[Patentcenter] [Patentpractice] why do uspto programmers design inefficiency into the system?
Richard Straussman
rstraussman at weitzmanip.com
Thu Jun 26 13:35:36 UTC 2025
That should specifically be brought to John Squires' attention once he
gets his footing, and perhaps even seek a meeting with John and
Secretary Lutnick!
*Richard Straussman**
* *Senior Counsel*
* Registered Patent Attorney
* Member NY, NJ & CT Bars
*. . . . . . . . . . . . . .*
*Weitzman Law Offices, LLC*
*Intellectual Property Law*
425 Eagle Rock Avenue, Suite 401
Roseland, NJ 07068
*direct line* 973.403.9943
*main* 973.403.9940
*fax*973.403.9944
*e-mail*rstraussman at weitzmanip.com
*http://www.weitzmanip.com
*
On 6/26/2025 9:30 AM, David Boundy via Patentcenter wrote:
> It's the incompetence of cultivated indifference.
>
> For example, the PTO has obligations under the Paperwork Reduction Act
> that govern most of the issues we've raised. The PTO doesn't just
> passively ignore the PRA, the PTO affirmatively lies in its
> communications to the Office of Management and Budget, claiming to
> have existing clearances when the PTO never filed the paperwork. If
> the lawyers will run interference for the agency to avoid following
> the law, why should IT care?
>
> A couple weeks ago at AIPLA conference, I asked Will Covey (PTO's
> chief ethics officer, and Acting Deputy Director), about the PTO's
> plans to implement President Trump's Executive Orders 13891 and 13892,
> which cover many of our issues.
> https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/10/15/2019-22623/promoting-the-rule-of-law-through-improved-agency-guidance-documents
> https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/10/15/2019-22624/promoting-the-rule-of-law-through-transparency-and-fairness-in-civil-administrative-enforcement-and
> He said (not literally, but in effect) that the PTO isn't doing a damn
> thing. Apparently if a law has any costs to the PTO or limits PTO
> action, the law can go fly a kite, with the blessing of the PTO's
> chief ethics officer.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 9:15 AM Vivek Ramachandran via Patentcenter
> <patentcenter at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
>
> More likely it's just incompetence. The current view is security
> by locking down access to public data. They shut down more than
> the assingments. The entire PEDS system was turned off.
>
> They should have separated the two systems from get go. One stores
> data that is public and one stores data that is non-public. Turns
> out they were using access control from the same database. To fix
> this, they would have had to replicate their expensive system.
> Instead they chose to shut it all down. Rate limit patent center
> to prevent leaks. It's security by hampering data access.
>
> Seems to be why we have to put up with a suboptimal system.
>
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 7:42 AM Dan Feigelson via Patentcenter
> <patentcenter at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
>
> Suzannah, I buy the "planned obsolescence" explanation of
> Microsoft/PC manufacturers doing what they do. I've said for a
> long time that Word 2.0 worked just great for what I usually
> do. As did Windows XP, which was the first version of Windows
> that was almost good as the original Mac OS.
>
> But PatentCrapper is not a mass-market program, it's made for
> exactly one client, the USPTO, made to specifications set by
> the USPTO - just like ePCT is made only for WIPO, to specs set
> by WIPO. And yet the folks running and programming ePCT don't
> seem to be operating on a planned obsolescence model.
>
> The fact that patent crapper is so bad, despite input from
> those of us who use it, means that (a) the people in charge of
> IT at the USPTO are incredibly stupid (b) the people in charge
> of IT at the USPTO don't care, (c) the programmers have a
> contract that effectively makes them immune from getting
> dinged for bad work. Of course, those three things are not
> mutually exclusive. And I think Carl has in the past explained
> how (c) is a possibility (viz. federal government requirements
> for contractors that insure that only big, clunky vendors can
> even bid for USPTO IT contracts).
>
> Dan
>
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 3:08 PM Suzannah K. Sundby
> <suzannah at canadylortz.com> wrote:
>
> > why do uspto programmers design inefficiency into the system?
>
> To guarantee their employment… if a program/system is
> ‘perfect’ and can’t be improved upon, they will no longer
> be needed.
>
> I suspect this is the same for most all software programmers.
