Manage updates with the Download AppMost Popular
- Teen's science project could charge phones in 20 seconds
530Facebook Likes
- Twitter will damn your soul, Saudi cleric says
1kTweets
- Yahoo wants to make Flickr 'awesome again'
314Google Plus Shares
Connect With CNET
iPhone Atlas
The one stop shop for all things iPhone
What's the #1 music streaming-app for iOS? Who wins in an iPhone v. S4 faceoff? We've got it covered with iPhone news, rumors, app recommendations, and more.
This is what has happened to software industry after software started to receive patents instead of software copyright. And now, instead of going back (that is impossible, I know), things are getting worse. Only in USA.
I do think we'd be better off going back to just copyright protection. Still, I think the author is right; the USPTO is getting better. Most of the problem patents I read about were granted before or around 2000. Maybe that means fewer questionable software patents are getting through, or maybe that means that companies holding them just aren't litigating yet.
As always, time will tell.
The problem with applying patents to software is
the lack of well-documented prior art. Software
costs zip to implement other than time.
Production is also prolific, ad hoc, and ideas
are rapidly generated, even implemented, and
regularly discarded for a slew of practical
reasons (approach lacks aesthetics, another
approach requires less maintenance, software
interdependencies, volatility of 3rd party APIs,
etc.). The fact of the matter is that just about
anything done is software is obvious to those
skilled in the art -- it's just that there are
practical constraints that determine the course
of development and what actually gets
implemented.
If you permit patents on software, you're
essentially patenting the parameters provided to
a mechanical device.
Worse still, the reason for a patent is to
secure for the public domain rights to an
invention in exchange for a limited duration
right to prevent others from implementing it.
Part of that bargain is that once it reaches the
public domain it will have some iota of value
and be usable. In 17 years, how many of the
software patents today are likely to be
applicable or even implementable? Will they in
any way present a tangible benefit or
advancement to society? Some, maybe, but most
won't and it's generally obvious what those
would be...
A patent is a species of license, and as such can be revoked by the issuing body. Despite the misleading term "intellectual property" it is not property at all; it is an, "exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" (ibid.).
Rights can be taken away if someone contravenes the social compact under which those rights were granted. In most states, felons have no 2nd amendment rights, for instance. Perhaps patent holders need to be reminded that they are granted these rights "for limited Times" for the good of the nation, and humankind generally, not solely for their personal gain.
Companies are in business to provide goods and services for the public good. Saying you can sit on a patent and prevent other people from creating something that violates that patent is a complete falsehood. What if the patent was for the cure for cancer and the inventor decided to not let anyone develop it to save lives? Sorry he would lose the right to the patent in a heartbeat.
However, if there is no adequate protection for software ideas, I am afraid it will hurt innovation and technology progress another way. Innovators will be tightlip to protect their own inventions.
In my opinion, the following would work better:
1. Limit software patent lifetime to 5-years to provide adequate protection, reward and cost recovery to inventors.
2. Make it harder to grant a software patent. The way software patent is granted now is unacceptable as new ones can be built from existing ideas with some modifications.
3. Patent is a "usage license", not a property as suggested by this reply. This means if patent owner does not have intention to use it for producing products or services, it will be revoked after 1 year.
That will save society quite a bit of $$$$ that would otherwise be invested in other needs.
It seems the "new frictionless economy" guys that gave us the last stock bubble are hosing up to inflate another one.
Why not make money the old fashioned way: sell something for value? Because MBAs can't code.
If the inventor doesn't have a working model of his invention, did he really invent something? I just imagined a spacecraft able to fly to Mars. I should patent it and when NASA invents it in 30 years, I will sue them for everything they got. I am a firm believer that patents, if granted at all, should only be to those who actually invented something (i.e. that have a working model). You see, anyone can have ideas. It's quite possible that someone will think of the same thing I did.
I don't think people should be forced to use their patents, but should at least show a working model of the invention before a patent is granted. Forcing the use of patents might harm open source development (those projects that use free patents). If they were forced, however, individuals wouldn't be forced into competing as the article mentions. They just need their working model (and sufficient funds to develop it), and then license their patent to companies.
The cost of filing for a patent is already prohibitive for the small company or individual. If as a small company or individual I have an idea that I know is original and will work, but I don't have to money to actually implement a working version, by the standard you propose, I'm not entitled to protection of my idea.
How big and accurate does the "working model" have to be to be considered a "working model"? If I have an idea for something that can only be used in a zero gravity environment, like space, as a "little guy" I have very little chance of demonstrating a real working model in that zero gravity environment because the cost of getting the model to that environment are beyond my means. If memory serves, from a recent C/Net video on the space elevator, I believe current prices for the U.S. space shuttle is about $10,000+ per pound. That price is a little lower if you go to China, Russia or France.
By that standard, my only recourse is to sell my soul and/or my idea to devil, venture capitalists or some big corporation, in which case, I may get to keep a small fraction of the rights to my invention.
I also seem to vaguely recall that there are (or at least were) provisions that allowed for working models to be defined strictly on paper. Presumably, the purpose of having the patent clerk vett the patent claim is to determine how plausible the claim really is. Of course, this assumes that the patent clerk is properly schooled in the topic area of the patent claim....cough! cough! cough!
It should not be possible for an inventor to transfer a patent to a non-inventor.
Otherwise, there should be no patents.
Inventors with working inventions should not be charged for patent rights in any case.
I will get it on the market, but it takes time.
government in any year, and make sure there is a substantial
annual cost to having a patent. That will promote maximization
of profit if a patent is granted (rather than sitting on it, or simply
collecting design patents, but hey, it's your dime), plus the
government needs to make an active decision as to which
monopolies to grant, presumably preferring those that will
garner the highest future tax revenue, implying that those that
are the most revolutionary and known to work will be preferred.
Copyright, however, should be extended to design (to allow
something broader than trade dress). Key is to prevent
"application" patents, e.g., "time travel in order to correct a
redress", when you have no idea how to actually perform time
travel, but you think a competitor is about to patent it - thus
preventing him from entering any markets without cross-
licensing to you.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://jmaximus.blogspot.com" target="_newWindow">http://jmaximus.blogspot.com</a>
While this may be legally-technically true, it is not the intent of the patent system. The intent was to foster innovation and help inventors get their product to market either through licensing or manufacturing it themselves.
It was to stop simple duplication of original ideas like the mechanical cotton picker, that revolutionized the cotton industry. Patents are granted to reward the _inventor_ (who may receive reward through selling his patent to a company who is better funded to produce the product) for the purpose of fostering innovation for the public good.
