Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[dbostan]

Which is that company?
We need to know.

[Wolfcastle]

As much as I hate to cast doubt on the Fable; If I were a maker of a patent bar review course and I wanted to increase sales, a post like fable's might be an effective way to get a few people to buy new instead of used materials.

In a quick check of

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/foia/oed/oed.htm

I didn't find a similiar instance of moral character being questioned for such a reason.

[patento]

I thought the same when he failed to answer my question as to how his indentity was revealed. He did not provide any details (how, when, who....)

Besides, copyright infrigement (alleged) is not a 'crime of moral turpitude', USPTO would not get involved in this.

Looks like one of the bar material publisher trying to scare people off. Its bogus.

As much as I hate to cast doubt on the Fable; If I were a maker of a patent bar review course and I wanted to increase sales, a post like fable's might be an effective way to get a few people to buy new instead of used materials.

In a quick check of

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/foia/oed/oed.htm

I didn't find a similiar instance of moral character being questioned for such a reason.

[fable]

Sigh, no, I'm not a course vendor trying to scare you guys.  I've been waiting for an OED decision, and until I get one, I'm not telling which vendor.  Hell, I'd love to tell you which vendor just to convince you to by the materials USED and screw them out of money, so trying to scare you into buying new is the last thing on my mind.

The vendor saw the ebay ad and asked ebay to pull it under their VERO program, when he did that, he got my email address from ebay, which has my last name in it...my ebay ad  mentioned the day that I took the exam, and the vendor matched up the last name to the apprporate name off the list on the OED website, then faxed OED a nasty fax about me.

Oh, and for the record, the FOIA moral decisions on the USPTO website are all decisions made on review after OED issued a final decision.  I have no OED decision yet, and hopefully will never be a FOIA example there!

From my experence so far, it appears that OED does take a dim view of breaching licenses that are not actually binding.  Obviously, more details will follow eventually.

[Isaac]

I thought the same when he failed to answer my question as to how his indentity was revealed. He did not provide any details (how, when, who....)

Besides, copyright infrigement (alleged) is not a 'crime of moral turpitude', USPTO would not get involved in this.

The purported allegations included an accusation of lying about the recency of the materials being sold.   That at least raises a moral turpitude issues.

Besides that, moral turpitude is not the only issue.  Respect for the law is also a character and fitness issue.  That's the reason why there are questions about traffic offenses.   OED might find an indication of a lack of respect for intellectual property laws particularly troublesome.

[John Simmons]

Traffic violations indicate a lack of respect for the law?  So basically if you have a radar detector or are simply lucky and manage to avoid getting tickets then you are undoubtedly a moral person.  No paper trail = moral, of course

For all the naive on this board, and anyone who simply wants to learn more about the character and fitness process, check out:  Deborah L. Rhode, Moral Character as a Professional Credential, 94 Yale L.J. 491, 493 (1985).

On a side note, my sister got denied on character and fitness grounds by a state bar for a DUI - 8 years ago.  Obviously, it seems as if some quota had to be filled and her straw was drawn.  Yes, she had all of the credentials:  1) law review; 2) top 50; 3) outgoing.   She was cleared a year later and all is well at present.  

[Isaac]

Traffic violations indicate a lack of respect for the law?  So basically if you have a radar detector or are simply lucky and manage to avoid getting tickets then you are undoubtedly a moral person.  No paper trail = moral, of course

I don't think it's a stretch to infer from a pattern of law breaking that a person might not have respect for the law.

And of course the inverse of a true statement is not necessarily true, so the fact that the inverted statement is obviously ridiculous means little.

I assume you are just poking some fun.

[patento]

How about sneezing repeatedly in public? breach of peace, isn't it?

I know people who are very very good drivers but they are proud owner of 3-4 traffic tickets. I also know many people very close to me who are not so good drivers (in fact, I refuse to let any of my family member take a ride in their vehicles) but they have never got any tickets. Getting traffic ticket is simply a matter of coincident. Almost everybody makes mistake but only those who make mistake in the presence of a cop get tickets.  This has nothing to do with "respect for law" crap.

Further, people are not aware of many completely sutpid rules such as switch on the headlights when the wipers are moving (doesn't matter if it is completely sunny day). Does violation of this rule come down to the the matter of moral turpitude? How stupid one has to be to argue that a traffic ticket comes down to that level?

If you are a lawyer, you know that charges of "disrespect for law" require mental state. If you drove at 37mph in a 35mph zone without requisite intent to exceed the speed limit and got a ticket, this really isn't "disrespect for law" no matter how you try to argue.

Also, a lawyer can advice his clients to violate the law if he believe in good faith that the law is crapy. Isn't this a disrespect for law?  

Just because OED made a rule doesn't mean it is a good rule. I rest my case.

I don't think it's a stretch to infer from a pattern of law breaking that a person might not have respect for the law.

And of course the inverse of a true statement is not necessarily true, so the fact that the inverted statement is obviously ridiculous means little.

I assume you are just poking some fun.

[wallflower]

If you are a lawyer, you know that charges of "disrespect for law" require mental state. If you drove at 37mph in a 35mph zone without requisite intent to exceed the speed limit and got a ticket, this really isn't "disrespect for law" no matter how you try to argue.

What's a charge of disrespect for law?  Where do you get that it requires intent?

Also where has sneezing been considered a breach of peace?

[Isaac]

How about sneezing repeatedly in public? breach of peace, isn't it?

I know people who are very very good drivers but they are proud owner of 3-4 traffic tickets. I also know many people very close to me who are not so good drivers (in fact, I refuse to let any of my family member take a ride in their vehicles) but they have never got any tickets. Getting traffic ticket is simply a matter of coincident. Almost everybody makes mistake but only those who make mistake in the presence of a cop get tickets.  This has nothing to do with "respect for law" crap.


Further, people are not aware of many completely sutpid rules such as switch on the headlights when the wipers are moving (doesn't matter if it is completely sunny day). Does violation of this rule come down to the the matter of moral turpitude? How stupid one has to be to argue that a traffic ticket comes down to that level?

For all of the reasons you give, there is no per se rule that if you get speeding tickets or have other types of traffic violations that you will not be registered as a patent practitioner.    That said, I stand by my statement that a patern of infractions is evidence of disrespect to the extent where the ball might be kicked back into your court to provide evidence of respect for the law.

Your moral turpitude argument is a red herring.   Seemingly we both agree that speeding is not a moral turpitude issue.

If you are a lawyer, you know that charges of "disrespect for law" require mental state. If you drove at 37mph in a 35mph zone without requisite intent to exceed the speed limit and got a ticket, this really isn't "disrespect for law" no matter how you try to argue.

Conviction for speeding does not require a mental state.  I'll agree with you to that extent.   Almost certainly 37 in a 35mph won't get you a 100 dollar ticket.

As for the PTO having a bad rule, I don't know what rule you are talking about.  The PTO asks for relevant information and evaluates it.  They don't routinely deny people registration for a few speeding tickets or DUIs, and they don't have any per se rule setting a five tickets limit.   Further, they don't ask for any information that any state bar does not also request when doing a character and fitness review.

[florida]

I got a survey in the mail that asked me what I used, and I told them I used second hand materials.

Doesn't the exhaustion doctrine prevent companies from controling what you do with you material after you buy it?  Even if it is a licensing agreement, you didn't sign the licensing agreement if you got them second hand.  That is just crazy that the company would hunt you down on ebay and report you to the bar.