03.31.17
In Spite of Confirmation, Uncertainty and Doubt Still Being Cast on Michelle Lee’s USPTO Leadership (by Her Opponents)
There she is, still there today (1PM GMT)
Summary: Attempts to shape or change the composition of public servants, courtesy of the self-serving patent microcosm, in light of a new presidency that’s perceived as an opportunity to Make Litigation Great Again (at the expense of scientific progress)
THE attempts to ‘scandalise’ (political tactic) or outright oust Michelle K. Lee have apparently not ended. The patent microcosm has floated many theories about it and tried to cast doubt on Lee’s leadership for several months, even while she publicly appears in Battistelli photo ops (EPO propaganda from yesterday).
Yesterday, Dennis Crouch (who had already received a letter of confirmation about Lee’s position) chose to write about who’s running the USPTO. At the EPO it’s just Battistelli, Battistelli’s lapdog Kongstad and Battistelli’s cronies, but in the US there is actually diversity of views/interests. Here is what Crouch wrote:
Michelle Lee remains at the top as Director of the USPTO and Undersecretary of Commerce. As one of the few political-appointee holdovers from the Obama administration, Lee’s position remains somewhat tenuous, but I expect that it will be solid for at least several months. One noticeable gap is that the Commerce Dep’t website still fails to indicate Dir. Lee’s position.
He links to the page of “Leadership”, where she does not even exist, but see the screenshot above. What compels Crouch to think that she will be ousted in “several months”? Gut feeling alone? Maybe that lobbying tactic of trying to motivate particular actions/outcomes using particular baseless predictions (Team UPC does this a lot)? Either way, why is this even still a subject? Those who attempt to ‘scandalise’ her role are always part of the patent microcosm, including Crouch himself. IAM actually tried to promote a corrupt person to replace her and right now it writes about “IP lobbyist and founder of the Farrington Group” (a lobbyist like IAM itself and other people whom IAM hopes will shake up the patent system under Trump. To quote a portion:
But, if confirmed, Delrahim would arguably have the most IP experience of anyone who has ever led the DOJ’s antitrust unit. Over a career that has seen him make the typical switch between public service and private practice, Belrahim has worked on IP issues at the domestic and international trade levels, building a track record that earns him broad bipartisan respect. During the George W. Bush administration, he was a member of the Antitrust Modernization Commission which made a number of recommendations around the overlap of patents and antitrust; while before joining the Trump transition team, Delrahim worked as a lobbyist in private practice at Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck where his clients included Qualcomm. Early in his career, he also worked at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) where he was detailed to work as the deputy director for IP rights at the Office of the US Trade Representative.
They are trying to influence promote ‘their’ people, i.e. patent maximalists. Never forget the agenda (and funding sources) of sites like IAM. They don’t want what’s good for science and technology but what’s good for patent profiteers.
Lee is a technologist, unlike Battistelli, and the only alleged ‘scandal’ is that she wants to curtail patent trolls and other abusers. █
Content is available under CC-BY-SA