Hricik on Ethics

Professor Hricik has several new posts on his new Patent Ethics site at http://www.patentlyo.com/hricik

64 thoughts on “Hricik on Ethics

  1. Let me tell you they do not appreciate do-gooders. They want fighters.

    And you’re a fighter, Ned? Well, good luck to you.

  2. Leo, thanks for the reply.  We are indeed faced with a dilemma in the new statute, statutory commands that threaten the patent attorney but do not threaten the client.  I have had such a discussion with "board" members of big companies.  Let me tell you they do not appreciate do-gooders.  They want fighters.

  3. But I still think you are assuming the patent is invalid if the inventorship is not claimed properly.

    No, I’m not. I’m saying that the legal consequences of the law violation are completely distinct from your ethical obligations. Now, if there were no potential consequences to anyone, I would acknowledge that violating a meaningless statute is a pretty trivial ethical violation. But that’s not the case here. Here, a strict adherence to the letter of the new 135 USC 115 has potential consequences to your client and the unnamed co-inventor. You want to minimize that by pointing out that the co-inventor can act to minimize those consequences to himself (thus maximizing the consequences to your client). But I don’t think you make an act ethical by putting the burden on someone else to prevent/fix the harm you’re intentionally trying to create.

    Tell me what you would do or should do if a client told you not to disclose a best mode?

    That’s easy, Ned. I’d counsel him that the statutory deal between the inventor and the public (as represented by the PTO) requires that the best mode be disclosed. I’d further counsel him that I’ll entertain a discussion about what is or is not the “best mode,” but I won’t participate in hiding the best mode if there truly is one. I’d then tell him that he can find another attorney if he likes – there are lots of them out there.

    Certainly this can be awkward, and I think it’s especially awkward in the in-house environment. That’s a big advantage to private practice, in my view (I’ve done both)- I think it’s easier to maintain a professional, arms-length relationship along the lines of “I’ll do my job – you do yours” when the client is not your boss.

  4. anon, since you have not identified any such issues, but simply suggest that there might be some, you are making any conversation between us impossible.  I hope you recognize that.

  5. Not at all Ned.

    You focus on mundane is partially correct, but it is you that refuses to address the issues – I cannot even get you to admit that there are issues! You are simply locked in a minor point and cannot see anything else.

    If you take my directness in this as “conceit,” that is a “you” problem and you are welcome to it.

  6. anon, your unwillingness to discuss the merits of a case are notorious.  You would rather make snide comments with arrogant conceit than deign to dirty yourself with the mundane.

  7. I think Leo continues to assume that the patent without correct inventorship is invalid.

    Ned, your prediliction for only viewing the issue through the lens of validity prevents you from understanding much of the conversation.

    It’s as if you have become trapped in two dimensions in a three dimensional world. I am at a loss as to how to proceed with you in any discussion even tangentially related. I have not determined whether your impisonment is on purpose or not, but in either case, talking with you on this topic is not fruitful.

  8. anon, I think Leo continues to assume that the patent without correct inventorship is invalid.  If it is, there is no question that one must name the proper inventors.  If not, we have the same situation we have with "best mode."   See my other post to you on that issue.

  9. Leo, you too (on the  weekend bit.)

    But I still think you are assuming the patent is invalid if the inventorship is not claimed properly.

    Tell me what you would do or should do if a client told you not to disclose a best mode?

  10. Ned,

    It is a strawman to state “Yeah, people don’t hire lawyers to fight tooth and nail for them. That would be wrong.

    As hinted at by Leopold, the needle of your ethical compass is spinning feverishly in circles.

  11. OK, I think it is unethical to not represent your client within the bounds of the law. If he tells you to not disclose the best mode and you do so because of some “higher duty,” I think you have committed malpractice.

    1. You say “within the bounds of the law,” but you are defining that to mean “within the bounds of any law the violation of which has direct consequences (e.g., invalidity) adverse to my client.” You’re choosing to ignore the plain language of 35 USC 115 (as amended by the AIA) because (you say) it doesn’t render the patent invalid or unenforceable.

    2. You suggest I’m relying on a “higher duty” – the only higher duty that I’m concerned with here is the duty to conduct your practice within the constraints imposed by your ethical obligations, which include a duty to act lawfully. You seem to be saying that these constraints can be ignored when they turn out to actually be constraints, so long as it doesn’t hurt your client. Again, that strikes me as a peculiar approach to ethics.

    You still haven’t answered my question.

    But have a nice weekend.

