That, and a billion dollars over 20 years is pretty small potatoes.
The issue at hand is the current attempt to correct that problem. Both clowns attempting to sabotage the attempt have a big “R” stuck to their names.
Nope; it’s quite easy. Inventors paid the fees to have their applications examined in a timely manner, not to buy hookers and blow or conduct cowboy poetry recitals or whatever.
If there’s now a minimum dollar requirement before any given stupid idea is eligible for this thread, it’s going to have to be rather heavily purged. The “Stupid Democratic Idea of the Day” thread might then have a chance to catch up (if the same rule is not applied there).
So, as I understand it, legislation to allow the patent office to keep all it’s fees would result in additional funding to help expedite the processing of applications. Under normal circumstances, a reasonable idea.
However, at a time when the deficit is a trillion and a half dollars, and every agency in the Federal government (except DoD and the VA) is having their budget frozen or cut, I’m afraid that this doesn’t seem like a great time to argue that more funding for the patent office is a high national priority. $50 million a year isn’t a huge amount of money, but I think using the funds to reduce massive cuts required of other agencies seems to be a more rational priority than increasing the number of patent examiners at this particular moment.
I’ve got to call this a fairly reasonable Republican idea. There must be something I am missing…
You are missing the fact that it is incredibly penny-wise and pound foolish. The timely processing of patents means new products and technologies enter the market faster, and that stimulates the economy. $50 million a year is a very small investment that will pay off in billions it the years to come. I would go so far as to increase the budget of the USPTO beyond their fees for that very reason.
Just a short footnote to S.Palin’s latest dumbery;
[It appears that the former prime minister has no intention of meeting the darling of the Tea Party movement. Andy McSmith reported in the Independent this morning that Palin is likely to be “thwarted” on the grounds that Thatcher, 86, rarely makes public appearances.
It would appear that the reasons go deeper than Thatcher’s frail health. Her allies believe that Palin is a frivolous figure who is unworthy of an audience with the Iron Lady. This is what one ally tells me:
Lady Thatcher will not be seeing Sarah Palin. That would be belittling for Margaret. **Sarah Palin is nuts.**](http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/wintour-and-watt/2011/jun/07/margaretthatcher-sarahpalin?INTCMP=SRCH)
(bolding mine)
I hope it’s true - made me snort coffee out my nose this morning.
I thought the hookers and blow were paid for by the mining companies.
I would like to see cites that we are losing out on billions of economic activity because of the patent process - as opposed to having billions in economic activity delayed a little bit.
And if you want to have cuts to education, health care, national parks, roads, air traffic control upgrades, flooding projects, NASA, and hundreds of other agencies sustained in order to give more money to the patent office, you’re certainly entitled to that position. But I view cuts in those programs as having much, much greater economic impact than the speculative benefits of processing patents somewhat quicker.
When roads suck, the cost of transportation is greater for everyone. When health care budgets are trimmed (like for Medicaid), sick people can’t work. When flood control projects are cancelled, people are put out of construction work and there’s a chance that whole communities will be wiped out in natural disasters. I rate those all as more important than betting on the come that quicker processing of thousands of patent applications will result in a few big successes.
Irrelevant. The subject of discussion is fee money (i.e. funds paid for a specific service), not tax money (i.e. funds paid to support the government generally). Embezzlement is not the basis for sound public policy (but IOIYAR, apparently).
Oh, well, if the usual suspects aren’t going to defend the Republicans on this thread, I guess somebody has to step up…
I never said that economic activity would be lost forever. Slowing down the patent process slows down the economic activity those products and technologies contribute to the economy. That is a bad thing.
I do not see the budget as a zero sum game; only the shortsighted have placed tax increases off the table, and are willing to sacrifice spending that can be shown to have a net stimulus to the economy just to avoid tax increases. And there will be tax increases in the near future.
I really really really really hope Thatcher’s minions release some official disinvitation/snub that says this.
The story says fee money has been used for other purposes for decades. As I understand it, those fees have get deposited into the treasury’s General Fund and then specific amounts are then appropriated to the Patent Office for their operations.
Once funds enter the General Fund, they become indistinguishable from tax revenue, and can be used for any purpose. Besides, I think it is reasonable that Congress get to review the Patent Office’s budget to make sure they aren’t wasting funds that could be better used elsewhere. If fees are kept by the Patent Office as a matter of law, sounds lime their budget would be exempted from same type of reviews that virtually every other agency goes through. There should be oversight, especially in these budgetary times.
