Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

White House May Name Patent Reform Opponent As New Head of Patent Office

samzenpus posted about 4 months ago | from the fox-in-the-henhouse dept.

United States 211

An anonymous reader writes The Obama Administration is set to appoint Phil Johnson, a pharmaceutical industry executive, as the next Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, according to sources. The move is likely to anger patent reform advocates given Johnson's past efforts to block legislation aimed at reining in patent trolls, and in light of his positions that appear to contradict the White House's professed goal of fixing the patent system. The top job at the Patent Office has been vacant for around 18-months since the departure of previous director David Kappos in early 2013. Currently, the office is being managed by former Googler Michelle Lee, who was appointed deputy director in December. Earlier this month, Republican Senators led by Orrin Hatch (R-UT) sent a letter to President Obama that praised Lee but that also described the current USPTO management structure as "unfair, untenable and unacceptable for our country's intellectual property agency."

cancel ×

211 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Hobby Lobby wins! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47352169)

A thrilling victory for conservatives. Bring on the heathens!

Classic Obama (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47352187)

Is anybody surprised? Claim to support Net Neutrality and give the power to the Cable lobby. He's done this before and he'll do it again. Hypocrite-in-chief.

Re:Classic Obama (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47352463)

You only hate hypocrisy because you are racist.

Re:Classic Obama (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47352785)

Actually, I have the utmost respect for Hypocrites. Unless they are also a Southpaw. I am hugely racist towards Southpaws.

(Just extending the joke, folks.)

Re:Classic Obama (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47352933)

Actually, I have the utmost respect for Hypocrites. Unless they are also a Southpaw. I am hugely racist towards Southpaws.

Lefties are the Devil's minions.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=... [google.com]

Re:Classic Obama (2)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 4 months ago | (#47353425)

Us Lefties are the only ones in our right mind!

Re:Classic Obama (3, Interesting)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 4 months ago | (#47353495)

This does lead to an interesting question... and not a troll, I promise:

Now mind you, I'm not saying that suddenly everyone should vote Republican (I'm registered as "no party" in my own state), but I want to know how the folks who support the President no-matter-what can continue the cognitive dissonance and devotion to the guy in spite of crap like this (and much, much more). We see a lot of it even here on /. , so I think it's relevant. Even towards the end of the Bush years, you never saw this level of personality cult... and yet I'm bombarded with folks who will hotly defend the guy no matter what he does (my perception may be biased due to living in Portland, but still...)

Does anyone else see this? And if you are among those who still support the guy, please tell me why not support someone such as a Green Party candidate, or someone who isn't part of the party machine, so to speak?

PS: Simply pointing the finger at The Other Party doesn't really cut it either, IMHO (mostly because I find both to be equally distasteful) - in other words, give me an answer that doesn't involve fear of someone else...

PPS: Please be civil about it to each other and otherwise - this is an honest question.

Obama (4, Insightful)

Tough Love (215404) | about 4 months ago | (#47352191)

At first I was fooled. Copyrights. Patents. Guantanamo Bay. What is it with this guy.

Re:Obama (0, Flamebait)

mozumder (178398) | about 4 months ago | (#47352245)

Well I got my free healthcare so sucks to be you! haha!

Sorry kiddos, you can't have everything. Politics is about "choosing between given choices", not "getting what you want".

And that means making tradeoffs.

Is free healthcare more important than Patent reform? Because fuck patent reform if that means I lose free healthcare.

Do you think you would have been better off under a McCain/Palin administration? Because I got news for you if you think they would have given what you wanted in Copyrights, Patents, and Guantanamo Bay.

Again: politics is about choosing between given choices. It is NOT about getting what you want.

Very few people get that.

Re:Obama (5, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | about 4 months ago | (#47352283)

Well I got my free healthcare so sucks to be you! haha!

Free? I don't think you understand what "free" means. And you got your "free" health care in part by a huge giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry, an industry whose abuses of the patent system are legendary.

Re:Obama (4, Interesting)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 4 months ago | (#47352661)

Oh you are quite wrong. The ACA (Obamacare) is not a giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry. That would be very low. It is, in fact, a giveaway to the insurance industry. And the lawyers.

The insurance industry and lawyers are like the laws of thermodynamics - you can't win any battles with them, you can't even battle to a draw, and you have to play with them.

Re:Obama (1)

Shakrai (717556) | about 4 months ago | (#47352719)

The ACA (Obamacare) is not a giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry

Thus explaining why Obama kept his campaign promises about allowing Medicare to negotiate prices in bulk and citizens to re-import cheaper drugs from Canada.

Oh wait.....

Re:Obama (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47352309)

That would be ok, if we actually got free healthcare...

Re:Obama (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47352319)

Well I got my free healthcare so sucks to be you! haha!

You keep using that word "free", I don't think you really know what it means.

Re:Obama (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47352509)

Do you think you would have been better off under a McCain/Palin administration?

As a matter of fact, I do not. I would have been EXACTLY THE SAME off.

