Is the SEC Listening, LOOKING... do they even Care.. or will Mary Schapiro and the SEC just sit and wait for a Multi-Billion to Trillion Dollar Scandal and they say Whoops.. We had NO WAY to Know.. and then Of Course Investigative Blogger, Crystal L. Cox will have to Say What a Crock That is - Because does ANYONE at the SEC know How To work GOOGLE... ??? or any Search Engine Really.. or Possibly READ Complaints... ???
Warner Bros. - has broke the Law and in the process put shareholders at HUGE risk, why is Jeffrey Bewkes ignoring this blatant proof of Fraud.
Warner Bros signed multiple Iviewit Non Disclosure Agreements and Warner Bros. Signed License and Service Agreements with the Iviewit Company. 9 years have passed and Warner Bros. Blatantly and Illegally Violated those agreements long ago, why?
And Now Eliot Bernstein Founder and one of the Inventors it the Iviewit Stolen Patent has filed a very informative, incredibly detailed SEC Complaint. One that for Now Mary Schapiro and the SEC seems to be ignoring... I am not sure why just yet.. but hope to get tips on this soon...
Some of the Warner Bros' Iviewit Timeline and more details
of the Warner Bros. Relationship with the Iviewit Company.
" " TIMELINE OF WARNER BROS ET AL. RELATIONSHIP WITH IVIEWIT
The following Timelines are presented to give a factual timeline to the allegations herein, the exhibits are linked online and all Uniform Resource Locators (“URL”) and Exhibited Links throughout this document are hereby incorporated, in entirety by reference herein, including over 1000 evidentiary links on the homepage at www.iviewit.tv with exhibits that contain thousands of pages of factual evidence[5].
The timeline will also reveal facts regarding the relationships between many of the Defendants in my Federal RICO and ANTITRUST Lawsuit and Warner Bros et al., including relations to the main perpetrator of the alleged crimes, the law firm Proskauer Rose.
*Note Warner Bros et al. relevant mergers, acquisitions and breakups to these matters in the timeline below are in bold italics.
1998-2002
Relevant Communications Between Iviewit and Warner Bros et al.
· 1998-2001
Inventions in Imaging and Video Discovered and Intellectual Property Filings begin in 1998. Proskauer Rose was retained Intellectual Property counsel for Iviewit for filing of Intellectual Properties.
· 2000-2002
Warner Bros et al. signs multiple Iviewit Non Disclosure Agreements.
Non-Disclosure Agreements @
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/Patents/Confidentialities/confidentialities%20total.pdf
Pages 1-5, 10, 61-62, 80, 108-109, 234
· November 02, 2000 ~ Letter to GS regarding Warner Bros. Technological Calls to Iviewit Investors by Warner Bros. employees, describing the efficacy of the Inventions and the results of the review by Warner Bros., including the anticipated uses by Warner Bros et al.
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20001101%20Goldman%20Friedstein%20Letter%20from%20Buchsbaum%20re%20AOLTW%20Colter%20meetings.pdf
· January 11, 2001 ~ America Online and Time Warner Complete Merger to Create AOL Time Warner
http://www.timewarner.com/corp/newsroom/pr/0,20812,668364,00.html
· February 08, 2001 ~ Letter from David J. Colter (“Colter”) ~ Vice President Technology - Technological Operations Warner Bros. to Founder of AOL, Ted Leonsis (“Leonsis”), regarding the efficacy of the Iviewit technologies.
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20010208%20Colter%20to%20Leonsis%20Warner%20Bros%20AOL.pdf
· February 15, 2001 EFFECTIVE DATE - Signed Warner Bros. License And Service Agreement @
http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20010822%20-%20SIGNED%20Warner%20Bros%20Agreement%20AOL.pdf
August 15, 2001 Irell & Manella LLP Bills for Services for Warner Bros et al. and Sony Licensing Agreements @
http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/Patents/Paul%20Allen/old%20patent/LEGAL/Irell%20&%20Manella/Bills/2001%2008%2029%20-%20Irell%20Bill.pdf
It is imperative for the SEC to note that after the Signed Licensing and Service Agreement, Iviewit opened a California Office inside a Warner Bros. building, in order to take over encoding operations for their online content, and more.
Iviewit began billing according to the Licensing and Service agreement. Please note the language in the Licensing and Service agreement pertaining to the Proprietary nature and Confidentiality of the Iviewit inventions.
Suddenly, after the agreements were signed and operations were underway, Wayne M. Smith ~ Vice President and Chief Patent Counsel at Warner Bros. began seeking a re-review of Proskauer Partner Kenneth Rubenstein ’s (“Rubenstein”) prior patent opinions regarding the Iviewit inventions to Warner Bros. employees.
Smith then claimed to Colter that he found problems while reviewing Rubenstein’s opinion with the patents on file at the US Patent Office[6]. At this point, allegedly, a coordinated conspiratorial effort between Smith, Rubenstein and others began to derail the already signed Iviewit agreements with Warner Bros et al.
