It’s hard to believe this patent should ever have been approved by a patent examiner acting in good faith, especially considering the criminal convictions standing in stark contradiction of the purported “inventor’s” affidavit of lies, but let’s assume the USPTO did, as they claim, handle this one by the book.

Even the appearance of such ridiculous impropriety as granting a patent for fake research is enough to signal the extent to which the system is flawed.

I wonder if there are any retail stores out there that have looked like Apple stores since before Apple stores, and before this trademark was granted earlier this month. I don’t mean knock-off stores, though. I’m thinking make-up shops, art galleries, and other entities that often embrace a minimalist store design aesthetic.

Here’s a direct link to the very-user-hostile USPTO page for the filing.

David Kappos thinks software patents are just fine, but I’m interested in what his as-yet unknown successor will have to say on the matter.

Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office David Kappos, quoted by Timothy B. Lee at Ars Technica:

In a system like ours in which innovation is happening faster than people can keep up, it cannot be said that the patent system is broken.

Of course, he’s wrong, but what else would he argue?

"The work my directorate does is under-funded and based upon a flawed patchwork of case and statutory law that frustrates our Constitutional mandate!"

Unlikely.

This looks, on its face, like a good thing. I wonder (sincerely, not sarcastically) how patent attorneys feel about it.