Re:Obama (2)

Wing_Zero (692394) | about 4 months ago | (#47352639)

Free, Right. I looked it up a few times, and it is anything but free. Suppose one makes $10/hour. In most rural places in the country, this is enough to rent a decent appartment, and maybe have $100/month for extras. well, Obamacare wants $90/month for that pay grade for health insurance. opt-out? $200/year penalty fee.

Sorry, not interested.

Re:Obama (0)

Aereus (1042228) | about 4 months ago | (#47352843)

That entirely depends on the private insurance offerings for that area and any state health plans that are available. Your numbers are also seriously flawed.

$10/hour full-time would be take-home pay of around $16k. Setting aside $100/mo and dividing the rest by 12, that is over $1200/mo for rent+utilities. I want to know where a 1-bedroom costs $1200/mo in a "rural" area...

For my area, making $16k/yr would give you a gov't credit of ~$180/mo. Catastrophic plans that make you ACA compliant start at like $10/mo. A standard bronze plan is $100-120/mo ... which is still well under the monthly credit you would get towards buying a plan.

Re:Obama (2)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 4 months ago | (#47353549)

Setting aside $100/mo and dividing the rest by 12, that is over $1200/mo for rent+utilities.

...and groceries, and transportation costs (which in a rural area figures much larger into the budget), and sales taxes (unless you live in Oregon), and...

Re:Obama (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47353161)

Obama says just cancel your cable tv and your cell phone.

Re:Obama (2)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 4 months ago | (#47353453)

Well I got my free healthcare so sucks to be you! haha!

Don't worry, the Supreme Court has just ruled that companies have "freedom of religion" and so can refuse some health care if they are religiously opposed to it.

On the bright side, Rastafarian-owned companies will have a ton of applicants.

Re:Obama (0)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 4 months ago | (#47352249)

At first I was fooled. Copyrights. Patents. Guantanamo Bay. What is it with this guy.

Don't get too upset. Considering how much Congress works against the People's interests, the status quo is looking a lot safer than reform at the moment.

Re:Obama (4, Interesting)

oneiros27 (46144) | about 4 months ago | (#47352305)

I don't think you can blame him for Guantanamo -- he's been blocked by Congress on that one: http://www.politifact.com/trut... [politifact.com]

If you want to complain, you'll have to find some that you can actually blame on him ... luckily, you have lots to choose from : http://www.politifact.com/trut... [politifact.com]

(and this is why when I ran for office, I only made one promise -- that I'd give fair consideration to everything put before me ... which meant I once had to abstain from a vote when I found that some complaints had been withheld, as I couldn't research if they were legitimate complaints or not)

Re:Obama (2)

wealthychef (584778) | about 4 months ago | (#47352331)

What it is with this guy: in order to rise the top you must make promises to powerful insiders, lie to the people, give them just enough to prevent revolt, but keep fattening your patrons. It's all about insiders vs. outsiders, not Democrats vs. Republicans. Obama is not a "liberal." He is the ultimate insider.

Re:Obama (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47352367)

There is nothing wrong with this guy. They put documents on its desk, and he signs them. He is not running the show, like all the presidents in history. He is just a good figure.

ObamaNation (1, Insightful)

frovingslosh (582462) | about 4 months ago | (#47352445)

This country is an Obamanation.

Re:Obama (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47352581)

Not the kind of 'Change' you was expecting, huh?

Obama's Change means meet the new boss, same as the old boss

Re:Obama (0, Flamebait)

DigiShaman (671371) | about 4 months ago | (#47352585)

He hates America. This isn't about left vs. right. This is Obama hating America! To him, America must be broken so it can be repaired is whatever sick and twisted vision he sees it; if at all. They guy is a narcissistic, sycophantic, psychopathic. pathological liar!

Yeah, elections have consequences.

Re: Obama (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47352607)

Its not the guy. Its the system. You need to elect the people in power, not a puppet. Your system is so broken its not even funny.

Re:Obama (1)

ilparatzo (3627897) | about 4 months ago | (#47352779)

What else do you expect? These sorts of positions aren't given to the "best man/woman for the job" but the most closely qualified who is buddy buddy with the president's staff and/or contributed tons of money to their campaign. It's more about "you scratch my back I'll scratch yours" than anything else.

Re:Obama (2)

B33rNinj4 (666756) | about 4 months ago | (#47352803)

All he said was that he'd bring change. We were suckers to believe that it would be beneficial change for ourselves.

Re:Obama (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47352963)

At first I was fooled. Copyrights. Patents. Guantanamo Bay. What is it with this guy.

How's that hopey changey thing working out for you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com]

I used to tell my kids they could hope in one hand and shit in the other and see which one filled up first.

Why does Obama keep doing this? (4, Informative)

Joe Gillian (3683399) | about 4 months ago | (#47352197)

It seems like no matter what Obama says, he continues to appoint lobbyists with clear conflicts of interest to important positions rather than actually think about his choices. First it was Tom Wheeler at the FCC, and now a lobbyist and executive for Big Pharma in charge of patents. What causes him to keep doing this?

