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.


  • "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.

Become a Fan

« Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A. (2011) | Main | Congressional News Briefs »

June 01, 2011


Sounds to me like a bunch of incompetent bozos allowing another group of incompetent bozo PR people influence over what needs to be done.

This kind of nonsense is why we can't have nice things.

Oh and lest we forget the commerce sec. all up ins the middle of it making a political move.

I'm all for increased efficiency and cross-border collaboration and cooperation. One difficulty, however, is that some of the attempts at harmonization in the U.S. create provisions that potentially conflict with long-standing US law and/or tradition. The House version of the current patent reform bill presents just one example of this. Retention of national sovereignty is a big issue in harmonization, and it still hasn't been adequately addressed, in my opinion.

The comments to this entry are closed.

November 2015

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