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


« The More the Merrier: The Journal Joins the Times in Complaining about Patents | Main | USPTO News Briefs »

April 21, 2011


Thank you! Congress needs to understand the perspective of the small business owners and inventors. These changes add to their costs and risks. Not what we need in this economy. Of course, we also don't need $100 million being siphoned off from USPTO fees as a tax on invention. I'd take reform proposals more seriously if the reformers weren't raiding the treasury at the same time.


As a resident of Ohio, I am curious as to your specific inclusion of Governor Kasich. Did you have a particular reason for singling out Ohio?

I did call and talk to the governor's staff. I explained the position you laid out and supplied the web page address.

However, I remain skeptical as I had also called and talked with both Senators and my representative. Both Senators voted opposite of what I indicated. And while I did not let my skepticism stop me from action, I see larger forces (with much greater lobbying power) at work.

The next time patent reform comes before Congress, our legislators should do more to solicit the input of independent innovators and other SMEs.

I don't think you address the 102(b) exceptions (under the bill)--specifically, 102(b)(1)(B) and 102(b)(2)(B). These could potentially help out small inventors, but they are quite vague and strange. What does "disclosure" mean--is that only referring to enabling disclosures, such as printed publications?

Really, these make the system "First to Publish or File."

From one bad patent system to another ... it really won't make much of a difference if it is passed other than some extra work for attorneys. Coming from a software background where patents are granted to everything from file compression techniques (good patent) to double clicking on a computer mouse and pressing a button in an application (two horrible patents which were granted) I have yet to see anybody really understand the true need that we as inventors have. I also have yet to see anybody realize that a "one size fits all" system is doomed to fail as it is now. I wish people on sites like this would just admit they fear for their revenue stream and quit trying to sound noble; it's sickening.

The comments to this entry are closed.

June 2024

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
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