37 thoughts on “More on the SHIELD Act

  1. LOL – “grifters”

    Because Malcolm said so and waived his hands above his head while doing so.

    That is just SO compelling.

    /eyeroll

  2. Pretty funny coming from a guy who foams at the mouth when someone suggests that patent assignment should be made more transparent.

    That’s quite the non-sequitur, Malcolm.

    One is policy advanced for cause, which verification would be a benefit to all, and the other is personal property, which ALREADY has volumtary mechanisms for notice and a court system that requires stating the real party in interest.

    Fact v. Spin

    I see you still have NO clue.

    By the way, you’re pretty low on the list right now

    LOL – another vacuous comment from the one person farthest from the right to make that type of statement. But your own tinfoil helmet is very very shiny right now. You must have been polishing it all day.

  3. Imagine that you have a great idea, file a patent and seek angel funding. Today, you can get it, but your patent is put up for security. If the Shield Act is passed, secured patents would be worthless, and the sources of security for angel funding would dry up.

    Pure horsesh-t. Unless of course you’re referring to a patent this basically pure j-nk anyway except in the eyes of the gambling elite at the Great Patent Casino.

    There is plenty of “angel funding” out there if you have a great idea. What the grifters want is a return to the tech bubble where absolute sh-t ideas are routinely rewarded. Then maybe we can have another housing bubble, where the banksters can pay themselves and suck even more blood out of the economy.

  4. had you understood the article

    He didn’t mention “integration analysis” so it’s obviously a piece of biased propaganda.

  5. In fact, keeping data secret in a published study violates well-established and longstanding norms in all scientific research that data should always be made available for testing and verification by third parties.

    Pretty funny coming from a guy who foams at the mouth when someone suggests that patent assignment should be made more transparent.

    No peer-reviewed medical or scientific journal would publish a study based on a secret data set in which the researchers have told us that we should simply trust them that the data is accurate.

    You don’t have the “trust the data” if you don’t want to. Even if you were shown the “secret data set” you don’t have to trust that either. After all, we leftists always keep a “super secret” data set. That way, when we establish the One World Government, we know exactly who to put in prison first.

    By the way, you’re pretty low on the list right now so I wouldn’t worry about it too much. Also, we’re sorry about the fluoride in your Cheetohs. It was necessary at the time.

  6. anon, yeah, avoid the direct contest and use money to by votes — win the old fashion way.

    I was just thinking that litigation and wars have a habit of getting out of hand, and trial by combat is, perhaps, a better solution. Recall WWI. The Serbs were about to concede to Austrian demands to investigate the murder of the Archduke, but then gained the Support of Russia. The Austrians, not to be outdone, got the aid of the Kaiser. The Russians invoked the aid of the French. The Germans got the Turks. The French got the English. The English got the Italians, the Japanese, the Chinese and the Americans. Who’d of thought that Serbia, the aggressor that started it all, would in the end get so much support and also label the Germans the aggressor? The Black Hand, in the end, succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.

    And thus, anarchists today are encouraged.

  7. Ned,

    David succeded with slingshot.

    Goliath’s family said “screw that single combatant c_rrp, we’ve got superior numbers”

    Most people choose to compete with their strengths. That’s why Big Corp seeks the destruction (in any way possible – and in multiple ways) of the patent system:
    - jack the prices
    - disparage the process
    - make bringing suit difficult
    - etc

  8. anon, you are not going to suggest that trial by combat ended when David did not use sword and shield?

    Perhaps the groundrules should have be clearer.

  9. Liza,

    Imagine that you have a great idea, file a patent and seek angel funding. Today, you can get it, but your patent is put up for security. If the Shield Act is passed, secured patents would be worthless, and the sources of security for angel funding would dry up.

    I am sure you do not want this to happen, not to you, not to others and not to America. But, that is essentially what is going to happen unless this Shield Act is defeated.

  10. Eliza,

    Th eimplicit point in showing the foundational data is bad is that the other study cannot be trusted – and thus the entire legislation rests on a crock.

    He need not show more to show that SHIELD would not work.

