- Troll Tracker Revealed: After learning that Ray Niro paid $10,000+ for information leading to his actual identity, the Patent Troll Tracker has revealed his identity — Cisco IP Director Rick Frenkel [LINK]
- Trade Secret: Although perhaps a novel theory, I would argue that an anonymous blogger’s identity is a protectable trade secret. Improper means used to reveal the trade secret can create liability.
-
Quote of the day (from 1895):
“It should also be borne in mind that no property is so uncertain as “patent rights”; no property more speculative in character or held by a more precarious tenure. An applicant who goes into the patent office with claims expanded to correspond with his unbounded faith in the invention, may emerge therefrom with a shriveled parchment which protects only that which any ingenious infringer can evade. Even this may be taken from him by the courts. Indeed, it is only after a patentee has passed successfully the ordeal of judicial interpretation that he can speak with any real certainty as to the scope and character of his invention. Especially is this true of patents on spring-tooth harrows.” [1]
[1] E. Bement & Sons v. La Dow (C.C.) 66 Fed. 185 (Circuit Ct. N.Y. 1895)
M. Slonecker,
Send me an email at bcasey966@hotmail.com. This is Brian,your nephew. Just saying hello. I need to talk to you also.
Wow. Looks like every lawyer at Niro decided to leave a comment.
“Mr. rat”
Mister? Where do you get that from JAOI(TM)? Are you sure you’re chatting with just an ordinary big hairy rat?
Troll trackers, rats, inventors, all just ordinary folk standing up for “truth.” You know, after the last 15 years, I can honestly say it just doesn’t get any better than this! This is truly the best that it gets in the patent field anymore.
No, No Mr. rat,
I apologize. I was mistaken, is was Mark Trade(TM) who was the classroom dummy.
Let me make it up to you — here, have some cheese, and some beer to wash it down.
Hello Mr. rat,
Is it true you use to be the classroom dummy and one day you came home and said to your Mom, “I had a great day; I was the only kid in class who could answer the question our teacher asked.”
And your Mom said, “Wonderful, what was the question?,” and you said, “Who farted?”
I (TM) disagree (TM) Big Hairy Rat (TM).
MT
“My small contribution was coining (and Trade Marking) the pseudonym preamble “Just a …””
Well that is certainly consistent with your expansive view on what should be protected by intellectual property laws.
Soon.
Its been quite a day.
My neighbor just came home a told her husband, “I just won the Lottery. Pack your bags.”
The husband says, “Great, what should I pack?”
The wife says, “I don’t give a flying fart, just pack and get out.”
Hey JAOI(TM), when are you going to fix that head gasket?
🙂
Oh the irony of it all …
Mr. Patent Troll Tracker himself now being outed as A RIP OFF ARTIST!
I, “Just an ordinary inventor(TM)”, a relative new comer to the blogosphere, believe I have a small claim to fame in the blogosphere world.
When I first became a blogospherer commenter, it was on Patently-O and, as memory serves, it was about 2005 (I could be wrong now, but I don’t think so).
My small contribution was coining (and Trade Marking) the pseudonym preamble “Just a …”
Imagine my surprise one week ago when I discovered, after $35,000,000,000’s Cisco’s IP Director Rick Frenkel’s “Patent Troll Tracker” blog was outed on Patently-O,
that MY PREAMBLE HAD BEEN RIPPED OF BY NONE OTHER THAN MR. PATENT TROLL TRACKER HIMSELF!, Cisco’s IP Director Rick Frenkel.
YES, IT’S TRUE, IT’S TRUE (as the reform platform candidate would say on
“O Brother, Where Art thou”).
Check it out on http://www.trolltracker.blogspot.com look on the upper right of the opening page under “About me”.
If that don’t beat all?!, life just gets “Curiouser and Curiouser!”
(RE: Your Feb 25, 2008 at 10:54 PM post above) For a $25,000 unmasking fee, Malcolm, you better keem them d-amn pants off in your high-resolution unmasking photo.
“The ease at which you are rejecting any given application depends squarely on what art has been turned up, not having time to turn up the perfect ref makes many rejections very hard. This is in fact nearly an everyday consideration. As to it being my fault: Lol? Are you joking or what? Cold dropping a case in your lap about your art and seeing if you can reject it in under 15 hours. Sometime I’ll make up a case and we’ll have an exam-off on here. If I don’t smoke you I’ll be surprised, even with your advanced years. Or better yet, I’ll end up with a rejection and you’ll end up with “allowed” that would get kicked back from your SPE.”
Your gripe isn’t with the application, then, but with the USPTO-imposed time pressure you labor under. Why do you assume that examiners will be given more time per application if the backlog goes down?
My point, which you glibly dismissed, is that the USPTO already provides a low-cost search. (So does every other major international patent office I deal with, fwiw.) Obviously, a search MUST be performed. Any system that asks the applicant to do a search and report results opens the door to charges of willful ignorance, incomplete/insufficient searching, and/or deliberate withholding of material information (ring a bell?). In US courts, making these implications has been raised to an art form.
If the applicant received search results and was given an opportunity to amend claims (or abandon) before substantive examination … then the claims SHOULD be narrower, not read on the prior art, and be more readily examined to completion. At absolute worst, every last applicant receives the search report, does nothing to the claims, and requests substantive examination — which is essentially what we have now. For every application that is amended in view of search results, however, examination hastens to some extent and the backlog is reduced; for every application that is abandoned in view of search results, the backlog is reduced all the more.
And we’ve yet to address the horrible time pressures on examiners.
examiner#6K
In your 10:25PM letter you write that the USPTO is providing a low cost search solution at the agency’s expense.
