Maria Pallante: out of Copyright Office
Great article by Dennis Crouch over at Patently-O. (But then aren't they all great over there.)
Apparently Pallante is out as Chief of the Copyright office. And the clamor is up as to why we don't have a unified IP at the patent and trademark office, kind of a US PTOC. (I guess that would be pronounced Pea-Talk, or PeeTalk, if you wanted to talk dirty.)
Back in 2012, Crouch recommended creating an integrated US Intellectual Property Organization, or USIPO (you sip oh) akin to WIPO for the world of IP.
The argument for an integrated IP approach "... is that many operating businesses relying upon intellectual property (IP) rights typically do not focus on a single form of IP rights but instead take a layered approach that includes some combination of patent, trademark, copyright, contractual, employment, trade secret, and design rights, for instance."
With all the changes happening, or potentially happening, in the IP world this integration seems like a great idea when the time has come.
Let's go with USIPO, not PTOC, on this one.
'via Blog this'
Showing posts with label USPTO. Show all posts
Showing posts with label USPTO. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 25, 2016
Friday, September 2, 2016
PTO 101 worst management Practices. Workers bilked the government of millions by playing hooky, watchdog finds - The Washington Post
Patent office workers bilked the government of millions by playing hooky, watchdog finds - The Washington Post:
The USPTO wins, hands down. They have implemented 101 of the all time worst management practices, all at one time.
It may be worthy of a method patent application since no one has ever considered implementing all know mis-management practices at once in one organization.
In reading the Washington Post article by Lisa Rein, you move from groan and wonderment, to GROAN and bewilderment, to actual PAIN and anger.
All processes are broken as designed. It is reasonably hard to manage with a Union. There is no good rationale for unionization within government, really. Combine that with a cozy relationship where there is no accountability and no direct responsibility.
To accommodate the new technology and new ways possible of working (telework, computer record searches, cloud computing, etc.) they regressed to pre-computer processes, measures and methods.
People who work at home, don't have to log in to work. People who come to work have to time-clock in, but never clock out. People who don't work much during the week, log in huge amounts of overtime and receive big bonuses.
When you read a report like this, you assume that you are likely reading the worst of the worst. This seems to be so prevasive, however, that it is embedded in the culture and the protocols, i.e., standard operating procedure (SOP, or in this case SOL). It appears that this is only a sample, so the problem is likely approximately a multiple of the problem. That is, the report is not a measure of the problem, but can be used to generate a huge estimate of how BIG the problem really is.
WHATTTT!
This is painful to read at so many levels. This is a case study of government failure, management structure decay, and leadership incompetence. It is all the best of bad leadership practices integrated into one office.
We at SBP love innovation and want to see the USPTO do the best job possible for the world of innovation. We at SBP love telework, and believe telecommuting is one of the easiest, fastest, and bestest ways to start improving our carbon footprint (while savings massive amounts of time and money doing so).
The only bright spot in the whole report is that poor performers are monitored (read managed) and consequently only 4% of the identifiable problems of fraud come from the poor performers. Good news, poor performers don't do a very good job, but they also don't do a spectacular job of cheating taxpayer, either.
Managers are obviously a huge part of the problem in so many ways and at so many levels. This whole environment is not salvageable; congress needs to kill off everything USPTO related, and rebuild the organization with proper structure and incentives.
Oh this is ugly...
Painfully, UGLY!
'via Blog this'
The USPTO wins, hands down. They have implemented 101 of the all time worst management practices, all at one time.
It may be worthy of a method patent application since no one has ever considered implementing all know mis-management practices at once in one organization.
In reading the Washington Post article by Lisa Rein, you move from groan and wonderment, to GROAN and bewilderment, to actual PAIN and anger.
All processes are broken as designed. It is reasonably hard to manage with a Union. There is no good rationale for unionization within government, really. Combine that with a cozy relationship where there is no accountability and no direct responsibility.
To accommodate the new technology and new ways possible of working (telework, computer record searches, cloud computing, etc.) they regressed to pre-computer processes, measures and methods.
People who work at home, don't have to log in to work. People who come to work have to time-clock in, but never clock out. People who don't work much during the week, log in huge amounts of overtime and receive big bonuses.
When you read a report like this, you assume that you are likely reading the worst of the worst. This seems to be so prevasive, however, that it is embedded in the culture and the protocols, i.e., standard operating procedure (SOP, or in this case SOL). It appears that this is only a sample, so the problem is likely approximately a multiple of the problem. That is, the report is not a measure of the problem, but can be used to generate a huge estimate of how BIG the problem really is.
