Patent Ethics by Hricik

Professor David Hricik writes Patently-O’s Ethics Blog: Patent Ethics by Hricik available online at patentlyo.com/hricik. For the past year, Professor Hricik took a hiatus while clerking for Randall Rader – Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He is now back online and has four recent posts:

Welcome back David Hricik!

96 thoughts on “Patent Ethics by Hricik

  1. Seems my initial response was baleeted probably due to leaving in a ta rd or ha te.

    In any event, the bottom line was yes we are on much the same page but I do feel like I have contributed a bit of understanding beyond their having the same mind set as the believers. And that is that they literally have a different world-view that accounts for most of what goes on perfectly and which explains why they sincerly believe what they say, and why they so vociferiously defend it, while at the same time exposing why it will eventually cause the lawl that has become built up around it to crumble. It’s a bit more interesting, at least to me, than their mind set. But if you’re equating mind set with world view that’s ok as well, but there is a fairly large difference to me. I’m not sure that even after my wall of text you’re seeing the distinction.

  2. my posts that were deleted were far more mild than this post from MM. I guess the maximum equal under the law does not apply here.

    Then leave.

  3. Actually this is extremely similar to how some religious concepts in christianity that will make sense only to a true believer but will not make any sense to an outsider. And how some words spoken about those concepts will mean different things to the person who is a true believer compared to a person that is not. Those concepts are in fact magical in that way.

    I’m glad you did figure it out, 6. I figured it out pretty quickly years ago after engaging in various discussions with the patent t–b-ggers here and elsewhere. All the signs of the True Believer and the paranoid Repuk kke fantasy mentality were there. And it’s not just on the blogs. I’ve spoken to attorneys in “real life” who put on the same show that Tr0 llb0y puts on here, including associates and partners at the biggest patent firms in the US: they first will feign incredulousness that you dare question their client’s cr*p invention and greed, then they feign st00pidity, and then when they detect the ground shifting out from under their feet, they just resort to name-calling (“you’re naive” about either the law or the technology), then accusations of “agendas”, and sprinkled very liberally throughout you’ll find the usual strawmen and incoherent hoo haw. These guys abhor oxygen and cede no ground, exactly like our Tr0 llb0y. They never saw a softie woftie patent claim that they couldn’t embrace. As long as there was something “new” in it, well, the PTO should just get the stamp out. Anything else is “standing in the way of progress” which translates directly into “standing in the way of my client’s chances for getting some m 0r0n to throw some money his/her way.”

  4. Further and directly to the point, patents and particularly MORE patents is always a good thing.

    As I posted above, if you understood what patents mean, you could hold no other view.

  5. Blissfully unaware?

    LOL – not at all – I am aware of the difference between actual law and what is often peddled here though.

    Perhaps you should occasionally climb out of the weeds and figure out what the law really is.

  6. You seem to be blissfully unaware that “the law” is a human construction and can be changed to suit our ends.

    Not to mention that there are lots of patents, which are patents, and don’t “pass the law”.

  7. Now you see, my posts that were deleted were far more mild than this post from MM. I guess the maximum equal under the law does not apply here.

    Me the troll? When it comes time to predict outcomes, I am always there with substance and the correct result. You turn tail and run.

  8. Having second thoughts yet?

    LOL – you think that you made some type of biting comment?

    Seriously?

    Patents are not patents if they don’t pass the law. Not some wanna-be law like Malcolm pretends, or some others’ ‘opinions’ of what the law ‘ought to be,’ but the actual to goodness law that is right now.

    Open your eyes, 6. I have only been championing this position like forever.

  9. “More patents IS better.”

    Then by all means, why don’t we just repeal 101, 102, 103 and 112?

    Having second thoughts yet?

  10. more patents is better

    Get into a line of work you can believe in Malcolm.

    More patents IS better. There can be no doubt of that.

    If you believe otherwise, you do not understand what patents are, what they do, and why the founding fathers thought them so important as to enshrine the power to proscribe them directly in the constitution.

    Hey, on your vacation do you find any modern advanced societies that thought that the way forward is to abolish IP protection?

    LOL.