Allegedly, former “Acting CEO” of Iviewit, P. Stephen Lamont, (a referral emanating from AOL’s Leonsis) Smith and Rubenstein then worked to derail the Licensing and Service Agreement. Warner Bros. then further attempted to deny the existence of this BINDING CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION as further evidenced in letters exhibited herein, whereby the Signed and Binding agreement is wholly denied.
The amount owed in service fees since the signing of the contracts would be an enormous amount over the almost 10 years of use and where Warner Bros et al. have never notified Iviewit they were cancelling such contract, it may still be considered effective. Yet, it would difficult to cancel what one tries to deny the existence of and perhaps the reason no cancellation was formally completed.
o The emails forward from this point in the timeline begin to attempt to hide from the fact that Licensing and Service Agreements were already in place while also hiding these facts and liabilities from Shareholders and Auditors.
The alleged fraud may again have catastrophic effect on these highly traded stocks, reaching back to this point in time and possibly further back.
· April 04, 2001 Letter from Colter to William J. "Bill" Raduchel (“Raduchel”) ~ Chief Technology Officer and Executive Vice President at AOL. AOL’s Leonsis referred Raduchel to do further due diligence for an investment in the Iviewit companies, in addition to the Licensing and Encoding deal already signed.
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20010404%20Colter%20to%20Raduchel%20Leonsis%20referral%20AOL%20Warner%20Bros.pdf
· May 25, 2001 Letters to and from Douglas Chey (“Chey”), Senior Vice President of Technology for Sony Pictures Digital Entertainment and Divisional CIO, Motion Pictures and Television Productions of Sony Pictures Entertainment. Chey, formerly with Warner Bros. was working with Iviewit at Sony (also under Signed Agreements) together with Warner to do a Five Studio Movie Download Project, Movielink, where the Iviewit inventions were to be the backbone enabling technologies to make digital download and streaming possible as a commercial endeavor.
Since that time, Warner Bros et al. and Sony have both done similar digital downloading projects, in violation of Signed Agreements with Iviewit.
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20010525%20Sony%20Doug%20Chey%20Endorsement%20of%20Tech%20and%20Advisory%20Board%20Option%20letter.pdf
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20100120%20Douglas%20Chey%20Sony%20Bio.pdf
The SEC should also begin FORMAL INVESTIGATION of Sony’s involvement in these matters. Similar calls to those described herein to Warner Bros et al. for sound business discussions to attempt to alleviate shareholder liabilities have gone wholly ignored by Sony’s In House Counsel, Executives and Auditors.
I will be filing a more formal complaint shortly with the SEC but this should not delay immediate investigation by the SEC, in order to preclude Massive Liabilities to Shareholders of Sony.
The SEC and all other investigators and committees addressed herein, can take this Formal Complaint additionally as a FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST SONY. ""
Source of Post and of Warner Bros SEC Complaint
So Where is Mary Schapiro on this One ?
jeffrey bewkes
Showing posts with label David Kappos. Show all posts
Showing posts with label David Kappos. Show all posts
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Friday, January 8, 2010
Smaller inventors Smackdown - David Kappos, USPTO formerly IBM ....the Whining of Billion Dollar Tech Companies
From the Article Below we see more Evidence of how David Kappos's IBM connections and his appointment to the USPTO was Deliberat to Shut up those Small Inventors as they try and license their Technology.
$$$$$$
"" IBM veteran gets panel OK to run patent office
Kappos helped run massive patent operation; Full vote expected in Sept.
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) - David Kappos, a former IBM Corp. executive who spent years helping Big Blue amass a forbidding warchest of intellectual property, was approved by a Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday to become the next director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
A full vote on Kappos' nomination is expected after the Senate's summer recess.
David Kappos is expected to lend the perspective of large technology firms, while shaking up an embattled institution.
Technology companies have long complained that the patent office isn't sufficiently exacting, and awards too many dubious legal protections. Smaller inventors and patent holding firms, however, rely on winning a wide range of patents originated at the office to elbow their way into markets and win licensing fees.
The patent office "has not been able to keep pace with the avalanche of applications it has received in recent years," David Kappos said in testimony delivered on behalf of IBM to the Senate Judiciary Committee in March. That in turn, Kappos complained, has contributed to "increased speculation" and a surplus of lawsuits.
While that echoed the sentiments of many other large technology companies, IBM has a somewhat unique perspective. It has historically developed and acquired patents at an exhaustive pace, setting a standard aspired to by peers such as Microsoft Corp.
Indeed, Microsoft hired Marshall Phelps, Kappos' former colleague at IBM, to head its intellectual property licensing efforts in 2003. The companies' approach has blurred the lines, some say, between simply protecting business lines and seeking to bulk up on legal claims and licensing.
In 2008, IBM topped the list of U.S. technology companies winning patents for the 16th year in a row, with over 4,000. As Kappos noted in his March testimony, IBM became the first company ever to amass that many patents in a single year.
