Eh... The below are just my ramblings regarding the USPTO and patents after a typical day of work.
I work as a patent prosecution professional to get patents for my clients. Generally, the inventor (especially geniuses like Jovan) tend to always think the patent office is unreasonable. The USPTO probably is one of the more reasonable patent offices to deal with from my experience, although it's just comparing bad and worse I guess. The inventor tends to be thinking in terms of how their invention differs from existing technologies and not how their claims (the part being examined by the patent office) were phrased by themselves or by their attorneys differ from the existing technologies. I'll have to look up Jovan's patents and check out the prosecution history and see which law firm(s) (if any) he uses.
That said, Jovan's patents probably deal with mathematical & software algorithms, and that technology unit of the patent office really is an absolute pain to deal with. Rather than getting hit with existing art, applications in this technology unit gets hit with patent eligibility rejections based on 35 U.S.C. 101 (Inventions Patentable statute) due to the Supreme Court muddying the waters especially in the past decade in the more computational technologies (e.g., AI, business methods, etc.). SC probably muddied the waters to help big tech avoid being sued for patent infringement by small companies and getting bad PR from the public.
Interesting. Thanks for the post. I would love to hear more from you. I'm sure a lot of people here would. It's a peek into a world most of us have not seen, or if we have, did not like, lol. (Due to difficulties.) If you ever care to post about it, I'm sure a lot of people would appreciate it and enjoy reading about your knowledge and experiences.
Thanks for your encouragement! I would be happy to share about my experience in the patent world. Feel free to let me know if there is any questions in particular that you have. Otherwise, I'll definitely be looking at Jovan's patent & patent applications and I'm sure I'll feel compelled to comment as more patent stuff comes out regarding Moderna, Pfizer, and/or others.
Edited to add the below ramblings:
I understand IP law is just another part of the established system used to separate people into tiers. Like how US copyright law has been changed to keep Mickey Mouse protected by Disney since forever... And with patents, it's probably not a surprise that big companies are in bed with lawmakers to steer patent law. The USPTO director from 2014-2017 was Michelle Lee, who went to USPTO from her in-house position at Google.
All laws are written and changed by those in control... But... I don't have any thoughts on what other way to incentivize protecting ideas so I'm rolling with it for now. There are lower hanging problems to fix right now. :)
Eh... The below are just my ramblings regarding the USPTO and patents after a typical day of work.
I work as a patent prosecution professional to get patents for my clients. Generally, the inventor (especially geniuses like Jovan) tend to always think the patent office is unreasonable. The USPTO probably is one of the more reasonable patent offices to deal with from my experience, although it's just comparing bad and worse I guess. The inventor tends to be thinking in terms of how their invention differs from existing technologies and not how their claims (the part being examined by the patent office) were phrased by themselves or by their attorneys differ from the existing technologies. I'll have to look up Jovan's patents and check out the prosecution history and see which law firm(s) (if any) he uses.
That said, Jovan's patents probably deal with mathematical & software algorithms, and that technology unit of the patent office really is an absolute pain to deal with. Rather than getting hit with existing art, applications in this technology unit gets hit with patent eligibility rejections based on 35 U.S.C. 101 (Inventions Patentable statute) due to the Supreme Court muddying the waters especially in the past decade in the more computational technologies (e.g., AI, business methods, etc.). SC probably muddied the waters to help big tech avoid being sued for patent infringement by small companies and getting bad PR from the public.
Interesting. Thanks for the post. I would love to hear more from you. I'm sure a lot of people here would. It's a peek into a world most of us have not seen, or if we have, did not like, lol. (Due to difficulties.) If you ever care to post about it, I'm sure a lot of people would appreciate it and enjoy reading about your knowledge and experiences.
Thanks for your encouragement! I would be happy to share about my experience in the patent world. Feel free to let me know if there is any questions in particular that you have. Otherwise, I'll definitely be looking at Jovan's patent & patent applications and I'm sure I'll feel compelled to comment as more patent stuff comes out regarding Moderna, Pfizer, and/or others.
Edited to add the below ramblings:
I understand IP law is just another part of the established system used to separate people into tiers. Like how US copyright law has been changed to keep Mickey Mouse protected by Disney since forever... And with patents, it's probably not a surprise that big companies are in bed with lawmakers to steer patent law. The USPTO director from 2014-2017 was Michelle Lee, who went to USPTO from her in-house position at Google.
All laws are written and changed by those in control... But... I don't have any thoughts on what other way to incentivize protecting ideas so I'm rolling with it for now. There are lower hanging problems to fix right now. :)