In order to benefit the common good (society), authors and patent holders (artists & creators) were encouraged to publish patents so that other companies could _use_ (through licensing), the product in building upon it to make ever newer products. Prior to that time, inventors might sit on a new invention and not publish it -- with the result that the public never benefits from the idea. The whole purpose of granting patents was to "reward" inventors" by granting them ownership rights to the product solely for the purpose that it be brought to the market for the advancement of the United States country as a whole.
The argument that without "patents" people would not invent things is fallacious. People invented things long before patents were even thought of. Patents were created for the express purpose of speeding up dissemination and implementation for the _public good_, of new ideas; not to simply spur their creation and burying.
On another note, patents of length 20 years were reasonable when talking about physical products that could take years to bring to market. As an example, one of the first machine guns adopted in 1912 by the British army was the Vickers machine gun. Vickers was was only able to manufacture these guns at the rate of 12 guns/week (544 guns/year). At 544 guns/year, the 20 year period could allow for 10,880 units, more if the inventor increases capacity.
With the advent of WW-I, demand was so high, that Vicker's was able to recoup costs and increase development by 7200% (72x) by 1918.
If Vickers didn't have patent protection, a big corporation with large manufacturing capacity could have easily stepped in to meet the need, depriving the Vickers company the chance to succeed. While he initially the guns cost £175, with increased capacity, he was able to "responsibly" lower the price (with a little nudge from the government) by 53% to £80/unit.
By todays standard, 40,000 units/year would be small change by today's standards. A 20 year period was probably reasonable at that time.
However, in today's world, products and fads come and go in a year (remember Pet Rocks?).
It's far easier with today's technology to recoup costs in a shorter time period -- maybe 10-15 years.
With "software", where millions of units can be cranked out in a few weeks (or less if using electronic delivery), 20 years is insanely long.
Something along the lines of 3-5 years _might_ be more reasonable if software patents should be allowed at all.
In medical developments, 20 years is way too long for one company or person to be able to hold on to exclusive rights. Note that only 6 years after Vickers gun was adopted by the British, and he had not only amassed a handsome profit, but he also *lowered* the price to something closer to his production costs. This is something corporations, today, rarely due unless their is a substitute treatment for the ailment the product was designed to treat.
The idea of a company holding on to "submarine" patents that are not put into use is absolutely contrary to the reasoning that went into the creation of patents.
Patents are not an innate, inborn human right. Patents are a _privilege_ allowed by government to allow inventors to be rewarded and encourage more invention for the "public good". They are to create incentives for the owner to put the product into use for the "public good". If the patent inventor abuses this privilege and does not put the idea into use, then there is no betterment of the public good and no reason to grant such privileges.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://jmaximus.blogspot.com" target="_newWindow">http://jmaximus.blogspot.com</a>
Your logic of the intent of the patent system is flawed. Internationally, it may hold weight, but it is contradiction with Article I Section XIII of the constitution. Congress shall have the to give inventors **exclusive** rights to their invention. This in no way implies licensing, or any other form of sharing your patent. It may not be something we agree with (myself included, although in a unique fashion), but without a constitutional amendment, any act that required licensing would likely be struck down in the courts.
anything with a patent. The US constitution
doesn't say anything about having to do anything
with your exclusive rights, and there's more of a
century of precedent that says that sitting on a
patent is just fine.
In fact, it's the "exclusive" right part that is
the core idea of the patent system. It permits
you to exclude others from making/implementing
whatever you patented. A patent does NOT grant
you a right to make/implement a thing you patent
and it's pretty common these days for somone to
get a patent and find that other patents prevent
them from implementing their invention.
It would be foolish to void someone's patent just
because they are waiting on another person's
patent to expire before they can make whatever it
was they patented.
I do think, however, that the notion os
"submarine patents" be addressed. This is a case
where a patent holder notices that someone is
producing something that infringes and rather
than seeking judgement may wait years for the
product to mature and become an integral part of
a company's business before suing. The idea being
that you can extract more money from the
manufacturer once they've already committed
resources to the patented thing. That is clearly
an abuse.
(1) The inventor of an innovation who spent long hours and perhaps R & D money, and hopes to turn this into a useful product that will be profitable benefit society.
(2) The holders of patent portfolios, who either have no intention of using the inventions in any useful products, but hold the patents with the intention of either preventing others from using the invention, or extracting royalties if others do. These entities may not even be the originators of the inventions, but secure the rights by other means and generally do not contribute to the public interests. I see the Rambus name in the article, and it is my understanding that they are one such entity.
(3) The consumers of these patented products, and the public best interests.
The patent system will always be broken until these questions are answered, and also define the reasons that each of these parties either need to be protected or exposed. Then determine how the patent system can be designed to do that.
The patent system should not only be about protection, but also about the exposure and discouragement of practices not in the public best interests.
After all who do these politicians represent? The people who voted for them, or the campaign funders, the lobbists and special interest groups?
These things also need to be sorted out before we will have a patent system that serves the publics best interests.
Tom McL.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://jmaximus.blogspot.com" target="_newWindow">http://jmaximus.blogspot.com</a>
Like mathematical formulae, patents are not intended to be
able to be placed on computer algorithms. Yet by simple
choices of wording, expressing the algorithm in the form of
a computer system employing the algorithm for a wide set of
purposes, algorithms and even formulae are effectively
patented.
4) Intellectual Land Grab
When a new area is opened up (either by increased CPU
speeds, larger memory or disc capacities, or a breakthrough
in some other field), the first people to write software in
the new area find a virgin land where no one has been faced
with the problems they set about solving.
Applying ordinary skill and known techniques these problems
are usually solved in straightforward ways. But since these
metaphorical fields are untrodden, by simple virtue of being
first there the programmer gets to plant a flag and claim the
territory for themselves. Hardly a stimulus for competition
and innovation.
By virtue of ther luck in being first to face the problems
these people can claim and lock down the entire territory they
have entered. This impedes progress, it does not stimulate it.
3) Scintilla of Invention
In an unfortunate historic ruling, patents were ruled to be
valid even if they contained just a "scintilla of invention".
This decision, coupled with the vagueness inherent in
deciding if an invention is obvious to one skilled in the
art, allowed a flood of low value inventions into existence.
2) Second-rate Knowledge Protection
The real purpose of patents is to protect knowledge: instead
of an invention being locked up as a trade secret and liable
to die and vanish with the demise of the owner, in return
for a (time-limited) monopoly, the inventor teaches his
invention so that in the long term, others can use it.
But for software, in these days of digital media and the internet,
a far better method (which is cheaper, safer, more useful,
more effective, and easier to innovate from), is simply to
publish the software source code.
And the number one problem?
1) Software patents stifle innovation
Patents are friction in the wheels of software invention.