  11. Also I should note that it is fairly easy to see that this is the case. You simply pressure one of these folks into telling you what specifically is the “structure” that corresponds to a B claim, or what the proper construction is of any of these functional claims. They don’t know either, but they protest mightily if you try to interpret the claim normally, instead insisting that there is a magical claim construction, known only to POSITA’s like themselves, which usually cannot be put into everyday language and which is totally “structural” if they try, though the term structure just gets bandied about willy nilly, not used substantively. And this isn’t even necessarily happening because they desire an outcome, it’s because that’s just how they would think about things. But note that those constructions rely not only on how POSITA would interpret a term, but also adopting a world view, such that the construction is plainly apparent to those that share that world view. But that construction isn’t at all apparent to normal people, who simply interpret it as a POSITA would who shares a realistic world-view with the rest of us. And of course how POSITA would interpret the claim doesn’t necessarily have to be made under a specific POSITA’s particular world-view.

    Actually this is extremely similar to how some religious concepts in christianity that will make sense only to a true believer but will not make any sense to an outsider. And how some words spoken about those concepts will mean different things to the person who is a true believer compared to a person that is not. Those concepts are in fact magical in that way.

    Sorry if I’m getting a little ranty, but it’s taken me quite some time to figure all this out and I’m rather happy to have finally done it.

    It is quite funny, but what we’re living through is literally probably the first time that people’s world views meaningfully impacted patent law in recent memory.

  12. LOL – fingers in the ears?

    Some serious accuse-others-of-that-which-you-do going on there, Malcolm.

    Come back and visit this planet again real soon.

  13. LOL – come now Malcolm, the series isn’t even by Quinn.

    What no insults for Moore?

    You’ve vapidly insulted other greats that actually stood up for patentee’s like Boundy and Katznelson, I am shocked that you have not yet thrown a slur at Moore.

  14. While it is true there are some similarities, come on man, we don’t need to get all insulting to him today.

    I also don’t think it is that he has his fingers in his ears as the creationists often seem to. I’m pretty sure that he is simply prevented from understanding, not because of the conclusion not being reached, but because of his way of viewing the world around him. You hear him and anon often talking about iron age thinking etc. and they’re really on to something, it is their world view that makes all the difference. The unfunny thing about this is that it isn’t iron age vs modern age, it’s reality vs. their fantasy world they imerse themselves in at work, for their job. It has happened to some people here at the office actually that I know irl. They know that they might be biased against software going down the drain because that’s their field, but they never stop to think how the way they work in their field on a daily basis even sometimes, affects the way they view the world around them. To them, the “electronic structure” or “structure of the heirarchy” is every bit as much “structure” as a wall or a pipe. Of course, to people that don’t do what they do every day, and who aren’t particularly patent protectionist, that isn’t the case. These other people see reality simply as reality, not through the goggles these folks are wearing. And the thing that really stings these folks is that patent eligibility and some other things in patent law do not depend on whether it is structure to them, subjectively. Though some members of a court have bought that in the past. It’s been only recently that I’ve started to understand what the root of this whole “war” really is. And it is that people that work in these arts get an odd world view, and then some courts have kowtowed to it in the past.

  15. You see Malcolm there you go again with a blatent 1ie:”threatens to ban) commenters who don’t toe the patent-apologist line

    The ban is for purposeful dissembling and flagrant misrepresentations of law (for example, even though you know the controlling law regarding the exceptions to the printed matter doctrine, having voluntarily admitted such, your typical anti-software patent rants would be rightfully set straight .

    No wonder you habitually insult a man that does not even post here.

  16. you can always send D a message.

    He certainly can. Or he can just leave because this place totally s*cks, it’s filled with fascists, and nobody takes any of us l y i n g, spinning, commie patent-h*ters seriously anyway.

    Another option, of course, is that he can just keep on trollin’ here with his ad nauseum insults while continuing to spray his endless p e e stream from some other blog where his More Patents More Better mantra is more universally appreciated.

    Gosh, I wonder which one he’ll pick.

  17. Well I’m just throwing it out there that if you’re worried about the professional help you so obviously need being too pricey then there are low-cost alternatives.

  18. “1) It is not my imagination that Lemley misrepresents facts and that his goal is to eliminate software from 101.”