Re:Why does Obama keep doing this? (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 4 months ago | (#47352259)

The honest answer is, we can only guess.

An answer that's snarky but perhaps accurate is that (a) he said whatever would get him elected, and/or (b) lacks the ability to resist those around him.

"actually think about his choices" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47353417)

He's a very intelligent lawyer. I'm sure he's thinking very carefully about them.

Re:Why does Obama keep doing this? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47352279)

He's a corrupt idiot paying for his time in the white house. Oh sorry saying that automatically makes me a racist right?

Re:Why does Obama keep doing this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47352293)

Oh sorry saying that automatically makes me a racist right?

you could have just left that out, instead of making it clear that you are a racist otherwise it wouldn't have even been considered calling a president a corrupt idiot is standard practice this day and age

Re:Why does Obama keep doing this? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47352453)

Seeing as I take 100% of my opinion on the man due to his policies and lying to the public, and absolutely none of it from the color of his skin, I was simply pre-empting the "Obama is our Lord and savior, if you don't like his policies you're just a racist" crowd in hopes of ending it there. Sorry you couldn't see it for what it is. It always amazes me that the people who want to ignore skin color and treat everyone based on their actions and policies are the ones labeled racists, while those who want to treat people different based on their skin color are somehow the champions of "equality". In other words, fuck off imbecile

Re:Why does Obama keep doing this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47352561)

Seeing as I take 100% of my opinion on the man due to his policies and lying to the public, and absolutely none of it from the color of his skin, I was simply pre-empting the "Obama is our Lord and savior, if you don't like his policies you're just a racist" crowd in hopes of ending it there.

Do you have any evidence that "crowd" exists? I see a lot of whining about this, and no cases where it actually happens.

Re:Why does Obama keep doing this? (2)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about 4 months ago | (#47352667)

Have you read slashdot for the last 5 or 6 years?

Have you read other online boards?

It happens on all of them that I have read. Repeatedly.

Re:Why does Obama keep doing this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47352875)

Nah Nah Nah Nah..... I can't hear you....You must not exist.....

Re:Why does Obama keep doing this? (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 4 months ago | (#47353261)

Have you been asleep in a cave since 2006?

It's not really that bad these days; a lot of the Obama fans have given up on him (remember the Reddit picture a while back where someone had a huge Obama "HOPE" poster and had put it in a dumpster, and someone took a photo of this and posted it?), however there's still a contingent of Obamabots who still push the "if you don't like Obama, you're a racist!!!" canard which got started during his first campaign.

Re:Why does Obama keep doing this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47353099)

Methinks you protest too much, racist.

Also, you leave out a lot of punctuation, which means you're way too emotionally involved in this

Re:Why does Obama keep doing this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47353339)

Methinks you protest too much, racist.

Also, you leave out a lot of punctuation, which means you're way too emotionally involved in this

Oh dear! My high school english teacher would just be APPALLED at my quick typing on a comment board that will never be read again in 24 hours! That makes me a racist! You definitely caught me!

Re:Why does Obama keep doing this? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47352549)

In fact, no. Obama and his people have made it quite clear that there is NO legitimate opposition to his rule. You oppose the President, that automatically makes you a racist. It was all over the media for years. It's still a stock response whenever anyone criticizes him or his people. Didn't you get the memo?

Re:Why does Obama keep doing this? (1)

Tailhook (98486) | about 4 months ago | (#47352799)

you could have just left that out

No. Ridiculing "the race card" is important. Don't leave it out.

Re:Why does Obama keep doing this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47352307)

Till the Republicans can put forth a candidate that isn't a looney toon the Democrats won't have any incentive to do a thing for this country.

Re: Why does Obama keep doing this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47352681)

You mean he would close Gitmo, not go to war, be against patents, etc? No? Didn't think so. Sorry, I think you need to rewrite that stupid constitution of yours before you try to fix anything else. It's sad to see a whole nation be so proud of something so bad and not realize it.

Re: Why does Obama keep doing this? (2)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 4 months ago | (#47353505)

The chief advantage of the constitution is that it's written down, relatively short, and difficult to amend. This means the basis for the nation's laws is not based upon what's currently the big topic this year but rather has a longer term focus. I see too many other countries where the laws seem to be based on a trending topics ("right to be forgotten") without slow deliberation. Yes, the US constitution has flaws but not nearly so bad as many other places.

Re:Why does Obama keep doing this? (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 4 months ago | (#47352739)

Till the Republicans can put forth a candidate that isn't a looney toon the Democrats won't have any incentive to do a thing for this country.

A looney toon would be an improvement. As long as it's not Harper, there are a number of Canadian politicians that would do better than Bush Jr / McCain / Palin / Milt or the rest of the crazies in the Republican primaries. Really guys, if Romney was the absolute best you could do and if anyone is even thinking about Bush III, the democrats are going to win no matter who they stuff up there.