The USPTO is not an organization that exists to make a profit or to sell a service. The USPTO is an organization established to serve the people of the United States by providing conditions that motivate innovators and investors. The innovators and investors set-up companies, the companies pay taxes and employ people. The employed people pay taxes and buy stuff, reducing unemployment even further.
The ultimate contribution of the USPTO is not in collecting search fees, but rather in engendering an environment that reduces American unemployment and allows the IRS to collect more taxes.
For clarification as to who the real employers of the USPTO Examiners are you should watch the movie “Clear and Present Danger”, I think when Jack Ryan (Harrison Ford) is talking with the President (Donald Moffat).
You’re gonna have to drag yourself into the office in a few hours, those applications aren’t going to examine themselves…
You’re on sonny.
No offense, but you strike me as a plodding type. The key to production is not to wallow. Search early and intensely, find that art, then mop up. And keep track of the good art in your art. The better examiners I understand have a cache of art that they use regularly for primary references. Then its just a delta.
But you still haven’t answered my question about “overclaiming,” If its hard to turn up art, then maybe there is really an invention there.
I guess that didn’t occur to you.
Oh and by the way, the patent business isn’t easy as you may have imagined. You may actually have to work long and hard at times.
Now get some sleep.
“and, strictly speaking the backlog is, o, I don’t know, not really your personal problem. I applaud your concern, but a big backlog for you only means more opportunity to make your counts.”
The backlog, and subsequently production, is everyone’s problem at the pto, didn’t you notice the jump in production back in the 70’s when fully successful went from 75 to 90? (then to 95 in the 90’s iirc), the only reason people are asked to do 95% is there is a huge number of apps, it’s not just to drive down the examiner to application ratio, you really believe management cares about that? The only thing they’ve cared about since at least the 80’s is moving a volume of applications. The definition of a “good” examiner is currently “one who can move applications”. Didn’t you know? The 95% isn’t hardly at all to get rid of “sucky” examiners not sending out application after application at 75%, as anyone will freely tell you, it’s to make us get our arses in gear and move the humongous volume of applications we have in the backlog, or what was threatening to become one back in the day.
And, even not considering that, the backlog is the American people, as well as all inventor’s problem as well, and that makes it of concern to me.
“If you can’t easily reject an “overclaiming” claim then isn’t the “bad patent” problem (assuming there is such a thing) really your fault?”
The ease at which you are rejecting any given application depends squarely on what art has been turned up, not having time to turn up the perfect ref makes many rejections very hard. This is in fact nearly an everyday consideration. As to it being my fault: Lol? Are you joking or what? Cold dropping a case in your lap about your art and seeing if you can reject it in under 15 hours. Sometime I’ll make up a case and we’ll have an exam-off on here. If I don’t smoke you I’ll be surprised, even with your advanced years. Or better yet, I’ll end up with a rejection and you’ll end up with “allowed” that would get kicked back from your SPE.
I assume when you say overclaiming you mean one that is too broad. I wonder why you don’t just reject such a claim. Am I missing something here?
If you can’t easily reject an “overclaiming” claim then isn’t the “bad patent” problem (assuming there is such a thing) really your fault?
…and, strictly speaking the backlog is, o, I don’t know, not really your personal problem. I applaud your concern, but a big backlog for you only means more opportunity to make your counts.
OK, OK, but you can’t expect that every application is going to be a Rembrandt.
“Just take your claims as you find them and do your job.”
I do, but you notice the patent system has o, I don’t know, a huge backlog only getting bigger.
“Poorly written claims should be easier for you to reject, therefore what do you care?”
I care because they’re not always easier, and, poorly written ones aren’t the problem, 112 and objections are fine there, it’s the overclaiming ones that are a problem.
Its not about being lazy #6K. Many filing institutions for the benefit of a clean record prefer the PTO to throw the first pitch. On the other hand, many institutional filers do, in some cases, submit IDSs with their initial papers. I understand your frustration at claims that are too broad. I personally don’t like them myself and prefer to write claims and revise claims that I have reviewed to have some initial traction. I dont see what the big deal is for you. Just take your claims as you find them and do your job. Poorly written claims should be easier for you to reject, therefore what do you care? You can go home early, take your pants off, crack open an Old Milwaukee and pull up a pew at PatentlyO.
Of course it’ll be a burden on littleguy, although frankly, I would say straight up that the search req’s could be very much lower for littleguy, maybe he just needs to do a fairly comprehensive googling of NPL, go through some database searches, and do a search or two on the USPTO’s site. Or in the alternative, use a program like EAST to do one big one. Maybe littleguy should realize that if he wants to play bigboy it’s going to take some work? I think maybe YES.
And of course you’d RATHER have the pto do you one definitive search. Then again, I’d RATHER have breakfast in bed. You’re not making me breakfast, so why’re we doing you an ignorance dispelling search for your first action? No reason at all that’s why. Come in sans ignorance or not at all is what congress would like to tell you, because your ignorance is burdening the system.
And remember, I don’t accuse you of being ignorant, the good people of this board accuse that, I on the other hand was taking the high road and just saying you were withholding material references on the grounds that “you didn’t think they were relavent” but either way you slice it, either of them is a problem.
Oh, and RA, no, seriously, it’s not hard for me to imagine the real validity rates are abysmal, I’m well aware that is probably the case. I’ve cited 50% of the cases allowed as actually being decent, but that’s a generous number I will be the first to say. Further, I understand why you think you need all those deps thrown in. However, at the same time, I see that they’re a blight across the land, and need to go. If you want to impose IP property on the people of this country, then figure out what it is you want to claim, and claim only that. 1 to 2 claims should suffice. Don’t be lazy and rely on the PTO to do your factfinding for you. Find out what has been made, and tell us what your contribution is. End of story. If it turns out that’s not actually your contribution, too bad, that’s life, claim narrower next time. Take a minimalist approach and claim only what you need to protect your product and not try to claim stuff that isn’t your product and we’ll all be happy, and you’ll have your property protected, unless someone already made it, in which case, you never had any property to begin with.