Microsoft ranked fourth, with 2,030 patents - behind Samsung and Canon, and one notch ahead of Intel Corp. IBM, along with many other large technology companies, has supported proposed patent reform legislation on Capitol Hill. That legislation seeks to improve the quality of patents, and cut down on the numerous lawsuits and significant jury awards regularly faced by large companies. ""
$$$$$$
"" IBM veteran gets panel OK to run patent office
Kappos helped run massive patent operation; Full vote expected in Sept.
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) - David Kappos, a former IBM Corp. executive who spent years helping Big Blue amass a forbidding warchest of intellectual property, was approved by a Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday to become the next director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
A full vote on Kappos' nomination is expected after the Senate's summer recess.
David Kappos is expected to lend the perspective of large technology firms, while shaking up an embattled institution.
Technology companies have long complained that the patent office isn't sufficiently exacting, and awards too many dubious legal protections. Smaller inventors and patent holding firms, however, rely on winning a wide range of patents originated at the office to elbow their way into markets and win licensing fees.
The patent office "has not been able to keep pace with the avalanche of applications it has received in recent years," David Kappos said in testimony delivered on behalf of IBM to the Senate Judiciary Committee in March. That in turn, Kappos complained, has contributed to "increased speculation" and a surplus of lawsuits.
While that echoed the sentiments of many other large technology companies, IBM has a somewhat unique perspective. It has historically developed and acquired patents at an exhaustive pace, setting a standard aspired to by peers such as Microsoft Corp.
Indeed, Microsoft hired Marshall Phelps, Kappos' former colleague at IBM, to head its intellectual property licensing efforts in 2003. The companies' approach has blurred the lines, some say, between simply protecting business lines and seeking to bulk up on legal claims and licensing.
In 2008, IBM topped the list of U.S. technology companies winning patents for the 16th year in a row, with over 4,000. As Kappos noted in his March testimony, IBM became the first company ever to amass that many patents in a single year.
Microsoft ranked fourth, with 2,030 patents - behind Samsung and Canon, and one notch ahead of Intel Corp. IBM, along with many other large technology companies, has supported proposed patent reform legislation on Capitol Hill. That legislation seeks to improve the quality of patents, and cut down on the numerous lawsuits and significant jury awards regularly faced by large companies. ""
Full Article and Source
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ibm-veteran-gets-panel-ok-to-run-patent-office-2009-08-06
David Kappos, IBM and Kappos,
Foley and Lardner Connections With David Kappos
What Connections Does David Kappos of the USPTO have with Foley and Lardner ? And where does the list end of who David Kappos will protect in the name of squashing Inventors Rights?
Coming Soon..
Coming Soon..
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Sughrue Mion Zinn Macpeak and Seas - "Kappos Obviousness" Search Term
Sughrue Mion Zinn Macpeak & Seas
their Website says "We Protect the Universe of Ideas"
they Seem to be an Intellectual Property Group....
they Got to the Iviewit Stolen Patent information on our
Industry Whistleblower Sites Today by Searching this term
"kappos obviousness"
Interesting isn't it? Do you think their are Others out there who feel that David Kappos of the USPTO is kind of Obvious about his denial of due process and of protecting IBM and their Cronies over the Rights of inventors...???
David Kappos USPTO
their Website says "We Protect the Universe of Ideas"
they Seem to be an Intellectual Property Group....
they Got to the Iviewit Stolen Patent information on our
Industry Whistleblower Sites Today by Searching this term
"kappos obviousness"
Interesting isn't it? Do you think their are Others out there who feel that David Kappos of the USPTO is kind of Obvious about his denial of due process and of protecting IBM and their Cronies over the Rights of inventors...???
David Kappos USPTO
Friday, January 1, 2010
US Patent and Trademark Office Free for ALL - Stealing Patents is Legal - Here is How You Too Can Do it.
The USPTO Does not Care about Your Rights. GO ahead and Infringe on Copyrights, Trademarks and Intellectual Property. The US Patent and Trademark Office CANNOT Really Do anything about it as they have Proven Evidence against all the "bad guys" on this Blog and they do nothing.. So Really Stealing inventions is VERY Legal..
Now that David Kappos former IBM Crony is Running the USPTO well rest assured that IBM will Easily be able to use and profit from any patent they want Regardless of Who invented it.
So Intel, IBM, Proskauer Rose, Court Corruption, Attorney Corruption... No Body Cares.. Stealing a Patent is Easy.. Much more Detailed information on Stealing Inventions at the Link Below.. Go Ahead.. No Body CARES...
Now that David Kappos former IBM Crony is Running the USPTO well rest assured that IBM will Easily be able to use and profit from any patent they want Regardless of Who invented it.
So Intel, IBM, Proskauer Rose, Court Corruption, Attorney Corruption... No Body Cares.. Stealing a Patent is Easy.. Much more Detailed information on Stealing Inventions at the Link Below.. Go Ahead.. No Body CARES...
