[Patentpractice] [Patentcenter] why do uspto programmers design inefficiency into the system?

Thu Jun 26 12:12:44 UTC 2025

Yeah.  In my view, MS Office and MS Windows hit a zenith around 2005 or
2006.  Since then, everything has been adding complexity and attack
surface, and disrupting settled user interfaces with little to no benefit.
Phones a few years later.

On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 8:08 AM Suzannah K. Sundby via Patentcenter <
patentcenter at oppedahl-lists.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 <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ssundby/> *|* Partner
>
> *canady + lortz** LLP* <http://www.canadylortz.com/>
>
> 1050 30th Street, NW
>
> Washington, DC 20007
>
> T: 202.486.8020
>
> F: 202.540.8020
>
> suzannah at canadylortz.com
>
> www.canadylortz.com
>
> 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: 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: 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
>

-- 

<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 <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/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250626/bfb5f8b0/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/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250626/bfb5f8b0/attachment.jpg>