Draconian isn’t it? Yeah, this isn’t a game, so stop making it into one with all your squeeming around claiming what your actual invention is.
Anyway, lets keep this topic on TT and how he’s a mean slimy dirty ol rat bast and we the people need to search him out and hang him for his high crimes against humanity, nay, the universe, by speaking his mind and doing public research.
Of course it’ll be a burden on littleguy, although frankly, I would say straight up that the search req’s could be very much lower for littleguy, maybe he just needs to do a fairly comprehensive googling of NPL, go through some database searches, and do a search or two on the USPTO’s site. Or in the alternative, use a program like EAST to do one big one. Maybe littleguy should realize that if he wants to play bigboy it’s going to take some work? I think maybe YES.
And of course you’d RATHER have the pto do you one definitive search. Then again, I’d RATHER have breakfast in bed. You’re not making me breakfast, so why’re we doing you an ignorance dispelling search for your first action? No reason at all that’s why. Come in sans ignorance or not at all is what congress would like to tell you, because your ignorance is burdening the system.
And remember, I don’t accuse you of being ignorant, the good people of this board accuse that, I on the other hand was taking the high road and just saying you were withholding material references on the grounds that “you didn’t think they were relavent” but either way you slice it, either of them is a problem.
Oh, and RA, no, seriously, it’s not hard for me to imagine the real validity rates are abysmal, I’m well aware that is probably the case. I’ve cited 50% of the cases allowed as actually being decent, but that’s a generous number I will be the first to say. Further, I understand why you think you need all those deps thrown in. However, at the same time, I see that they’re a blight across the land, and need to go. If you want to impose IP property on the people of this country, then figure out what it is you want to claim, and claim only that. 1 to 2 claims should suffice. Don’t be lazy and rely on the PTO to do your factfinding for you. Find out what has been made, and tell us what your contribution is. End of story. If it turns out that’s not actually your contribution, too bad, that’s life, claim narrower next time. Take a minimalist approach and claim only what you need to protect your product and not try to claim stuff that isn’t your product and we’ll all be happy, and you’ll have your property protected, unless someone already made it, in which case, you never had any property to begin with.
Draconian isn’t it? Yeah, this isn’t a game, so stop making it into one with all your squeeming around claiming what your actual invention is.
Anyway, lets keep this topic on TT and how he’s a mean slimy dirty ol rat bast and we the people need to search him out and hang him for his high crimes against humanity, nay, the universe, by speaking his mind and doing public research.
And let me be clear, I understand the standards of public disclosure are different in the criminal case mis-handled by Nifong. However the federal rules of civil procedure have sanctionable prohibitions on public disclosure depending on the facts of the case and any secrecy orders that the parties are under.
The attempt to influence outcomes and affect the impartiality of triers of fact by a corporate officer is at the very least an impropriety. That would explain the visceral reaction that so many have had.
“Well, the overclaiming out of ignorance of the prior art (which you routinely accuse applicants of doing) is what I’m targeting. Assuming (1) a good search is done, and (2) applicants repair their claims in view of the found art, then the claims should be more expeditiously examined.”
That’s what a first action does currently, and it leads directly to a final i.e. what should be a final and I mean FINAL rejection of your application, which, barring an allowance, is what we’re shooting for. This is why we’re trying to implement the continuation rules and claim limit rules as well, because without them, we can never really go FINAL, we just go lolfinal.
But, irregardless of that, your system it does nothing but provide you with a free, or low cost search solution at the agency’s expense. I’m not seeing why this is a good thing. I’m pretty sure that our overall objective here isn’t to educate the ignorant masses, you must be confuzuling us with the public school systems. It’s the applicant’s duty to have a reasonable belief that he has an invention to legally submit an app, not the office’s duty to educate him about whether he has made one or not, and if he has, to what extent it is inventive. Currently we’re performing that function for you via your infinite continuations if nothing else, and it’s malarky. Like I said, your system doesn’t address the agencies actual problem, it only addresses the applicant’s problem “after the fact” of him causing a burden on the system. That’s all well and good, but it does nothing to help the agency’s problem which is the reason for the whole discussion taking place.
“So, examiner#6K, why do you want to require “presearches”?”
Because hopefully, at least one of those presearches will turn up some basic art that will persuade at least one of the applicants to not overclaim quite as much leading to a faster disposal on the office’s end (hopefully allowance, but probably just an easier time rejecting it because we don’t have to start from ground zero of building a rocketship when building a facie case o obvious). You don’t seem to grasp the concept of “good claims in” –> “fast case disposal”
To Leopold Bloom,
Do you think you’re scaring me? My opinion is that Frenkel is in a heap of, Nifong style, trouble. What are YOU talking about?
E6: “Thats not a horrible idea Fen, except one thing, the base problem facing the system is its innability to dispose quickly enough, so perhaps you can explain how slowing down the process of us being able to get rid of cases (either way, allow/reject) helps this problem. Remember, the base problem creating the system’s problem isn’t overclaiming per se, the base problem is how ignorant overclaiming (presuming the sworn behind oaths aren’t lies on here) slows down the system and how, combined with exacerbating problem of infinite lives for the applications and greedy applicants, they clog the current capabilities of the system.”
Well, the overclaiming out of ignorance of the prior art (which you routinely accuse applicants of doing) is what I’m targeting. Assuming (1) a good search is done, and (2) applicants repair their claims in view of the found art, then the claims should be more expeditiously examined.
“What’s needed is private preliminary searches (hopefully performed between an expert searcher in that field and the inventor himself in person, or the inventor himself as many of these guys are perfectly capable researchers) and a system like EAST (only better) that’s publicly available. Does anyone know of such a thing?”
