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

« Court Report - Part II | Main | United States Argues That Consumer Watchdog Lacks Standing to Appeal Board Decision on WARF Patent »

February 04, 2014

Comments

The mandated access is merely to publication, right?

This is not the same as access to any use, or prevention from use, that may be related to the patent right, yes?

In other words, the virtual effect of this legislation is more along the lines of filing an application before publishing - which given the razor thin protection afforded under the new 102, is what is prudent anyway.

I am not seeing a real issue here.

Except as another trap for the unwary. After all, the new provisions of Section 102 were debated, championed, hurrahed and otherwise heralded so widely that no one could be unaware of them or their implications.

As opposed to one section comprising 130 words in a 639-page Appropriations Bill.

How much debate do you think there was about this provision? It suggests that the bill drafters put in one of their pet goals and desires hoping/knowing that no one would pay enough attention to make a difference.

Not representative democracy at its finest. Need to be careful when this starts to happen.

I agree Dr. Noonan that many bills passed into law are simply not vetted appropriately.

I would daresay that even those that do receive debate, champions, hurrahs, and otherwise heralding STILL are not vetted appropriately.

I am, well, skeptical, as to how much 'representative democracy' is underway at the specific bill to law process - as opposed to the 'representative democracy' of mere voting someone into office. These are two distinct notions in my mind and are worlds apart in practice.

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