  12. OK, I think it is unethical to not represent your client within the bounds of the law.  If he tells you to not disclose the best mode and you do so because of some "higher duty,"  I think you have committed malpractice.  If he tells you not to file a patent application with a wildcard inventor named and you do so, you have committed malpractice.  If he tell you to file a patent applicant not naming a wildcard inventor and you refuse to do so, why?  That is the hard question.

    Traditionally, the answer was easy.  To not name the wildcard inventor would result in the application being invalid.  If that is not the case, however, and if the unnamed inventor can act to  protect his "rights" whatever they are, and they are nothing really (more below), then I think you have a duty to file and not name the wildcard inventor.

    What are the rights of the unnamed inventor?  He can file his own patent application naming himself and your client as co-inventors.  If he his first to file, OK. Let him have is patent.  But what does he have.  A worthless piece of trash because he does not have sole ownership.  If he names himself as sole inventor, but he is not first to file, he loses on prior art grounds.  He has to invoke 135 and 291.

    If he does, then what should we do?  Let him have his co-inventorship, but refuse to cooperate any further.  We pay no further fees and if and when he gets the patent, we simply refuse to cooperate in suits and or maliciously license anyone he accuses of infringement.  Without our full cooperation, he owns a worthless piece of paper.

    That is what I think.  It is malpractice, in my view, to not represent one's client within the law.  We owe no duty at all to the wildcard inventor.

  13. I thought we were talking about the ethics of the situation, Ned. There you go talking about the practical outcomes again.

    Why won’t you answer my question?

  14. BTW, I have been in a suit where a named wildcard inventor was found and who granted the defendant a license for a few thousand.

    That is but one way to attack standing without impacting validity…

    …but wait, I thought (per Ned) that the only way after passage of the AIA was for the filing of a derivation proceeding…

  15. Leo, and might I add, neither owner can file suit without the other, although it has happened, see below.  So why would the individual inventor even waste his time obtaining a patent if he, in the end, had nothing at all but a plaque on the wall.
     
    BTW, I have been in a suit where a named wildcard inventor was found and who granted the defendant a license for a few thousand.  That is the folly of even contemplating going forward without complete ownership.

     

  16. We need a better way, a way to unilaterally obtain complete ownership.

    If there ever was an indication that Ned is a pawn of Big Business and against the small time independent inventor, this is it.

    Ned, the one who pays for or even owns an invention is simply not the same as the inventor herself. This is a very basic concept tht seems to elude your grasp. Clearly, you care nothing for actual inventors.

  17. Leo, I look at it this way.  Going forward with a wild card inventor makes no sense.  Under the current system, either he assigns or we don't file at all.   If the patent issues, he can license it, destroying its value to us.
     
    Think about it Leo. 
     
    We need a better way, a way to unilaterally obtain complete ownership.  We can only do so by omitting an inventor.  That is a shame, there should be a better way.  But now we have no recourse. 
     
    The omitted inventor can file his own patent application.  That is his choice.  If he does and does not name our inventor,  we can file our own application and challenge him in a 135 or 291 action.  But why?  Only to preserve our freedom of action, because otherwise, the patent is worthless.
     
    If you look at the bigger picture, our system makes no sense, and we need a way forward.
     
    Naming all inventors made sense in a first to invent system from a patent law point of view.  Now it doesn't  in a first to file.  All we need is one inventor.  Just one.  The one who paid for the R&D and who needs the patent for his business.
     
     
     

     

  18. The first rule of Shiller Fight Club is that you do not talk about Shiller Fight Club or, through inaction, allow Shiller Fight Club to be talked about.

    Corrected.

    Good thing I am not a member of the club (even if MM wants me to be), and I don’t have to follow the rules.

  19. But you now studiously refuse to discuss the ethical questions at all. What’s up with that?

    Leopold, have you not paid attention to any thread with Ned’s “arguments” thrown into the trashcan (that would be, anytime someone responds to Ned)?

    Ned is infamous for not discussing anything that goes against his agenda. It is quite the rarity when he can be foced to admit to one of his many fallacies.

  20. Ned, you started this thread by pretending that you wanted to talk about ethics. As I recall, you specifically said “Oh, the ethical issues are different from the substantive issues.” But you now studiously refuse to discuss the ethical questions at all. What’s up with that?

    Of course you don’t have to “concede” anything if there is any real doubt about it. But the original hypo was based on the assumption that you, the prosecuting attorney, knew that the other person was a “proper” inventor. If you take that assumption off the table, then there’s no ethical issue at all.