WHATTTT!
This is painful to read at so many levels. This is a case study of government failure, management structure decay, and leadership incompetence. It is all the best of bad leadership practices integrated into one office.
We at SBP love innovation and want to see the USPTO do the best job possible for the world of innovation. We at SBP love telework, and believe telecommuting is one of the easiest, fastest, and bestest ways to start improving our carbon footprint (while savings massive amounts of time and money doing so).
The only bright spot in the whole report is that poor performers are monitored (read managed) and consequently only 4% of the identifiable problems of fraud come from the poor performers. Good news, poor performers don't do a very good job, but they also don't do a spectacular job of cheating taxpayer, either.
Managers are obviously a huge part of the problem in so many ways and at so many levels. This whole environment is not salvageable; congress needs to kill off everything USPTO related, and rebuild the organization with proper structure and incentives.
Oh this is ugly...
Painfully, UGLY!
'via Blog this'
Thursday, July 23, 2015
Google has gotten more fast-track patents than any other company.
Google has gotten more fast-track patents than any other company - The Washington Post:
Google has gotten 875 fast track patents (about $3.5 million dollars extra in patenting fees $4k extra per app), that is 14% of all such rapid track patent processing in the USA. Prioritized examination.
The plan from Google's perspective is to get the patents as quickly as possible. (You don't really own a patent until issued; you can't really enforce/assert it until you own it.)
This is as of 2013, so it would be interesting to find more recent stats.
'via Blog this'
Google has gotten 875 fast track patents (about $3.5 million dollars extra in patenting fees $4k extra per app), that is 14% of all such rapid track patent processing in the USA. Prioritized examination.
The plan from Google's perspective is to get the patents as quickly as possible. (You don't really own a patent until issued; you can't really enforce/assert it until you own it.)
This is as of 2013, so it would be interesting to find more recent stats.
'via Blog this'
Sunday, July 5, 2015
No PTA For Divisional Application... Term Adjustments.. 20 years +/-
No PTA For Divisional Application | PharmaPatents:
When does a 20 year patent turn out to be more than a 20 year patent... Patent Term Adjustments.
Okay, so under certain situations, an extension can be requested to the 20 years that the US has for patent applications after 1995. The idea is that for such applications as pharma the long lead time in all approvals through the PTO and the FDA and more... can significantly reduce the useful life of the patent. So Patent Term Adjustments, PTA, (not to be confused with when your parents got together with teachers and the principal), are sometimes allowed. This is the reason that your friendly Patent Attorney will usually say "a patent is the arrangement with the government to offer a monopoly on your invention for about 20 years when you disclose the invention in the formal patent process".
Okay, so PTAs are sometimes allowed, but the extensions can be very qwerty. In this case, you would think that the term adjustments to the main, parent, application would be afforded to the patent applications associated with dividing that original application. Not so, it would seem.
Very interesting, and a very well written article on the whole issue (POSTED BY COURTENAY C. BRINCKERHOFF)
'via Blog this'
When does a 20 year patent turn out to be more than a 20 year patent... Patent Term Adjustments.
Okay, so under certain situations, an extension can be requested to the 20 years that the US has for patent applications after 1995. The idea is that for such applications as pharma the long lead time in all approvals through the PTO and the FDA and more... can significantly reduce the useful life of the patent. So Patent Term Adjustments, PTA, (not to be confused with when your parents got together with teachers and the principal), are sometimes allowed. This is the reason that your friendly Patent Attorney will usually say "a patent is the arrangement with the government to offer a monopoly on your invention for about 20 years when you disclose the invention in the formal patent process".
Okay, so PTAs are sometimes allowed, but the extensions can be very qwerty. In this case, you would think that the term adjustments to the main, parent, application would be afforded to the patent applications associated with dividing that original application. Not so, it would seem.
Very interesting, and a very well written article on the whole issue (POSTED BY COURTENAY C. BRINCKERHOFF)
'via Blog this'
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
Intellectual Property is going to POT (Marijuana, that is) - Bloomberg
Marijuana, Motorola, Moroccanoil: Intellectual Property - Bloomberg:
You have to laugh about the ideas being plant patents on Marijuana. But this is serious business.
First, if you come up with a new strain of a plant, you can apply for a "Plant Patent". If the patent is issued, you can use DNA testing to determine if/when someone else is infringing on your patent. Monsanto is the king (or Redwood) of plant patents.