The point of my suggestion is to spread the search cost evenly among all applications. Forcing every applicant to search is little burden on BIGCORP and a huge burden on LITTLEGUY. There’s already socialism in the system, so the notion of doing this is hardly novel.
“Also, I suppose I’m so bad at searching I routinely find way better art than the “search experts” downstairs who are private contractors? When I say routinely, I’ve only seen one instance of them finding anything of any real use, whereas nigh on every case that crosses my desk I’ll find something very relavent. ”
I’ve used about five search firms thus far. Twice, I’ve been burned where the examiner found art better than the private firm turned up. The other problems with imposing a search requirement, as has been posted before, are that they’re quite expensive and no two searches seem to return the same best art. As an applicant, if I have to rely on only ONE search, I’d greatly prefer it bear the imprimatur of the USPTO.
“When I say routinely, I’ve only seen one instance of them finding anything of any real use, whereas nigh on every case that crosses my desk I’ll find something very relavent.”
So, examiner#6K, why do you want to require “presearches”?
“It’s amazing to me how tidy cases with 1-2 claims are.”
It’s amazing to me how easy they are to invalidate. Keep ’em coming, Examiner#6K. 🙂
[You’re not looking at the whole picture, and you have no idea what the true validity rate of issued patents is, or what it’s like to assert a 2-claimer against a capable adversary. Your assumption should be that the USPTO examination is only the preliminary one, and that the few patents that are valuable go through a second examination that is two to three orders of magnitude more expensive… but every patent that the USPTO issues can become one of the valuable ones, and then the real examination will occur.]
[P.S. Before you say it, it doesn’t make economic sense to require the applicant to support a million dollar examination of every patent, for numerous reasons.]
Thats not a horrible idea Fen, except one thing, the base problem facing the system is its innability to dispose quickly enough, so perhaps you can explain how slowing down the process of us being able to get rid of cases (either way, allow/reject) helps this problem. Remember, the base problem creating the system’s problem isn’t overclaiming per se, the base problem is how ignorant overclaiming (presuming the sworn behind oaths aren’t lies on here) slows down the system and how, combined with exacerbating problem of infinite lives for the applications and greedy applicants, they clog the current capabilities of the system.
What’s needed is private preliminary searches (hopefully performed between an expert searcher in that field and the inventor himself in person, or the inventor himself as many of these guys are perfectly capable researchers) and a system like EAST (only better) that’s publicly available. Does anyone know of such a thing? I know lawyers have something like it but don’t know it’s name.
Also, my secret agenda is to get patent reform passed, start my own searching/opinion company (by scavaging the best examiners from the PTOs bad pay) and make billions muahahahaha. (And know that I’m doing a public good at the same time, it’s really a win/win). Dang, it’s not a secret anymore … don’t steal that, I have a patent on that business method!
VA, idk, I think it’s less we’re experts on production and more that you force us to show off that particular expertise moreso than the others by wasting our time with 40 page specs and 20 extraneous bs dep claims. That, my friend, is entirely up to you. It’s amazing to me how tidy cases with 1-2 claims are. Also, I suppose I’m so bad at searching I routinely find way better art than the “search experts” downstairs who are private contractors? When I say routinely, I’ve only seen one instance of them finding anything of any real use, whereas nigh on every case that crosses my desk I’ll find something very relavent.
But anyway, lets keep this thread on topic fellas.
“just an anonymous nobody”
Wait, we’ve heard that before – pretty soon you’ll be pulling all of Examiner#6K’s applications!…
“Quick question”
That depends:
1) are you feeling lucky?
2) do you want to make the second action final?
If you’re sure what you want to use is an admission, you can use it. You may not, however, use the applicant’s own teaching against him… yet.
“Applicants get the benefit of the USPTO’s better searching abilities.”
I’m with the folks at IP Kat, everybody knows that USPTO search and examination is rubbish.
The notion that USPTO examiners are expert searchers is pretty laughable. They’re experts at the production system. But not searching. And certainly not examination.
“Well, isn’t he a Special 6K now! Are you his manager?”
No, I am just an anonymous nobody who prefers to avoid publicity and who may or may not be a PTO manager. I will, however, pay out on the $36.00!
“SF, that would be 30 extra claims. Could cost a lot more than $510.”
True. So assuming the excess claim fees are split among examination and searching, the USPTO is still a bargain as a search entity.
Back on-topic: there seems to be a blurring between (a) non-practicing entities and (b) weak patents and/or the tenuous assertion of infringement. Is this blurring deliberate? Am I misunderstanding the term “troll”?
SF wrote “Yeah, but on the cheap. $510 for a large entity utility search? Come on. What do you think a private patentability search would run for an application of 50 claims?”
That is a flaw in the USPTO reward system, and should not be placed upon the practitioner. The practitioner has paid a minimum of $1500 and most likely over $2000 for the privilege of filing those claims and and the Examniner’s time should be based upon the number of claims (and also the length of the spec and possibly the art area, although that is debateable) Those extra fees should be exchanged for search time by the Examiner.
Guys guys guys, don’t get off track, this thread is about TT and why he’s so horrible, not how all the sworn to statements on here lead one of ordinary intelligence to believe we need presearches, I just through that in for flavor. We’ll get to all that later on.
Quick question Off topic though, if someone says in their discussion of related art “the information in this section is for the understanding of the invention and may contain information that is not prior art and may not be known to one of ordinary skill in this or any other country” then would it be mean to reject them over their own discussion of the related prior art ivo a reference that discloses their little addition of part x onto the larger machine y?
How about a system where the first step in examination is a search. That’s it, just a search, with the results reported to the applicant. A preliminary amendment then may be filed before substantive examination would begin.
