from the any ACM publications and conferences on database systems, alert systems, message analysis systems, push, or expert systems, and only one article from the IEEE. Grossly inadequate, and IBM knows it. To cite nothing from SIGMOD or DEXA makes this patent crap. So maybe IBM should spend less time doing searches against other companies as part of its scam public patent review project, and more time doing searches of its own crap. Excrement, as in the language of claim 1 (the only claim as well, probably too long to not be workaroundable and thus unenforceable):

The invention claimed is: 1. A data processing apparatus for providing a publish/subscribe message dissemination service on behalf of publisher and subscriber programs comprising: means for receiving a published message from a publisher program; means, responsive to identification of one or more message subscriber programs subscribing to messages of the type of the received message, for forwarding the received message to the one or more message subscriber programs; and one or more matcher components for: comparing the received message with stored message subscriptions to identify the one or more message subscriber programs; generating an alert when an alert condition is satisfied; and comparing the generated alert with stored alert subscriptions to identify one or more subscriber programs subscribing to the alert; and means for forwarding the alert to the one or more subscriber programs subscribing to the alert, wherein the message and alert subscriptions are stored in data storage in association with message topic information, the one or more matcher components including means for retrieving stored subscription information by reference to message topic information of a received message, rules procedures for generating and determining required dissemination of alerts are stored in association with the message topic information,

NOTE: so far, this claim is nothing more than the many push systems popularized in the Internet era - no innovation here. And as a good example to deceive the Patent Office, the word "push" doesn't appear in the patent, depriving the examiner the opportunity to think about PUSH and search for Marimba's patents.

wherein the one or more matcher components are adapted to identify a relevant rules procedure by reference to the message topic information and to forward to the identified rules procedure: a message subscription list; a list of authorized recipients; and an identification of one or more subscribers for alerts; thereby to enable generation and determination of required dissemination of an alert; the one or more matcher components includes: means for performing an authorization check to identify a subset of the identified one or more message subscriber programs which subset of programs is authorized to receive the message; and means for generating an alert when the authorization check identifies an unauthorized message subscriber.

NOTE: actually, even this far, this claim is nothing more than the many push systems popularized in the Internet era - no innovation here. This patent is nothing more than an IBM ploy to clog the patent system with a patent application embodying little to no innovation - a tactic IBM has used for thousands and thousands of patent applications. A tactic warmly embraced by David Kappos. Who should not be appointed next Director of the PTO.

Here is something for Obama's platform

We sure have gotten to the historical moment when today, the first black U. S. President is about to be sworn in. Many Americans hope that he will make a difference, and implement perceptible, positive changes. I think that our country, as a leader in Internet-driven information, web social activities, and more particularly, in blogosphere, can move the changes forward by coordinating the changes. Because it is not up to one individual only, the US President or a prominent billionaire, but every web citizen to understand and hone up the master plan that the country should abide by. After all, as the common wisdom says, if you fail to plan, you plan to fail. A good start for the plan, or the platform, I found, is something that has been outlined as Reinventing America. Good point - "we need to change our school curriculum by including courses on ethics and business manners. We also need business transparency platform that would establish guidelines for organizational transparency. This would include specific recommendations for both for-profit and non-profit organizations and government bodies. Greater transparency in the nation’s capital will lead America by example." This is a great new deal that avoid the unpleasant, intrusive governmental regulation.

Wind Turbines, Oil Rigs and Curious George

Now that Dubya is packing up and about to be moving out of the White House, the media and the web are awash with negative gloating and mindless euphoria. The US economy has grown in all directions possible, major fiscal indicators have been on a roller coaster ride, the real estate market is pathetic, nobody has health insurance, and the layoffs seem to be the talk of every neighborhood bar. In tough times like these it makes sense to browse for some viral videos. The Good Bye Curious George is probably the best anti bush video that captures the spirit of the nation, of our mood and that of the outgoing neopresident. The video is simple, yet a cut above amateur animation. The unexpected zoom-in on the card mix up involving the bank rescue plan (why should the taxpayer rescue banks, the bastion of capitalism, when the essence of capitalism is the survival of the fittest? Let the weakling bank disappear), the Lincoln's name mixup which is so typical of the Bush presidency steeped in bumbling and word-mincing. It reminds us of George W. Bush's the "Mission Accomplished" bravado speech aboard an aircraft carrier after the Iraq invasion ring so fresh and simplistically premature. The nuclear option scenario is also credibly hilarious, because the nuclear solution has been contemplated regarding Iran. It goes hand in hand with the paradigm we know since childhood: The Curious George wants to know, what would happen if the Red Nuclear Button is pushed? The video does not deal with a nuke scare, rather, the video keeps on portraying the bumbling petrodollar utilitarianism of Dubya's business dreams. No matter the wreck he causes us, there is always the petrodollar lining to it for him, but desolation and smoke for us. Give an Oscar to the cartoon's creator(s) for being the most unique funny video addressing such a character in US history, the rigmarole he is leaving behind and the snafus he has not (lucky you and me) have the chance to execute. The video has a tastefully light finish, wherein Dubya the Curious George Cowboy rides into the sunset, which seems to be after the nuclear war-like destruction with the oil rigs in the background, while wind turbines telescope out of the ground and start spinning while the sky turns jubilant with an Obama-esque rainbow. Therapeutically pleasing. I think lame duck is an understatement. The video offers us comedy relief while reliving the last eight years of the mess.