Who Do We the People Blame for Stomping on the Civil Rights, Human Rights of the Iviewit Inventors?
I Blame Number One My Own Tax Dollars, I Fund this To Happen to Guys Like Eliot Bernstein. I Blame the USPTO for letting it happen, the Supreme Courts for Ignoring it, the FL and NY State Bar for Ignoring it and I Blame ALL the Bad Guys and Gals on this Blog. Read it all, then Read www.Iviewit.TV - and once you get a clearer picture of all this you will see that the Political Connections, War Connections, HUGE technology Company Connection, Attorney Connections and more... all play out to be the Worlds Greatest Trillion Dollar Heist...
And no Justice Still after 8 Years and Thousands of Documents of Proof, the Courts are Denying the Rights of the Iviewit Inventors and We are Letting Them... Make Some Noise.. Post this Stuff on your Blog.. Expose these Guys..
And no Justice Still after 8 Years and Thousands of Documents of Proof, the Courts are Denying the Rights of the Iviewit Inventors and We are Letting Them... Make Some Noise.. Post this Stuff on your Blog.. Expose these Guys..
Sunday, December 27, 2009
a Fox in the Hen House to Say the Least - Patent Office Director David Kappos Connected to IBM - say What ??
"Patent Office Director David Kappos on innovation
Each month we interview a different leader in innovation.
This month: Q&A with David Kappos, the newly appointed Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO), whom we met when he visited our hometown of San Francisco in mid October, and then interviewed recently for this newsletter.
Kappos is an engineer-turned lawyer who headed patenting at tech giant IBM—so let’s just say he’s seen more than a few patents over the years—before President Obama tapped him for government service as the nation’s top patent person. Here’s perspective from the Director:
Q: What’s been your biggest surprise since moving from the private sector to the USPTO?
David: I have to say that I have a new appreciation for the challenges that come with running a complex agency within the U.S. government.
Q: What's been the most fun part of your relatively new job?
David: The last several weeks have been a blur of intense activity as we have rolled out a number of new initiatives and policies at the USPTO. So it was a special pleasure for me to participate in activities on our campus and at the White House honoring the 2008 National Medal of Technology and Innovation and the National Medal of Science Laureates.
I was particularly pleased to host a reception and dinner sponsored by the National Inventors Hall of Fame and the National Technology and Science Medals Foundation in our museum and auditorium. The men and women who gathered here for the two days of ceremonies truly are the creative and innovative giants of our time.
It was, frankly, great fun and exciting to meet and talk with pioneers like Forrest Bird, the inventor of the portable respirator, the team at Adobe that developed desktop publishing and Dr. Esther Takeuchi who invented the battery technology used in implantable cardiac defibrillators. They and their fellow honorees have saved millions of lives, improved the quality of life for countless others and transformed the way we do business.
Q: Do you ever review individual patents these days?
David: No, we have a team of more than 6,000 examiners in whom I have the utmost confidence.
Q: What's the first thing you'd suggest a person do after he or she comes up with an exciting product idea?
David: Develop a sound business plan in which intellectual property protection is a part. Any business decision has to be an informed one, though, so I would suggest first taking a look at our web site designed with the independent inventor in mind (http://www.uspto.gov/inventors/independent/index.jsp).
Here you will find basic information on applying for a patent or a trademark registration, transcripts of our online chats with independent inventors, and other useful information.
Q: Any other brief advice or words of wisdom for the independent inventors out there?
David: Independent inventors should seek an interview with their patent examiner early in the process as a means to get patents issued quickly and cost-effectively. The statistics show that an interview can help the examiner and the applicant get to the heart of the patentability determination quickly and efficiently.
Interview data from FY 2008 shows that the allowance rate after a first office action on the merits (FAOM) is more than doubled when an interview is held between the examiner and the practitioner. Similar gains are apparent from the First Action Interview Pilot program, which typically includes an interview prior to the FAOM.
It’s no surprise to me that this is the case. When people talk to one another and listen to one another they can quickly understand points of agreement as well as differences, and resolve those differences in real-time. The applicant should come to the interview prepared, willing to answer questions, willing to listen and be receptive to claims modifications the examiner suggests. Sometimes no claims will be allowable; but even if that is the case, an interview that produces an “agreement to disagree” is valuable both to the USPTO and to applicants.
Q: In your perfect world, how long would the patent examination process take, on average?
David: Our goal is 20 months to patent issuance. This would be a major drop from where we currently are—over 33 months on average. Twenty months is optimal because it does not take away trade secrecy lead time (18 months, since that is when most applications publish), and leaves enough time for prior art to become available and searchable, while waiting no longer than needed to serve these two interests. Of course, for applicants who want their patents even faster, we are working on a new accelerated examination process, available for payment of a fee, which will aim to get patents processed in under a year.
Q: Why must patent application and maintenance fees so high in a time when the nation is trying to encourage more innovation?