If you assume the results of a pre-filing search will actually be reviewed by the applicant and impact the claims as drafted, then you may likewise assume the post-filing search report will have a like impact vis-a-vis the preliminary amendment.
Applicants get the benefit of the USPTO’s better searching abilities, USPTO gets the benefit of the applicants honing their claims in light of the search results. Fees get bumped accordingly … which shouldn’t be much, since all that’s occurred is that the search and first action tasks have been separated.
“Also, we noticed that someone is offering bounty for outing examiner#6k. We will see that $31.00 and raise it $5.00 = $36.00 total!”
Well, isn’t he a Special 6K now! Are you his manager?
“At this time, we are busy pulling all of Cisco’s pending applications for close review.”
That would be funny if it weren’t true.
Thank you for your offer VA. At this time, we are busy pulling all of Cisco’s pending applications for close review.
Also, we noticed that someone is offering bounty for outing examiner#6k. We will see that $31.00 and raise it $5.00 = $36.00 total!
“The PTO could restructure itself and fire most of its examiners and managers.”
So what are we waiting for???!!!!!!
If they need somebody to hand out pink slips, I’m available.
SF
I am looking forward to receiving and interpreting the searches and search analysss which my Asian clients will send to me.
I am also looking forward to arguing with the PTO as to whether the search was sufficient and whether the analysis was sufficient.
And what do the expensive maintenance fees pay for?
SF, that would be 30 extra claims. Could cost a lot more than $510.
VA, no. Not as it is now. The PTO could restructure itself and fire most of its examiners and managers.
“Applicants have no constitutional right to file without performing a prior art search and it’s only a matter of time before the USPTO will get its rules in a place where some time of search and analysis is mandatory.”
When applicants and practitioners are doing the PTO’s job for them, will we really need the PTO?
“Aren’t applicants paying the PTO to search their invention?”
Yeah, but on the cheap. $510 for a large entity utility search? Come on. What do you think a private patentability search would run for an application of 50 claims?
Everyone knows that applications are much better drafted and inventions are better claimed at the outset, when applicants have performed a prior art search prior to filing and/or drafting. Applicants have no constitutional right to file without performing a prior art search and it’s only a matter of time before the USPTO will get its rules in a place where some time of search and analysis is mandatory.
examiner#6k,
why should it be a requirement that applicant’s “reasonably presearch”? Aren’t applicants paying the PTO to search their invention? Don’t examiners, who are experts in the field, do a better job searching? If the filing fee needs to be increased so that the examiners can better handle their searching duties, then increase them?
“So #6K, what would you be doing for work if the system against which you rail was destroyed by young, pantless in-duh-viduals like yourself?”
I hardly want to destroy the system, I want to rail against it for change. In my own humble opinion, based on the newest sworn behind revelations on this site, the answer to the patent system’s ills are having the applicants not be ignorant of the prior art when they submit an application, i.e. make them reasonably presearch it. But, even that has it’s problems because people would just try to bs it. Taking away the presumption of validity for your everyday patent is a solution that’s been put forward as well, and requiring you to pay for a strenuous examination if you wanted that presumption may well assist in helping the overall impact of the system.
I can go on and on, but suffice to say I hardly want the system destroyed. If however, I did blow it all up with an elder statesmanlike speech to congress, then I suppose I’d just study for the LSAT and get my arse on into school, or move one hour west or two hours south and practice my art in my field. Really smart people could probably out my art based on that info.
Yeah JD, sorry I didn’t get back to your other post the other day, I certainly forgot about it until the other day then couldn’t find it. But yeah you’re right, I’m disposable, but I’m a costly disposable “mismanagment” is putting in place efforts to not fire us newbies. And, you know how it goes, if I’m considered disposable, I consider the job disposable. I think the managment is catching on.
gtg for today
that’s news to me …
‘cept, it’s wm carlos wm and joyce that pointed out the itsy bitsy style of shrunk and white and the limits of ludwig’s theory even after being poked by a popper … and, my 2nd language is agglutinative … /// >>> ,,, $$$ …
still want those carnie tix … time value on that patentable option is rapidly declining … (check out some of the recent pat pubs on pricing advertising against bandwidth consumption … curiously interesting assignees)
Herb Caen called and wants his ellipses back.
step back … exactly … NEXT
weasel the wise – “my iron lung”! love it … got the bends chuckling! … thank you for the reference, intentional or not … they know HOW to message …
on a more troubling note:
my-little-government-bureaucrat-who-couldn’t-even-if-it-wanted-to — SIX# :”not on too many hard drugs while posting (excepting maybe ironicslip)” i do not even drink … that characterization is not appropriate … for anyone … you have been warned …
“Even so, I kind of doubt PTT publicly disavows what he says on the site, nor would he tell you anything differently if you were to discuss matters in person with him. The same likely holds true with Mooney. It for dang well sure holds true with me, and I have little doubt that it holds true for you and Ordinary and real anon and JD and etc. I would also say there’s a good chance all of us are people wearing pants (except me right now as I’m home and can’t sleep) and are not on too many hard drugs while posting (excepting maybe ironicslip).”
It certainly holds true for me.
People post anonymously for a multitude of reasons. That’s their right.
I’ve never felt the need for it. My opinions of PTO (mis)management don’t change based on whether I’m posting on Dennis’s site, or any other site, or whether I’m speaking in person to somebody. PTO (mis)management is a horribly corrupt and incompetent bunch. Not exactly a newsflash. Certainly not very controversial.
I doubt it holds true for you though, 6k. You are wise to post anonymously. Although you are the perfect, probationary (i.e. disposable), brain-washed, examining automoton that PTO (mis)management has strived for years to create, I’m fairly certain that you’d find your work subjected to about 7th pair of eyes review if your identity were revealed. Then you would see how PTO (mis)management treats its “outstanding” employees. Trust me, you wouldn’t like it.