>
> In fact, I think software programmers, computer hardware
> mfrs, and hackers are all in cahoots with each other…
> Think about it… over the last 10 or more years, not much
> is different wrt to, e.g., MS Word and its functions,
> except for its appearance/interface… but the programmers
> keep making new versions claiming its new and improved.The
> newer version, however, often removes a prior function or
> two… yet the newer version requires more RAM and ROM…
> which then requires one to get a new computer with
> sufficient RAM and ROM… which, ‘lo and behold, the new
> computer’s operating system and/or the newer version of
> software has virus/hacker vulnerabilities (shocker), which
> requires patches etc. which require more RAM and ROM… and
> btw now the new computer and newer version of software
> doesn’t work seamlessly with some of your other software
> programs… so you have to get the newer versions of those
> other software programs… and ‘round n ‘round… meanwhile
> all the newer versions of software only allow annual
> subscription licenses whereby they can charge you more…
> and force you to upgrade to the next newer version of the
> software which subscription costs even more.
>
> Suzannah K. Sundby
> <https://gcfagjf.r.af.d.sendibt2.com/tr/cl/gI91zA0rgjF4pyL8HScL9zciuQYMvUzvr6RxhVllwj_IabGQkMVyOPsYe-q82q1QmH2bgmBbTu44tbBuHhGPPCihx2815ji1WodVo3CFO2Hmu6K1cYMjlRFnzZXwOEC48dbOBRZXSBOha1y2e9WSY3g1HDhiiJC4MH49YfzY-NgOoHma0Kh6vD5TSyXovQsSG0ovQn43sinDi5HwCJ1o1f3Jf0ijgg_jOgv3ofu_VbbUTaLUBWxw6gCNEmeiZ7qKDxRtEtsNeNvd8M5pi6XbTObWMklZlAcM4FU6wo5B7jU>*|*
> Partner
>
> _canady + lortz__LLP_
> <https://gcfagjf.r.af.d.sendibt2.com/tr/cl/FeNgbVfpuAJVOiKtBeZblLndY7aCR8BP9kT01HH_Junde04lQDjD7lzyfAha2OQ9K9qtyt1jiFxWtJunWv6WNq7p8kQ0x4lRU1aVCcIydccM1vpTjrvlgUsnkPL9i-t9IRCPkuIbRB_zE29_8d-jEB0y_uOfJMEqJF1gZQL6gJIov64nVtQJHk5Fz16smNYfWnbyUvS1bwyeygtSH3JwcvxIgDy-Jsm8AbwVRCY2okmTyRu7b63FXNS0knRJjhK-QXQ-4L-f0rUo4H4Mwb9ae598uq4>
>
> 1050 30th Street, NW
>
> Washington, DC 20007
>
> T: 202.486.8020
>
> F: 202.540.8020
>
> suzannah at canadylortz.com <mailto:suzannah at canadylortz.com>
>
> www.canadylortz.com
> <https://gcfagjf.r.af.d.sendibt2.com/tr/cl/SbozXf7Y_kDehd-hC9OMyIf443J26QBL4niyNrg_rdd2_bnEdbLorE13RISDCQ6iWTpLbLnW7BgI8N3RVYuhT6Tyl0Qh6mdoYCajFXQMqmtZenoO-q83oiRGSc8hbAVQarfvXkbj4Hny_n8Ku6Wz7uvQv8KTgJ-W6CZesuspOmBKW2QRrnuR5RgXn4q_bEh0XMCvvmaojUKgYmFmjPBqQyyAp-KbzV2LToMMET_-6WpUlaVwxafspI5Id22zUEy-15-56p9WlF3qzUPY1j4aOExBgSc>
>
> Confidentiality Notice: This message is being sent by or
> on behalf of a lawyer. It is intended exclusively for the
> individual or entity to which it is addressed. This
> communication may contain information that is proprietary,
> privileged or confidential, or otherwise legally exempt
> from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you
> may not read, print, retain, copy, or disseminate this
> message or any part. If you have received this message in
> error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and
> delete all copies of the message.
>
> *From:*Patentcenter
> <patentcenter-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> *On Behalf Of
> *Dan Feigelson via Patentcenter
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 26, 2025 6:16 AM
> *To:* Randall Svihla <rsvihla at nsiplaw.com>
> *Cc:* Dan Feigelson <djf at iliplaw.com>; For patent
> practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal
> advice. <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>; users of
> Patentcenter <patentcenter at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Patentcenter] [Patentpractice] why do
> uspto programmers design inefficiency into the system?
>
> But I can see assignment data for unpublished
> applications, so they didn't cut ALL access to assignment
> data from PC.
