Even scholarly journals are being 'infiltrated' by the litigation giants

Summary: Donald Trump has let the litigation industry 'govern' itself at the USPTO; all it has accomplished so far is even greater divergence between USPTO determinations and those of actual courts (which means that the USPTO does not follow the law, there's a state of lawlessness)

THE USPTO isn't coping with demand for patent quality. Instead it's trying to cope with demand for patents; the more, the merrier?

Emulation patents by Sony have been mentioned a lot on Sunday [1, 2, 3] and Apple patent propaganda sites which treat every patent from Apple like it's the digital "second coming" celebrated a patent application on user interface navigation just a few hours ago. It sounds like another bunch of software patents ascribed to a "device". What gives? When will we see a patent office that prioritises public interest rather than massive corporations like Sony and Apple? Who does this office really serve? It obviously doesn't help that its new Director comes from the litigation 'industry'.

"It obviously doesn't help that its new Director comes from the litigation 'industry'."We don't suppose patent lawyers like Techrights and we're fine with that. We don't try to collectively or personally insult them, we just make our observations based on the premise that patents were created (came into existence centuries ago) for the purpose of science, not just the purpose of litigation. Some patent lawyers are honest people -- sometimes honest enough to the point of abandoning the occupation. Some people go the other way. Our general advice to patent lawyers, especially in the current climate, is get a real job, people, create something rather than "facilitate litigation" with threatening letters and legal attacks that are costly to both sides (those who actually create things). World Intellectual Property Review published the following some days ago:

Baltzer’s practice focuses on patent litigation in the fields of biotechnology, electronics, and data processing systems.

Many data processing systems are purely software-defined now, hence the underlying patents would be software patents. How about this from World Intellectual Property Review (same day more or less)? It's about a man who used to write software but nowadays attacks (or contrariwise defends) coders with/from patent litigation through his new employer. Who needs this nonsense? "He has more than two decades of experience in patent law," it says, "having spent 16 years at Seed IP and five years at Perkins Coie. Before practising law, he worked as a software engineer for six years."

So he moved from actually creating software to litigating over software. What a failure.

"So he moved from actually creating software to litigating over software. What a failure."Unfortunately, many people out there think that this is acceptable. They're being brainwashed. Here we have "Recent U.S. Court Decisions and Developments Affecting Licensing" by John Paul and D. Brian Kacedon. Patent maximalists from Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP are writing 'scholarly' papers by which to push their agenda, which is financial (lawsuits). So even journals, not just the media, get taken over by the litigation 'industry'. Over at Washington Law Review, which one might expect to target lawyers, another evidence of such a thing emerges. “Legislators and industry leaders claim that patent strength in the United States has declined,” they claim, but this is nonsense! Those ‘industry’ ‘leaders’ are law firms that want more lawsuits!

Guess who wrote this paper; it's law firms pushing 'scholarly' papers loaded with lies. It's Steven Udick (Skiermont Derby LLP) helped by Gregory Day (University of Georgia - C. Herman and Mary Virginia Terry College of Business). They suggest "Offshoring Patent Law" in their title! As in sending it to Iancu or law firms' interests? Letting the executive become legislator too? From the abstract:

Legislators and industry leaders claim that patent strength in the United States has declined, causing firms to innovate in foreign countries. However, scholarship has largely dismissed the theory that foreign patents have any effect on where firms invent, considering that patent law is bound by strict territorial limitations (as a result, one cannot strengthen their patent protection by innovating abroad). In essence, then, industry leaders are deeply divided from scholarship about whether innovative firms seek out jurisdictions offering stronger patent rights, affecting the rate of innovation.

This is just think tank-type propaganda disguised as academic paper. Check the authors' affiliation. Things have gotten so bad that these law firms not only dominate public/private forums but also the media (Web, TV etc.) and literature. Patent Docs has just advertised another 'think tank' of the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO), a front group that lobbies the above people for software patents. Patent Docs also mentioned this from the USPTO:

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office will be offering the next webinar in its Patent Quality Chat webinar series from 12:00 to 1:00 pm (ET) on October 9, 2018.

A "Patent Quality Chat" (all capitalised) does not ensure quality; it's like Battistelli's "Working Party on Quality," which is a "Ministry of Truth"-type of façade.

Patent quality is something that the USPTO under its new Director does not care about; he actively tries to lower quality, seeing that the number of granted patents declined this year (not just the number of patent lawsuits). Guess by which yardstick lawyers measure their "performance", unlike judges? ⬆