For exactly the same reasons that science and the arts have
traditionally been open, with people free to develop and
expand on earlier creators' ideas (a phrase commonly used is
"standing on the shoulders of giants"), innovation in software
is promoted by freedom, and hampered by restrictions.
Anyone who works in software development knows that all you
need is a good idea, a cheap computer, and some programming
skills. Millions of people around the world today possess
these three things, and often write software for free and
donate it to the world. The idea that such people benefit
from software patents is clearly false.
Even businesses are hampered: to obey the patent laws, an
engineer needs to spend one day in five searching patents
and prior art to ensure she is not infringing on other
people's work, and working around them when she finds she
is. Yet the business earns most of its profit from new
software in the first 24 months of its release (unless it
holds a monopoly), and a rival will take 12-24 months to
produce a competing version. By which time the originator
should have been developing new features.
So, how to fix the system?
Only allow the most startling and valuable software ideas to
be patented.
Restrict software patents life to "internet timescales" -
say, two years. (Doing this will naturally lead to the
former.)
Require publishing and examination before grant: allow
examination by the general population of interested
observers. Prior art would be turned up more readily,
claims would have to be constructed more thoughtfully before
applying for patents, and even "voting on obviousness" could
be implemented.
opportunity platitudes, the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office (PTO) is at a loss to explain the heavy tilt among its
patent examiners in favor of various Asian ethnicities,
disclosed by this reporter in an article entitled, Asian Tilt
at Patent Office Raises Cause for Concern, published in
<i>The Justicegate News-Messenger</i> (see reference
1).
<b>Table 1. Table of Contents for Article</b>
Asian dominance of multiple PTO art units doing the same
work
Distribution of Asian tilt pronounced among 261 PTO
technology art units
How the study was conducted
PTO and White House officials failing to explain Asian tilt
Security risks identified
Present-day Chinese espionage approaches exposed
Chinese woman FBI informant charged as a Chinese double
agent in Los Angeles
Motivations for the PTOs general Asian tilt and pronounced
Asian dominance of sensitive art units
Study raises added concern for background checks
thoroughness
PTO bonus program has created a virtual feudal system,
contributing to fraud, waste, and abuse
PTO Corruption: False patents ordered in exchange for
bonuses
Now, a detailed October 2003 review by this reporter of
3,761 patent examiners in 261 technology art units of the
patent office confirms a peculiar, verifiable tilt in favor of
various Asian ethnicities, as depicted in Table 2, below,
and in Table 3, post.
For example, 11 percent (28 art units) of the 261 patent
examination units reviewed have from 43% to 85% of their
patent-examiner employees who are of Chinese,
Vietnamese, Korean, and other Asian ethnicities; and fully
a third of the 261 art units employ examiners of from 28%
to 85% Asian ethnicity.
<b>Table 2. High Percentages of Asian Patent Examiners
in Sensitive Technology Areas</b>
(Technology Area, followed by Percentage of Examiners
Who Are Asian)
2818-Static memory/Semiconductors 85%
2685-Radio Communications 80%
2861-Recorders and Printing 78%
2821-Electronic Circuits 72%
3729-Packages, Containers, Manufacturing Devices
& Processes, Machine Tools & Hand Tools 67%
2172-Data Base and File Management 65%
2814-Semiconductors/Manufacturing 63%
2824-Static memory/Semiconductors 61%
2816-Electronic Circuits 59%
2632-General Electrical Communication 58%
2871-Liquid Crystals 58%
2682-Radio Communications 57%
2819-Digital Logic 56%
2634-Digital Communication 55%
2643-Video Conferencing, Wired Telephone, Audio 55%
3748-Thermal & Combustion Technology, Motive and Fluid
Power Systems, Textile Manufacturing & Apparel 54%
2665-Multiplex Communication and Internet
Telephone 53%
2663-Multiplex Communication and Internet
Telephone 50%
2811-Semiconductors 50%
1641-Specific Binding Assays and Apparatus 50%
2174-Graphical User Interfaces, Operator Interface 50%
3637-Static structures 50%
2674-Digitizers, CRT/Flat Panel/Computer Display,
User Interface 47%
2624-Printing, Facsimile, Enhancement or Restoration of
Image. Gray Level to Binary Conversion 46%
2636-[Not identified] 46%
2642-Wired Telephone 46%
2176-Document Processing 46%
2876-[Data] Registers 45%
2631-Digital Communication 44%
2878-Radiant Energy 44%
2142-Computer Networks & Plural Computers 43%
2186-Computers: Memory Access & Control 43%
Table 2, above, shows the 32 technology art units having
the highest percentages of Asian patent examiners
working at the PTO.
Of greater concern, the particular art units with the highest
percentages of Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean, and other
Asian ethnicities are the units that examine patents in the
sensitive areas of:
Electronic devices,
Communications,
Semiconductors,
Electronic circuits,
Radio communications,
Digital logic,
Computer networks,
Computer memories,
Thermal and combustion technology, and
Others equally sensitive.
<b>1. Asian dominance of multiple PTO art units doing
the same work</b>
Examining the technology art units among the 32 category
identification stubs in Table 2 discloses that the Asian
dominance is redundant in other art units that do the same
work in the same technology area.
The reasons for multiple art units examining the same
technology arise from the combined effects of the volume
of patent applications in a particular technology area --
necessitating more examiners -- and the maximum
supervisory span of control for examiners being about 15
employees in a unit.
Note the following pairs of art units that do patent
examinations in the same technology areas:
" Static memory/semiconductors:
- 2818 85 % Asian, and
- 2824 61 % Asian
" Radio Communications:
- 2685 80 % Asian, and
- 2682 57 % Asian
" Electronic Circuits:
- 2821 72 % Asian, and
- 2816 59 % Asian
" Digital Communication:
- 2634 55 % Asian, and
- 2631 44 % Asian
" Multiplex Communications and Internet Telephone:
- 2665 53 % Asian, and
- 2663 50 % Asian
This redundancy of Asian domination in similar art units
that process patent applications in the same technological
areas dispels the idea that the staffing of these art units is
the result of either equal employment opportunity, or
diversity, or adherence to Office of Personnel Management
hiring guidelines, or random chance.
<b>2. Distribution of Asian tilt pronounced among 261
PTO technology art units</b>
The detailed October 2003 review disclosed the distribution
of the Asian tilt among patent examiners at lower
organization levels, reported previously only as summary
percentages in the August 2003 issue of The Justicegate
News-Messenger (reference 1).
Table 3 shows the broad distribution of Asian ethnicity
throughout the patent examiners in the patent office side
of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The study
identified 855 employees of Asian ethnicities out of 3,761
patent examiners, or a mean average of 22.7 percent.