Re:Why does Obama keep doing this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47352921)

It's too bad they shut Buddy Romer out of the debates. His explicit choice to cap contributions to $100/donation would have given him the freedom to not owe any special interest his presidency would he have won. He could have had the freedom to serve the best interests of the general public and appoint people who would consider those general interests.

But that couldn't be allowed to happen, so the GOP shut him out of the debates.

Re:Why does Obama keep doing this? (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 4 months ago | (#47353483)

Wait... You're saying the last Republican president *WASN'T* Elmer Fudd?

Re:Why does Obama keep doing this? (1)

plebeian (910665) | about 4 months ago | (#47352327)

Someone must have explained to him what really happened to JFK (remember to wear your tinfoil hats).

Re:Why does Obama keep doing this? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47352401)

Why is this so hard to understand?
First - dispel from your mind there are two parties called Democrats and Republicans who are polar opposites.
The truth is there are 2 factions (some of each in each of the two parties): oligarchs and representatives.
The oligarchs are people like Dianne Feinstein (D) and Mike Rogers (R). The representatives are people like Ron Wyden (D) and Justin Amash (R).

The oligarchs generally believe in more power for them so they can rule you. They understand they cannot openly come out and say this. Thus, their method of achieving their ends is to propose wildly unpopular legislation which they use to demagogue "the other guy's party" on different technicalities. This creates the boogie man they need to raise campaign funds and scare the people into voting for them rather than the "evil other guy".

Currently the Oligarchs are in the majority in both houses and they have the white house. They are also well entrenched in both the DNC and RNC.
Obama is and always was one of them. The republicans have been screaming this for ages. Most of them though just didn't realize that you were screaming your head off about Bush being like this, that you were right too.

Welcome to having your eyes opened. Join the club.

Re:Why does Obama keep doing this? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47352411)

People in the shadow following a clear agenda, just read "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and you will understand why he keeps doing that. Divide to conquer, break the system that you created.

Re:Why does Obama keep doing this? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47352591)

You are citing from a known hoax book designed to further anti-semetic racism. I'm sorry, it's not the medieval ages, you aren't the Catholic Church, and you don't need to get out of a bunch of debt by instituting long-con discrimination against your creditors.

Re:Why does Obama keep doing this? (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 4 months ago | (#47353499)

Whenever I hear people citing the age-old "Jews run the world" idiocy, I think just one thing: I'm Jewish and nobody told me this! Why am I being left out, here?!!

Ask a silly question... (1)

slew (2918) | about 4 months ago | (#47352457)

What causes him to keep doing this?

Money.

But more seriously, this is one of the problems with electing a president with a short political CV/resume. His circle of trust doesn't have the critical mass of folks that can survive a vetting process (any than could have already got their job and gotten out after 4 years), so he has to rely on getting suggestions folks in an extended political operative/Washington insider circle which only knows people looking for a job from the pool perpetual bureaucratic lobbyist ruling class that's pretty much bought and sold themselves to the highest bidders...

Re:Why does Obama keep doing this? (1)

Stan92057 (737634) | about 4 months ago | (#47352579)

Dude, this is payback for all the money they gave him to get elected see how that works? Its about taking care of your money buddies. This is what happens when a very bad candidate is elected president. Personally I would like the requirement for the President raised a lot have to be 50 years of age and at least 10 years in Congress as a starter. This is all IMO

Re:Why does Obama keep doing this? (1)

Jodka (520060) | about 4 months ago | (#47352751)

..Obama ..continues to appoint lobbyists with clear conflicts of interest to important positions rather than actually think about his choice... What causes him to keep doing this?

It is because he has not seen it in the news yet.

Re:Why does Obama keep doing this? (1)

Jodka (520060) | about 4 months ago | (#47352975)

..What causes [Obama] to keep doing this?

Maybe this [spectator.org] has something to do with it:

The American Association for Justice, formerly and more accurately known as the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, gave 96 percent of all its contributions so far this year to Democrats. A fluke? They gave Democrats 96 percent in 2012, 97 percent in 2010, and 95 percent in 2008. The Washington Examiner’s 2011 investigative reporting showed that, of political contributions given in 2010 by the employees and partners at the top 110 plaintiff’s firms in the United States, 97 percent went to Democrats.

Democrats’ reliance on this legal gravy train was highlighted two years ago when Sherry Sylvester of Texans for Lawsuit Reform wrote an article claiming that 80 percent of all contributions to the state Democratic Party over the previous decade came from trial lawyers. The bean counters at Politifact weighed in to declare that she was mostly right, but that the real fraction was closer to 75 percent. Read that again: Three-quarters of the Texas Democratic Party’s cash came from trial lawyers.

Re:Why does Obama keep doing this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47353047)

What causes him to do this stuff?

Bribes...oooops, campaign contributions...

Re:Why does Obama keep doing this? (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 4 months ago | (#47353449)

Probably because he's given a very short list of names and then the advisors point to the name they prefer. Obama is like any other CEO, completely clueless about how the organization really works.