And I agree there should be tax increases, but let’s get real: the government is still going to be facing lots of budget cuts. It is unfortunate and inevitable. The patent office is a good thing, but in terms of priorities, I can’t see the logic of devoting more funds to the patent office when huge swaths of the government is facing pretty severe cuts. The patent office quite simply isn’t on the short list of the most critical government functions. Protect the budgets of our priorities first.
By the way, I looked it up, and the Patent Office has kept every penny of the fees they have collected since 2005. Since then, Congress has set spending limits so high so that all the fees they collected, they kept n
Prior to that, the spending limits set by Congress required that fees in excess of those caps were used for other purposes. It seems the intent of the proposal being debated is to stop the ability of Congress to set spending caps which could - but not necessarily would - allow excess funding to be used for other purposes. Why shouldn’t Congress review the budget of the Patent Office?
I don’t know, I never thought about it until you mentioned it.
ETA: your link is broke.
Here lies the real stupidity (and hypocrisy) – a couple of self-so-called conservative Republicans are looking for ways to grab more money (e.g. overcharging patent applicants and skimming off some of the money) as long as they can do it in a way that permits them to pretend that it isn’t a [ SCARE CHORD WITH OMINOUS ECHO EFFECT ] “tax increase” [ /SCWOEE ]. The fact that the fast-shuffle approach does far more economic damage than honestly and straightforwardly increasing taxes matters nothing when Holy Dogma is invoked.
Er, why? They have customers (patent applicants) to do that (by deciding whether or not to hire the agency’s services). Again, this exposes a bit of Republican stupidity and/or hypocrisy – by their stated philosophy of governance, Congress ought to keep its fingers out of the way of that invisible hand.
If one wants to argue that the Patent Office should quit charging fees-for-service and become a taxpayer-funded agency, that would be a position that could be rationally debated on its merits. That isn’t what’s on the table here. What’s on the table here is simply a way to get people to fork over more money to the government while pretending not to increase taxes.
Crapola. Try this.
If it is a government agency, it ought to have its budget reviewed by Congress – you know, power of the purse and all. If the Patent Office wants to pay its employees more than similarly qualified employees elsewhere in the government, or would like to have shiny new plasma TVs in every office, they ought to justify those expenses to Congress regardless of whether inventors are “paying” for those expenses or not.
(a) I think fees are an appropriate way to fund the Patent Office… but that doesn’t mean that if in one particular year there is a windfall of patent fees that the office should get to keep all the money. They should be funded to a reasonable, executable level, and if fees turn out to be in excess of their needs, well, there’s plenty of other government programs that are in dire need right now.
(b) See my cite earlier: since 2005, Congress has approved budget levels for the office that allows them to keep all the fees that they take in. There doesn’t appear to be some backdoor tax increase going on if the Patent Office has been using all the funds that it charges for the last six years. The question is whether the Patent Office should have the perpetual ability to keep all the fees it charges, without review from Congress as to the appropriate level of funding for the office. As you are aware, I cast my lot with accountability and oversight.
I recognize that, and as i said, i support the administration’s effort to allow the USPTO to keep its fees.
But this fact still doesn’t make your claim that the Republicans are arguing for a “one billion-dollar tax on American inventors” any less misleading.
I agree that this is an important issue, and i agree that it seems to be Republicans who are the ones doing the obstruction, but misrepresenting the situation like you did doesn’t do anyone any good.
Dana Rohrabacher again…
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56776.html#ixzz1P63yJDfb
Particularly stupid when we are supposed to wind down the US military presence, it is really dumb to continue to assume like the previous administration that we are going to get back the cost of the invasion from a grateful Iraqi government, such suggestion shows that Republicans still swallow the idea that most Iraqis are glad for the invasion.
In my neck of the woods, there has been some recent discussing involving the illegal immigration issue and the governors recent actions.
We have a Republican showing all the compassion we’d come to expect from them.
[QUOTE=Worcester Telegram & Gazette]
When asked if he would be concerned that a woman without legal immigration status was raped and beaten as she walked down the street might be afraid to report the crime to police, Mr. Fattman said he was not worried about those implications.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Rep. Ryan Fattman]
My thought is that if someone is here illegally, they should be afraid to come forward, If you do it the right way, you don’t have to be concerned about these things.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Rep. Ryan Fattman]
But if you weren’t here, the crime wouldn’t happen
[/QUOTE]
Mr. Hmoudi is being polite. Asking Iraq for compensation for the invasion is more than stupid, it’s vile.
But…but…GWB promised when we invaded that “Iraqi oil revenues would repay the investment”!!