Presentation details severe confidence crisis at the European Patent Office

What follows is the text of a presentation detailing the crisis conditions at the European Patent Office, with both management and examiners being increasingly miserable. The same memo could be written about the U.S. Patent Office. Look folks, I do not make this stuff up - I can't afford to drink that much Beaujolais to do so. We have massive engineering workflow institutions (PTO, EPO) on the verge of collapse. Is the IP world totally devoid of leadership for someone to step forward and .... lead? We face a perfect storm of troubles: - incompetent people appointed to high management positions - lack of accountability quality, imposed costs/fees, and productivity - legislatures ignoring their oversight role while getting milking the system for lobbyist dollars - courts blatant with their contempt for science, technology and semantics in their decisions - "professional" bodies (AIPLA/IPO/AIPPI/ABA) devoid of leadership The result: despite the outright lies of Jon Dudas and his foreign counterparts - patent quality continues to drop, patent fees continue to rise, patent pendency continues to rise, and more. The next head of the PTO has to be a true, competent, professional leader. Or let's just take 35 USC off the books. So as you read what follows, ask yourself: where has been any leadership in the IP world that we have arrived at management memos as below? This is the text of a presentation given by a management representative, not from a Union representative. You be the judge: The EPO as an organisation has moved from duality to crisis. We will explain how and why and will describe the steps that are necessary to reconstruct a common culture and a positive social partnership. A dual organisation. The sociological analysis based on the results of the human capital survey of 2006 had shown that the EPO was a dual organisation; a dysfunctional system that finds its equilibrium in the creation of two separate universes; - the "executive management universe" focused on a defensible production level, defensible backlogs, and a defensible financial situation, and - the "operational universe" focused on staff autonomy, intellectual content of the work and existing working conditions (Salary, benefits and job security) These focus points are essential to maintain a balance. A change in one or more of these conditions would jeopardize the status quo. This is exactly what has happened. Change of the conditions of the duality. Management expressed strong concerns about the production level, strong concerns about the increasing backlogs and strong concerns about the financial situation. On the operational side, one felt some pressure on the autonomy (more control tools, micromanagement, lack of trust), some fear concerning the intellectual content of the work (e.g., the possible mutual recognition with other players having a lower quality or the delegation of activities to national Offices) and a high level of fear concerning working conditions (the pension system revision being often considered as the first step to multiple changes of the working conditions.). With the disappearance of all conditions necessary to maintain the equilibrium of the duality, the EPO could only slip into crisis. Characteristics of the crisis. Work is valued but the organisation is not trusted. The work as such is a source of positive feelings. Experienced as interesting, rich and motivating it is considered as a service of quality for others. But the organisation (including all actors from management to staff representation and union representatives) is the subject of negative feelings and perceptions. Contradictory information influenced by clearly opposed point of views harm the capacity of the people to understand issues properly. Consequently they loose their common references and don't know "who" or "what" to trust anymore. Negative collective perception of change. The crisis is a disturbance of the capacity to perceive reality. All actors have a subjective perception of how the world works. Because of the differences between these subjective perceptions, change is collectively seen as a source of disorder and contradiction. At an individual level the organisation is perceived as a threat. At an individual level, change is perceived as elusive, irrational and distressing. It is felt to be change for change's sake or even worse, for individual and personal benefits and careers. The lack of a clean break with the past and the absence of future perspectives create a psychological confusion that express itself either as a complete lack of interest in the change process or as clear opposition to it. Mutual "demonisation" of the actors. For all actors, the system has become threatening and impossible to master. The energy of frustration is diverted to an excessive personalisation of collective problems. Opposed actors become mutual "scapegoats". For the Union, the executive management is the only source of problems and has all possible flaws. For the executive management the union is the major threat to the good functioning of the organisation. The actors are totally dominated by these negative emotions. "Lies", "incompetence", "hidden agenda"; are words that are becoming common in the organisation vocabulary. Incapacity to imagine the future. The individual and collective capacity to dissociate oneself from the present in order to imagine the future is "anaesthetised" by the crisis. Fatalism is omnipresent and one can easily observe a clear absence of real alternative thinking about the functioning of the organisation. How to come out of the crisis? Shared values have disappeared and constructive communication has become impossible. Reason and common sense have been replaced by negative emotions and systemic distrust. Attempts to communicate and to explain methodically turn into conflict. Every action (even the most positive) is interpreted through the filter of negativism and transformed into a potential threat. Subjectivity dominates and everything consolidates the negative perception. "The more you try, the worse it becomes". The problem seems therefore quite unsolvable and can only be addressed through radical and unusual ACTIONS supported by formal AND informal steps framed to transform the system. Step 1: Take the pressure off by acknowledging the crisis. First the intangible but enormous fear and pressure felt by almost everyone has to disappear. The only way to do it is to say "STOP", make a step backward and get a common acknowledgement of the crisis by all actors. Only the President can initiate this. In the present atmosphere, a declaration of intent will not be sufficient. The current global scepticism would transform it in "one more useless speech". It has to come with an important decision that would show an indisputable determination to REALLY tackle the crisis. For example, put the SRP on hold and revise it in the frame of step 2 would be a major sign. Step 2: Back to the essentials Once people agree about the crisis it will be necessary to go back to what could be called "the essentials". What are we? What is our purpose? Why do we exist? What does society expect from us? Through the crisis the very identity of the organisation has been lost and the essentials have to be reintroduced as a foundation for the reconstruction of a common culture which is the first step of the re-appropriation process. We need to be professional, proud and ambitious together. We need to reconcile quality of product and quality of process; how can we apply the EPC, maintain and even increase the quality while reducing the backlogs? How can we show and increase the importance of our role for the future of Europe? These questions should now be asked and answered by each and every one of us. Step 3: Redesign a vision for the future based on these essentials. When the two first steps are done, the presentation of an inspirational image of the future will be the way to move forward as a united Organisation. But this vision of the future (and this does not refer to "The vision" formal tool designed professionally as part of a process) has to be based on the rediscovered essentials defined by all actors of the Organisation. Obviously the President of the Office will have to become the "Champion" defending this vision, the Champion of our Quality and the first representative of the EPO's significance for the future of Europe. Conclusion These three necessary steps will not be easily implemented. It will require courage, imagination, a good understanding of the crisis, commitment, lots of perseverance and possibly the capacity to act against one's own current conviction for a higher purpose. But unless it is done, the Office, lost in its identity crisis, won't get a chance to move forward taking thereby the risk to leave its future in someone else's hands.