David: Fees for the patent application, issue and maintenance fees and other related fees are reduced by 50% when the applicant is a small business or individual inventor. Unlike most other federal entities, the USPTO receives no taxpayer dollars; it subsists solely and completely on user fees. Our user fee structure is generally based upon a “fee for service” economic model. In order to obtain, or attempt to obtain, a patent or a trademark from the agency, an applicant must pay certain fees at various stages of the process.
Q: Has President Obama shared any invention ideas with you? And if so, is he filing for patents on any of them?
David: Well, even if I knew I surely wouldn’t betray an inventor’s trust. But if President Obama did get a patent, he would be only the second U.S. president to do so. While a Congressman from Illinois in 1849, Abraham Lincoln received Patent No. 6,469 for “A Device for Buoying Vessels over Shoals.”
Q: What’s your favorite invention from history, and why?
David: Well, thinking about the ones I use most these days—I’d say the computer, the cell phone or the airplane!
David Kappos
Source of Above
http://www.absolutelynewsletter.com/patent-office-director-david-kappos-on-innovation.html
Kappos
Tiny Bit of Hogwash Here... Come on David Kappos is Pretending to Be a Good Guy and Seems to Be Proclaiming to Really Want to Protect Inventors, if So where Is he on Protecting a Trillion Dollar Technology - and the Inventors that are Seemingly Collateral Damage?
Independent Inventors Should Seek Patent Council, Says David Kappos Patent Office Director - Well WHY?
When the USPTO seems to have NO Issue with the Patent Attorney Stealing the Invention and Putting Patents of their Clients in the Patent Attorneys Name... David Kappos Says for you to seek patent council ... I Say Beware... In the Iviewit Trillion Dollar Patent Theft there is Millions upon Millions of Shareholder / Investors Money at Stake, there is Trillions in Benefits ... there is thousands of documents of proof and 8 years of proof on top of proof and the US Justice System Can Do NOTHING to Restore Justice ...
So you the Little Inventor without the Millions .. without the Big Name and Big Connections backing you.. Well you don't stand a Chance, if your Invention is any good the Patent Attorney will Make sure, one way or another that you Don't Actually get to REALLY benefit from it...
Who Better to Protect the Interests of IBM at the US Patent Office then Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO).
David Kappos is an engineer-turned lawyer who headed patenting at tech giant IBM - Does this Raise an Eyebrow to anyone, how will David Kappos Really be able to be in the best interest of the Inventors, those trying to patent something really great when he has Connections, and Affiliations that may be in direct Conflict with the Invention?
You are fighting for the rights to your Holy Grail High Tech invention and the Keepers to the Kingdom in which would not exist if it were not for you.. well they are IBM Cronies in the USPTO and the Supreme Court, they are Politically Connected Judges and Attorneys, they are "Evil Doers" and there is NOTHING you can do to get the Rights to Your Invention... So Give up.. and if you Do Get the Nerve Up to Make a Stand.. well You will Pay the Price...
Each month we interview a different leader in innovation.
This month: Q&A with David Kappos, the newly appointed Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO), whom we met when he visited our hometown of San Francisco in mid October, and then interviewed recently for this newsletter.
Kappos is an engineer-turned lawyer who headed patenting at tech giant IBM—so let’s just say he’s seen more than a few patents over the years—before President Obama tapped him for government service as the nation’s top patent person. Here’s perspective from the Director:
Q: What’s been your biggest surprise since moving from the private sector to the USPTO?
David: I have to say that I have a new appreciation for the challenges that come with running a complex agency within the U.S. government.
Q: What's been the most fun part of your relatively new job?
David: The last several weeks have been a blur of intense activity as we have rolled out a number of new initiatives and policies at the USPTO. So it was a special pleasure for me to participate in activities on our campus and at the White House honoring the 2008 National Medal of Technology and Innovation and the National Medal of Science Laureates.
I was particularly pleased to host a reception and dinner sponsored by the National Inventors Hall of Fame and the National Technology and Science Medals Foundation in our museum and auditorium. The men and women who gathered here for the two days of ceremonies truly are the creative and innovative giants of our time.
It was, frankly, great fun and exciting to meet and talk with pioneers like Forrest Bird, the inventor of the portable respirator, the team at Adobe that developed desktop publishing and Dr. Esther Takeuchi who invented the battery technology used in implantable cardiac defibrillators. They and their fellow honorees have saved millions of lives, improved the quality of life for countless others and transformed the way we do business.
Q: Do you ever review individual patents these days?
David: No, we have a team of more than 6,000 examiners in whom I have the utmost confidence.
Q: What's the first thing you'd suggest a person do after he or she comes up with an exciting product idea?
David: Develop a sound business plan in which intellectual property protection is a part. Any business decision has to be an informed one, though, so I would suggest first taking a look at our web site designed with the independent inventor in mind (http://www.uspto.gov/inventors/independent/index.jsp).