HOWEVER, it is not possible to patent something that is illegal. The USPTO will say "offensive to public morality" (USPTO.)
So now, you as a happy pot grower have the dilemma. You would like to get ahead of the competition. You would like to get your strain of Mary Jane out there, protected by patent, but you can't because it is an illegal product. Of course, you could move to a state where it is legal. Then presumably you would be able to legally grow it, legally sell it, and legally patent it. You would, of course, want to trademark the name, and copyright the slogan and the official description.
No wait, come out of the smoke-filled fog and clear your slow and soggy head!... Marijuana is still illegal Federally, as in the good olde US of A. That's were the USPTO lives and all patents are federal. Hmmm...
All in all, the intellectual property could be quite valuable. And Monsanto and Altria will probably leave you alone for years; the market's too small and the legal risks are too big.
Now you are wondering, prior to the allowance of IP into the pot market, how did you protect your strain. Once the buds left the dealer's hands there was no way to corner the market. Any common criminal who didn't want to smoke it today, could sow the seeds of happiness, indefinitely into the uncertain future.
I can't wait to see the patent applications over the next few years as marijuana continues it rapid path down the rabbit hole of decriminalization. An Alice in Wonderland adventure awaits.
KEY: Patents, plant patents, USPTO, Illegal, Crime, Monsanto
'via Blog this'
You have to laugh about the ideas being plant patents on Marijuana. But this is serious business.
First, if you come up with a new strain of a plant, you can apply for a "Plant Patent". If the patent is issued, you can use DNA testing to determine if/when someone else is infringing on your patent. Monsanto is the king (or Redwood) of plant patents.
HOWEVER, it is not possible to patent something that is illegal. The USPTO will say "offensive to public morality" (USPTO.)
So now, you as a happy pot grower have the dilemma. You would like to get ahead of the competition. You would like to get your strain of Mary Jane out there, protected by patent, but you can't because it is an illegal product. Of course, you could move to a state where it is legal. Then presumably you would be able to legally grow it, legally sell it, and legally patent it. You would, of course, want to trademark the name, and copyright the slogan and the official description.
No wait, come out of the smoke-filled fog and clear your slow and soggy head!... Marijuana is still illegal Federally, as in the good olde US of A. That's were the USPTO lives and all patents are federal. Hmmm...
All in all, the intellectual property could be quite valuable. And Monsanto and Altria will probably leave you alone for years; the market's too small and the legal risks are too big.
Now you are wondering, prior to the allowance of IP into the pot market, how did you protect your strain. Once the buds left the dealer's hands there was no way to corner the market. Any common criminal who didn't want to smoke it today, could sow the seeds of happiness, indefinitely into the uncertain future.
I can't wait to see the patent applications over the next few years as marijuana continues it rapid path down the rabbit hole of decriminalization. An Alice in Wonderland adventure awaits.
KEY: Patents, plant patents, USPTO, Illegal, Crime, Monsanto
'via Blog this'
Wednesday, May 28, 2014
The belief that our patent system is broken is patently false | freep.com ... Broken as designed?
The belief that our patent system is broken is patently false (guest column) | Detroit Free Press | freep.com:
This is a very interesting article by David Kappos (IP attorney and director of the USPTO). Intellectual Property, especially patents, is a critical foundation of the US economy and of our entrepreneurial proficiency.
But we shouldn't take it for granted.
That's why some of the IP, Hi-Tech companies have joined together into an American alliance of innovation: Partnership for American Innovation http://partnershipforamericaninnovation.org/.
Companies need to take advantage of IP and use it aggressively both domestically and abroad. Especially if we are in the US where we do have strong rule of (IP) law. We must avoid allowing countries with lax IP laws to overrun us on our own strengths, our strengths to innovate.
We need to aim for Perpetual Innovation(tm). Hall & Hinkelman talk about Perpetual Innovation(tm) in their 2013 book on Patent Commercialization argue that many companies are broken-as-designed. They are not designed around managing their intellectual assets; they still operate as if most of their assets and most of their value comes from physical assets.
The US Patent system may not be broken, but many companies are. And IP is a critical part of all innovation and the pipeline of new products.
'via Blog this'
This is a very interesting article by David Kappos (IP attorney and director of the USPTO). Intellectual Property, especially patents, is a critical foundation of the US economy and of our entrepreneurial proficiency.
But we shouldn't take it for granted.