The Supreme Court is likely to sideline patent cases

The 29 September issue of Barrons has an article by their D.C. reporter, Jim McTague, on patent issues at the Supreme Court next year. He got his gossip from Seth Waxman (author of one of the more scientifically-poor anti-Bilski briefs) of Wilmer Hale. McTague writes: ... points out that the [Supreme Court] has an unusual docket because, for the first time, there are no patent cases scheduled [for the 2008-2009 term]. Not only are patent cases a regular feature of the court's calendar - they also represent the most significant body of law for U.S. business today. Is that really true - patent law is the "most significant body of law"? If so, that's ironic, because much of patent law governs the activities of one of the most significantly mismanaged government agencies - the PTO. Maybe there would be less of a need for patent caselaw if the PTO was run by professionals. McTague writes further: ... thinks the Supremes want to give the lower courts and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office time to digest prior decisions and actions now making their way through the lower courts, including attempts to patent business processes. The Supreme Court is passing on patent cases while the justices take some remedial college courses on basic science and engineering.

Examiner's hard drive crash costs him his job

Also in the September issue of the PTO Examiners' Union's newsletter: Examiner fired after computer crashes When managers in Technology Center 2700 offered next to no catastrophic time after the hard drive crashed and burned for a probationary examiner who was producing at 100 percent, the examiner's production unsurprisingly suffered and the USPTO fired him because he had "not progressed at the expected rate". Maybe the examiner could have progressed at the expected rate with a crashed hard drive if the examiner was working from a beach in Hawaii. Any patent reform that does not start with an overhaul of PTO management is corrupt patent reform.