    GIGO.

  11. 6, trial by combat?

    Recall that in the good old days, wars were settled by each side choosing a champion who fought it out, saving the lives of thousands. Imagine if WWI had been resolved that way, with Serbia choosing a member of the Black Hand to duel it out with some Austrian Count.

    Bush v. Saddam, simply resolved by personal combat with the loser leaving office?

    Instead we have litigation and wars, both expensive, drawn out and less than ideal.

  12. My point is that Neither of those points is made by Mossoff in his article. If he has some reason to think SHIELD wouldn’t work or that it impinges something he should have made those points in the article, rather than belabor the point of cost.

  13. Except, Eliza, is the fact that the solution is no solution at all, and impinges on all kinds of legal issues.

    Thanks.

  14. Adam Mossoff takes great pains to argue that the problem of patent trolls is less significant than supposed, but does not address the shield act at all. Let’s say for a moment he is right, and the cost is overblown. That does not make the shield act any less useful. A solution to a $10 billion problem is as good as a solution to a $29 billion one.

  15. I too had Prof. Mossoff for a class in law school. He is one of the few that understands patent law and understands all the current anti’s nonsense is just that—nonsense.

    I have a vague memory of a test as you describe. I remember it as being cleverly written and testing whether or not one could distill the important issues.

  16. So you wrote about jurisdictional issues in an IP class instead of the obvious patent issues, and failed huh? Who can’t see the bigger picture again?

  17. DOWN with the rule of law!!

    How’s that good for business, an economy, or a society again?

    “If the public reviles them then why would the public continue to allow their activities? I mean seriously?” I’m a big history buff. Your homework assignment for tonight is to figure out why this near quote from a very famous person is so scary to anyone who has any clue about history. Hint: It was also used in the context of stopping businesses that “the public reviled”, and it ended badly.

  18. That was professorial blather if I ever saw it. Adam Mossoff was a professor of mine in law school, and that article was on par with his previous performances. My lasting memory of him was a fact pattern that he gave us on the final exam. It took place in outer space. Based upon his reaction to students raising the obvious jurisdiction issues, he apparently focused so intently on the details that he missed the big picture. Appears that nothing has changed. I would say that Adam Mossoff is perfectly suited for life as a “scholar.”

  19. Do you understand that law protects the reviled from the majority?

    Or are you just displaying your ignorance for tr011ing effect?

  20. Read the article – if you had, and had you understood the article, you would not have made the comment you did.

    Thanks.

  21. “to have the government eliminate a smaller, publicly reviled, and less politically-connected group.”

    If the public reviles them then why would the public continue to allow their activities? I mean seriously?

  22. I would have to agree that the entire court system, save perhaps that which is implemented to save citizens from the government itself, is a deadweight loss.

    In fact that should be self-evident. The courts are there as a way of resolving disputes between men, if the men could resolve these disputes outside of a court then the costs go to zero. Of course we can’t do that, and so we attach this deadweight loss to the dispute in order to have it definitively resolved.

  23. ” the SHIELD Act is a classic example of rent-seeking”

    LOLOLOLOLOL

    He just called an Act to end rent-seeking a classic example of rent-seeking.

  24. The thing that is most sad is that the only thing protecting us from the psychotic delusions of the anti’s is the old guard.

  25. He should also add that “professors” who make knowingly false statements in one journal article–software has no structure—should not be permitted to publish ever again.

  26. >>That’s an assumption that reduces itself to absurdity—it’s a >>self-imposed reductio ad absurdum!

    That is exactly my feelings on the “abstract” label the anti’s are attempting to put on information processing methods.

    I still can’t believe during the oral arguments that to prove something is not “abstract” one must come up with two other ways something can be done.

  27. In fact, keeping data secret in a published study violates well-established and longstanding norms in all scientific research that data should always be made available for testing and verification by third parties. No peer-reviewed medical or scientific journal would publish a study based on a secret data set in which the researchers have told us that we should simply trust them that the data is accurate.

    Another wiper…

    (and before anyone else notices, check out Prof. Chien’s data sources…)

Comments are closed.