    I know man, strictly speaking it’s your mental illness. But I’m trying to be sensitive to your feelings here ok cut me some slack.

    “Stanford Law School gives their prestige to Lemley.”

    I know.

    How about this, tell me what his motive is behind getting software excluded from 101 (if we presume it isn’t in fact already so precluded). Money? Power? Fame? Women? To feel good? To destroy industry? To put you in the poor house? What’s his angle here? Perhaps his angle is just that it is his opinion that it ought not be included in patent eligible subject matter? I mean, I’m just throwing that out there. Set me straight, what’s his angle?

    “What I care about is his methods.”

    And why is that? Walk me through these feelings you have about this, what’s wrong with his “methods”? And why do you care enough to obsess about them and, as a result, him?

  19. Bringing him down the road where he’ll all of a sudden miss the nuanced difference in what you say, and in what he thinks you’re trying to say, EVERY SINGLE TIME, simply causes his paranoid fears to resurface and he goes down the same delusional path as he always does.

    You’re certainly correct about his paranoid fears and where they lead him. As I’ve noted for many years, these patent t–b-gger types function intellectually exactly like the mouthbreather creationists at Answers in Genesis and similar apologetics websites. They are True Believers and all facts must conform to the Conclusion or else they are ignored or simply declared to be “l i e s.” Meanwhile, they jam their fingers into their ears up to the fifth joint to avoid the horrifying prospect of accidentally learning that something might be fundamentallly wrong with their script.

  20. how do you know what I do on Gene’s blog

    What makes you think that I know “what you do there.” I know what Gene does there. And I’m pretty sure that you know what Gene does there. But you complain about what goes on here in spite of the fact that your chain here seems rather excessively long, to say the least. I mean … Nazis? Seriously?

    How do you know … what positions I take?

    Because I can read, bro’.

    selective editing may disturb some readers

    Exactly what “selective editing” are you referrring to you and why would it “disturb” “some readers”? Stop beating around the bush and get to the point.

  21. Plan B?

    LOL – you might try a little reality on that agenda of yours as well:

      Serious series on the myths of trolls at:

      link to ipwatchdog.com

      Yes, the same Steve Moore who championed the Taffas case.

    Come back a little bit informed, Malcolm.

  22. 6, two things. 1) It is not my imagination that Lemley misrepresents facts and that his goal is to eliminate software from 101. 2) Stanford Law School gives their prestige to Lemley. He represents them. He not speaking on a street corner or blog. He is writing articles for journals and making intentional misrepresentations. I don’t care if he is against information processing being eligible under 101. What I care about is his methods.

  23. “You sound like you have entered a science fiction movie, 6.”

    I know, except your mental illness is very much real life so far as can be seen. :( And again, not saying that to be mean. At all. Get help bro. I think they even have hotlines if you’re that worried about money.

  24. Hmmm, well you can always send D a message. He may tell you though that he’s simply getting a bit tired of your strong language.

  25. MM, you have got to stop posting this man. Bringing him down the road where he’ll all of a sudden miss the nuanced difference in what you say, and in what he thinks you’re trying to say, EVERY SINGLE TIME, simply causes his paranoid fears to resurface and he goes down the same delusional path as he always does.

    Just stop doing it man it isn’t helping. Everyone in the world is aware of the nuanced difference between what you’re saying and in what he’s subjectively hearing when you speak (save maybe anon and others that work in this non-useful art because of the mindset they adopt in order to be better at working in their non-useful art). It is a fundamental ramification of his mindset, world-view if you will, that you cannot be saying anything other than the same thing that he thinks has been totally shown false a long time ago. He simply cannot concieve of you meaning anything different. This is coincidentally why he holds these beliefs he holds in the first place. He cannot concieve of the more nuanced way of viewing things, and so he will not go down that road, ever, or at least until he can concieve it. Though, the money flowing to him might be part of the reason he cannot so concieve, and his world-view being in place, though that is a different matter.

  26. “Because 6 that ain’t the way it is. Lemley doesn’t have a view that he expresses as such. Lemley believes that he is Lemley and that he could slip one by.”

