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

Thu Jun 26 12:41:00 UTC 2025

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 <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
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250626/ffbb217e/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/ffbb217e/attachment.jpg>