E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.

Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.

  • Law Blogs

Become a Fan

« EU Commission Unveils Latest Patent Reform Proposal | Main | Journal Examines Effects of Patent Reform on Medical Innovation »

July 13, 2010

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451ca1469e20133f24585fb970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Phoenix That Is S. 515:

Comments

I on the other hand do not appreciate Stan Delo for intruding into this very sensitive matter.

Also, are there no provisions relating to what Bilski was dealing with?

Pretty undemocratic, 6 - "consent of the governed" and "redress of grievances" ring any bells for you?

And no, there is nothing in S.515 that has anything to do with statutory subject matter. So using Bilski to support this patent reform bill is disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst.

I am not saying patent law is perfect or doesn't need reform - keeping the government's hands off the PTO's fees would help a great deal, whether for improving infrastructure, hiring more examiners, etc. But this bill does nothing to solve the problems that do exist, and will exacerbate them instead.

Thanks for the comment.

I was just kidding about the Stan comment lol.

"And no, there is nothing in S.515 that has anything to do with statutory subject matter. So using Bilski to support this patent reform bill is disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst."

Well maybe he's planning to put in an amendment when he gets things worked out. You should send an email to him about getting rid o business methods as a class. Or at least reverting 101's "process" back to "art".

If you want to we could drop by his office tomorrow.

At least Conyers has been making an effort to induce the legislature to enact meaningful patent reform. It's unfortunate that his efforts seem to be so hamstrung. Without an end to fee diversion, it's difficult to see how the woefully-underfunded USPTO will be able to get back on track.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/25/patent-reform-misses-the-mark/

The comments to this entry are closed.

September 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30