The study results have been confirmed as valid by PTO
sources wishing to remain anonymous.
<b>Table 3. Pronounced Asian Tilt Disclosed at the Patent
Office</b>
Percentage of Asian Examiners Number of Art Units
in Each of 261 PTO Art Units by Category
0% 33
5% 0
10% 42
15% 35
20% 36
25% 23
30% 18
35% 20
40% 17
45% 10
50% 10
55% 4
60% 5
65% 3
70% 1
75% 1
80% 2
85% 1
90% 0
95% 0
100% 0
The mean (average) of the distribution is 22.73%.
<b>3. How the study was conducted</b>
Lists of the patent office personnel working in each of 261
art units of the PTO were obtained from the internet,
showing by full name each person working in each art unit,
with the total number of patent examiners employed in
each art unit stated.
The lists are believed to be complete and cover 3,761
patent examiners, exclusive of administrative, managerial,
and quality assurance personnel.
The process of the review consisted of identifying whether
each full name was deemed to be Asian in ethnicity. Names
that did not appear clearly to be Asian were deemed not to
be in the Asian category.
While it is acknowledged there may be some possible
shortcomings to this approach, there appear to be
offsetting exclusionssuch as an Asian woman married to
a man with a non-Asian surname, who would not have
been counted as Asian unless her two or three other names
clearly denoted Asian descent.
The totals of thus-identified Asian personnel were gathered
for each art unit and divided by the total personnel
complement of that art unit to arrive at a fraction that was
then converted to a percentage.
The results of the study are considered to be sufficiently
reliable for the purposes of justifying a detailed
counterintelligence investigation.
<b>4. PTO and White House officials failing to explain
Asian tilt</b>
Although PTO Director James E. Rogan stated in a
backdated Sep. 5, 2003, letter to this reporter that The
USPTO, in line with Administration policy, is committed to
recruiting and retaining a diverse workforce drawn from all
segments of society the facts remain:
Highly sensitive patent technology areas are dominated by
Chinese, Vietnamese, Koreans, and other Asian ethnicities
<b>to a degree that goes far beyond any possible
explanation of diversity or equal employment
opportunity.</b>
And, in the highly Asian-dominated areas, the great
preponderance of Asian workers are of Chinese and
Vietnamese ethnicities.
An 85 percent concentration of Asians in a PTO art unit is
not diversity.
Everyday Americans, Korean era veterans, and Viet Nam era
veterans are justifiably curious why there are such high
percentages of Chinese, Vietnamese, Koreans, and other
Asian ethnicities working in highly sensitive technology
areas of the patent office.
Such inexplicable concentrations of Asians in highly
sensitive technology areas provide good cover for foreign
commercial or military intelligence operatives.
When this reporter sent the earlier report of the Asian tilt at
the patent office to Mr. John H. Marburger, III, director of
the White Houses Office of Science and Technology Policy,
the resulting response on October 2, 2003 (signed by Mr.
Marburger), was a thank you for your letter regarding the
need for counterintelligence and counterespionage mea-
sures at the United States Patent and Trademark Office
(USPTO) to avert or mitigate a possible intelligence threat
posed by employees at the USPTO.
Mr. Marburger continued in his letter, stating that: Given
the USPTOs expertise on such matters, it is the
appropriate agency to have responded substantively to
your concerns.
However, PTO Director Rogans backdated letter, of Sep. 5,
2003, was not a substantive response, in that it failed to
discuss why there were such high percentages of Asian
ethnicities working as patent examiners, but was merely a
self-serving declaration proclaiming adherence to equal
employment opportunity principles.
Mr. Rogans Sep. 5 letter requested if there was any
specific knowledge of a security breach at the USPTO,
please contact our Office of Security and a security
investigation will be initiated immediately.
<b>5. Security risks identified</b>
In a Sep. 5, 2003, article entitled, Patented, Secret
Technology May be at Risk to Spies (see reference 2), the
September issue of The Justicegate News-Messenger laid
out and detailed particulars of six identified PTO security
risk areas:
Physical Access Security
Document Security
Computer Access Control
Non-U.S. Citizen Workers
Security Background Investigations
Dial-in Computer Access.
The patent office source unidentified in the Sep. 5 article
called the patent office a fertile environment ripe for
exploitation by foreign powers, foreign companies, and
spies.
While the PTO has been trying to mask the Asian tilt in the
patent office among patent examiners, it is difficult to
understand how anyone could argue 43% to 85% of the
patent examiners in sensitive technology areas being Asian
was a consequence of seeking diversity. As reported
previously in the Sep. 5 article, government-contractor
personnel provide administrative support and perform
various routine administrative chores for the PTO.
Such chores include filing, transporting both unclassified
and classified patent application files and patent files,
copying, mail distribution, computer and technical
support, and the like.
The source revealed previously that not all of these
contractor personnel are U.S. citizens. Some are green
card alien workers.
It has not been possible to obtain data on the ethnic
makeup of these contractor employees.
A concern associated with this Asian tilt at the PTO may be
the safety of our countrys technology in classified areas
such as nuclear weapons, bio-technology, radar, guidance
systems, computers, communications, and ordnance,
among other technologies, according to the Aug. 5, 2003,
Justicegate News-Messenger (reference 1).
The PTO has not denied the risks identified in the Sep. 5,
2003, article.
<b>6. Present-day Chinese espionage approaches
exposed</b>
Press reports in August 2003 detailed facts of two Chinese
students who admitted acquiring details of a metal
specially created for the Navy, having application in
weapons and sensors, and then sending those details to
Chinese military intelligence.
Two other Chinese students were reported to have
forwarded submarine-related technology to the Chinese
military.
A Pentagon report summarized in The Washington Times,
of August 5, 2003, disclosed: China is using students and
scientists to develop its military technologies. Husband-
wife teams also are employed.
The same PTO source has revealed that it is not unusual to
have a Chinese (or other Asian) husband and wife working
as patent examiners in the same patent office art unit or in
two art units (n.b., an art unit focuses on a particular
grouping of technology).
The PTO source elaborated to say that the nepotism
extends to other Chinese, Vietnamese, or other Asian
family members brothers, sisters, cousins, and the like
working at the patent office.
The logic is inescapable: If the Pentagon is correctthat the
Chinese are infiltrating agents into centers of technology
within the United Statesand the patent office is a massive
repository of modern technology, then it follows that the
Chinese (and, undoubtedly, other Asian countries) must be
trying to infiltrate the patent office and most probably
already have done so.
In that the USPTO represents the major repository of the
best and most-advanced technology in the world, there is
no place better than the PTO in which to garner U.S.
technology.