>
> If you're saying they cut off assignment access for all
> publicly visible applications, that's a possible
> explanation, but doesn't answer my question. Except that,
> if true, it means they're just lazy and/or incompetent.
>
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 1:04 PM Randall Svihla
> <rsvihla at nsiplaw.com> wrote:
>
> My guess is that they figured that if they don't allow
> any assignment data to be displayed via Patent Center,
> they can't have another data leak of assignment data
> for unpublished applications.
>
> *From:* Dan Feigelson <djf at iliplaw.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 26, 2025 6:01 AM
> *To:* Randall Svihla <rsvihla at nsiplaw.com>
> *Cc:* For patent practitioners. This is not for
> laypersons to seek legal advice.
> <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>; users of
> Patentcenter <patentcenter at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Patentpractice] why do uspto
> programmers design inefficiency into the system?
>
> Image removed by sender.
>
> Sounds like an excuse, not a reason.
>
> Can someone explain why the ONLY way to fix the issue
> behind the data leak was to prevent practitioners from
> seeing assignment data for their own published cases
> in PC?
>
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 12:55 PM Randall Svihla
> <rsvihla at nsiplaw.com> wrote:
>
> Because of the assignment data leak last year.
>
> *From:* Patentpractice
> <patentpractice-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> *On
> Behalf Of *Dan Feigelson via Patentpractice
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 26, 2025 5:49 AM
> *To:* For patent practitioners. This is not for
> laypersons to seek legal advice.
> <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>; users of
> Patentcenter <patentcenter at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Cc:* Dan Feigelson <djf at iliplaw.com>
> *Subject:* [Patentpractice] why do uspto
> programmers design inefficiency into the system?
>
> Image removed by sender.
>
> I'm logged into patentcenter, looking at one of my
> cases, and I want to see the assignment
> information they have on record. When I click on
> "assignments", I get a pop-up window saying,
> "Patent Center only displays assignment
> information for non-public applications to user
> authorized to access the application. This
> application is open to the public. Please use
> Assignment Search to search assignment information
> for applications open to the public.
> https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html#/patent/search
> <https://gcfagjf.r.af.d.sendibt2.com/tr/cl/-EmW0t0ZBqiB0ZKGIWv8Yi9y-p-aEjx_tHlbcJ0evDwDqI8Wtq9lbVnIkL-9WdwR-qAhPVZosSXDgEe9oloxMwsKxl9ZH8U5cu-wWvAthLhLM5Nm4qQsDNihUKEXvSvrGW8xisjgjctnwINgj0MglWvwDk9D9f9kXFhKWE72zVN9rjPwoT5uMJoxaCO6u2zZqTA87pIhkiTmBtrTLovCikG0da1C8m9LP5D58OdD5yaNdCN_dgBdOeQ1W_v0rSPZ5FNUm7hCK8Toro6w4tcd0VUmFudjsZsnLkNV1U60cNZb_Px7OzfCGZFP4Z76uVUUYVbNqq-EaADHtaLcNzj0-w>".
>
>
> Inasmuch as from within patentcrapper, I can see
> the assignment info for my *un*published
> applications, it's clear that whoever wrote the
> notice was /trying/ to say, "The application
> you're looking at has published, so we're not
> making assignment information available to you in
> Patent Crapper, go to Assignment Center, nyeah
> nyeah nyeah."
>
> Quite a contrast from what we saw earlier in the
> week with Mike Richardson and WIPO regarding the
> applicant email field in ePCT...
>
> Dan
>
> --
> Patentcenter mailing list
> Patentcenter at oppedahl-lists.com
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentcenter_oppedahl-lists.com
>
> --
> Patentcenter mailing list
> Patentcenter at oppedahl-lists.com
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentcenter_oppedahl-lists.com
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> <https://www.iam-media.com/strategy300/individuals/david-boundy>
>
> *David Boundy *| Partner |Potomac Law Group, PLLC
>
> P.O. Box 590638, Newton, MA 02459
>
> Tel (646) 472-9737| Fax: (202) 318-7707
>
> _dboundy at potomaclaw.com_ __| _www.potomaclaw.com
> <http://www.potomaclaw.com>_
>
> Articles at http://ssrn.com/author=2936470
> <http://ssrn.com/author=2936470>
> <https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?>
>
> Click here to add me to your contacts.
> <https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentcenter_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250626/c0e79d93/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 823 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentcenter_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250626/c0e79d93/attachment.jpg>
More information about the Patentcenter
mailing list