Castles and fortresses of lawyers won't turn in their own
THE other day we wrote about a bar complaint against Kappos, filed by a GNU/Linux user who was appalled by the Office requiring Microsoft formats, operating systems and so on. What made this more severe is the close ties -- ongoing ties -- between IBM and Kappos, who was at one point the head of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) along with someone from Microsoft. Nowadays Kappos is a lobbyist of both IBM and Microsoft, lobbying in favour of software patents for the most part (even exploiting the pandemic to push that nefarious agenda, as if patents on software will miraculously make a virus go away).
"Nowadays Kappos is a lobbyist of both IBM and Microsoft, lobbying in favour of software patents for the most part (even exploiting the pandemic to push that nefarious agenda, as if patents on software will miraculously make a virus go away)."Earlier this week we received an update about this bar complaint against Kappos. The interesting part seems to be the persistent insistence that proprietary systems should be used. As our reader explained: "I'm trying to file electronically with the DC Bar, and the complaint form has 5 sections, and it won't allow me to advance past the 3rd section: Complaint Information. Most likely, the website doesn't work, because they don't want to receive any complaints. Or, maybe it knows I'm using Linux. So, I can print out a form and file through the post."
"New York actually has a rule [PDF] about "prolong[ing] the proceeding or...caus[ing] needless expense." Which is exactly what Kappos did. RULE 3.2. Delay of Litigation - In representing a client [he was representing IBM while at the USPTO, and Microsoft, too], a lawyer shall not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to delay or prolong the proceeding or to cause needless expense."
"New York has an on-line form you can complete and scan and then submit by e-mail, but they also require a paper submission." [PDF]
"Last week, as we've mentioned here before, a complaint was successfully filed in California (after the rules had been studied).""Given that the US system is so decrepit, and still relies on paper and post, it might be interesting to see how the lawyers deal with Kappos, and his "anti-paper, anti-post" dictatorship at the USPTO. Of course, lawyers protect themselves, so I don't really expect them to do anything."
Last week, as we've mentioned here before, a complaint was successfully filed in California (after the rules had been studied). But they managed to find a convenient formality by which to toss it out. Ignoring all substance.
"It didn't take California long to come up with a reason to protect Kappos," our reader said. "They used the statute of limitation excuse, saying they can't investigate things that are more than five years old. They were so fast because they would only have to read the first page of my complaint to see that Kappos's confirmation hearing was in 2009, and they probably stopped reading there."
"We'll try to document all those endeavours.""Maybe I'll try to argue with them. When I file complaints with New York and Washington, DC, I'll make some changes to try to eliminate the statute of limitation issue. Won't work, but why stop now."
These complaints help make a point and, shall they not be successful among the "protectors", in the public arena they can help sway opinion. We'll try to document all those endeavours.
Of course here in Europe we have an issue with EPO immunity; the US doesn't work the same way and Directors -- both past and present -- get sued all the time, including Michelle Lee quite recently. ⬆