<b>7. Chinese woman FBI informant charged as a Chinese
double agent in Los Angeles</b>
The disclosure earlier in Spring 2003 of a Chinese woman
FBI informeralleged to have been a double agent for 20
yearswho was involved sexually with two FBI
counterintelligence section chiefs in the FBIs Los Angeles
and San Francisco field offices must raise the sensitivity in
our government to potential intelligence threats by Chinese
and other Asian countries against the U.S.
<b>8. Motivations for the PTOs general Asian tilt and
pronounced Asian dominance of sensitive art units</b>
The general Asian tilt of the patent office and the
pronounced Asian dominance of particular sensitive
technology classes and art units are ascribed by the PTO
source to one or more of six motivations:
Gaining technology forecasting information for relay to
foreign principals;
Gaining market entry/market exit timing information for
securities trading by foreign principals;
Granting patents that ought not be granted;
Providing preferential employment treatment of other
Asians;
Facilitating foreign technology companies startups; and
Providing an environment conducive to commercial or
military intelligence gathering in favor of Asian principals.
The source foresees the long-term results of the
pronounced Asian tilt at the patent office as growing Asian
dominance over particular sensitive technology classes and
art units.
Already a large and growing number of PTO supervisory,
managerial, and technical (e.g., quality assurance)
personnel are of Asian ethnicities, according to the source.
<i> &some PTO supervisory personnel have issued
directives
to examiners for the examiner to grant particular
applicants patents, regardless of the worthiness of the
patent application. </i> -- PTO Sources
<b>9. Study raises added concern for background checks
thoroughness</b>
Once the PTO source was shown the results of the October
2003 study, the source expressed more strongly a
previously-reported concern about the adequacy of the
background checks done on Asian patent examiners.
Many of the Asians at the patent office are naturalized
American citizensrather than citizens who were born in
the United Statesand may still owe allegiance to their
homelands.
A few may even be intentionally-planted, covert,
intelligence agents, the source said.
The source expressed concern that false, or forged, foreign
academic degrees and enhanced work-history credentials
could have escaped notice in PTO background checking.
Also, the source expressed concern for the functional
language abilities of some foreign PTO employees, who do
not have a proficiency in the English language.
Some private patent attorneys have contacted the patent
office and complained that certain Asian patent examiners
could not speak English adequately to communicate
effectively with either the patent applicants or their
attorneys, the source said.
Of even greater concerngiven the high percentages of
Asians disclosed by the October 2003 studyis the
possibility of infiltration by covert intelligence agents
having manufactured cover identities.
<b>10. PTO bonus program has created a virtual feudal
system, contributing to fraud, waste, and abuse</b>
Two sources at the patent office, who requested anonymity,
disclosed that the PTO bonus system is abused currently
by supervisory and management personnel, with
achievements over 100 percent of production quotas
leading to bonusesoften being reached through abusive
means.
Earlier this year, the PTOs bonus program for patent
examiners, supervisory patent examiners, and art center
directors began to be applied differently than in the past,
in that the length of patent examiner dockets were slashed
by about 90 percent and the pending cases were
transferred to supervisors dockets, the source disclosed.
Subtleties in how the bonus program operates are subject
to abuse.
The apparent effect of this reapplied bonus program has
been the creation of a virtual patent-office feudal system,
complete with fiefdomswith the liege lord of the fief
dispensing benefits to his or her retainers through
facilitating the surpassing of quotas and achievement of
bonuses for those favored, and loyal, liegemen
examiners, according to the source.
<b>11. PTO Corruption: False patents ordered in
exchange for bonuses</b>
The bonus program and the fulfillment of its quotas by
abusive means--including, among others, the directed
granting of patents that ought not be granted --has
resulted in improper benefits being received by the
particular patent applicants and improper bonuses being
paid to PTO employees and supervisors.
It is said that some PTO supervisory personnel have issued
directives to examiners for the examiner to grant
particular applicants patents, regardless of the worthiness
of the patent application.
A second source at the patent office, who has come forward
and who also has asked to remain anonymous for fear of
reprisals, has stated to this reporter that he or she was
<b>offered bonuses and career advancement in exchange
for giving preferential treatment to the patent applications
of a particular applicant</b>, including <b>to grant
patents to applications <i>that ought not receive patents
</i></b>. This particular patent examiner refused the
offer.
It is said that many other examiners have acquiesced to this
type of corruption.
The sources raised the question: In that the PTO bonus
system fosters the improper granting of patents, could it
also be facilitating the sale or conversion of technological
details or market-timing information to foreign recipients
or the cover-up of foreign commercial or military
intelligence gathering?
References:
1. Asian Tilt at Patent Office Raises Cause for Concern,
originally published Aug. 5, 2003, in <i>The Justicegate
News-Messenger,</i> referred to above. Please see
EzineArticles, accession number ?id=57272 to review.
2. Patented, Secret Technology May be at Risk to Spies,
published Sep. 5, 2003, in <i>The Justicegate News-
Messenger,</i> referred to above. Please see
EzineArticles, accession number ?id=57289 to review.
Reprinted from <i>The Justicegate News-Messenger;</i>
used with permission. This article published originally on
Nov. 3, 2003. Free license granted to reprint and
redistribute.
Office (PTO) reveals the existence of what sources have
called a rubber stamp mill for granting patents that is
fueled by bonuses and offers of career advancement and is
backstopped by harassment and intimidation against those
employees who wont go along.
PTO sources asking to remain anonymous told of six means
facilitating the corrupt granting of patents:
" The direction by supervisory patent examiners, or by
higher-level directors, to lower-level, experienced patent
examiners to allow patents of companies receiving
favoritism, even when those patent applications ought not
receive patents;
" The refusal of supervisory patent examiners to
accept as valid specific references located by experienced
examiners (to another patent or to a public disclosure)
demonstrating that the invention described in an
application is already covered by an existing patent or
already has been disclosed publicly in technical literature
or is obvious;
" Retaliation against examiners who have refused to
approve patent applications when those applications ought
not receive patents;
" Demonstrations of bias said to occur against non-
Asian patent examiner personnel who have higher
academic degrees beyond the bachelors-degree level;
" Intimidation against one or more PTO employees who
are or may become witnesses in a subsequent federal
investigation into patent office wrongdoing or in a federal
discrimination and harassment civil action against PTO
officials; and
" The equal employment opportunity office at the PTO
stiff-arming or bottling up complaints of Asian favoritism,
or tampering the complaints.
*** Orders to allow patents
An anonymous PTO source has said that some PTO
supervisory personnel have issued directives to examiners
for the examiner to grant particular applicants patents,
regardless of the worthiness of the patent application.