    You really believe that don’t you? I mean, I know that your mind is a bit warped from all the imaginary stuff you get into because of your job NWPA, and you probably have some old person’s diseases rattling around, but come on man, that’s some extreme paranoia/delusions you have going on there. I’m pretty sure you have the money, you should consider seeking professional help. And I’m not joking, and I’m not saying this to put you down bro, it could do your blood pressure good to just work through these things in your mind. There are very good people in the metal health support system available to help with just these sorts of things. They’re trained and stuff, went through school to help with this sort of thing.

    I would go on and on about asking you how you know that it “ain’t the way it is”, but it’s plain to see that the only place that it “ain’t the way it is” is in your mind man. Lemley is plainly expressing his opinion, under his own definition (the traditional one btw). It’s that simple, and it isn’t worth getting worked up about. And it is surely delusional to think differently, I say this as a friendly comment here bro, you need to talk to someone.

    Again, not to be mean, it’s really not so bad going to seek some help for these things, sometimes our brains just aren’t working right. Get some help and 5 years from now you can tell people jokes about how a few years ago you thought some prominent scholars were totally maliciously misrepresenting facts in their scholarship so as to destroy entire industries (or whatever you think his motivation is, money or hoo kers or whatever). You’ll all have a good lol at how silly you were being. But you need some help.

  27. “Not in law”

    So then why are you always up in arms about this stuff?

    “I’d like the science faculty at Stanford to have a look at the types of things that Lemley has been up to. I think they would vote to remove him”

    I’m pretty sure they have better things to do. And that they could understand exactly what Lemley was talking about and not bat an eye or care one whit. After so many years upset NWPA, you must surely have noticed that nobody else is quite as upset as you are about what he writes.

  28. Because 6 that ain’t the way it is. Lemley doesn’t have a view that he expresses as such. Lemley believes that he is Lemley and that he could slip one by.

  29. Not in law. In science it happens. I’d like the science faculty at Stanford to have a look at the types of things that Lemley has been up to. I think they would vote to remove him.

  30. >>What “positions” do you think Dennis is selectively >>deleting and why do you think Dennis deletes those >>positions?

    Why do you always write such nonsense? You can’t understand the obvious that selective editing may disturb some readers without there being a conspiracy behind it.

    Why do you whine to me about other blogs? And, how do you know what I do on Gene’s blog or what positions I take?

  31. The major problem with Malcolm’s post here (and elsewhere) is his own volunteered admission as to knowing the controlling law regarding the exception to the printed matter doctrine and his equally agenda-burning admission that ‘configured to’ is structural language.

    The archives feature these admissions in unmistakable black and white – and no amount of pejorative spin from Malcolm can erase that FACT.

    As they say, svcks to be you.

  32. MM, did you cut and paste all that? You know my positions on all that rot you wrote.

    For example, a functional claim, as you put it, does have structure to one skilled in the art. (as I am.)

    How do you know there is no progress? Certainly there are good journal articles that contend quite the contrary.

    Etc. I don’t have my cut and past engine on the ready.

    Saying software has no structure is radial and against what computer scientist say including me. And, against every bit of common sense and every bit of science and reasoning that one can possible muster.

    What it is is intellectual dishonesty penned for the mob in a calculated effort to remove software from eligibility.

  33. You probably just input a forbidden word and the system didn’t post your post. That isn’t D deleting your posts. When you hit the post key and if you fail to check to see if it immediately posted there is a high chance it won’t post if it is a long post or involves strong language. Using the word “ha te” and iirc “gar bage” both make the post “disappear”. There are many other such words. That is not D deleting posts.

    Knowing you, these missing posts were filled with strong language and they just didn’t even post.

  34. “In other words, he knowingly misled the read in Law Journal Article. Normally, people are removed from universities for that type of behavior. ”

    I’m fairly sure that you’re overreacting, I’ve never heard of anyone being removed. Can you cite some examples of such removal?

  35. “No 6, my beef with Lemley is that he presented as fact that software has no structure”

    Can you not simply agree that under his definition of structure he’s quite obviously correct, and under your proposed definition he’s quite obviously incorrect? I mean, this should take you like 1 minute to square away in your mind and just let go of it.

