The Anon Lawyer Jeremy Blachman…who now is a famous writer, has a new blog (interestingly called Jeremy Blachman’s Brand New Weblog)…and he is hosting this week’s Blawg Review.
My recent Vitamin article: Trademark Tips for Your Web Application is linked to in it (Blawg Review #68). I’ll have to give Jeremy a hard time for naming his brand new weblog “Brand New Weblog” in view of my Vitamin article. ;o)
Earlier I had a reader ask:
Are there any websites or Blogs written from the IP Defendant’s viewpoint
Hmm…good question. Most of the IP blogs seem to cover both sides of the coin. There are some that lend a little more to the “Plaintiff’s” side (I suppose my blog’s focus on independent inventors & small businesses (and the IP professionals that serve them) means that some would allege that I write for plaintiffs (”trolls”) more often for defendants..however, I’d disagree with that).
So…are there any websites or blogs written from the IP Defendant’s viewpoint? The comments are open.
Have a PDA? I’m a recent convert to a Palm Treo 650…per the suggestions of Matt, Doug, Ernie, Buzz and about a zillion other tech attorneys.
Did you know that the New York Law School has an excellent page called JurisPDA that covers everything an lawyer/law student needs to know about PDAs? The website notes:
You’re a law student or a lawyer and you just got a palmOne or Sony handheld organizer. You’re probably wondering: “How can I use my handheld to be more effective and efficient?” This Web site, designed by New York Law School professors Denise Morgan and Tanina Rostain, and Grace Lee, the school’s Electronic Services Librarian, is intended to answer that question. Through systematic research, and plenty of trial and error, we have gathered an inventory of what we think are the most useful Palm OS® handheld applications for lawyers. In addition, we’ve put together some legal reference materials, like the U.S. Constitution, Federal Rules of Evidence, and assorted Supreme Court cases, for you to download and read on your PalmOS® handheld. JurisPDA puts at your fingertips all the resources you need to make the best use of your handheld in law school – and afterwards, when you start to practice law.
Yeah, yeah, yeah…so I’m late in posting a reminder to all of you that:
The U.S. Copyright Office increased basic registration fees to $45 per application effective July 1, 2006. Fees
that changed include registrations, document recordation, supplementary
registration, search services, certificates, and additional
certificates. Any request received in the U.S. Copyright Office on or
after July 1, 2006, for a service whose fee increased on that date must be accompanied by the new fee.
UPDATE: The registration deadline for this valuable conference is extended to 5:00 PM on Thursday, July 27.
Reminder from the USPTO site today:
Registration Deadline for Chicago Regional Independent Inventors Conference Nears
Space Limited…Register NowGreg Hart, a winner of the History Channel’s Modern Marvels contest, has been added to the list of speakers for the USPTO’s Chicago Regional Independent Inventors Conference July 28-29 at Northwestern University’s School of Law. The registration deadline for this valuable conference is next Wednesday, July 26.
An outstanding roster of speakers and experts from the USPTO and the private sector will participate. They include Dr. Forrest Bird, whose invention of the “Baby Bird†respirator has saved millions of infants’ lives over the years. Dr. Bird was inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame in 1996. Product development and marketing is always a popular topic at the independent inventors conferences. Louis Foreman the CEO of Enventys, a product design and manufacturing firm, will cover that important subject in Chicago. Foreman is also the executive producer of “Everyday Edisonsâ€, a new series that begins airing on public broadcasting stations this fall. The program features independent inventors and follows the development, packaging and marketing of their inventions.
Commissioner for Patents John Doll will lead the USPTO contingent attending the conference. Seasoned patent and trademark examiners will be on hand throughout the two days conducting workshops and holding one on one meetings with attendees. Both novice and experienced inventors will find the conference informative and helpful.
