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.

Become a Fan

« Court Report | Main | Biotech/Pharma Docket »

June 19, 2011

Comments

David,

Congress is like an addict when it comes to fee diversion. Having acquired the habit in 1992, they simply can't kick it, no matter how much they promise they'll end fee diversion. As you correctly state, the only "good" provision in the oxymoronic America Invents Act is Section 22, and with its removal, this piece of legislation is a complete and utter sham. BTW, I've already, in writing and verbally, "screamed" at my local Congressman (who happens to be the Speaker) to OPPOSE this nonsense precisely because of the proposal to remove Section 22.

Excellent article David, and I certainly hope many will take heed and take action to block this treacherous 1249 bill. I would like to add that e-mails to Congress will be useless in this case because it is way too late for them, you need to Call your Congressperson. Thanks to Kevin and Donald for posting this article.

Stan-

Meh, idk, at least it is progress towards not having it. Not every problem can be solved all in one go.

And, maybe the fund won't remain at 0$, and if so, then the office can use it the bill says.

Btw, the creation of a rainy day fund rather than ending fee diversion entirely isn't some huge to do.

"All that's required for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing. But all that's required to stop this bill is about 3000 phone calls from constituents."

Evil? Really? Let's not exaggerate -- you'll have more credibility.

And where did you come up with the magic number of 3000 constituent phone calls?

Think it's not good vs. evil? What about the bill's removal of language that guards against deceptive intention? See Page 123, lines 9-11, 18-19, page 124, lines 3-5, 11-12, page 125, lines 2-3, 13-14, page 126, lines 21-22. A bill that promotes deceptive intention is evil.

The comments to this entry are closed.

December 2016

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 31