25 thoughts on “ABA Voting

  1. Hey Gene: do you think a claim which recites an ancient but transformative and useful (and therefore “patent eligible”) step followed by a step of thinking a new thought is simultaneously patent eligible, patentable over the prior art, and enforceable? If so, can you explain why such a claim is not effectively a claim to the new thought (at least as far as someone practicing the recited prior art step is concerned)?

    There’s a weird trend with you and a lot of your syncophants refusing to answer the question. Maybe you can clear the air.

  2. Was it shameless that Dennis FIRST offered free books in exchange for voting for PatentlyO? The offer of a free patent bar review course in exchange for a vote was in RESPONSE to the offer of free books by PatentlyO for a vote.

  3. I was wondering about China. The judges there do what they are told.

    Perhaps he thinks of judges in the same vein as railway trains. They’re impartial, but if you lay down the lines for them that’s the way they go.

    Of course, that’s just the first step. His long-term plan is to turn the entire judiciary into a Newt.

  4. Thanks. I was wondering about China. The judges there do what they are told. I had never until now supposed that anybody in the USA would want to copy that.

  5. MM,

    I love your self-referencing posts.

    Further, I second the request to leave the political soapbox posts to more appropriate forums.

    Let’s stay focused.

  6. The questionable post has no link to patent law and should be expunged.

    Man, this blog has some of the dxmbxst trolls on the Internet.

  7. However far you may wish to go off point, this blog is not about just any law — it is about patent law.

    That’s right, Max. Until judges start making decisions about patent law, see to it that you keep your opinions to yourself.

  8. “Not sure what you are trying to say”

    New here? If you plan on posting here a lot, check back with me in about 4 months. It shouldn’t take that long (but let’s play it safe), but you may reevaluate the wisdom of my statement then.

    Until then ….

    “I do not need, nor do I want, to see that here.”
    ha ha …. not that I disagree with you (I don’t), but you apparently haven’t identified the (numerous) troll population that inhabits this board.

  9. I’m interested in patent law, which means I’m interested in the Rule of Law, which means I’m interested in what Gingrich said

    While this line of logic may work for you and your interests, it does not work for me.

    There is no end to the links you propose. What’s the next step in that logical chain? The step after that?

    However far you may wish to go off point, this blog is not about just any law — it is about patent law. The questionable post has no link to patent law and should be expunged. If I want a baseless discussion on right wing / left wing politics, I will go to a blog that has that as its focal point. I do not need, nor do I want, to see that here.

  10. but but but….

    I’m interested in patent law, which means I’m interested in the Rule of Law, which means I’m interested in what Gingrich said (if it’s the Gingrich I think it is) about the enforceability of decisions of judges in court, on patent matters.

    It is not even an opinion. MM is just reporting what G said. Where’s the opinion in that?

    Thank you MM.

    I know there are dirty tricks when it comes to voting for Mr Putin. But in the ABA patent law blog poll? Can that be?

  11. Not sure what you are trying to say, “Fixed it for you.”

    If the opinions are about patent law, then I don’t care if they are posted, whether I agree or not.

    Opinions on politics just don’t belong here.

    Real simple. If you are not posting about patent law, don’t hit the post button.

  12. The request was not meant to be funny.

    I don’t care to see your political opinions on a patent law blog.

    Please refrain from posting this type of material.

    Thanks

  13. Are you going to continue to violate my First Amendment Rights?
    It was all about continuing to keep me in a BOX. Too bad for you. But you already knew that. It was all about control. And lately the control got even more important. Too bad. Get a Job!

  14. link to washingtonmonthly.com

    SCHIEFFER: One of the things you say is that if you don’t like what a court has done, that Congress should subpoena the judge and bring him before Congress and hold a congressional hearing … how would you enforce that? Would you send the Capitol Police down to arrest him?

    GINGRICH: Sure. If you had to. Or you’d instruct the Justice Department to send a U.S. Marshal.

    Try to believe it, folks.

  15. I voted for PatentlyO, DC! I think it’s a little shameless that IPWatchdog is giving away free courses to people who vote for them. I’d much rather have your numerical analyses over a course any day.

  16. I just tried to do this but the site said I had already used up my votes (I don’t remember voting this year at all, even last January). I emailed them so maybe it will get fixed, but it’s going to take a lot more than 30 seconds to figure it out. Bummer.

Comments are closed.