Joining the USPTO in sponsoring the conference are the Northwestern School of Law and the National Inventors Hall of Fame. For more details on the two-day program and to register
Sometimes I receive comments on my blog worth repeating (most of you receive my posts via RSS and/or e–mail and thus don’t read the comments). This anonymous one, to my post on Continutations, raises some interesting arguments.
When you say:
“The revised rules would require ………. be supported by a showing as to why the amendment, argument, or evidence presented could not have been previously submitted.”
What suffices for “supported”???
What if an applicant cannot afford to file claims for all aspects disclosed in the application at the outset? It is — very expensive, afterall! Some of the most significant inventions in fact originate from people who literally have to decide between taking a bus or getting something to eat off a McDonald’s dollar menu. People don’t admit this but it’s true.
How is the rule change even Constitutional??? Why won’t the change, if it goes through, not face a challenge on Constitutional grounds? Because it amounts to seizing an applicant’s inventions after the applicantion has already been filed, in those cases where the applicant disclosed inventions with portions yet to be claimed, but can no longer be. The patent system up to now has encouraged people to “show all up front”, on the promise that they will be afforded an opportunity to protect what they show. Zillions have done just that. So having done so, in good faith, how is it equitable to now say “Gee, yup you disclosed a large body of inventions but we won’t let you protect anything but that one little piece you claimed already”. That’s tantamount to “fooling” applicants into revealing their inventions –IN GOOD FAITH, and after the horse is out of the barn, denying them the opportunity of legal protection they were ORIGINALLY PROMISED.
Even if the rule change were to only effect newly filed applications (and not already filed applications), still, there seem to be contradictions to what the Constitution specifies: “to promote the useful arts”.
That is because applicants henceforth will have to decide on aspects of inventions TO INTENTIONALLY CONCEAL. If you cannot claim it you have no choice but to conceal it. But doesn’t that INVITE accusations of abandonment??? So in other words the new rules “set up” applicants to be accused of abandoning portions of a larger family of inventions (those portions they cannot afford to claim at the time of filing)? And besides, as soon as the issue of concealing portions of the totality of an invention enter the picture, doesn’t that CONTRADICT the Constitution’s “promote the useful arts” statement? The new rules DISCOURAGE, NOT promote the useful arts when applicants are forced to conceal portions of their inventions.
Still further, with (land) emminent domain the government reimburses the landowner for the land seized from them. Here, an applicant in disclosing an invention, discloses it ONLY because of the promise that they can pursue patent protection for their ENTIRE invention; but if after their good faith filing is made, if portions of their inventions are seized… Are those applicants compensated in any way for the seized portions??? Most certainly not!
Thus…how is any of this even Constitutional?
Stoller gets PWND. Big time.
TTABlog: TTAB Sanctions Leo Stoller: Vacates All Extensions Granted Since November 2005
ALL. Every one of them…and all of the oppositions he filed too. O-U-C-H.
UPDATE: Stoller responds via his own blog.
While we all see some real doozies, one must never tell an inventor their idea is “dumb.” Dumb ideas can make a lot of money in this world.
As previously discussed here on The Invent Blog, the Patent Office has proposed drastically changing continuation practice. For instance:
The revised rules would require that second or subsequent continued examination filings, whether a continuation application, a continuation-in-part application, or a request for continued examination, be supported by a showing as to why the amendment, argument, or evidence presented could not have been previously submitted.
Thus, under such rules, you’ll likely only get ONE continuing application per filing. ONE!
Word on the street (via Hal Wegner) is that a USPTO Deputy Director announced today that the rules will likely be effective January 2007.
I estimate that MOST patent attorneys and their clients are opposed to this rule, yet most likely do not know that it is even coming.
Other than discussions by a few patent bloggers…no one is really talking about this issue. Who speaks for patent attorneys? Where is the opposition? Who is raising the red flag? In a nutshell…no one.
Unless patent attorneys and/or their organizational representatives (AIPLA, ABA, etc.) get their acts together and speak up…these changes are going to be a done deal and you can kiss continuation practice goodbye.
Twitter Wisdom