Tax reform kills used car donations

The 10 September Wall Street Journal, page D3, reports that far fewer people are donating their automobiles to charities after the tax laws were changed so that donors could only deduct the sales price of the automobile after the charity sold the car, not the book value. In 2004, under the old rules, 901,000 taxpayers claimed the deduction for a total amount of $2.4 billion, while in 2005 under the new rules, 297,000 people claimed the deduction for a total amount of $470 million, a two billion dollar difference. This tax law change came about in part because large U.S. companies were donating patents to universities, and similarly claiming large values for the patent (see the relevant post), even if the recipient did nothing economically with the patent. Under the new tax law, companies donating patents can only deduct whatever the recipient earns from the patent, much like with the automobile deductions. And I suspect much like the automobile deductions, there has been significant drops in the number of companies claiming large deductions for their donated patents. In both cases, the taxpayers were being scammed.

Einstein's Mistakes Were The Human Failings of Genius

Norton has published a new book by Hans Ohanian titled "Einstein's Mistakes - The Human Failings of Genius". A Wall Street Journal book review had an interesting sentence: "Mr. Ohanian finds that four out of five of the seminal papers that Einstein produced in the so-called 'miracle-year' of 1905, when we was working as a patent inspector in Zurich, were 'infested with flaws'". Question: if important these important scientific works of Einstein were written sloppily, how about his Office Actions during this period? And if Einstein can't examine a patent application, can anyone? But as Ohanian points out, Einstein is a classic, if not general, example of learning from your mistakes. Something PTO management is utterly incapable of in any frame of reference.

New York Times' David Brooks on patent reform

In a Sept. 12 op-ed piece in the New York Times, conservative columnist David Brooks criticizes the financial market policy engineering of the Bush Administration. At one point he writes, and correctly so, "A Republican administration intervened gigantically in the market to handle the Bear Stearns, Freddie and Fannie debacles. But it has no conservative rationale to explain its action, no language about the importance of social equilibrium it might use to justify itself." A good way to describe this Administration's patent reform initiatives. And let's just say that if the PTO had a tradeable stock, it would be at the top of the new you-can't-short-losers stock list. And once again I urge the CAFC, in the Bilski case, to ignore any arguments from all of the bankrupt and bailout-recipient financial companies. Their operations are as incompetent as their Bilski arguments.

