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.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

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

Contact the Docs


  • "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.
Juristat #8 Overall Rank


« Court Report | Main | USPTO Issues Beta Release of New Website »

June 14, 2009


The report definably makes some assumptions that cannot be factually substantiated. However, this does not mean they are per se wrong. Since it is merely a report it should best be taken as things to consider as fob's move forward.

For an innovator's perspective on patent reform issues, see http://aminn.org/

Dear Josh:

True, but the context suggests that it may be less benign. The FTC has taken upon itself the role of reform proponent (along its own lines, of course), and opined on patent reform in the past (2003) and FOB's (which is a form of regulatory reform) now. They also have been very active in trying to get the CAFC (and now the Supreme Court) to rule that "reverse payments" under the Hatch-Waxman regime should be per se illegal.

Ardent advocacy, or abuse of a government mandate? Depends on your point of view, and that's the point - the FTC definitely has a "point of view" on many policy issues outside its own government brief. Which is why a report such as this one, which is at odds with other more scholarly (peer-reviewed) work, is noteworthy and has provoked negative reactions from industry groups and Congress.

Thanks for the comment.

The comments to this entry are closed.

April 2024

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