That's why some of the IP, Hi-Tech companies have joined together into an American alliance of innovation: Partnership for American Innovation http://partnershipforamericaninnovation.org/.
Companies need to take advantage of IP and use it aggressively both domestically and abroad. Especially if we are in the US where we do have strong rule of (IP) law. We must avoid allowing countries with lax IP laws to overrun us on our own strengths, our strengths to innovate.
We need to aim for Perpetual Innovation(tm). Hall & Hinkelman talk about Perpetual Innovation(tm) in their 2013 book on Patent Commercialization argue that many companies are broken-as-designed. They are not designed around managing their intellectual assets; they still operate as if most of their assets and most of their value comes from physical assets.
The US Patent system may not be broken, but many companies are. And IP is a critical part of all innovation and the pipeline of new products.
Hall, E. B. & Hinkelman, R. M. (2013). Perpetual Innovation™: A guide to strategic planning,
patent commercialization and enduring competitive advantage, Version 2.0.
Morrisville, NC: LuLu Press. Retrieved from: http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/SBPlan
patent commercialization and enduring competitive advantage, Version 2.0.
Morrisville, NC: LuLu Press. Retrieved from: http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/SBPlan
Hall, E. B. & Hinkelman, R. M. (2013). Perpetual Innovation™: Patent primer 2.0:
Patents, the great equalizer of our time! An overview of intellectual property
with patenting cost estimates for inventors and entrepreneurs. Morrisville, NC: LuLu Press. Retrieved from: http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/SBPlan
(or Kindle at http://tinyURL.com/IPPrimer2)
Patents, the great equalizer of our time! An overview of intellectual property
with patenting cost estimates for inventors and entrepreneurs. Morrisville, NC: LuLu Press. Retrieved from: http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/SBPlan
(or Kindle at http://tinyURL.com/IPPrimer2)
'via Blog this'
Monday, September 16, 2013
Patent law changes alter entrepreneurs' planning
Patent law changes alter entrepreneurs' planning:
This is a nice article by Laura Baverman about patents and how they needed to be integrated into the business plan and entrepreneurs' strategy. Since the US is now first-to-file, inventors must get their foot in the proverbial patent door early, often with a provisional patent while the details are being worked out.
This article also slips in the key provisions related to the laws and fees that were enacted in March of 2013.
Although the fees have all been dramatically increased, especially the follow-on maintenance fees, there is actually a micro-entity option that is only 25% of the full fee structure for large entities. (To qualify as micro, you must not have a high income and not have too many patents in your name.)
There are a few things that are are perfectly touched on in such a short article. There's a quick look at the staging process to protect the invention without bankrupting the small inventor. There's a side story about the great use of a business incubator for a specific company, EnerLeap, the next-best Lithium battery.
There's the indication of how IP must be specifically budgeted into the business plan. Your business plan must have the budget for IP, it must have the timing for IP expenses (patent, TM, Lawyer, R&D, engineering, etc.), and it must accommodate contingencies for litigation.
Of course, you still want to include the high margins and royalties from licensing in your income stream, you simply need to demonstrate that you have a sound plan for getting to that point.
Great article Laura!
Check out the Patent Primer 2.0, part of the Perpetual Innovation(tm) series, by Hall and Hinkelman (2013) at: http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/SBPlan ... or ... Kindle eBook at: www.TinyURL.com/IPPrimer2
This is a nice article by Laura Baverman about patents and how they needed to be integrated into the business plan and entrepreneurs' strategy. Since the US is now first-to-file, inventors must get their foot in the proverbial patent door early, often with a provisional patent while the details are being worked out.
This article also slips in the key provisions related to the laws and fees that were enacted in March of 2013.
Although the fees have all been dramatically increased, especially the follow-on maintenance fees, there is actually a micro-entity option that is only 25% of the full fee structure for large entities. (To qualify as micro, you must not have a high income and not have too many patents in your name.)
There are a few things that are are perfectly touched on in such a short article. There's a quick look at the staging process to protect the invention without bankrupting the small inventor. There's a side story about the great use of a business incubator for a specific company, EnerLeap, the next-best Lithium battery.
There's the indication of how IP must be specifically budgeted into the business plan. Your business plan must have the budget for IP, it must have the timing for IP expenses (patent, TM, Lawyer, R&D, engineering, etc.), and it must accommodate contingencies for litigation.
Of course, you still want to include the high margins and royalties from licensing in your income stream, you simply need to demonstrate that you have a sound plan for getting to that point.
Great article Laura!