  36. As if it is hard to figure out what anon meant.

    It’s not a matter of it being “hard” to guess what Tr0 llb0y might have meant. It’s a matter of Tr0 llb0y simply stating his beliefs rather than hiding behind innuendo. He has a real problem with that (one of many problems).

    The perception it creates that blog posts mysteriously go missing. So, we can’t be sure what other positions or posts are being deleted.

    What “positions” do you think Dennis is selectively deleting and why do you think Dennis deletes those positions?

    You are aware, of course, that a certain other notable patent blog (that prides itself on its awesomeness) simply bans (or routinely threatens to ban) commenters who don’t toe the patent-apologist line or otherwise genuflect before the blog owner’s “respectful” and “well-considered” views. I don’t hear you commenting much about that. Certainly that fact doesn’t seem bother Tr0 llb0y at all.

  37. As if it is hard to figure out what anon meant.

    It’s not and all of us know that Malcolm already knew that.

  38. Except 6, the spin is on purpose, and the spinners have made some serious ‘oops’ admissions that torch their anti-patent agenda.

    Always presume incompetence before maliciousness.

    LOL – the evidence indicates both.

    especially if you ever do get into the field of patent law in any way

    An even bigger LOL – you are still way into the weeds with your errant assumption of who you think I am.

  39. if software has no structure that it creates paradoxes.

    Again, Lemley’s position is not that there are no pits on a CD or a hard drive that has been modified to store information or instructions about how to process information.

    Lemley’s position (and it’s not a radical or unusual one) is that claims which conceptually recite a desired function for a generic computer are completely devoid of any limiting structure that would distinguish the generic computer from computers in the prior art. It’s simply non responsive to say that “the computer must have a different structure” because “it has a new function that wasn’t described before.” First, that’s not true because software with identical structure can have completely different functions depending on how (or if) the structure of the software is interpreted by a given operating system. Second, the softie woftie folks invariably talk out of both sides of their mouths when it comes to the prior art (conceptual claiming is perfectly fine for patent applicants but somehow the descriptions of desired functions for computers in the prior art aren’t enabled? Give us a break). Thirdly, the granting of claims to computers reciting a desired functionality but lacking any coding details or structural limitations is simply too much quid in exchange for way too little quo. There is no “progress” being promoted by the granting of such claims, unless by “progress” you simply mean the creation of a patent bubble for gamblers to be on.

    Progress in the art of computing is faster computers. More memory in a smaller space. “Progress” is certainly not coming up with a new “context” in which a computer can be used to waste people’s time with an ad or take somebody’s money away from them. That’s just business and we already have a system for promoting business. It’s called capitalism.

    The great irony of the patent t–b-ggers is their endless whining about how capitalists (i.e., the ultra wealthy people with money to gamble) won’t engage in capitalism unless their fat axxes are covered by a 20 year monopoly (which they will invariably try to extend by whatever means possible). Not only is that whining a giant pile of horsesh*t in the larger context but it proves just little faith the softie-wofties have in their ability to successfully implement and market their lame “computer-implemented” schemes (which, we are told again, are super easy for anyone to implement, which is why they can just be claimed conceptually).

    And we all know about Plan B: patent trolling. If you can’t get someone to invest in your cr*p business, why just spend your time figuring out ways to exploit the patent system to extract money from people who either did manage to build a successful business or are trying to (with or without patents). To put the cherry on the cake, the trolls will spew some utterly mindless drivel about how patent-accumulating NPEs do the public a great service by not allowing the patent to “go to waste” (as if lawyers don’t have anything better to do).

  40. how limited you are in terms of legally understanding what a fact is in a journal article or brief.

    Ah yes, that old trick. Appeal to my limited understanding of the word salad you invented, but refuse to explain what it means.

    I freely admit that my understanding of what you write is limited. I voluntarily volunteer that admission, in fact. Quite in fact, in fact. Whatever a fact is in this context.

  41. OK, IANAE, again we are seeing how limited you are in terms of legally understanding what a fact is in a journal article or brief.

  42. So, you ignore the bit about the answer to the question being wrong and respond to the obvious commentary at the end of my comment.