Elections looms closer and the USPTO is doomed

It doesn't matter who gets elected as president, the major problems at the Patent Office (IT management, labor relations management, quality control) will continue to get worse. The problem with McCain and Obama is that they don't have much experience or knowledge in technology, and neither do their VPs, and neither do many of their economic advisors (just as Carly wrecked HP). McCain most likely will continue the Bush legacy of tolerating incompetent management and using the PTO as a political tool, while Obama (distracted with other things) will allow Leahy to sell the PTO to the highest bidder (and Obama has too many Lemley/Moore-like academics advising him). In the end, neither candidate really cares about reinvigorating American's economy (with all their campaign trail bickering about silly and irrelevant issues - I mean, this country had to waste two days of its life watching grown(?) men argue about lipstick on a pig [which is animal abuse]). This campaign is basically about who is least unqualified - real encouraging, huh? To understand my skepticism, consider my comments on some comments Hal Wegner of Foley and Lardner recently made: "Professor Arti K. Rai, a leading patent spokesperson for her fellow Harvard classmate Barrack Obama, has argued for a need for change at the Federal Circuit, and particularly for the elevation of trial judges to the bench. She has also argued for the appointment of an Under Secretary knowledgeable about the patent system." Interesting, but why not appoint a patent practitioner to the CAFC? For example, one of the biggest crimes against patent applicants is the CAFC repeatedly ruling that patent specifications must be as long as possible, with endless patent claims to cover every possible infringement. "Don't specify it - can't claim it. Don't claim it - can't assert it." The crime? The CAFC creates this policy while the PTO is trying to create the policy of having patent specifications as short as possible, with as few claims as possible, so they can mismanagement their way out of their mismanaged pendency problem. The two policies together are insane, and cause great uncertainty in the minds of patent applicants as to how to invest their patenting dollars. "President McCain is Pledged to Spend Money on the PTO to Meet its Objectives: A surrogate for Senator McCain pooh poohed the criticism of the PTO leadership by noting that this criticism applied to previous administrations as well." Sure, previous PTO administrations were criticizable (Bruce Lehman being the second worst PTO Director in decades [such a ranking completely ignores the non-entity resume-stuffer Rogan].) But the last six years under legislative aide Dudas - the lies, the hostility, the failed policy initiatives - has severely damaged PTO operational capabilities. Such pooh poohing completely ignores two massive GAO studies documenting multiple automation and labor management problems at the PTO. Anyone who pooh poohs problems with PTO management has a pooh pooh head. Both candidates must pledge, at a minimum, NO MORE LEGISLATIVE AIDES AS PTO DIRECTOR. "Per his surrogates, Senator McCain is committed to spending as much money as needed for the PTO to achieve its goals." McCain's commitment is an insult to inventors and the public, because without a competent and professional management at the PTO, "spending as much money as possible" is a recipe for worsening conditions at the PTO. The PTO is suffering massive engineering management problems, which have to be addressed first before any other reform (most of which depend on the existence of a competent management). Wall Street, which can spend "as much money as possible" is collapsing as we speak. Why? Massive management problems in financial institutions. As have two large government corporations which can and have "spent as much money as possible" - Fannie and Freddie (though they spent too much of their money bribing politicians). Throw tons of money at incompetent PTO management - a sure guarantee of the similar collapse of the PTO. "Federal Circuit Defended: In marked contrast to Professor Rai's criticisms of the Federal Circuit, Edward Reines on behalf of Senator McCain staunchly defended the current composition of the Federal Circuit bench." Again, Edward Reines belongs to that part of the patent bar which holds the public in contempt in the sense that the concerns of the public (either inventors seeking patents, or the public who benefits from patents) are irrelevant. Reines believes in a sort of imperial CAFC, kowtowed to by lawyers, where the CAFC (and the Supreme Court) keep on issuing decisions that drive up the costs of patent prosecution, and that reinforces a stare decisis based on vagueness and contradiction of science and engineering. That's all fine to Reines - doesn't affect him or his clients. Given some of the nonsense science in CAFC oral questions and written decisions in cases like Nuijten, Microsoft/ATT, Bilski, Comiskey - yes, the CAFC needs some tuning of its competence in handling science and engineering issues (such as allowing a few scientists and engineers as clerks). "Chief Judge weighs in at Harvard with his own observations: As part of the previously referenced Harvard appearance last week, the Chief Judge remarked: 'When, I ask, did we ever before see patent policy discussed publicly by presidential campaign advisors?' ..." Well, Judge Michel, both candidates and their supporters keep on endlessly chattering the mantra of "We need new technologies to lead the economy forward", without realizing that a key component in that process is the identification and protection of the best new technologies with patents. One of the worst effects of the low quality of issued patents is that it makes it harder for the investing public to quickly identify new inventions worthy of financial investment. A completely mismanaged patent office thus weakens the nation's economy, and thus the nation's national security. Too bad the CAFC doesn't give that much of damn about incompetent PTO management. ... 'Next, we may see potential Federal Circuit nominees being touted or trashed in the media in advance of any vacancies.'" Well Judge Michel, given some of the problems your colleagues have in understanding the basics of science and engineering, I think you should be less contemptuous about scrutiny being applied to CAFC candidates. Indeed Judge Michel, how often do CAFC judges talk, not to lawyers, but to scientists and engineers? For that matter, how often do the CAFC judges talk to patent applicants and inventors, who are extremely affected by CAFC decisions? I doubt very often, which is irresponsible given the increasing role science and engineering is playing in CAFC decisions (such as anything to do with 35 USC 101 and 103). Any CAFC judge who does not believe that propagating signals are physical and useful needs to be trashed in the media. Shanna Winters; retired chemical executive -- Candidates to be Dudas' Successor: This writer is unaware of any candidates openly seeking the position of Under Secretary other than Shanna Winters. There has so far been no public discussion concerning her suitability for the position, and no comment released from Professor Rai or any other member of the Obama campaign. Hal wrote this paragraph to piss me off :-) Fine, Hal, here is some public discussion on Shanana Winters - she is another professionally unqualified legislative aide whose appointment as PTO Director or Deputy Director will be a violation of the law. For the two biggest problems at the PTO, well documented in lengthy GAO reports - that of examiner management and information systems management - Shanana Winters has no experience or competence whatsoever. Additionally, anyone remember hearing her speak anywhere in the last ten years outside of the Beltway, or read anything non-trivial about patent law written by her? NO NO NO. Is she urging the Congressmen she works for to investigate reports that PTO SPEs are ordering examiners to reject everything? NO NO NO. I can (and will) take the Peterlint complaint and pretty much just swap names to have a complaint in the ready (even better, this time around we don't have to argue about standing because the judge gave it to us under the APA in the Peterlint lawsuit). My colleagues in the lawsuit and I have committed to refiling a lawsuit against any legislative aide so appointed, and this time around I EXPECT more co-defendants and more financial support. My goal is to raise at least $50,000 to fight any such appointments. Inventors, examiners and the public deserve, nay are owed, competent PTO management. A former President of the intellectual property arm of a major Midwestern chemical company, recently retired, has been mentioned as a possible successor on the Republican side. Several other names on both sides have been privately circulated and are worthy of consideration. As long as they are not legislative aides. Myself, I prefer someone with a lot of experience in IT management as the next PTO director, but sadly, anyone with the competence makes ten times what the PTO salary is. The innovation America needs to regrow the country is not going to come out of mismanaged companies begging Congress for loans (the auto industry, much of the financial industry), or big companies who can buy policy (your Microsofts, energy companies, the Gramm family's Enrons and UBSes) to compensate for the lack of much real innovation, etc. It is going to come from the smaller, nimbler, innovative companies and start-ups, who right now are getting screwed big time by the worsening conditions at the Patent Office with longer pendencies and expensive idiotic Office Actions. Right now, neither candidate is saying anything that is good for such people. Too busy telling lies.

