Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Monday March 06 2017, @10:56AM   Printer-friendly
from the where's-Waldo? dept.

The US Patent and Trademark Office has offered the first indication in weeks about who's in charge. Yesterday, at an event for lawyers who practice at USPTO, Michelle Lee was introduced as the office's director.

Lee has been running the office for years, so such an introduction would normally be the ultimate non-event. But yesterday's acknowledgement comes after several weeks during which the office refused to answer a simple question: Who is the director of the US Patent and Trademark Office?

When President Donald Trump was inaugurated in January, DC-centric publications including The Hill and Politico reported that Lee, a former Google lawyer who is favored by the tech sector, would remain in her office. But weeks later, the USPTO director position continues to be listed as "vacant" on the Commerce Department's website. Official USPTO spokespersons simply declined to comment in response to inquiries from Ars Technica and other publications. The USPTO did not respond to an additional inquiry by Ars sent this morning.

Meanwhile, other candidates, including a former Federal Circuit judge, have said they're interested in the job.

Last week, the office even delayed responding to a FOIA request which could have been fulfilled by answering the simple question "Who is the office's acting director?" Instead, the patent office asked for a delay until March 10, citing a section of the law that allows for delay in "unusual circumstances."

Source:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/at-us-patent-office-a-mystery-lingers-whos-in-charge/


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 06 2017, @02:48PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 06 2017, @02:48PM (#475633)

    The beautiful thing is that you can vote yourself in a whole new government.

    Recently, the USA voted for an even more dysfunctional government.

    Men are not angels, so violent imposition of force is unavoidable. Do you have a better idea what kind of organization could keep an even worse warlord at bay?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 06 2017, @03:03PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 06 2017, @03:03PM (#475638)

    There's no reason why most of the goods/services provided by that violently imposed organization (the one that calls itself "government") couldn't be provided by competing organizations; at the very least, let organizations (e.g., security firms) compete to implement a standard (e.g., 'policing') rather than rely on one violently imposed monopoly that can just declare its own income. There is no better way for society at large to cooperate on solving problems (both known and unknown) than through the process of evolution by variation and selection, which manifests as competition within a market of voluntary trade.

    The problem is always culture; something like the U.S. Constitution is only valuable if the culture respects it in the first place, and the same can be said of contract negotiation/enforcement in a market of voluntary trade: The culture needs to respect voluntary association, and the importance of negotiating and enforcing contracts, but good luck getting the culture to this point when governmental "schools" teach people to treat the State as a great savior, worshiping it with hymns, daily pledges of allegiance, sacred symbols, and revised history.

    • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday March 06 2017, @07:36PM

      by Thexalon (636) on Monday March 06 2017, @07:36PM (#475766)

      There's no reason why most of the goods/services provided by that violently imposed organization (the one that calls itself "government") couldn't be provided by competing organizations

      Yes there is: Imagine a world in which there is no government and your multiple competing organizations are all trying to provide some good/service. Sooner or later, one of those competing organizations will figure out that they can reduce the competition dramatically if they engage in acts of violence against their competitors. The competitors, in order to protect themselves, will arm themselves and commit acts of violence in retaliation. And congratulations, you've now replaced one violently imposed organization into several violently imposed organizations competing for your business by shooting people.

      And actually, we don't really have to imagine this, because the markets for illegal drugs already work this way.

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.