    If you really wanted to talk about the ethical question, you would actually address the issue I raised above, rather than creating new hypos. That issue is whether your ethical obligations are defined by the actual outcomes or possible outcomes arising from your actions.

    How about answering my question from before, which I’ve modified here a bit: Is it your position that under the Patent Act as amended by the AIA, neither the PTO nor a state bar can discipline you for attempting to deprive a co-inventor or third-party assignee of his/its ownership rights by knowingly omitting his name from the application? Really?

  21. Leo, you make some good points here that do not solely depend upon validity of the patent, although that remains important to your analysis because you still contend "It might be a safer bet to generalize to a rule that says that willful violations of a rule do not rise to inequitable conduct if the violation doesn't deprive anyone of a substantive right or give the violator a substantive right that he wasn't entitled to."  If the patent is valid even if a co-inventor is not named, the remaining issue is the "cheating" issue you raise.  

    Here we move out from patent law and into the realm of general law.  Let's conduct an analysis based on four fact patterns.

    1)  Two co-inventors.  You represent one of them.  The other is hostile.
    2)  A company, your client,  that has invested in the R&D that resulted in the invention.  An ex-employee is a co-inventor.
    a. In a first case, the company has an assignment or an obligation to assign from the ex employee.
            b.  In a second case, the company does not have an assignment or an obligation to assign, or the invention, like in Roche, was previously assigned to another company.
    3) A company, your client, hired a consultant who co-invented, but the consultant has no assignment obligation whatsoever.

    In case 1, you notify the co-inventor that you are filing an application on the invention but are not naming him.  If he insists that he is a co-inventor, you advise him to file his own application and claim derivation per 135 and 291.  Note, to do so, he would have to name your client as a co-inventor, in which case you would co-own co-inventor's application.  If he does not file.  Has he been harmed?  If he does file, but it outside the statutory limit to file a derivation suit, has he been harmed?  If he files and wins, has he been harmed?  In all cases, his ultimate rights are not harmed.  He can proceed to protect his rights if he chooses to do so.

    In case 2a, the company owns the ex-employee's invention rights, either legally or equitably.  Even if he tries to engage in a derivation suit, you can intervene as owner and take control of the application.  So why would he do it?

    In case 2b, we have the same situation as case 1.  The ex-employee's rights are not harmed.  However, since the co-inventor's rights may be owned by a third party, think Roche,  Roche may want to intervene.  Then we have the same case as case 1, but with Roche substituted.  Roche's rights are not harmed.  They can protect them if they choose to do so.

    In case 3, we again have case 1.

    Under any and all analysis, no one is defrauded.  People can protect their rights.  It is just a question, of whether we, representing our client, must concede co-inventorship and co-ownership in some cases (1, 2b, and 3) without a fight.  I don't think we need to so concede.  I think we owe our client proper representation.

    Now all this contrasts with the current situation where if we do not get the inventorship correct, the patent is invalid.  All in all, I think the new law might be preferred.

  22. Willful violation of the rules is not inequitable conduct unless the violation renders the patent unpatentable (invalid).

    That’s too broad a statement, Ned. Sure, we have recent case law that says that failure to disclose a reference is not inequitable conduct if it turns out that the withheld reference would not have changed the outcome anyway. But you’ve got no basis for generalizing to your rule.

    It might be a safer bet to generalize to a rule that says that willful violations of a rule do not rise to inequitable conduct if the violation doesn’t deprive anyone of a substantive right or give the violator a substantive right that he wasn’t entitled to. But that’s not the case in your hypo.

    Failure to disclose a reference that turns out to be immaterial doesn’t deprive anyone of substantive rights, and doesn’t give the applicant anything more than he was entitled to in the first place. A knowing failure to name the proper inventor does deprive the proper inventor of substantive rights, even if the proper inventor has a remedy, and does give the applicant something he wasn’t entitled to, i.e., a government-granted exclusive right to enforce the patent.

    No matter how many times you raise the issue of “duties,” if the patent is valid with misidentified inventors, there is no duty to disclose the proper inventorship.

    I think it’s disturbing that you put “duties” in quotations, Ned, as if they are meaningless. In my view, you’re making a big error in assuming that the standards that define your ethical obligations are the same as those that define inequitable conduct. Is it your position that neither the PTO nor a state bar can discipline you for attempting to cheat an inventor out of his rights, simply because incorrect inventorship is not grounds for an invalidity challenge and because the rightful inventor has a statutory remedy? Really?