Hope and Change (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47352237)

And if you buy that I've got some swamp land in Florida you may be interested in.

change.borg (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47352271)

They just took what they could get.

Re:change.borg (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47352703)

WooHoo, a Obadman fanboi with mod points to burn! More overrated? Burn, Baby, Burn!

Of course, perhaps this one might be more accurate as "flamebait" for baiting the fanboi or "troll" for trolling the fanboi under the bridge with mod points. Or have you already burned all of yours on this article?

signed: Silly Offtopic AC

It kinda makes sense if you don't think about it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47352277)

Who else to enforce draconian patent law bullshit as it is today? The guy who is pro that.

Classic $Politician (3, Insightful)

komodo685 (2920329) | about 4 months ago | (#47352291)

It seemed odd that only posts I see on this subject ("Classic Obama", "Obama ... What is it with this guy", and "Why does Obama keep doing this") all seem to suggest this hypocrisy is somehow unique to the current president.

Maybe I'm missing something as I was born in '88, was there a time when politicians weren't appointing people based on who would be best for the major corps in the industry.?How is this anything but the standard Corruption which we can expect from all future presidents?

Re:Classic $Politician (4, Insightful)

amorsen (7485) | about 4 months ago | (#47352355)

Obama seems to be the first mainstream US presidential candidate in a long time to "talk the talk" to the kind of people who read Slashdot. The others have been spouting ignorant crap or simply ignoring the topics that most Slashdotters care about. Therefore Obama is the first president that we can be disappointed in -- the others were known bad before they became presidents.

Re:Classic $Politician (4, Interesting)

Trailer Trash (60756) | about 4 months ago | (#47352395)

Obama seems to be the first mainstream US presidential candidate in a long time to "talk the talk" to the kind of people who read Slashdot. The others have been spouting ignorant crap or simply ignoring the topics that most Slashdotters care about. Therefore Obama is the first president that we can be disappointed in -- the others were known bad before they became presidents.

Um, maybe to you. I saw Obama coming a mile away, he's admittedly even more of a let down than I or anyone else could imagine but I knew the vapid talk was just that. I'm glad you admit that he fooled you, most on your side keep claiming that he's actually not an embarrassing failure and that things are way better than when Bush was in office.

Re:Classic $Politician (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47352493)

...things are way better than when Bush was in office.

he's definitely a huge disappointment, but i'd still take a lifetime of obama over a single term of bush. bush came within months of completely obliterating the US.

Re:Classic $Politician (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47352795)

What Bush policy has Obama improved upon? All Obama has done has taken every shitty thing Bush ever did and made it worse.

I wouldn't want either of them, but the biggest damage Obama ever did was make blind liberals support Bush's worst policies. All it's done is expose the hypocrisy in the system. When Bush was in office, liberals were complaining about the erosion of civil liberties, and now that Obama is in office, those people who were so excited about his election feel like they have to defend them, feel like they didn't make a mistake in nominating him over Hillary Clinton.

Re:Classic $Politician (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47352847)

Yeah.. this always makes me laugh.. The only reason I can't say Obama was the worst president in my lifetime is because Bush preceded him. And for a lot of my democrat friends, they cling to this one thing as if "Better than Bush" really is enough reason to back him.

Me? I've long stopped voting for the democratic party and started voting for my favorite candidate - whoever that is. Because my vote is too valuable to throw away on a shitty candidate. Ironically, many of my friends argue that they vote for these douche bags for the same reason. We get the government we deserve...

Re:Classic $Politician (1)

morgauxo (974071) | about 4 months ago | (#47352573)

But what was the alternative? Just another politician who did not even bother to "talk the talk" to "the kind of people who read Slashdot"? Should we have expected better from McCain or Romney? I never doubted that most of Obama's promises would be BS but I thought that at least the few concesions he does give to the people to keep them satisfied would at least be in our favor this time. What a disapointment!

Re:Classic $Politician (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47353199)

The difference is you would NOT have expected as much out of McCain or Romney. With either of them as president the media would have scrutinized everything they did. Instead we get real problems ignored or barely commented on by most of the major news networks. I'd rather have the devil who is everyone knows is evil than the good guy that no one questions.

Re:Classic $Politician (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47353553)

McCain (the one who really worked in Congress) would have been a better president than Obama. Sadly he lost my vote when he picked Barbie to run as his vice president. I knew right then and there that he had lost my respect and likely his mind.

Romney never had a chance when his only message was "I'm not Obama but I won't tell you who I really am".

Re:Classic $Politician (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47352371)

Because Obama and his people held him up as something better. Is your entire argument "he's just like the others"? Really?

Hope and change. Hope that things could be better, and positive change. A hell of a lot of people - educated people who should have known better - fell for that hook, line, and sinker. These same educated people then equated any opposition to the ruling party as racism. You can't be against the President...coming from the same people who, less than 1 year before, insisted that knee-jerk opposition to anything that came out of the White House was the patriotic duty of every American.

