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

Thu Jun 26 13:30:11 UTC 2025

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
>>>
>>> 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: 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
>>
> --
> 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/b19f3646/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/b19f3646/attachment.jpg>