Here you will find basic information on applying for a patent or a trademark registration, transcripts of our online chats with independent inventors, and other useful information.
Q: Any other brief advice or words of wisdom for the independent inventors out there?
David: Independent inventors should seek an interview with their patent examiner early in the process as a means to get patents issued quickly and cost-effectively. The statistics show that an interview can help the examiner and the applicant get to the heart of the patentability determination quickly and efficiently.
Interview data from FY 2008 shows that the allowance rate after a first office action on the merits (FAOM) is more than doubled when an interview is held between the examiner and the practitioner. Similar gains are apparent from the First Action Interview Pilot program, which typically includes an interview prior to the FAOM.
It’s no surprise to me that this is the case. When people talk to one another and listen to one another they can quickly understand points of agreement as well as differences, and resolve those differences in real-time. The applicant should come to the interview prepared, willing to answer questions, willing to listen and be receptive to claims modifications the examiner suggests. Sometimes no claims will be allowable; but even if that is the case, an interview that produces an “agreement to disagree” is valuable both to the USPTO and to applicants.
Q: In your perfect world, how long would the patent examination process take, on average?
David: Our goal is 20 months to patent issuance. This would be a major drop from where we currently are—over 33 months on average. Twenty months is optimal because it does not take away trade secrecy lead time (18 months, since that is when most applications publish), and leaves enough time for prior art to become available and searchable, while waiting no longer than needed to serve these two interests. Of course, for applicants who want their patents even faster, we are working on a new accelerated examination process, available for payment of a fee, which will aim to get patents processed in under a year.
Q: Why must patent application and maintenance fees so high in a time when the nation is trying to encourage more innovation?
David: Fees for the patent application, issue and maintenance fees and other related fees are reduced by 50% when the applicant is a small business or individual inventor. Unlike most other federal entities, the USPTO receives no taxpayer dollars; it subsists solely and completely on user fees. Our user fee structure is generally based upon a “fee for service” economic model. In order to obtain, or attempt to obtain, a patent or a trademark from the agency, an applicant must pay certain fees at various stages of the process.
Q: Has President Obama shared any invention ideas with you? And if so, is he filing for patents on any of them?
David: Well, even if I knew I surely wouldn’t betray an inventor’s trust. But if President Obama did get a patent, he would be only the second U.S. president to do so. While a Congressman from Illinois in 1849, Abraham Lincoln received Patent No. 6,469 for “A Device for Buoying Vessels over Shoals.”
Q: What’s your favorite invention from history, and why?
David: Well, thinking about the ones I use most these days—I’d say the computer, the cell phone or the airplane!
David Kappos
Source of Above
http://www.absolutelynewsletter.com/patent-office-director-david-kappos-on-innovation.html
Kappos
Tiny Bit of Hogwash Here... Come on David Kappos is Pretending to Be a Good Guy and Seems to Be Proclaiming to Really Want to Protect Inventors, if So where Is he on Protecting a Trillion Dollar Technology - and the Inventors that are Seemingly Collateral Damage?
Independent Inventors Should Seek Patent Council, Says David Kappos Patent Office Director - Well WHY?
When the USPTO seems to have NO Issue with the Patent Attorney Stealing the Invention and Putting Patents of their Clients in the Patent Attorneys Name... David Kappos Says for you to seek patent council ... I Say Beware... In the Iviewit Trillion Dollar Patent Theft there is Millions upon Millions of Shareholder / Investors Money at Stake, there is Trillions in Benefits ... there is thousands of documents of proof and 8 years of proof on top of proof and the US Justice System Can Do NOTHING to Restore Justice ...
So you the Little Inventor without the Millions .. without the Big Name and Big Connections backing you.. Well you don't stand a Chance, if your Invention is any good the Patent Attorney will Make sure, one way or another that you Don't Actually get to REALLY benefit from it...
Who Better to Protect the Interests of IBM at the US Patent Office then Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO).
David Kappos is an engineer-turned lawyer who headed patenting at tech giant IBM - Does this Raise an Eyebrow to anyone, how will David Kappos Really be able to be in the best interest of the Inventors, those trying to patent something really great when he has Connections, and Affiliations that may be in direct Conflict with the Invention?
You are fighting for the rights to your Holy Grail High Tech invention and the Keepers to the Kingdom in which would not exist if it were not for you.. well they are IBM Cronies in the USPTO and the Supreme Court, they are Politically Connected Judges and Attorneys, they are "Evil Doers" and there is NOTHING you can do to get the Rights to Your Invention... So Give up.. and if you Do Get the Nerve Up to Make a Stand.. well You will Pay the Price...
the Connections - the Cronies - the Affiliations -
the Conflict of Interests.... OMG to say the Least...