JD
P.S. I always wear pants when posting.
P.P.S. The hardest drug I use when posting is bourbon.
“Excerpt from several versions of Local Rules (FRCivP) ‘… no public statements if there is a reasonable likelihood that such dissemination will interfere with a fair trial.'”
“publicly expressing opinions possibly related to ongoing federal court jury trials that are intended to influence public opinion and possibly the outcome of your pending cases and prevent a fair trial.”
Caveman, you’ve suggested ethical problems with Frenkel’s posts a couple of times. I’m not sure what “Local Rules” you’re working with. However, I note that the ABA Model Rules disallow extrajudicial statements by lawyers participating in a case if the communications will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing the case.
I think it’s a stretch to suggest that a judge or jury in E.D. Texas has ever been substantially influenced by Frenkel’s posts. However, I also notice that the Model Rules allow a lawyer to make public statemetns about the claims involved, the identity of the persons involved, and information contained in a public record. Do you have any SPECIFIC examples of statements made by Troll Tracker that (a) involved Cisco litigation, (b) were calculated to prejudice a case, and (c) were not limited to naming persons involved or information in public record?
Accusing Frenkel of misconduct, on the other hand, without any facts to back it up, might cross an ethical line…
Has anyone noticed the striking similarity between Mr Frenkel and Raul Castro, albeit a smiling Raul Castro?
So #6K, what would you be doing for work if the system against which you rail was destroyed by young, pantless in-duh-viduals like yourself?
Sorry #6K, as I’ve said before, you may quite possibly be completely insane. Not that I dislike you mind you.
I agree that many if not most would say the same things they post if pressed at, say, a cocktail party among non-colleagues. Also, I’m not saying that the enhanced sense of freedom that leads to more open expression provided by anonymity is a bad thing.
However, posting a few sharp opinions anonymously on a website is a far cry from establishing an influential day to day blog, as a director for IP of a major corporation with ongoing litigation and publicly expressing opinions possibly related to ongoing federal court jury trials that are intended to influence public opinion and possibly the outcome of your pending cases and prevent a fair trial.
That’s all I’m saying. Now go put some pants on.
“Anonymity allows people the sense of comfort to say what they would otherwise not normally say. blah blah”
And?
Are you trying to say that a means of emboldening people to speak their mind in a rational manner is a BAD thing? And you’re saying this anon on the cyberwebz? You should post as ironicslip when you imply such a thing.
Even so, I kind of doubt PTT publicly disavows what he says on the site, nor would he tell you anything differently if you were to discuss matters in person with him. The same likely holds true with Mooney. It for dang well sure holds true with me, and I have little doubt that it holds true for you and Ordinary and real anon and JD and etc. I would also say there’s a good chance all of us are people wearing pants (except me right now as I’m home and can’t sleep) and are not on too many hard drugs while posting (excepting maybe ironicslip).
I have, as a matter of fact, have stated some of my concerns (which I have also voiced on here) with the system with some of my superiors just as idle chat when the opportunity arises (rarely) and in every case so far they understand quite completely what concerns I have, as they’ve had them all throughout their careers, but they’ve all come to terms with them as just being facts of life unchangable by them. There is a GREAT DEAL of wink wink, nudge nudge that goes on just to make the system even function, and I totally understand why it goes on. The Graham inquiries, what a load of horse malarchy. The presumption of enablement so often extended as a courtesy. Again, you can’t begin to believe that is actually the case in many of today’s cases. These are just the jutting tip of a huge submarine iceberg of rediculousness that goes into making patents today. And of course, I being young, restless, and opinionated have to go saying this and that at every opportunity to rail against such a system.
Presumption of validity LOLOLOLOLOLOL, good one. Please do go on.
Sorry Mooney, your identity isn’t worth a dime to me, because I already know all I need to about you. And it only took one or two of your posts.
Obviously you missed the point and just confirmed my point that unmasking IS a big deal. Especially of Frenkel. Anonymity allows people the sense of comfort to say what they would otherwise not normally say. You for example, could very well be a pantless, crack-smoking m0r0n that noone would ordinarily listen to. But here on Patently-O you have an annoying yet persistent presence like a fly at a picnic or a squirrel at a cotillion, or that stink coming from Cisco way.
Superficial research on Masnick will further reveal that he is a shill for RIM
Mike Masnick is an anti patent hack. Techdirt is a cute little tabloid.
“Techdirt is a place for retards.”
“angry dude” is a regular over at TechDirt.
“I’ll even put some pants on.”
MM brings up a good point, I would also have to do this I suppose.
” I’m tired of trying make a living while blogging away most of the day trying to educate a select few sorry IPeople that when Cisco’s IP Director man peees in your face*, that that is is a rather offensive sign of disrespect which is to be suspect to say the very least”
So now we have it Ordinary, you’re tired of making a living while blogging to teach us how to be offended because someone put their (likely biased) opinion on the cyberwebs. Presumably, posting one’s opinions along with facts is also now tantamount to peeing in someone’s face. Face it, you’re just mad because he’s a coporate bigshot and is “gasp” smarter than you, by “gasp” miles, and make “gasp” millions more than you. Here’s a shocker for you, people like him are still people, and just like you spouting your “American patent system” rhetoric, him spouting his “American patent system” rhetoric is no different just because other people liked to hear what he had to say a bit more than they wanted to hear you.
Bed time for me.
“Mike Masnick of TechDirt has posted the first in what he promises to be a series exploring intellectual property…”
Mr. Slonecker,
Techdirt is a place for retards.