A second source at the patent office has confirmed the
above information and has stated to this reporter that he
or she was offered bonuses and career advancement--
bribes--in exchange for giving preferential treatment to
the patent applications of a particular applicant, including
to grant patents to applications that ought not receive
patents. This particular patent examiner refused the offer.
It is said that many other examiners have acquiesced to this
type of corruption.
*** Supervisors refusing to accept no as an answer
PTO sources have described the rubber stamping of
patent applications through the refusal of supervisory
patent examiners to accept the validity of specific
references located by examiners (references such as to
another patent or to a public disclosure or publication)
demonstrating that the invention described in a
particular application is already covered by an existing
patent or already has been disclosed publicly in technical
literature, or is obvious.
One source described how this means of rubber stamping
works. In the instance described, a supervisor said an
examiner-located reference -- demonstrating the
particular inventions non-patentability -- was not a good
reference.
The lower-level, experienced patent examiner then
discussed his or her work with another, more-experienced,
primary examiner, of 15 years experience, who agreed that
the reference in question demonstrated clearly that no
patent ought to be issued.
The lower-level patent examiner then prepared his or her
action, rejecting the patent application.
When the patent application -- revised slightly -- was
resubmitted, the supervisor took the case away from the
original patent examiner, who was most familiar with the
case, and reassigned it to another patent examiner.
Presumably, the second patent examiner was better
motivated to comply with the supervisors intent to have
the patent granted.
According to the source, the particular supervisor has little
knowledge in the technological art.
Another rubber stamping means, according to the source,
is based upon the supervisor narrowing the criteria to be
used for denying a patent.
Patents can be denied mainly based on a single reference
demonstrating non-patentability. Also, there can be
combinations of one reference plus the examiners
technical knowledge of the inventions obviousness, or
combinations of the claims of two or more references (e.g.,
other patents) to demonstrate non-patentability.
In the second-described means, the supervisor arbitrarily
limits the patent examiners search to only single
references that, by themselves, demonstrate non-
patentability.
Some supervisors have directed examiners not to use
obviousness to reject patent applications.
*** Retaliation against patent examiners who dont knuckle
under
PTO sources described harassment and retaliation against
examiners who have refused to approve applications to
receive patents when those applications ought not receive
patents.
Descriptions of favoritism or harassment provided to this
reporter include well-educated patent examiners with
many years of meritorious service being passed over for
promotions, while far-less-educated employees, with much
shorter service were advanced to supervisory positions. In
the instances described, the promoted employee was
Asian.
*** Bias against non-Asian examiners with higher
education
One of the sources has revealed a complaint widely-voiced
by PTO examiners: That harassment appears to
concentrate also on non-Asian patent examiners who have
substantial education. Patent examiners with higher
academic degrees beyond the bachelors-degree level have
reported being subjected to harassing tactics.
The source attributes this perceived bias against non-Asian
examiners with multiple academic degrees as growing out
of the previously-identified Asian tilt in the patent office.
The source infers that the bias, coupled with the
harassment, acts to cripple higher-educated, non-Asian
employees and to provide more chances for persons
having only bachelors-degree-level educations to rise to
supervisory positions.
The source speculates that part of the problem may arise
from the fact that many supervisory-level employees and
management-level personnel only have bachelors degrees
from 20 to 30 years ago, at which points in time many of
the technological fields they supervise did not even exist.
*** Retaliation and intimidation against federal witnesses
Intimidation is reported to have been practiced within the
PTO against PTO employees who are or may become
witnesses in a subsequent federal investigation into patent
office wrongdoing or in a federal discrimination and
harassment civil action against PTO officials, according to
PTO sources.
Word has been leaked that the FBI has been notified of
tampering and falsification of federal records, forgery of
federal records, misrepresentation of material facts in
federal records, and cover-up of criminal actsall done at
the PTO by PTO employees, apparently to cover-up earlier
favoritism and harassment.
*** An EEO office in PTO that sources charge condones
favoritism, bottles up complaints, and tampers records
PTO sources have described problems at the PTOs equal
employment opportunity (EEO) office that create the
appearance that the PTOs EEO office covers up for
favoritism and for harassment.
Pointed allegations against the PTOs EEO office have been
described by PTO sources, including:
" Turning away prospective PTO complainants by
telling them that they dont really have a complaint;
" Failing and refusing to give to a complainant a copy
of the complaint as filed and as completed with the
additions made by the EEO office; and
" Tampering a complaint (and its supporting
documentation) against a member of PTO management
before forwarding the complaint to an outside EEO
contractor for investigation.
The tampering of EEO complaints at the PTO is said by PTO
sources to extend to falsifying federal records and forging
federal documents, and these allegations reportedly are
backed by sworn affidavits and hard-copy examples.
Thus, according to PTO sources, it appears that one or
more persons within the very office that should be
safeguarding PTO employees rights has participated in
cover-up and the EEO office has become part of the
corruption that now appears endemic throughout the PTO.
*** A cabal inside the PTO
PTO sources have described the existence of some sort of
cabal operating within the patent office. They characterize
this group as a secret agency within the [PTO] agency.
The sources say the cabal has been operating to cause the
granting of patents to applications where no patent ought
be granted and, sources say, this group is growing
progressively stronger, fueled by corrupt bonuses,
harassment, and retaliation.
Sidebar to main article:
Heavy Asian Concentration in Tech Center 2600 Under One
Asian Director
An unusual grouping of data stood out during review of
data for the October 2003 study by this reporter of the
high percentages of Asians in patent office art units that
process sensitive technological areas, which study was
summarized in the Nov. 3, 2003, article (reference 3,
below).
To check the historical foundation for some of the high-
percentage data, additional data from June 2003 was
examined. One technical center director, Mr. Jin Ng, who
was a co-director of the patent offices technical center
2600, at that time headed four of the nine art groups
within that technical center. Within those four groups, in
June 2003, there were from 25 percent to 67 percent Asian
supervisors and from 22 to 45 percent Asian examiners.
Table 1, Critical Tech Groups Show High Asian Dominance
(PTO Art Unit, followed by Percentage of PTO Supervisors
who are Asian, then Percentage of PTO Examiners who are
Asian)
2630 Digital, Optical, and General Communications
67% 45%
2640 Audio and Wired Telephone
25% 40%
2650 Speech Processing, Dynamic Information Storage and
Retrieval
40% 25%
2660 Multiplex Communications
50% 36%
The internet biography for Mr. Ng states that he graduated
from the City College of New York with a bachelor of
science degree in electrical engineering. The biography
also states that Mr. Ng is originally from Hong Kong.
The biography states further that Mr. Ng has been with the
PTO for 29 years and does a substantial amount of
recruiting for the PTO.