Kappos
Sunday, December 20, 2009
David Kappos and The Impact of KSR – a unique opportunity for our profession
From a Patent Law Blog, Source Link at Bottom of Post
r
"Guest Post by Paul Cole, Visiting Professor,
Intellectual Property Law, Bournemouth University, UK
On Tuesday 24 November, David Kappos
made a posting on the Director’s Forum including the following statement:
Some have suggested that the Office is determining obviousness in a way that stifles innovation by refusing patents for truly inventive subject matter. They’ve asked us to provide examples of non-obvious claims in view of KSR. Such examples would serve as a complement to the examples of obvious claims already in the guidelines.
David Kappos gave a presentation at the AIPLA Annual Meeting in Washington on October, and in a question and answer session that followed there were three questions which concerned KSR, more than any other topic.
The two questioners who preceded me expressed dissatisfaction with seemingly unjust and arbitrary rejections for lack of inventive step. I asked whether the US examination guidelines on inventive step could be brought into line with those of the EPO, where positive and negative examples are carefully balanced, and the suggestion created a burst of applause from the audience.
More detained comments on the suggestion are found in a paper on KSR that was published in the John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law in 2008 [1]. For convenience of reference, the final section is set out here:
*** The USPTO has been accused of having become significantly less applicant-friendly following the KSR decision. This may reflect concerns about “patent quality” and is reflected in the Guidelines given to examiners. A big difference is noticeable between the EPO Examination Guidelines and those of the USPTO.
The EPO Examination Guidelines at Part C Chapter IV give examples relating to the requirement of inventive step. Considerable care has been taken to balance these examples. Examples illustrating the application of known measures in an obvious way and in which inventive step can be ruled out are balanced by further examples showing the application of known measures in a non–obvious way and in which an inventive step is therefore to be recognized.
An example of an obvious and consequently non-inventive combination of features is balanced by an example of a non-obvious and consequently inventive combination of features. Examples of obvious and consequently non-inventive selection are balanced by examples of non-obvious and consequently inventive selection.
The single example relating to overcoming a technical prejudice shows a situation where the application should be allowed, not refused. A reader of these Guidelines is made aware that although many applications are open to objection, there are many others that cover meritorious inventions and should be allowed.
When the USPTO issued its post-KSR Guidelines, from the standpoint of a prosecution attorney they made depressing reading. For example, the first heading which refers to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results gives two examples, one of which is Andersons-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co. and the other of which is Ruiz v SAB Chance Co. in both of which obviousness was established. There is no balancing example in which inventive character was established.
There follow five other headings illustrated by examples, each and every one of which shows the claimed subject matter to be obvious. The final heading concerns the TSM test which is not illustrated by any example. Under the heading “Consideration of Applicants Rebuttal Evidence” there are cursory indications that an applicant might have something relevant to say in reply, and that, for example, they might argue that the claimed elements in combination do not merely perform the function that each element performs separately.
Might it not have been a good idea to inform the Examining Corps that if an applicant can demonstrate a new and unexpected result, this is strong prima facie evidence of inventive step, that this fact is supported by several opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court and that where such evidence is available an applicant should unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary expect a grant decision to follow?
Experience in the EPO is that where an applicant can demonstrate a credible technical problem that he has solved, he will almost always be granted a patent and that although other objections, e.g. “one–way-street” or “bonus effect” are available, circumstances where such objections succeed are rare, as acknowledged by the U.K. High Court in Haberman.
Instructions to examiners are of general importance to the public because they are the main tool used during examination and the important event for most applicants is grant or refusal by the patent office, litigation of patents (even in the U.S.) being uncommon.
Instructions are even more important for examiners who are trainees and those who have only recently acquired signatory authority because they are likely to rely chiefly on those instructions and to take some time to achieve a deep understanding of case law.
It is important to teach examiners when to make objections and the appropriate grounds for doing so, but is it not equally important to teach them when applications should be allowed and to show them examples of patents whose validity has been upheld, as the EPO does?
Quality patent examination is not just a matter of ensuring that applications lacking merit are reliably refused but also of ensuring that meritorious applications are reliably granted. ****
It now seems that there is at least a chance that the suggestion that I and apparently others have made will be acted on, and that the possibility is under active consideration in the USPTO. Examples of decisions on new function or result which are contained in my paper include the nineteenth century Supreme Court cases Winans v Denmead and Washburn & Moen Manufacturing, Co. v. Beat’Em All Barbed-Wire Co, these decisions being selected on the basis of their instructive character and accessibility to the widest possible range of readers.
For the most to be made of this opportunity, we as students and users of the patent system can help by suggesting additional positive decisions which it would be good for the USPTO to include in the revised inventive step Guidelines.
Hopefully readers will respond with references to good Board of Appeals, District Court and CAFC cases, and I look forward to reviewing a large number of hopefully constructive suggestions posted here in response."
r
Link to Source and Lots of Discussion on this...
