21–30 of 50 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also possible that her degrees from MIT and Stanford and experience as a lawyer at Google had something to do with it.
Her resume is beyond sterling, I literally don't believe you could find someone more qualified. But sure, she got the job because she's a woman. God people are awful. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_K._Lee#Education_and_...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also possible that her degrees from MIT and Stanford and experience as a lawyer at Google had something to do with it.
And something to do with her resignation. Didn't Obama's cabinet have a ridiculous number of PhD's, and Trump's end up replacing some Nobel laureates with Rick Perry?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is/ought fallacy? It might be true that it's likely that directors of USPTO are "pro-patent", but OP's point was that the USPTO ought to be less "pro-patent". Put another way, some government offices are charged with making more of an intrinsically good thing. "Justice", "Education". I expect the leaders of those departments to be pro-justice/education/whatever, just as I expect everyone else to be in favor of these…
Section 8, Clause 8: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" Not much latitude there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also possible that her degrees from MIT and Stanford and experience as a lawyer at Google had something to do with it.
And something to do with her resignation. Didn't Obama's cabinet have a ridiculous number of PhD's, and Trump's end up replacing some Nobel laureates with Rick Perry?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Now what did she say she'd do versus what she actually did that led to this change under the new administration Well, usually USPTO director changes at the start of a new administration. So the better question is: why was she kept on until now? what changed?
They were most likely waiting for the Commerce Secretary to pick and vet a replacement. Lee's demise was a long time coming. Many small businesses and independent inventors absolutely couldn't stand how the USPTO had pretty much turned against them and become a monster.
The first two paragraphs of this article seems to suggest this is not the case.
>Many small businesses and independent inventors absolutely couldn't stand how the USPTO had pretty much turned against them and become a monster.
Lee is pro patent reform. Small companies and Google like her. Large companies and the Innovation Alliance don't like her, as they are anti-reform.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is/ought fallacy? It might be true that it's likely that directors of USPTO are "pro-patent", but OP's point was that the USPTO ought to be less "pro-patent". Put another way, some government offices are charged with making more of an intrinsically good thing. "Justice", "Education". I expect the leaders of those departments to be pro-justice/education/whatever, just as I expect everyone else to be in favor of these…
Section 8, Clause 8: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" Not much latitude there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Section 8, Clause 8: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" Not much latitude there.
The latitude to decide what actually promotes the progress of science and the useful arts seems pretty broad to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Section 8, Clause 8: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" Not much latitude there.
The issuing of patents is contingent on Congress's belief that doing so promotes science and the useful arts. If hypothetically Congress did not believe that any longer, they would be free to stop the activities of the patents and copyrights offices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Section 8, Clause 8: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" Not much latitude there.
The issuing of patents is contingent on Congress's belief that doing so promotes science and the useful arts. If hypothetically Congress did not believe that any longer, they would be free to stop the activities of the patents and copyrights offices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is/ought fallacy? It might be true that it's likely that directors of USPTO are "pro-patent", but OP's point was that the USPTO ought to be less "pro-patent". Put another way, some government offices are charged with making more of an intrinsically good thing. "Justice", "Education". I expect the leaders of those departments to be pro-justice/education/whatever, just as I expect everyone else to be in favor of these…
Section 8, Clause 8: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" Not much latitude there.