You know, by saying Obama is the same as every other corrupt President...that's pretty racist. You know what the President had to say about people like you?

"It's not surprising then you get bitter, you cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like yourself." You already got the middle finger from the Chief Executive...why on earth are you still the side of his ruling party? He's a worse criminal than Nixon and a worse president than Carter.

Re:Classic $Politician (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47352381)

obama was elected because he seemed to represent a departure from everything you described. it was the first time in several generations that the US actually had a candidate that looked like he was actually going to do something good for the country. instead, he decides to lay a steaming coil on the democratic platform on which he was elected.

fuck obama.

it'll be a long time before i ever get suckered into believing in a political candidate again.

Re:Classic $Politician (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 4 months ago | (#47353371)

>instead, he decides to lay a steaming coil on the democratic platform on which he was elected.

Seems to me that most of the rest of the Democrats are going right along with Obama and his policies. Somehow I got on the Democrat party's mailing list and I get bombarded with all these fearmongering hysterical ads about how they need more money or Republicans will take over, and how it's so important that we "support Obama's agenda!!!!" Obama's agenda is giveaways to big corporations like Comcast and the health insurance companies; why would I want to support that?

Re:Classic $Politician (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47352679)

It seemed odd that only posts I see on this subject ("Classic Obama", "Obama ... What is it with this guy", and "Why does Obama keep doing this") all seem to suggest this hypocrisy is somehow unique to the current president.

Maybe I'm missing something as I was born in '88, was there a time when politicians weren't appointing people based on who would be best for the major corps in the industry.?How is this anything but the standard Corruption which we can expect from all future presidents?

You are not missing anything, except for the fact that we humans mostly suck at remembering history in any form except for having history shaped in a way to help our current agenda. Politicians have been forever in the position of cronyism, nepotism, and favoritism. It's how they get elected. Wealthy folks put up the capital to get someone elected that will favor their agenda. No matter the system (communism, socialism, etc) it is always like that. Don't hate it too much (well, you can but it's wasteful of your energy), but if you had billions and wanted to shape your corner of the Earth and didn't want to be judged, you'd probably do the same thing.

Re:Classic $Politician (1)

ilparatzo (3627897) | about 4 months ago | (#47352845)

"would be best for the major corps"

It's never been about appointing people best for the major corporations, though that tends to happen by virtue of what's really going on. It's always been about repaying those that helped you get into office. Those people just so happen to be those that tend to have the major corporations in mind, since they throw around all the money.

No matter how much either of the two parties like the say the other is in the pocket of industry and they are looking out for the people, neither is telling you the full truth. They are interested most in the people that put money into their campaign funds. And not the $5 that Grandma gave. That doesn't even start to break into the benefits given those who will help them once they are out of office as well.

Re:Classic $Politician (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 4 months ago | (#47353301)

>It seemed odd that only posts I see on this subject ("Classic Obama", "Obama ... What is it with this guy", and "Why does Obama keep doing this") all seem to suggest this hypocrisy is somehow unique to the current president.

It is somewhat unique.

Bush wasn't hypocritical. He was blatant in his advocacy for non-progressive policies and for being corrupt. You think Bush would have ever pushed for patent reform? Or net neutrality? Not on your life. So when he did bad things, it was entirely expected. No hypocrisy there.

Obama is different, because he said all kinds of great-sounding, progressive things such as that he wouldn't appoint any lobbyists to policy-making positions. Then he promptly did exactly the opposite when in office. That makes him a hypocrite and a liar.

USPTO = Affordable health care - Phooey (1)

Grow Old Timber (1071718) | about 4 months ago | (#47352415)

This administration was supposed to bring health care costs down as everybody remembers. What we got was mandated coverage..Some deal. . NOW he has the nerve to appoint a pharma exec. to the gatekeepers post? Why do we never hear of bringing down the cost of medicine? Could it be...Wall street? So many questions .. so many siphons on the people.

Not a black and white issue (1)

Theaetetus (590071) | about 4 months ago | (#47352499)

From the article:

The move is likely to anger patent reform advocates given Johnson’s past efforts to block legislation aimed at reining in patent trolls, and in light of his positions that appear to contradict the White House’s professed goal of fixing the patent system...
In December, Johnson testified before the Senate on behalf of the 21st Century Patent Coalition, a group of companies who opposed a bill that would have made it easier for defendants to challenge low-quality patents, and to recover legal costs in the face of frivolous patent lawsuits. (Johnson’s group ultimately prevailed last month when Senate Democrats killed the bill altogether.) Johnson has also opposed previous patent reform initiatives, describing them as “almost everything an infringer could ever want.”