    Can anybody translate this to English for me please?

  43. Single ref 103′s are fine as long as the difference is minor. Can’t imagine getting out of sorts for one.

  44. As if it is hard to figure out what anon meant. The perception it creates that blog posts mysteriously go missing. So, we can’t be sure what other positions or posts are being deleted.

  45. No 6, my beef with Lemley is that he presented as fact that software has no structure. He did not cite journal articles that squarely contradict his assertion. Instead what he did was try to slip it in there to get the result he wanted.

    In other words, he knowingly misled the read in Law Journal Article. Normally, people are removed from universities for that type of behavior.

  46. So, you ignore the bit about the answer to the question being wrong and respond to the obvious commentary at the end of my comment.

  47. “Additionally, IANAE, Lemley knows exactly what it would mean if the SCOTUS held that software had no structure.”

    Reality would finally poke it’s ugly way into your realm of delusional software patent religiousity?

    I jest, but come on man, take the srsness down a notch.

    “He knew that there were many journal articles that said the opposite.”

    So then in other words your entire beef with his supposedly factually incorrect statement hangs on the mere issue of semantics discussed by me and you on here for years? As has been discussed NWPA, the meaning of the word “structure” in the patent context was well established and then was slightly changed around so as to accomodate software a few decades back. Just becauase some people saw fit to adjust it doesn’t mean Lemley is obliged to cite to them, or to do so himself.

  48. He knows that if software has no structure that it creates paradoxes.

    LOL

    Doubly so, since you are (again) clearly presenting your completely unsubstantiated opinion of Lemley as fact.

  49. when the author states something as a fact.

    Can you give what you think is a particularly clear example of Lemley “stating something as a fact”? I’m genuinely curious as to what you think you mean by it.

    If I sincerely believe I am stating a fact, then of course I’m not going to cite an opinion contrary to that fact. Opinions contrary to fact are not worth citing, and should not be dignified with citation.

  50. Additionally, IANAE, Lemley knows exactly what it would mean if the SCOTUS held that software had no structure. He knew it when he wrote and when he decided to fabricate nonsense to support his fabrication.

    He knew that there were many journal articles that said the opposite. He knows that if software has no structure that it creates paradoxes.

    The point is that Lemley does not care. He wants to get to his goal and does not care the means he uses. That is not a person that should be a professor.

  51. IANAE that is simply wrong. A law journal article author does have a duty to cite contrary opinions particularly when the author states something as a fact.

    Can you think of any legal document where an attorney has an obligation to cite contrary law?

  52. “My problem is the prevarications and spin that distorts facts, law, and what others say that so often is done by the poor quality posters ”

    Is it so hard to accept that maybe the other people simply have a different view of things and aren’t actually prevericating/spinning/distorting on purpose? Is it also so hard to accept that maybe they’re wrong, and maybe you yourself are wrong? These things may require a bit of personal growth on your part to start to really get a handle on, and accept.

    There’s also something you should seriously consider anon. This is a slightly unrelated piece of wisdom that will serve you well in many areas of life, but especially if you ever do get into the field of patent law in any way.

    Always presume incompetence before maliciousness.

    Simple, but it will help in so many different ways.

  53. “Go to google scholar and search “scope of enablement.” And there is rich history of real judges like Rich engaging this issue.”

    A real shame we couldn’t have the greatest amongst the patent protectionists weigh in on preemption.

    Seriously though, it is quite beyond me why nobody harped on this before I came along. They would have thereby no doubt tempted the good ol judge into engaging.

    “(1) too broad, so we are going to call it abstract;”

    Still don’t understand preemption eh NWPA? I really do think that an afternoon of discussing the matter with me would work wonders for you.

    “Ethics is not worshiping those that get what they can in anyway possible like Lemley.”

    Or NWPA…. right NWPA?

    “And, if you don’t engage in that intellectual discussion, then again you are a Nazi. You are a person that cares more about power then ethics.”

    I’m not sure about the Nazi part, but you’re right, I am a person that cares more about power than ethics in this context.

    Also, how was this “on a related topic”? 101 is not related to ethics in so far as I can see.

  54. Come on Hricik, single reference 103′s are legit. There are different embodiments that are just as combinable as embodiments from different references.