  23. Leo, you assume that failure to identify the proper inventors is IC.  That is true only if the applicant is not legally entitled to have a patent if the inventorship is not correct.  No matter how many times you raise the issue of "duties,"  if the patent is valid with misidentified inventors, there is no duty to disclose the proper inventorship.  

    Parenthetically, this issue has arisen with rule violations.   Willful violation of the rules is not inequitable conduct unless the violation renders the patent unpatentable (invalid).  If I intentionally fail to disclose a reference that does not render the patent unpatentable, I have not committed IC even if Rule 56 requires its submission.

    Now you raise the issue of the omitted inventor.  The new law gives him a specific remedy if he believes he is harmed.  He 1) must file his own patent application; and 2) he must engage in a derivation proceeding under 135 or 291; and 3) he must do so within one year of the publication or the patenting of the "interfering" claim.  Congress has provided a specific remedy for the complaining inventor.  To allow him, or anyone else, to challenge inventorship through claims of invalidity or IC would be to end-run the statutory scheme.

  24. Max, I think the left hand did not know what the right hand was doing in crafting the AIA.  There were those pulliing to eliminate inventorship challenges as being a waste of time money and resources, and others who thought inventorship was important for some reason, as if we were still in a first to invent system. 
     
    We have the same situtation with best mode.  Some wanted to tear it out of the system entirely.  Some wanted to keep it.  So, we have a compromise that makes little sense: it is required, but there is no downside to validity if it is omitted.
     
    The same could be said of inventorship now.  It seems that correct inventorship is required, but there is no downside if it is not correct.
     
    A right without a remedy is no right at all.
     
    An obligation without a penalty is no obligation at all.
     
    The AIA is a mess.

  25. Ned, I think you’ve got this twisted around. I completely disagree that this “critically depends on whether your client is benefited by omitting an inventor or whether he is materially harmed.”

    First, your duty of candor is independent from (and trumps) the issue of benefit to your client. Yes, you have a duty to zealously represent your client, but that does not extend to obtaining him a right that he is not legally entitled to have. It doesn’t matter whether the enforcement scheme is such that he could get away with it and benefit from it.

    Second, the fact that a person can’t challenge a patent on the basis of incorrect inventorship doesn’t change the fact that the law requires the correct inventors to be named. I understand an argument that the law may be less than effective if there are no legal consequences, but does the lack of a legal consequence really affect your ethical duties to the public and to the tribunal (the PTO, in this case)? If that’s the case, then ethics rules don’t mean much at all, do they?

    Third, what about inequitable conduct? Your scenario has a patent attorney knowingly filing an application that fails to meet the requirement of amended 35 USC 115, and doing so in a situation where others’ rights are substantially affected. That sounds like the definition of inequitable conduct to me. Whether or not the patent remains valid, I don’t see why it should be enforceable by the bad actor. I also don’t see why you shouldn’t be sanctioned for participating in the scheme.

  26. Ned, going by the way you summarise it, the AIA is harmonising with the 1973 European Patent Convention. I wish I could brief you on the European caselaw on “derivation” since then. It’s just that there isn’t much. Perhaps that is what emboldened the drafters of the AIA?

  27. Leo, you really hit the nail on the head.  This whole discussion in turn critically depends on whether your client is benefited by omitting an inventor or whether he is materially harmed.  This in turn critically depends on whether omission of an inventor impacts validity or enforceability.  If it has zero effect on patentability or validity, then it also has zero effect on enforceability.  One's duty to the client is becomes clear.  Omit the inventor.
     
    Regarding 1.56, under the law, not that fricken rule, the duty only relates to issues that affect patentability and validity.
     
    That is why the answer to the question I posed in the other thread is so critically important.  But no one wants to answer it.  It is a tough question, indeed.  Congress must have intended something by repealling 102(f) and by limiting challeges to inventorship to 135 and 291.  It must have intended to preserve the validity of patents regardless of inventorship disputes.  If a patent remains invalid if the inventorship is incorrect, then anyone at any time can raise a complaint about inventorship – in court or in the PTO and even without his own patent application.  But Congress specifically limited such challenges to 135 and to 291, and then only when a rival patent applicant complains, and then only within one year of publication of an interfering cliam.  If anyone can challenge inventorship at any time regardless of this structure, it would throw the whole elaborate scheme into the trashcan.
     