"Patent reform" is not a single solution, with people lining up on opposites of a fence to either oppose or support it. There are many different issues, from patent trolls and shotgun litigation, to venue issues like the Eastern District of Texas, to the quality of examination at the USPTO, to patentability of software, to patentability of business methods (which is similar, but different), to patentability of medical diagnostic methods (also different), to issues of clarity and notice to potential infringers, to end user-targeted infringement lawsuits, to fee-shifting, etc., etc... Contrary to what the article believes, you can be in favor of some solutions while being opposed to others, and that doesn't make you a "patent reform opponent" or mean that your positions "contradict the goal of fixing the patent system." Rather, it means that you recognize that, like almost every other thing that reasonable people disagree about, there are shades of gray.

Let us have a good executive in the USPTO (1)

American Patent Guy (653432) | about 4 months ago | (#47352531)

The reason these overly-broad patents used by the patent trolls are granted is because they don't get properly examined and rejected. The patent examiner isn't given time to do a sufficiently thorough search or to make a proper legal case against a patent application. Those cases become patents, and the costs that should have been paid in examination get paid many times over in litigation.

This guy has been part of the running of a pharmaceutical company. That kind of company deals with regulations of all kinds (from the FDA) and oftentimes manages to make a profit on generic medications. If he can provide better and efficiency to the administration of the USPTO, then he has my vote. That's the kind of reform that is truly needed...

Extremely scary (3, Insightful)

backslashdot (95548) | about 4 months ago | (#47352533)

This is a very dark development.
The patent system is being abused such that it is preventing product launches and stifling innovation/invention by anyone other than large entities. For example, let's look at what's happening with LTE. Currently corporations are submarining many of these patents so that it will be impossible to make a non-infringing LTE base station or smartphone even 30 years after most of the currently known LTE patents expire. Not all the patents on LTE are even known (this is deliberate so that lawsuit can be filed at a later date). Anyway, what do I mean by submarining? They filed some of these applications years ago and then saw to it that SOME the patents have not issued (while a few are issued) ... after a 3 year delay .. a loophole in the law kicks in (basically they use 35 USC 135 (c) to trigger 35 USC 156 (a) ) and so they get 20 years from issuance date subtract 18 months until the patent expires. Their goal is to delay the patent issuance until the final quickly issued patent is about to expire .. then they will get the patent office to issue the new patents (the deliberately delayed ones). This allows them extended monopoly/royalties on LTE technology. This tactic is widely used. For example there are still patents from HDTV in the 1990s that have still not been issued. The patent law was changed in the early 90s to "prevent submarining" .. but a loophole was placed in there intended for pharmaceutical companies (cause FDA drug approvals can take a decade so it's unfair that they only get 10 years of monopoly).. but the problem with the loophole is that everyone else (non-pharmaceuticals) can use it too.

This appointment needs to be protested properly.

Re:Extremely scary (1)

backslashdot (95548) | about 4 months ago | (#47352595)

In my opinion USC 135 (c) and USC 156 (a) are unconstitutional due to the limited times requirement specified in the constitution.

Re:Extremely scary (1)

CajunArson (465943) | about 4 months ago | (#47352721)

Fascinating, so what part of patents having a fixed maximum 20 year lifetime is not "limited time" to you?

Are you still stuck with Windows 95 where anything beyond 49.5 days is considered infinity because the computer crashes?

Re:Extremely scary (2)

backslashdot (95548) | about 4 months ago | (#47352859)

Dude, my point is that there is no fixed 20 year time period, you can keep extending the patent issuance for as long as you like by using 35 USC 135 (c) to trigger 35 USC 156 (a). If you managed to delay it more than 3 years (very easy btw) then the clock of those 20 years starts after the issue date. SO for example, you if you filed a patent in 2000, you keep pushing for delays under 35 USC 135 (c) so that the patent gets issued in 2020 .. then you have a monopoly on the invention until 2040. You can sue any infringers for back royalties on your invention if someone else built it (knowingly or unknowingly).

Re:Extremely scary (1)

backslashdot (95548) | about 4 months ago | (#47353001)

I also want to add that 35 USC 154(b) is also very relevant here (and should be unconstitutional in my opinion).

Re:Extremely scary (1)

Theaetetus (590071) | about 4 months ago | (#47353255)

Dude, my point is that there is no fixed 20 year time period, you can keep extending the patent issuance for as long as you like by using 35 USC 135 (c) to trigger 35 USC 156 (a). If you managed to delay it more than 3 years (very easy btw) then the clock of those 20 years starts after the issue date. SO for example, you if you filed a patent in 2000, you keep pushing for delays under 35 USC 135 (c) so that the patent gets issued in 2020 .. then you have a monopoly on the invention until 2040. You can sue any infringers for back royalties on your invention if someone else built it (knowingly or unknowingly).

Wat?

35 USC 135(c) Deferral of Decision.— The Patent Trial and Appeal Board may defer action on a petition for a derivation proceeding until the expiration of the 3-month period beginning on the date on which the Director issues a patent that includes the claimed invention that is the subject of the petition. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board also may defer action on a petition for a derivation proceeding, or stay the proceeding after it has been instituted, until the termination of a proceeding under chapter 30, 31, or 32 involving the patent of the earlier applicant.