Check out the Patent Primer 2.0, part of the Perpetual Innovation(tm) series, by Hall and Hinkelman (2013) at: http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/SBPlan ... or ... Kindle eBook at: www.TinyURL.com/IPPrimer2
Visit SBP's IP web site at: www.IPplan.com
'via Blog this'
Thursday, February 21, 2013
IBM and China. #1 in the world of Patents
IBM is again the patent king with the most patents issued. Now just under 6,500 issued in a single year. That's issued, not applications.
IBM
This is a fun article about the big patent companies and IBM's Watson system beating out the best and the brightest on the show Jeopardy.
In the meanwhile, China has moved up to the busiest patent office in the world! It was only a couple years ago that they were 5th and not long prior to that they they were not a signatory on IP treaties!..
IBM
•Celebrated 101 years since its first patent
•In 2012 was its 20th year as most US patents
•In 2012 received 6,478 patents! (not applications!)
•Spent $6B on R&D … roughly $1m per patent.
•IBM makes $1B+ per year on IP sales/licensing!
=> That is almost pure profit$!
=> That is almost pure profit$!
This is a fun article about the big patent companies and IBM's Watson system beating out the best and the brightest on the show Jeopardy.
In the meanwhile, China has moved up to the busiest patent office in the world! It was only a couple years ago that they were 5th and not long prior to that they they were not a signatory on IP treaties!..
Monday, July 9, 2012
Strategic Business Planning Co's Books and Publications Spotlight
Strategic Business Planning Co's Books and Publications Spotlight:
Here's the Patent Primer as well.
Also check out the e-book versions of the book/booklet.
'via Blog this'
Here's the Patent Primer as well.
Also check out the e-book versions of the book/booklet.
Perpetual Innovation: A Patent Primer, an Overview of Patenting Issues and Costs Estimates for a Small Entity
Paperback, 25 Pages
Price: $10.05
Ships in 3-5 business days
This booklet is a overview of intellectual property protection in the US and globally. This is what’s missing from the books on new product development and do-it-yourself patenting. It’s not covered in the business books on product development, marketing and strategic planning. With so much depending on the intellectual property protection of inventors they must have a good understanding of the information presented here to be successful. This booklet is what everyone needs before launching into new product development and invention commercialization. It gives a quick overview of the patenting process. It addresses the timing of various patent-protection maneuvers. There is an example of costs for a small entity/investor to bring an invention to market-readiness with patent protection. This booklet is based on Appendix B of Perpetual Innovation: A Guide to Strategic Planning, Patent Commercialization and Enduring Competitive Advantage (2007) by Hall and Hinkelman.
'via Blog this'
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Intellectual Property @ IBM
Intellectual Property @ IBM:
'via Blog this'
'via Blog this'
This IBM Blog article talks about US Innovation: alive and well.
IBM blasts it outta the park again in 2011 with the most patents issued by the USPTO. These are organized by the owner of the patents, the "assignee". See the top 50 list at IFIClaims.
IBM had 6,180 patents issued in the US, far more than the next inventor company.
The electronics companies from Japan and Korea were strong in the top 15.
Here are the top US companies. Note that Microsoft is in 6th place with 2,311 patents issued. Quite a change for a company that once relied mostly on copyright for it IP protection. GE at #11 with 1,448 patents. HP dropped to 14 as the company struggles.
The big automakers were generally in the middle of the pack with GM #18 with 1,095 patents. Apple at 39 with 676 patents (but then, not all patents are created equal). DuPont was #50 with 523 patents.
Rank | Grants | Company Name | Country |
1 | 6180 | International Business Machines Corp | United States |
6 | 2311 | Microsoft Corp | United States |
11 | 1448 | General Electric Co | United States |
14 | 1308 | Hewlett-Packard Development Co L P | United States |
16 | 1244 | Intel Corp | United States |
17 | 1164 | Broadcom Corp | United States |
18 | 1095 | GM Global Technology Operations LLC | United States |
22 | 980 | Cisco Technology Inc | United States |
24 | 947 | Micron Technology Inc | United States |
26 | 923 | Qualcomm Inc | United States |
28 | 880 | Xerox Corp | United States |
32 | 794 | Texas Instruments Inc | United States |
33 | 780 | Honeywell International Inc | United States |
35 | 721 | AT&T Intellectual Property I L P | United States |
37 | 695 | Boeing Co The | United States |
39 | 676 | Apple Inc | United States |
50 | 523 | Du Pont de Nemours, E I & Co | United States |
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)