THE ATTACKS on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) -- an issue we covered a little earlier -- is unmatched by PTAB-bashing blogs like Watchtroll and Patently-O, which now reference one another in an effort to discredit PTAB. What compels Dennis Crouch to be associated with such radical sites? We can't tell for sure (we can guess), but IBM did the same thing. Even Michelle Lee was foolish enough to meet Watchtroll before the site endlessly attacked her until she resigned.
"Even Michelle Lee was foolish enough to meet Watchtroll before the site endlessly attacked her until she resigned."Watchtroll is still wrong, as usual; a few days ago it repeated the myth of "Ownership Rights" (also peddled by Patently-O). It's false because patents are monopolies; they are neither rights nor ownership.
The day beforehand Watchtroll continued with its nasty attacks. If one opposes software patents and/or patent trolls, then Watchtroll will try to scandalise and come up with conspiracy theories (see what it did to Michelle Lee). It's disgusting. It's despicable. And this is what IBM and Patently-O now associate themselves with. It's like the 'Brietbart' of the patent world.
"And this is what IBM and Patently-O now associate themselves with. It's like the 'Brietbart' of the patent world."After harassment and bullying of Michelle Lee (by the patent microcosm) they finally look certain to have installed the patent microcosm (Andrei Iancu) at the USPTO. In some among other articles of ours we explained that he is certainly in favour of software patents. He's on the record on that. Patently-O certainly seems to be pleased. Days ago it wrote:
Andrei Iancu’s nomination to be the next Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office has now been delivered to the Senate. The nomination will be considered by the Judiciary Committee with likely confirmation this fall.
"Even Crouch is willing to admit that there is something dodgy about patents granted by the Office."For patent maximalists like Crouch, who keep attacking PTAB all the time, Iancu will likely be like a 'mole' inside the Office.
Even Crouch is willing to admit that there is something dodgy about patents granted by the Office. Days ago he revisited the subject of references 'spew'. What is that? It's the strategy of overwhelming patent examiners with references, as we noted to other day (to just make rejection harder to justify). At school we used to call that "smearing" -- or trying to hide the low quality of something using quantity that's beyond scope of assessment (in a project, quiz et cetera). Here is what Crouch said:
Matching my parallel work, the authors write: “By 2014, patents that cite an “extreme” or “impossible” number of citations are responsible for more than 46% of all patent citations, even though they comprise less than 5% of all patents issued in that year.” In my data – looking at patents issued Jan-Aug 2017 – I found that the skew has increased so that the “impossible” patents now cite half of all applicant-submitted patent citations. [Note Here that Kuhn looks at citation of US patent documents only, while my approach considered all citations, but limited them to those designated as applicant cited.]
"The bottom line is, there are worrying signs that the Office (USPTO) under Trump will be a return to the dark ages. Patent quality may no longer matter."Maybe the patent lawyers just tweaked their templates a little to contain more reference 'spew' and less actual substance. Such is the case nowadays at the USPTO. They just give the impression of novelty by overwhelming with jargon and intentionally avoiding certain words to dodge Section 101 disqualification. They advertise this!
The bottom line is, there are worrying signs that the Office (USPTO) under Trump will be a return to the dark ages. Patent quality may no longer matter. All the progress made by Lee imminently undone? ⬆