The Dudas show

[Bernard Lang <Bernard.Lang@inria.fr>]

Excerpts from the Dudas Show ...

  a humor talk shaw brought to you by the USPTO Channel

  read carefully and enjoy a real gem.  Fit for an anthology.

Bernard


[pointed out by James Love of CP Tech]

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/speeches/2004oct15.htm


REMARKS OF JONATHAN DUDAS, UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR OF THE PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

2004 AIPLA ANNUAL MEETING

Friday, October 15, 2004

MR. DUDAS: What I want to talk to you about today are the
challenges that face our intellectual property system, the
challenges that face the USPTO.

  [snip]

I want to talk to you a little bit about the international environment,
and I've come back just over a week ago from Geneva. The challenges in
the international arena are also incredible, both in the immediate
future and in the long term. I mentioned earlier that there's a growing
anti-IP sentiment internationally, and we see it as well in domestic
circles, especially in the academic community, Internet bloggers and
even among some government entities.

This sentiment has poured into WIPO in some instances. Even the simplest
of harmonization efforts have been met with obstruction and procedural
tactics. In my time at the USPTO, I've always held the belief that we
should work hard to achieve a consensus at the World Intellectual
Property Organization. Ideally, we should have every nation agree on the
intellectual property reforms that we'd like to see go forward, but we
simply cannot, we must not have a few nations obstructing the process
for the rest of the world. This is especially true when you ponder the
fact that about 85 percent of the world's patents come through three
offices: the USPTO, the JPO and the European Patent Office.

It's also especially true when you consider that nearly half of the
funding for WIPO comes from only three nations: the U.S., Japan and
Germany. Being outnumbered means only that we have to work harder. But
one area where we've been successful is protecting your pocketbooks
internationally. The U.S. staunchly opposed a recent proposal to
increase PCT fees at WIPO. In fact, it was the U.S. that stopped a
provision last year that would have raised fees more. This saved U.S.
applicants a year ago, all of you, more than $20 million. I want to
point out to all of you that at WIPO, less than $1 out of every $3 you
pay goes to the Office of PCT.

For those of you who truly believe that diversion of fees is absolutely
unacceptable in any form, I direct your attention to what happens when
the money goes to WIPO. We had this fight on our hands two weeks ago. We
had a deal, there was a deal at the International Bureau to propose PCT
fee increases another 12.7 percent. I'm happy to report that we were
successful in stopping the proposed PCT fee increase. But I want to have
everyone keep in mind what we face.

The U.S. and a handful of nations are net givers at the World
Intellectual Property Organization, and that's fine. We shoulder that
responsibility. But the rest of the 174 nations are net receivers; that
is, they are the beneficiaries of the fees that you pay for PCT that
does not go to PCT operations.

Even worse, there were proposals on the table to fundamentally change
the WIPO charter and philosophy from one that promotes intellectual
property and its protection to a more amorphous charter of "balancing"
intellectual property. We have no quarrels with balance. In fact, we
believe our current system and international norms are properly
balanced. But simply put, this new balancing act is a strategy to water
down intellectual property protection, and the U.S. will fight this as
well, and I am certain that we will do so.

   [snip]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------


Just one question:  When someone wants to shoot me, should I pay for
the ammunition ?
  A balanced point of view is "yes", according to Clown J. Dudas.