Any educated person reading techdirt for more than a few minutes gets very very angry…
The PTT at least provided some useful factual court info and links unlike Mike of techdit who just spews anti-patent propaganda based on false assumptions and bogus “research”…
Cavey asks
“If Frenkel’s anonymity or lack thereof is not such a big deal Mooney, why don’t you unmask yourself?”
I’ll happily unmask myself for $25,000, Cavey. You send Dennis the cash. He can keep half, I’ll take the other half. I’ll send Dennis a high-resolution picture of me typing away at the computer for the “unveiling”. I’ll even put some pants on.
My point is obvious and has been made by others: the identity of the PTT does not change the information collected and disseminated by the PTT, all of which is/was verifiable. There was widespread public demand for the collection and dissemination of that information and PTT provided it, in spades.
In contrast, the demand for information about Mr. Schenkel was extremely tiny before he revealed his identity as the PTT. Not only that, but the only people who gave a crap about who PTT was were the subjects of PTT’s postings.
The only real question remaining is: how will those subjects behave now? We can guess how they will behave, of course, based on their well-documented (archived and easily accessible) behavior.
Does anyone want to bet against one or more of those people behaving in a self-righteous, classless, greedy and litigious manner?
This has absolutely nothing to do with Mr. Frenkel now being identified as the one behind the PTT blog. The below blog post at PTT speaks quite nicely about the exchange of ideas/dialog between Madison and Jefferson that led to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8. Unfortunately, the pre-enactment dialog he mentions appears to be based in part on a letter Jefferson wrote in 1813.
The rule to be learned is, of course, always check your cites….
“Thursday, February 21, 2008
Mike Masnick on Intellectual Property
Mike Masnick of TechDirt has posted the first in what he promises to be a series exploring intellectual property. In the first installment, he explores the dialog between two of our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, on the nature of intellectual property, and their concerns that too-strong intellectual property laws could lead to abuse. The compromise that they arrived upon was the now-familiar refrain from Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution:
The Congress shall have Power … To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
Mike queries whether the patent system we have today is always generating exclusive rights that “promote the progress of science.” It will be fun to see where Mike goes with this.”
Oops! Regarding my earlier post, I was too thick to figure out who posted what, and so want to both apologize to the parties incorrectly quoted and thank those of you who pointed out my mistake.
So, the post that I had attributed to M. Slonecker was, indeed, not by M. Slonecker but instead by JAOI(TM). What I attributed to “Malcolm Mooney” was actually written by “step back”; what I attributed to “ironicslip” was actually written by “Malcolm Mooney”. My sincere apologies to all. In penance, I’m changing my name from “Sarcastic Weasel” to “Moronic Weasel”.
Dear Lionel,
Re:
“The intent of the arguer has NO bearing on the validity of their argument.”
Are you saying that when Bill Clinton argued,
“It depends on what the meaning of what ‘is’ ‘is’ ”
his (Mr. Clinton’s) intent had no bearing on the validity of his “is” “is” argument?
I’ll take your argument about his argument under advisement, seriously, and maybe I’ll get back to you. However, with all due respect, may I suggest in the mean time, please get a life, I mean a real life, not some preposterous lawyer’s argument for a life. You’ll thank me in the morning.
If I’m a tad offensive, please forgive; I’m tired of trying make a living while blogging away most of the day trying to educate a select few sorry IPeople that when Cisco’s IP Director man peees in your face*, that that is is a rather offensive sign of disrespect which is to be suspect to say the very least, i.e., to say the very least so late this evening – Sorta’ like the seven tobacco director guys saying one after the other after the other after the other after the other … , no, no, no, no way did I know tobacco was addictive, what a surprise to me, are you sure?
Why oh whyly-O would anybody try to excuse or suggest toleration of boldface liars?; beats the galdarn heck out of me.
Oft wit their heads I say, and give me a break. Till tomorrow then, have a nice day.
#6K is none other than Dudas himself…
Nah MM, I’m not going to tear him too big of a new one tonight, don’t have the time. Suffice to say that his thinking that we were all duped and TT is a traitor is borderline delusional, since 1. only Ordinary was duped and 2. TT is as American as the next guy expressing his views. You might try reading some Thomas J. on the subject of patents sometime Ordinary.
I assure you I’m one examiner that joined in late 2006. Don’t believe me? Too bad. 60k will buy you a big underwhelming disclosure.
Tell you what though Ordinary, you ever get really interested in who I am, and feel like taking me to task on my position in person, just tell me when you’d like to hit up lunch and as long as you’re paying I’m down. You can explain to me face to face why TT is (was) a horrible blight upon the land and precisely how his actions were tantamount to treason against our country and how you probably won’t get a wink of sleep until is head is on a pike for publicly discoursing facts in a public forum and rarely stating a definitive opinion of them.
“bascially one side of every argument is wrong” what a sad perspective. Maybe true if debating the acceleration of gravity, but little else. “I’m right/you’re wrong” ~ the hobgoblin of little hairy minds.
“…attorneys are supposed…” typo
Excerpt from several versions of Local Rules (FRCivP) “… no public statements if there is a reasonable likelihood that such dissemination will interfere with a fair trial.”
There’s a start…
Lionel Hutz said
“I continue to be amazed that people in this country (lawyers and inventors no less) cannot comprehend the difference between the arguer and the argument. The intent of the arguer has NO bearing on the validity of their argument.”
Poor, dear, innocent Lionel – personal attacks and innuendo are standard fare for lawyers – have you never attended an advocacy course – they are trained to do it. And the lawyers are not alone. Have you not been paying attention to any political campaign conducted in our lifetimes?
Basically, one side of every argument is wrong and has to resort to personal attacks. When you see who is first and fiercest with the personal attacks you know who has a looser on the merits.
I have to go now, there is a nice piece of creamy Havarti calling out to me.
