Trump’s Plan to Raise Patent Office Fees: Thumbs Up

As I have noted previously, the two most harmful types of IP, patent and copyright,¹ have gotten increasingly worse since their inception in 1790, with few exceptions. Originally the term was about 14 years for each (based on the idea of protecting the master from competition from his apprentices for the arbitrary period of two 7-year apprentice terms).² Patents are now about 17 years (20 years from date of filing, with about 3 years for prosecution being typical), and the scope has expanded somewhat, to cover business methods and computer software (even though software is also now covered by copyright, as it is a form of “expression,” but should’t be, as it is functional, hence the possibility of patents on software inventions).³ Congress has has expanded the term several times over the decades from 14 years renewable once, to, incredibly, the life of the author plus seventy years. Copyright  originally covered books, maps, charts; it now covers subject matter either because of new developments and judicial recgnognition or by legislation now covering things like musical compositions (sheet music), photographs, motion pictures, sound recordings, compilations (databases), computer programs (software), and even “look and feel.”⁴

Industries dependent on the patent and copyright monopoly grants scream bloody murder any time someone suggests any slight improvement.⁵ No radical reform is ever proposed. The only legislative improvements that come to mind are the 1997 limits on the ability to use patents to prevent surgeons from performing surgical procedures patents by other doctors⁶, and an expanded prior commercial user defense in Obama’s 2011 America Invents Act.⁷

(There are judicial, as opposed to legislative, changes from time to time since the courts are stuck with interpreting non-objective, made-up law, and sometimes this is a slight improvement. For example, at present it’s somewhat harder to get injunctions in patent cases⁸ or to obtain patents on business methods and software inventions,⁹ and of course the patent bar and IP shills are still going apeshit about this.)¹⁰

Now Trump has proposed changing the USPTO system to charge “patent holders 1% to 5% of their [patents’] overall patent value, a shift that could dramatically increase fees. … The new fee would be a much more exorbitant cost for some patent holders that would function like a property tax.”¹¹

And of course the entrenched IP interests and patent whores are already screaming about this, such as patent shill and patent attorney/moron Gene Quinn,¹² the buffoon who gave this truly retarded argument for patents: “Thank goodness the Swiss did have a Patent Office. That is where Albert Einstein worked and during his time as a patent examiner came up with his theory of relativity.”¹³

If these bozos are again’ it, I’m fer it. In fact, I previously suggested various proposals to improve the patent system, which included: “Increase patent filing fees to make it more difficult to obtain a patent,” among others.¹⁴

Godspeed, Daddy Trump!

1. “Patent vs. Copyright: Which is Worse?”; The Overwhelming Empirical Case Against Patent and Copyright; “The Death Throes of Pro-IP Libertarianism” (Mises Daily 2010); IP Answer Man: Death Toll of Patent Law; “Death by Copyright-IP Fascist Police State Acronym”; “Masnick on the Horrible PROTECT IP Act: The Coming IPolice State”; posts tagged under Patents kill. [↩]
2.   Where did the patent term come from?; Optimal Patent and Copyright Term Length; see also Thomas Jefferson’s Proposal to Limit the Length of Patent and Copyright in the Bill of Rights.  [↩]
3. KOL409 | IP Law Tutorial, Part 1: Patent Law; Grok report. [↩]
4. KOL411 | IP Law Tutorial, Part 2: Copyright Law; Grok report. [↩]
5. Kinsella, “Radical Patent Reform Is Not on the Way,” Mises Daily (Oct. 1, 2009).  [↩]
6. Kinsella & Rosenthal, “How to Operate Within the Law: Patents on Medical Procedures” (Duane Morris website version), The Legal Intelligencer [Philadelphia] (Feb. 5, 1998) [↩]
7. “The America Invents Act and Patent Reform: The Good, the Meh, and the Ugly,” Mises Daily (Nov. 14, 2011). [↩]
8. eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. (2006). [↩]
9. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International (2014). [↩]
10. See patent shill Gene Quinn’s bellyaching about this in Gene Quinn, “Purported Plan to Charge Patent Owners a Percentage of Patent Value is Fraught with Peril,” IP Watchdog (July 28, 2025) (“And, of course, there is the elephant in the room, which is the unilateral dismantling of the U.S. patent system over the last generation. As a result of patent eligibility requirements run amok, some of the most innovative and valuable inventions of this generation are simply not patentable. Much of the innovation in the software, biotech and medical device industries have been summarily executed by the United States Supreme Court’s patent eligibility decisions in Bilski, Myriad, Mayo and Alice, including many artificial intelligence innovations. And, even when the USPTO is willing to grant patents in the software, artificial intelligence, biotech and medical device spaces—which isn’t often—those patents almost always fall to eligibility challenges in federal court, and often fall to novelty and obviousness challenges at the hyperactive Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).”).  [↩]
11. Amrith Ramkumar, “Trump Administration Weighs Patent System Overhaul to Raise Revenue,” Wall Street Journal (July 28, 2025): subtitle: “Commerce Department officials discuss new fee based on patent value, which could fuel backlash from businesses”. [↩]
12. Quinn, “Purported Plan to Charge Patent Owners a Percentage of Patent Value is Fraught with Peril.” Re Quinn, see See also Gene Quinn, Joke; Gene Quinn: Patent Twit of the Week; Gene Quinn the Patent Watchdog; Koepsell – Quinn “Debate” on Gene Patents; Gene Quinn, Patent Shill, Bans another articulate patent opponent; Patent Shills want to make patents “incontestable”; A “Patent Stimulus” to End the Recession? [↩]
13. “Absurd Arguments for IP.” [↩]
14. How to Improve Patent, Copyright, and Trademark Law. [↩]