How God supports patent reform, or patents in general

From NBC's Michael Levine: As questions have been raised over how thoroughly Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign vetted Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin for the V.P. slot, it seems the McCain campaign was unaware of a video -- available online -- in which Palin talks about God's role in U.S. military action overseas, according to a political operative familiar with the situation. The video, first reported by the liberal blog HuffingtonPost.com, is from a June Palin speech to the graduating class of commission students at Palin's former church in Wasilla, Alaska. While describing her family, Palin told students about her oldest son, 19-year-old Track, who is set to be deployed to Iraq this month with the U.S. Army. She urged students to pray "that our leaders -- that our national leaders -- are sending [soldiers] out on a task that is from God." She added, "That's what we have to make sure that we are praying for: that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan." (note: legitimate question then - is there patent reform in God's plan? And after Georgie Bush's hearing from God to invade Iraq, I am scared of this talk.) "It's pretty uncomfortable stuff," said the political operative, after watching the video online. "It's bad. It's really bad. It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out." The seven-minute speech is posted on the Web site of Palin's former church, the Wasilla Assembly of God. But, the political operative said, the McCain campaign seems to have had no knowledge of it when Palin was announced as McCain's running mate on Friday. For fans of the Daily Show: The most recent Republican hypocrisies were best pointed out by Jon Stewart on The Daily Show last week, with clips of Karl Rove flip-flopping on whether someone who was once mayor of a city as small as Richmond and governor of a state the size of Virginia is qualified to be Vice President (on August 10, Rove said that a possible Democrat nominee, Tim Keane, was not qualified; last week Rove said Sarah Palin, former mayor of tiny Wasilla, Alaska and current governor of Alaska, was qualified); of Bill O.Reilly on whether a teenage girl's pregnancy is the fault of her parents (it is, when the parents are the parents of Britney Spears' sister Jamie Lynn, but it's not when the parents are Governor Sarah and 'First Dude' Todd Palin); of the prostitute-hiring Dick Morris on whether certain attacks on a female candidate are sexist (last year Morris said Hillary Clinton shouldn't complain about sexist attacks, because she needed to show she could play with 'the boys'; but last week Morris complained about sexist attacks on Sarah Palin); and a clip of Sarah Palin herself, from last March, saying that women candidates should not 'whine' about sexism

Obama may be worse for patent policy than MacCain

Unfortunately, Senator Obama is addressing the problem of patent reform, but in a negative way. Senator Obama, along with Senators Hatch and Leahy, were the primary sponsors of the Senate version of the Patent Reform Act that just went down to defeat in the Senate. So, if Obama is elected President, he will definitely sign this awful piece of legislation into law. Practitioners whom I know have contacted Senator McCain, and they tell me that he is willing to listen to reason. Exactly what that means, I do not know.