Sarcastic weasel,
Thank you for spelling my name correctly. As you now no doubt realize, I was not the author of the post that motivated your response.
Obviously, the identity of the PTT blogger being a senior level official at Cisco has engendered a negative, visceral reaction by quite a few who have posted here, at PTT, and other blogs/sites. Personally, I attribute this likely due to the blogger having been viewed by them as an “honest broker”, and they now feel (rightly or wrongly) quite the fool.
While it seems clear that the PTT blogger was working an agenda, one much broader than just addressing “trolls” in general, I do give credit that some of the more flagrant abuses of the patent system have been brought out into the open. To me it is not that the system is broken and in dire need of reform/repair; it is that certain persons have found what they believe is a relatively easy way to line their pockets…and in doing so have given the patent system an undeserved bad name. If blame is to be placed, it should be on these few individuals and those courts much too timid to impose sanctions as well they should.
Of course Mooney doesn’t know anything about the little ethical standard that all attorney’s are supposed to uphold called avoiding the “appearance of impropriety.”
I thing Frenkel gets an “F” in that department.
As far as I can tell Frenkel revealed his own identity (as I think he may have explained). He probably chafed at the idea of his kids or his wife ratting him out and making a few shekels.
And here’s another thought.
Frenkel being outed is like Nifong being outed for hosting a website called “I h8te rich, privileged, Northeastern white kids – and I want to run for mayor, or governor or something in a state with a large black population”
Oh sure, what’s wrong with that???
There is also a good chance that, like Nifong, he has committed ethical violations.
If Frenkel’s anonymity or lack thereof is not such a big deal Mooney, why don’t you unmask yourself?
I’m not surprised the likes of Mr. Glib himself, Mooney, come out and say essentially “what’s the big deal, what’s wrong with Frenkel being outed?” I’ll tell you what, Cisco will never be able to bring a case to the plaintiff’s bar with a straight face ever again. Go fish your crack pipe out of the lake and have another smoke.
Sarcastic weasel, I believe that was JAOI(TM)’s post, not M. Slonecker’s.
JAOI(TM) has been having a little bit of an extra-ordinary day. Normally, he is very polite and sensitive to the feelings of other hominids and humanoids, although he seems to have developed an aversion to small four-legged creatures that crouch close to the ground (such as yourself perhaps).
But I’m sure the rest of your post is error free.
“If only Malcolm’s post could be inserted after every other post, some real dialog, rather than diatribe, might happen.”
O.K. here goes (gulp, as he gets ready to defend against copyright infringement):
“Has anyone identified a clear example of a dishonest statement by Patent Troll Tracker?
If not, I’m not sure what all the fuss is about. If Frenkel worked for (or was himself) a quintessential troll that competed with other trolls, I could understand the disdain amidst the resulting hypocritical stench.
But I don’t see what the big deal is here.
Resident hyperventilator JAOI asks:
“Do you think Cisco, a $35,000,000,000 public company had/has the legal right, (individual) moral right, or (public) ethical right to fool the public for so long with its IP Director’s Troll Tracker Blog?”
Nobody was “fooled” by anything, JAOI, just like nobody here is fooled by your claim to be an “inventor.””
There! (I assume that’s what you wanted.)
I still haven’t seen someone mention a lie that TT told on his blog.
Saying you are just a lawyer is not a lie if you are a lawyer. Is “just a lawyer” code for not working for Bigtech? If so, someone needs to give me an updated euphemism dictionary.
Why would he say anything other than that? More information may have given clues about who he was. Again TT’s occupation is completely irrelevant to the things he said.
I continue to be amazed that people in this country (lawyers and inventors no less) cannot comprehend the difference between the arguer and the argument. The intent of the arguer has NO bearing on the validity of their argument.
Now if there are factual misrepresentations or misleading statements, please identify them.
In response to Posted by: M. Slonecker | Feb 25, 2008 at 03:14 PM :
Malcolm asks for proof of a dishonest statement by PTT.
M. Slonecker replies that PTT’s big, horrible, awful sin is — and I don’t want to put too fine a point on it, here — that PTT is NOT (gasp!) “just a lawyer”.
Perhaps out of a recognition that this big revelation is, well, underwhelming, M. Slonecker tries to tart up the charge by throwing in a big healthy dose of hyperbole — starting with a characterization of what normal humans would recognize as the admirable quality of self-deprectation (“[I’m] just a lawyer”) as “a boldface lie” that “slaps you in the face”, and ending with a characterization of PTT as a “confidence man” whose “slimy hand” is “in the cookie jar.” One presumes that the only reason M. Slonecker didn’t continue his logical argument to the point where he concludes that PTT is the sole cause of AIDS, failing moral values, and, perhaps, Sin in the Otherwise Perfect Universe is that M. Slonecker ran out space in the Comments box. Perhaps he went over his allowed “number of words written in all caps” quota.
M. Slonecker then argues that a person who reveals his identity because he was forced to has not, actually, revealed his identity. I know, I know… it sounds crazy to argue that a person who HAS revealed his identity (because someone forced him to) has NOT revealed his identity — but this is exactly what M. Slonecker argues in his Feb 25, 2008 at 03:14 PM post. A better man might have tried to soldier on through the chaos of M. Slonecker’s tortured logic, but I admit that it was too much for me. Who knows? Perhaps M. Slonecker then went on to prove that black is white, or that up is down, or that good is evil. I gave up, out of a fear that M. Slonecker would argue that ON was OFF and thus persuade me to unplug my iron lung.
Meanwhile, cheers to ironicslip [Feb 25, 2008 at 01:49 PM] and Malcolm Mooney [Feb 25, 2008 at 02:24 PM] for putting the real issues into an adult perspective. If only Malcolm’s post could be inserted after every other post, some real dialog, rather than diatribe, might happen.