References:
1. Asian Tilt at Patent Office Raises Cause for Concern,
originally published Aug. 5, 2003, in The Justicegate
News-Messenger, referred to above. Please see
EzineArticles, accession number ?id=57272 to review.
2. Patented, Secret Technology May be at Risk to Spies,
published Sep. 5, 2003, in The Justicegate News-
Messenger, referred to above. Please see EzineArticles,
accession number ?id=57289 to review.
3. "Patent Office Denies High Percentages of Chinese, Asian
Examiners: Study Shows Tilt of Up to 85%," published Nov.
3, 2003, in The Justicegate News- Messenger, referred to
above. Please see EzineArticles, accession number
?id=58514 to review.
4. "Evans and Marburger Sidestepped PTO Issues of Corrupt
Granting of Patents, Loose Classified Security," published
Mar. 3, 2004, in The Justicegate News-Messenger, referred
to above. Please see EzineArticles, accession number
?id=60433 to review.
Reprinted from The Justicegate News-Messenger; used with
permission. This article published originally on Mar. 10,
2004. Free license granted to reprint and redistribute.
Ken Breedlove, Investigative Writer
The Justicegate News-Messenger
This is the fifth of a series of articles on the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office.
The idea that people can just assume something will be invented in the future, and that they want to cash in on someone else's ability is nuts. Often the people who file patents aren't the ones who first thought of an idea, just the ones who decide to file some paperwork.
Then you have the people that realise something in the public domain hasn't been patented, and despite having nothing to do with it's invention, and this particularly applies to software, go ahead and use their paperwork skills to cash in on something that was until that point free for everyone to use.
Microsoft and other huge software companies are the worst offenders here, as they patent commonly used procedures and functions that programmers have used for decades.
Copyright law covers real invention and real products. Ideas without substance are not worthy of reward. Anyone can think of a great idea, and probably millions think of the same great idea daily, but have no idea how to implement them.
Then a true scientist or engineer actually invents the product, produces it and ends up having to pay someone else for the hard work they put in.
So scrap patents altogether. There's a reason why Europe doesn't subscribe to them, and that's because they give a false entitlement to completely undeserving people.
Patents to a Bonus-Driven Feudal System to Un-Cleared
Employees Handling Classified Material to Favoritism --
Part A of two parts.
A cabal within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has
operated for years to cause the granting of patents to
applications where no patent ought be granted, according
to PTO sources, who have characterized this group as a
secret agency within the [PTO] agency.
This secret agency is said to be growing stronger, fueled by
corrupt bonuses, harassment of non-complicit employees,
retaliation against witnesses, favoritism for the heavy Asian
tilt in art units working on highly sensitive technology at
the PTO, and discrimination against non-Asians in
supervisory promotions.
Then-Commerce Secretary Donald L. Evans, Director John
H. Marburger III, of the White Houses Office of Science &
Technology Policy, and then White House Chief of Staff
Andrew H. Card Jr. remained silent, despite a raft of serious
allegations of wrongdoing at the patent office, brought to
their personal attentions over the period since August
2003.
Then-acting PTO director Jon W. Dudas (now PTO director)
made no public statements on the problems at the PTO,
despite making opening statements in testimony before
three congressional committees on Mar. 18, Mar. 23, and
Apr. 20, 2004.
Underlying structural problems at the PTO being shielded
Whistleblower sources from within the PTO have disclosed
five major structural faults at the PTO that PTO
management is shielding and appears willing to do
anything necessary to keep these faults from becoming
public knowledge.
These five faults are:
1. Wrongful granting of patents;
2. Corrupt bonuses;
3. Loose classified security,
4. Espionage risk, and
5. National origin favoritism and bias.
1. Rubber-stamping patents
Recent information leaked from a new, third source within
the PTO reveals examiners have used actual rubber-
stamping and digital copying and pasting of one or more
supervisors signatures onto patents, to grant patents to
certain applications.
The phrase rubber stamping of patent applications was
used figuratively in the Mar. 10 Justicegate News-
Messenger article, PTO Whistle-blowers Disclose the
Corrupt Granting of Patents, Spurred by PTO Carrot and
Stick Methods, (reference 5, below).
The phrase used in the Mar. 10 article (reference 5, below)
described the existence of what sources have called a
rubber stamp mill for granting patents.
Now, information has surfaced that a supervisory patent
examiner left a rubber stamp of his or her signature out on
the supervisors desk, so that lower-level examiners --
who are not authorized to sign off on the grant of patents
to patent applications -- could and did use that stamp to
authenticate the grant of patents for the applications these
lower-level examiners had examined. It is reported that the
particular supervisor was fired.
More recently, PTO sources have described the update of
that rubber-stamp practice into the digital age.
An examiner was caught approving patents by affixing his
or her supervisors signature to patent applications --
which now are filed electronically -- through the means of
digitally copying and pasting the supervisors signature
from other electronic patent documents. It is reported that
the particular examiner resigned.
The question is left unanswered of what other patent
examiners or supervisors and what other patents are
involved in these improper activities or were granted as a
consequence of such improper actions.
2. Corrupt bonuses
An earlier report described abuses that sources have
revealed in the PTOs bonus system.
Those patent examiners, who turn a blind eye on negative
information that would cause denial of a patent to an
application, are described by PTO sources as being
rewarded with bonuses and career advancement; while
those examiners who attempt to do their examination job
with honesty and integrity and who deny patents when
appropriate are described as being persecuted and
harassed until they either quit, or are fired, or see the light
and start churning out patents.
A virtual feudal system at the PTO is said to be complete
with fiefdoms, where the liege lord of the fief dispenses
benefits to his or her retainers, by the means of
facilitating the achievement of quotas and bonuses for
those favored, and loyal, liege-men examiners.
The PTO bonus program reportedly is used as a carrot to
further the granting of patents, even wrongfully.
GAO told of timesheet abuses
In 2003, a report was made to the U.S. General Accounting
Office by a whistleblower inside the PTO. The tip, made
through the GAOs website, described the PTOs time
reporting system and the linked bonus system of the PTO
as fraught with abuses, wasteful, and often fraudulent,
according to a source familiar with the report.
According to sources, there are four aspects of the PTOs
time reporting system that merit investigation:
* Reporting of time not worked as time worked;
* Creation of timesheet hours fraudulently by
supervisory patent examiners (SPEs) for time purportedly
spent assisting the SPE or for other non-examining time;
* The fact that the creation of hours for time assisting
SPEs reportedly is outside budget control, and the creation
of these hours is equivalent in essence to creating money
and higher bonuses;
* The abuse of the hours -- granted by supervisors and
recorded by examiners as time spent assisting SPEs --
either to be away from the patent office or to do additional
work and claim the additional time worked as overtime,
with attendant payment of overtime pay.
