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 | Supreme Court to Hear Oral Arguments in Attorney Fee Shifting Cases »

February 24, 2014



What I read here and what Hal says is, unfortunately, all too typical of how this current Administration now operates. As Hal has also noted, these proposed "attributable ownership" rules are causing huge static with many of our TRIPs partners who view these proposed rules as a violation of agreements made with them and are now threatening "retaliatory" action if these proposed rules go into effect. And my opinion on the illegality, as well as unconstitutionality of how these proposed rules are being done through executive fiat remains unchanged.

This morning's email from Hal Wegner indicates that some (but not all?) comments have now been posted on the government site.

However, missing from this article is a note from Mr. Wegner late last week touching on how certain key players have had undue influence in the process, not only including closed door and private meetings with a seemingly un-ascertained power group of decision makers (Lee is seemingly a limited figurehead), but that the beta sites reveal meta-tag code specifically geared to powerful entities.

Someone needs to inform the administration that "transparent" does not mean only revealing what they want to reveal.

All the political shenanigans ongoing with the administration make me highly....

Hal is against White House and Michelle Lee. HE should be prosecuted.

Excuse me 'prosecutor,' but being against the White House is simply NOT a cause for being prosecuted, especially, as apparent here, the White House is in the wrong.

As to Mr. Wegner being against Michelle Lee, you are grossly mistaken as Mr. Wegner has praised Lee as a viable candidate for the (still vacant) top job. What he has been against is how the White House has done (and continues to do) in regards to the appointments clause and Senate confirmation of actual leadership of the Patent Office.

I put your moniker in quotes as I suspect that you are merely yet another sockpuppet of the entity known as Malcolm Mooney - given how incorrect you are on the subject of Hal Wegner and Hal's views on the lack of Patent Office leadership.

I may be wrong as to your underlying identity, but of my being wrong on that point, I am...

I am also disturbed by the closed-door, private meetings apparently disclosed by Mr. Wegner. One of the more disturbing aspects to me is that the Business Forward organization seems to be some kind of lobbying group that helps businesses get invited to this sort of thing. I do not think this should be happening. Several years ago IIRC President Obama visited our area and some of his staffers invited some local business people to a meeting to voice any concerns they had generally. I was not at the meeting and am not sure exactly what was discussed or if anything concrete resulted from it (in contrast to what Business Forward apparently indicates). This meeting was also by invitation only, but at least it was nominally free and our (very) small company was included, so at least it was a step in the right direction--the right direction being, IMO, soliciting comments freely. And hopefully listening to them.

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