     
     
     
     

     

  28. The larger question is the patent that issues on such an application (with the inventorship incorrect) valid. See my post in the AIA Shifts at 2:05 p.m. It is a tough question there are no replies yet.

    So, when I accuse you of hijacking this thread to talk about the same old c@rp, you say, “No, we’re talking about the ethical question here.” One comment later, and we’re back to the same old c@rp. Nice, Ned.

    Regardless, one can file naming a co-inventor only and still have that inventor file an oath. The statutory oath is
    “(2) such individual believes himself or herself to be the original inventor or an original joint inventor of a claimed invention in the application.”
    I think a co-inventor can sign that.

    For someone who goes around accusing real lawyers of fraud (Meyer v. Bodum thread), you have some dubious views on ethics. Of course a co-inventor can sign that, if he believes it to be true. But the question was whether you, as the prosecuting attorney, can file an application in which you knowingly omit an inventor. I note that your quote of the revised statute skipped a section:

    “An application for patent … shall include, or be amended to include, the name of the inventor for any invention claimed in the application. Except as otherwise provided in this section, each individual who is the inventor or a joint inventor of a claimed invention in an application for patent shall execute an oath or declaration in connection with the application.”

    Are you seriously going to advise your client that he can ignore this requirement, and then participate in doing so, on the grounds that problems with inventorship are not a defense to infringement? Does your duty of candor to the PTO mean nothing?

  29. The larger question is the patent that issues on such an application (with the inventorship incorrect) valid. See my post in the AIA Shifts at 2:05 p.m. It is a tough question

    The answer is “yes, it’s valid if it’s worth a lot of money and the patentee’s attorney has great hair.”

  30. Well, Leo, we have the same ethical dilemma when we know of a best mode but the inventor tells us not to disclose it.

    Regardless, one can file naming a co-inventor only and still have that inventor file an oath. The statutory oath is

    “(2) such individual believes himself or herself to be the original inventor or an original joint inventor of a claimed invention in the application.”

    I think a co-inventor can sign that.

    The larger question is the patent that issues on such an application (with the inventorship incorrect) valid. See my post in the AIA Shifts at 2:05 p.m. It is a tough question there are no replies yet.

  31. Fine, Ned, but do you really have any doubt about the answer to your ethical question? Unless I’m mistaken, 35 USC 115 as amended by the AIA still requires that the inventors be named in a patent application. Even if the revised statutes don’t permit a defense based on improper naming of inventors, it’s still not OK for a patent practitioner to knowingly violate the statute and to misrepresent facts to the PTO.

  32. as that case involved a named inventor, but the Court’s reasoning turned on the difference between an actual inventor and a named inventor

    Corrected.

  33. For heaven’s sake, Ned, how many threads do you need to hijack to discuss the same d@mn thing over and over? Why not start up the same old patentable subject matter discussion on this thread too?

  34. Honestly, anon, when I state that the applicant owns the patent application by statute, and it is the name inventors who are the applicants, it is you who refuse to listen.  You simply have never even tried to address the statutory scheme.

    Standford v. Roche is not inconsistent, as that case involved a named inventor.

  35. Ned,

    I choose not to as this has been shown to be a dead-end in talking with you. Perhaps on a topic with which you can listen to reason we can have a conversation.

  36. Mr. Big Corp,  let's not change the facts.  You represent Big Corp and are asked to file a patent application.  The boss claims he is a co-inventor.  The primary inventor is an ex employee whose obligation to assign is in doubt, including the case where he has a prior employer who may own the invention or he was a consultant elsewhere, as in Stanford v. Roche.  You know if you name the primary inventor, your client is in a world of hurt from an ownership point of view.

    Can you ethically name only the boss or some other co-inventor?

    That is the question.

    It somewhat depends upon whether the patent is valid if one does not name the proper inventors.  I think the statutory scheme is clear on this point that the failure to name the proper inventors does not affect validity, but for the sake of this issue, assume that validity is not affected.

  37. Big Corp,

    Ned does not understand that in Stanford v Roche, Roche escaped suit of a valid patent without attacking the validity of the patent.

    Ned tends to over-read and under-read depending on a number of factors (tops being what he wants the result of a case to support).

    I have found it very difficult to have Ned see anything objectively. If you choose to attempt to persuade Ned from his views, I wish you much patience.

  38. Mr. Heller, I suggest you pay less attention to the moniker, and more attention to the content of the posts.

    Besides which, even Big Corp employs attorneys in defense of patent infringement suits, or do you still need more clues as to why validity is not the only game in town?