With these favored examiners time sheet hours easily
justified as assisting SPE or non-examining time, they can
use the hours gained to work on other cases -- to increase
their bonus -- or they can merely coast at work and
socialize, or not even show up at work, or claim overtime.
There is (at the date of writing) no sign-in and sign-out
procedure and relatives, friends or fellow countrymen can
cover for the absent examiner, the source said.
Even the new electronic badges for patent office employees,
which came into use recently, which reportedly can track an
employees entry and movement within the building,
reportedly can be subverted by means as simple as leaving
your badge on your desk as you walk around.
2. Loose classified security
Recently reported details of Chinese espionage and the
approaches for its accomplishment raise severe concern for
the Chinese and Asian tilt among the ranks of patent
examiners in the patent office.
The September 5, 2003, Justicegate News-Messenger
article (reference 2, below) had discussed that the security
of classified military and defense secrets that are patented
or patent-pending is at risk to espionage in the very
repository entrusted with safekeeping and preserving the
best and most-advanced technology in the world,
according to a source who asked to remain anonymous.
Reviewing the Alexandria federal-court transcript of a Feb.
3, 2004, deposition by Mr. Jin Ng, a PTO technology center
director who admits having about 200 examiners working
for him, provides further insight into security at the PTO.
Mr. Ng stated that there are different levels of security for
patent cases. There are classified patent cases and non-
classified cases.
Apparently, classified cases are supposed to have a
security label placed on them by a PTO security
organization (apparently called the initial operations
application branch), although Mr. Ng was unsure whether
that was always true (page 25, lines 18-20).
Some classified cases get through the screen and do not
receive any special labeling, according to sources. Some
cases reportedly have been retrieved back to a classified
area after lying around for months in some un-cleared
examiners office.
There are classified cases that are only examined in the
technology center, Mr. Ng said, at page 26 of the
transcript of his deposition. If we have to allow those
[classified] cases at the end then we have to clear through
that [security] organization (lines 8-10).
Those [cases] we examine even though they have a
security label on them, we examine them and clear through
the security office before we [allow them] but we do
allow [patents on those classified cases] (page 26, lines 10-
13).
Mr. Ngs Feb. 3 deposition highlights that examiners
without FBI security clearances can and do work on
classified patent cases:
Q. Do the employees that work on these [classified] cases
have to go through an FBI clearance?
A. Not that Im aware of. The ones in my technology
center, they dont (page 26, lines 14-17).
When interviewed, a source at the PTO expressed concern
that security in the patent side of the PTO may not be tight
enough to prevent sensitive and classified technology from
being transferred to foreign governments, or foreign
companies, or elsewhere by one means or another.
3. Non-US citizen contractor help
Government-contractor personnel provide administrative
support and perform various routine administrative chores
for the PTO, according to sources. Such chores include
filing, transporting both unclassified and classified patent
application files and patent files, copying, mail distribution,
computer and technical support, and the like.
Not all of these contractor personnel are U.S. citizens,
according to a PTO source and a contractor source. Some
are green card alien workers, who have been seen
transporting classified files--unsealed--according to the
sources.
4. Espionage risk
A PTO source has called the patent office a fertile
environment ripe for exploitation by foreign powers,
foreign companies, and spies.
Patent office sources have expressed repeated concerns for
the high degree of Asian dominance in patent office art
units processing sensitive technologies. The reason for
these concerns is the apparent ease with which an
espionage agent could be infiltrated into the patent office.
Previous reports in 2003 have disclosed a heavy and
inexplicable Asian tilt at the patent office, a tilt that ranges
up to 85% Asian employees in particular art units
processing critical and sensitive technologies.
A detailed October 2003 review by this reporter of 3,761
patent examiners in 261 technology art units of the patent
office confirmed a peculiar, verifiable tilt in favor of various
Asian ethnicities, as published in the November 3, 2003,
article in The Justicegate News-Messenger (reference 3,
below).
For example, 11 percent (28 art units) of the 261 patent
examination units reviewed have from 43% to 85% of their
patent-examiner employees who are of Chinese,
Vietnamese, Korean, and other Asian ethnicities; and fully a
third of the 261 art units employ examiners of from 28% to
85% Asian ethnicity.
The PTO has not denied the security risks identified in the
Sep. 5 article, and the Commerce Departments inspector
general has confirmed security problems in the area of PTO
computer systems during 2003.
5. National origin favoritism and bias
Distasteful as the subject is, this reporter can no longer
keep from reporting that there exist documented examples
of favoritism and bias based on national origin at the
patent office.
PTO sources have reported highly experienced examiners
being passed over for promotions in favor of far-less-
experienced, less-educated Asian candidates.
There are documented instances of strong friction,
discrimination, and racial slurs from Asians toward non-
Asians and from a Muslim toward a Christian, both from
different Middle Eastern countries.
There are documented instances of equal employment
opportunity complaints against an Asian director, filed by
separate complainants, with the PTOs office of EEO, that
are said to be receiving lip service only, with no real
investigation, and with tampered records.
Union complaints about the national origin and religion
problem have been without avail.
References:
1. Asian Tilt at Patent Office Raises Cause for Concern,
originally published Aug. 5, 2003, in The Justicegate News-
Messenger, referred to above. Please see EzineArticles,
accession number ?id=57272 to review.
2. Patented, Secret Technology May be at Risk to Spies,
published Sep. 5, 2003, in The Justicegate News-
Messenger, referred to above. Please see EzineArticles,
accession number ?id=57289 to review.
3. "Patent Office Denies High Percentages of Chinese, Asian
Examiners: Study Shows Tilt of Up to 85%," published Nov.
3, 2003, in The Justicegate News-Messenger, referred to
above. Please see EzineArticles, accession number
?id=58514 to review.
4. "Evans and Marburger Sidestepped PTO Issues of Corrupt
Granting of Patents, Loose Classified Security," published
Mar. 3, 2004, in The Justicegate News-Messenger, referred
to above. Please see EzineArticles, accession number
?id=60433 to review.
5. "PTO Whistleblowers Disclose the Corrupt Granting Of
Patents, Spurred by PTO Carrot and Stick Methods,"
published Mar. 10, 2004, in The Justicegate News-
Messenger, referred to above. Please see EzineArticles,
accession number &id=61962 to review.
Ken Breedlove, Investigative Writer
The Justicegate News-Messenger
This is the sixth in a series of articles spotlighting the PTO.
Due to space constraints here, the sixth article has been
separated into a Part A and a Part B. This is Part A.
Reprinted from The Justicegate News-Messenger; used with
permission. This article published originally on May 5,
2004. Free license granted to reprint and redistribute.