THE USPTO has improved its reputation among technology firms; it's only upsetting radical elements of the patent microcosm. So to blame the USPTO for loss of US leadership would be worse than misguided. It's merely an attempt to shame the Office into changing (in favour of the patent microcosm).
"With government shutdowns and maladministration under Trump it's not exactly surprising that there are bureaucratic difficulties."There are quite a lot of associated tweets, saying that the "USPTO operating status is CLOSED."
HIGH WINDS? Something else?
Either way, there are accusations now that communications by the USPTO are poor, leaving stakeholders uncertain about its status.
What's more ludicrous, however, is this rant from 2 days ago. Watchtroll's Paul Morinville now repeats their infamous lie that patent reform is the cause of "America’s Decline in Global Competitiveness" (in his words). Sometimes they blame the Chinese; they're just jealous of the litigation climate in China (more on that in a separate post).
"The patent microcosm is deluded beyond belief and it is attempting to spreading this delusion far and wide.""The U.S. Patent System" is not why the US is declining (in patents it's improving, namely by improving patent quality). Techrights already wrote many articles debunking this famous new lie (that improving US patent quality -- not loss of factories, erosion of education etc. -- is to blame for all US troubles). The Watchtroll crowd also does lots of shaming of technology firms. What keeps the US at the forefront in many areas are strong universities and large producing firms, not a bunch of patent trolls and a judge called Rodney Gilstrap*. The patent microcosm is deluded beyond belief and it is attempting to spreading this delusion far and wide. Earlier today Watchtroll was trying to blame US economic woes on patent reform yet again. ⬆
______
* Patent parasites are still trying to drag their victims to courts that are notoriously defendants-hostile. But once again that fails spectacularly:
The court granted one defendant's motion to transfer for improper venue because defendant lacked a regular and established place of business in the district through its former office that closed shortly before plaintiff filed suit.