    Yet another hint: think Roche.

  39. You mis-state my position Mr. Heller.

    I see you need another hint: there are always two sides to a dispute (e.g. patentee/supposed infringer); do not assume that you always represent only one of those sides (e.g. patentee).

  40. Professor, see my post at 11:40 am, Aug. 15, in the AIA Shift USPTO focus, thread.

    Big Corp. and I have a dispute on what we should do when representing a corporation with a hostile co-inventor. Name him, and we lose sole ownership of the patent. Don’t name him and we retain sole onnership and the patent is valid. The only way the omitted inventor can complain is file his own application and potentially file a derivation suit. But even that should fail if he is only a co-inventor.

    It seems the AIA has allowed one to intentionally omit co-inventors with no legal downside, yet Big Corp. insists to do so would be malpractice.

  41. Just recently I was told by someone that i seem to dislike all Lawyers. And I stated it seems like that doesn’t it. Believe me when I tell everything that has been done they don’t believe it.. Why? I’m speaking to the wrong lawyer. and when I don’t tell them everything, they think I’m in the Corn. Why? because I am speaking to the wrong Lawyer or people.
    I know what is going on, I ought to I have lived it. But the people that want to hide it, and the people that want to control me don’t wan’t me to understand it, but I do! And both looking for control in different ways.
    Now I sent some stuff to a firm. I didn’t tell them everything because I am not writing a Book to them. But I did send the obvious. And if that is not enough to help me let me know so I may try to get someone that will help me.
    The Book is going to be written. Novel or Fiction! And there ain’t a thing you can do about it. There is so much more I haven’t shared.
    And this is to the one that thinks he’s a genius. left handed people learn how to tie shoes by sitting across form a right handed person. Left handed people learn how to crochet by sitting across form a right handed person. And did you know that if you added the right people in porportion to the left people that sew on a right handed sewing machine you would be amazed. I could tell you a lot more about left handed people but you already know how creative we are so that should be enough.
    And as I close get off my PHONE and my COMPUTER!

  42. Sorry MM but I must immediately jump in and challenge you there (just for my amusement, you understand).

    You write that I “tend to disagree”. Not how I see it. Besides, anybody who thinks I have “an agenda” will find in your “tend” a confirmation of that.

    The way I see it, I don’t “tend” in any direction at all (except to the imperative of sustaining The Rule of Law). I’m no more likely to disagree with you than to agree with you. It would depend on what you write.

    The nice thing about what you write is that there is something in it, with which one can choose to agree or disagree.

  43. Hypocritical? Not at all. I point out those who shill. Don’t like it? Too bad. It is not going to stop, cause the shilling is not going to stop.

  44. What’s even funnier is that somehow you think someone is paying me to shill for something

    I guess I can’t figure out any reason why you would do what you do, shillywilly (i.e., contributing absolutely nothing of substance to any legal discussion, always there to bash on those who do, and never there to correct the inane incoherent ramblings of the True Believers, no matter how inane, incoherent or incorrect those ramblings might be).

    I mean, you apparently despise 6, Ned, MaxDrei, LeoBloom and the rest of us alleged “shillers” but you’ve surely noticed that we tend to disagree not only with Kuckoo McSuckie and his sockpuppets but also with each other.

    Do yourself a favor, shillywilly, and try to be a tad less hypocritical.

    Good god, why am I bothering to school this #$% troll again? It’s not even Friday.

  45. You kind of missed my post that money isn’t the only driver for shilling. But who knows, someone might be paying you to shill.

    What’s even funnier is that somehow you think someone is paying me to shill for something.

    Maybe there is an anti-shilling agency somewhere that is paying me to point out all the shillers on the patent blogs…

    /off sarcasm

  46. everyone already knows

    So you think that Google and Oracle are paying me to trash software patents?

    That’s pretty funny.

  47. Lol, MM, not at all. But then again, your favorite trick is to accuse everyone of doing what you do. Glad to see you plying that trick confirms what everyone already knows.

  48. Judge Alsup Orders Google and Oracle to Reveal Relationships with Bloggers, Journalists and Academics

    There’s a few regular posters that might have to catch their (collective) breadth.

    And you must have had the wind knocked completely out of you, shillywilly.

  49. I had to laugh at just one of the headlines on the sister blog:

    Judge Alsup Orders Google and Oracle to Reveal Relationships with Bloggers, Journalists and Academics

    There’s a few regular posters that might have to catch their (collective) breadth.

Comments are closed.