That simply doesn't say what you think it says. Even if you go back to the pre-AIA 135(c), it says:

(c) Any agreement or understanding between parties to an interference, including any collateral agreements referred to therein, made in connection with or in contemplation of the termination of the interference, shall be in writing and a true copy thereof filed in the Patent and Trademark Office before the termination of the interference as between the said parties to the agreement or understanding. If any party filing the same so requests, the copy shall be kept separate from the file of the interference, and made available only to Government agencies on written request, or to any person on a showing of good cause. Failure to file the copy of such agreement or understanding shall render permanently unenforceable such agreement or understanding and any patent of such parties involved in the interference or any patent subsequently issued on any application of such parties so involved. The Director may, however, on a showing of good cause for failure to file within the time prescribed, permit the filing of the agreement or understanding during the six-month period subsequent to the termination of the interference as between the parties to the agreement or understanding. The Director shall give notice to the parties or their attorneys of record, a reasonable time prior to said termination, of the filing requirement of this section. If the Director gives such notice at a later time, irrespective of the right to file such agreement or understanding within the six-month period on a showing of good cause, the parties may file such agreement or understanding within sixty days of the receipt of such notice. Any discretionary action of the Director under this subsection shall be reviewable under section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act.

Interferences and derivation proceedings have nothing to do with submarine patents. And 35 USC 156 is patent term extension for regulatory proceedings - you get extra time for the period during which the FDA held up your new drug.

Neither of those sections say what you think they do, and submarine patents are a thing of the past, because of the change to 20 years from the date of filing rather than 17 years from issue.

Re:Extremely scary (1)

backslashdot (95548) | about 4 months ago | (#47353501)

BS.

There are many many patents with extensions ... for example .. just randomly typing patent numbers you can find many .. for example US patent# 7349837. It's patent term was extended by 715 days. Just look up that patent in the uspto website and then click on images to see the pages .. you will see halfway down that it says "Notice: Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this patent is extended or adjusted under 35 U.S.C. 154(b) by 715 days."

http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?D... [uspto.gov]

Before you accuse me of cherry picking .. try typing searching random patent numbers on the USPTO website above 7,000,000 and below i guess 8,500,000. It wont take you long to find ones that have had their patent terms arbitrarily extended. Especially ones for stuff like communications, images, video etc.

Par for the course with this president (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47352601)

This president would hire a Rapist to be in charge of a sexual assault prevention office with the goverment. You know, because of all the experience he could bring.

OF COURSE he is (0)

gelfling (6534) | about 4 months ago | (#47352613)

He is the most useless fucking tool of a president we've ever had. In fact useless would be an improvement. He's fucking evil. Fuck you Obama.

The long slide... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47352663)

What was it called again? Corporate Plutocracy? Between todays SCOTUS ruling, and now a 'big pharma' exec. heading to US' top patent office position, how worse will things get before the corporate stranglehold faulters? I honestly did not see this coming 6 years ago, much less 2 or 3. I'm utterly in disbelief just how far things are swinging against the individual.

Blame Canada! (0)

sageres (561626) | about 4 months ago | (#47352669)

Blame Canada! Blame Canada!
t seems that everything's gone wrong
Since Canada came along
Blame Canada! Blame Canada!
They're not even a real country anyway!

Other kind of "fixed" (1)

penguinoid (724646) | about 4 months ago | (#47352849)

The move is likely to anger patent reform advocates given Johnson's past efforts to block legislation aimed at reining in patent trolls, and in light of his positions that appear to contradict the White House's professed goal of fixing the patent system.

Maybe they meant fixing the patent system, like people fix races.

Disappointment (1)

rkhalloran (136467) | about 4 months ago | (#47352905)

Obama campaigned as something of a techie, promising more government transparency, promised to uphold net neutrality, reel in the troops committed to the Land War in Asia, and has ended up having a shill for the media cartels as his Veep, actively supporting the NSA collect-it-all mentality, has appointed a former cable exec to chair the FCC, has slammed the press for calling him on his flip-flops, and generally shown an attitude of intellectual superiority and/or played the race card in criticizing his opponents. And now is apparently looking to book a Pharma rep as his PTO chief after Hatch (remember, the SCO Group apologist?) whined about it. I didn't vote for him either time, but he hasn't lived up to his PR by any stretch.

Genius move? (1)

decep (137319) | about 4 months ago | (#47353065)

The fastest way to change someones opinion is to put them in charge of something that has the problem.

NEWSFLASH U STUPID FUCKS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47353129)

Obama is controlled by his white slave masters, such as the Rothschilds, Jp Morgans, Rockerfellers et all.

If Obama going against his white masters he will be assassinated.

The president of the United States has been completely controlled/powerless behind the scenes since Kennedy was assassinated.

Now you stupid fucks can stop wondering about "Why did Obama lie to me?" . It's because he's a slave.

Obama's Legacy Goal (1)

runeghost (2509522) | about 4 months ago | (#47353287)

To win the award for "biggest sellout in presidential history".

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?