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/12/david-kappos-and-the-impact-of-ksr-a-unique-opportunity-for-our-profession.html?cid=6a00d8341c588553ef0120a71cdd88970b
r
r
"Guest Post by Paul Cole, Visiting Professor,
Intellectual Property Law, Bournemouth University, UK
On Tuesday 24 November, David Kappos
made a posting on the Director’s Forum including the following statement:
Some have suggested that the Office is determining obviousness in a way that stifles innovation by refusing patents for truly inventive subject matter. They’ve asked us to provide examples of non-obvious claims in view of KSR. Such examples would serve as a complement to the examples of obvious claims already in the guidelines.
David Kappos gave a presentation at the AIPLA Annual Meeting in Washington on October, and in a question and answer session that followed there were three questions which concerned KSR, more than any other topic.
The two questioners who preceded me expressed dissatisfaction with seemingly unjust and arbitrary rejections for lack of inventive step. I asked whether the US examination guidelines on inventive step could be brought into line with those of the EPO, where positive and negative examples are carefully balanced, and the suggestion created a burst of applause from the audience.
More detained comments on the suggestion are found in a paper on KSR that was published in the John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law in 2008 [1]. For convenience of reference, the final section is set out here:
*** The USPTO has been accused of having become significantly less applicant-friendly following the KSR decision. This may reflect concerns about “patent quality” and is reflected in the Guidelines given to examiners. A big difference is noticeable between the EPO Examination Guidelines and those of the USPTO.
The EPO Examination Guidelines at Part C Chapter IV give examples relating to the requirement of inventive step. Considerable care has been taken to balance these examples. Examples illustrating the application of known measures in an obvious way and in which inventive step can be ruled out are balanced by further examples showing the application of known measures in a non–obvious way and in which an inventive step is therefore to be recognized.
An example of an obvious and consequently non-inventive combination of features is balanced by an example of a non-obvious and consequently inventive combination of features. Examples of obvious and consequently non-inventive selection are balanced by examples of non-obvious and consequently inventive selection.
The single example relating to overcoming a technical prejudice shows a situation where the application should be allowed, not refused. A reader of these Guidelines is made aware that although many applications are open to objection, there are many others that cover meritorious inventions and should be allowed.
When the USPTO issued its post-KSR Guidelines, from the standpoint of a prosecution attorney they made depressing reading. For example, the first heading which refers to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results gives two examples, one of which is Andersons-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co. and the other of which is Ruiz v SAB Chance Co. in both of which obviousness was established. There is no balancing example in which inventive character was established.
There follow five other headings illustrated by examples, each and every one of which shows the claimed subject matter to be obvious. The final heading concerns the TSM test which is not illustrated by any example. Under the heading “Consideration of Applicants Rebuttal Evidence” there are cursory indications that an applicant might have something relevant to say in reply, and that, for example, they might argue that the claimed elements in combination do not merely perform the function that each element performs separately.
Might it not have been a good idea to inform the Examining Corps that if an applicant can demonstrate a new and unexpected result, this is strong prima facie evidence of inventive step, that this fact is supported by several opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court and that where such evidence is available an applicant should unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary expect a grant decision to follow?
Experience in the EPO is that where an applicant can demonstrate a credible technical problem that he has solved, he will almost always be granted a patent and that although other objections, e.g. “one–way-street” or “bonus effect” are available, circumstances where such objections succeed are rare, as acknowledged by the U.K. High Court in Haberman.
Instructions to examiners are of general importance to the public because they are the main tool used during examination and the important event for most applicants is grant or refusal by the patent office, litigation of patents (even in the U.S.) being uncommon.
Instructions are even more important for examiners who are trainees and those who have only recently acquired signatory authority because they are likely to rely chiefly on those instructions and to take some time to achieve a deep understanding of case law.
It is important to teach examiners when to make objections and the appropriate grounds for doing so, but is it not equally important to teach them when applications should be allowed and to show them examples of patents whose validity has been upheld, as the EPO does?
Quality patent examination is not just a matter of ensuring that applications lacking merit are reliably refused but also of ensuring that meritorious applications are reliably granted. ****
It now seems that there is at least a chance that the suggestion that I and apparently others have made will be acted on, and that the possibility is under active consideration in the USPTO. Examples of decisions on new function or result which are contained in my paper include the nineteenth century Supreme Court cases Winans v Denmead and Washburn & Moen Manufacturing, Co. v. Beat’Em All Barbed-Wire Co, these decisions being selected on the basis of their instructive character and accessibility to the widest possible range of readers.
For the most to be made of this opportunity, we as students and users of the patent system can help by suggesting additional positive decisions which it would be good for the USPTO to include in the revised inventive step Guidelines.
Hopefully readers will respond with references to good Board of Appeals, District Court and CAFC cases, and I look forward to reviewing a large number of hopefully constructive suggestions posted here in response."
r
Link to Source and Lots of Discussion on this...
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/12/david-kappos-and-the-impact-of-ksr-a-unique-opportunity-for-our-profession.html?cid=6a00d8341c588553ef0120a71cdd88970b
r
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
David Kappos - What is He Doing about this Trillion Dollar Patent Fraud?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)