  55. Is it ethical to present a position of law, call it “but-that’s-my-opinion” and attack anyone who points out flaws with the presented position

    Seems to me that’s what you and Gene Quinn do on a near-daily basis every time either of you think you’ve sniffed out some “anti-patent” agenda. You launch into the usual train of insults about people being “naive”, not understanding the technology (LOL) and/or the law or both (never mind the parade of wrong calls and incorrect snap judgments about the impact of those calls on the patent system made by both of you).

    Meanwhile, pro-patent hawks at Gene’s blog are given an incredibly wide berth to spew whatever hyperbole they want. Check out Gene’s lovefest with Ray Niro for just one example. Talk about an echo chamber. They could hardly hide their love for the lowest form of NPEs between shoveling tender bites of quail into each other’s mouths.

    Bottom line is that your beef with Lemley is not about “ethics” but about the ideas he brings to the table. You and Gene don’t like those ideas and it’s pretty easy to understand why: Gene is a self-proclaimed patent appologist with a vested interest in keeping the patent bubble expanding as rapdily as possible and you are his button-washing puppy.

  56. NWPA: all of this is stemming from the SCOTUS trying to run patent law from their common law and not the 1952 patent act. And, if you don’t engage in that intellectual discussion, then again you are a Nazi.

    This is way beyond f*ked up.

    Tr0 llb0y, are you down with this? I’m not. Please let everyone know where you stand.

  57. The perceptions created?

    Please explain yourself. What “perception” has Dennis created by allowing you to troll this blog for years?

  58. Tr0 llb0y: I do have a problem when that statement is a mere excuse for standing atop a soapbox and being unwilling to account for actual facts, actual law, and actual points raised in counter to the soapbox views.

    You have more problems than this, Tr0 ll0y. Deep problems. Here’s an example of something that you likely believe is my “soapbox”:

    [oldstep]+[newthought] claims are ineligible under 101 in view of Prometheus.

    Please raise an “actual point” that “counters” this “view”. Do so without engaging in “spin that distorts facts, law” and my views.

    Good luck, Tr0 llb0y. This could be a very big day for you.

  59. And one of your problems is simply being wrong about what I write.

    I suspect that this stems from the multitude of Calvinball face sp1kes you have received over the years.

  60. Seems to be the same a my problem?

    One of your problems. Judging by the rest of your post, you also have trouble with “I agree, and here’s an example of what you were talking about”.

  61. Seems to be the same a my problem?

    Most definitely not, IANAE. My problem is the prevarications and spin that distorts facts, law, and what others say that so often is done by the poor quality posters (a group that you belong to).

    I have no problem with people who merely say ‘this is my opinion.’ I do have a problem when that statement is a mere excuse for standing atop a soapbox and being unwilling to account for actual facts, actual law, and actual points raised in counter to the soapbox views.

    When someone wants to proselytize and is unwilling (or unable) to be intellectually honest, they are fair game for my responses. They have a certain level of control as I have oft stated: be intellectually honest.

  62. So you just attempted to avoid a direct question to you

    I’m not avoiding the question, I’m telling you the question makes no sense. Nobody states views as facts in journal articles, they state views as views. They’re allowed to have those views even if you manage to dig up an article they haven’t cited that leans the other way.

    It’s probably safe to assume that for every law journal article there is an equal and opposite law journal article by a similarly prominent academic. Why should that prevent anybody from publishing? For that matter, what would be the point of academia if they couldn’t disagree? At least when they disagree with each other you can’t accuse them of having a coordinated agenda. Oh wait, I guess you still can.

    Oddly, your problem (and anon’s) seems to be the exact same thing you accuse Lemley of. You can’t simply say “this person said that thing, and I disagree because…”, and leave it at that.

  63. So, you think it is ok not to cite views that oppose your views in a Law Journal Articles? In other words, to state something as fact when you know that there are other law journal articles that hold the exact opposite view?

    The rest of your nonsense I will skip. I don’t have anon’s patience with you troll$.

  64. a serious violation. E.g., not citing an article by a prominent [...] academic that takes a completely contrary view.

    A prominent academic disagrees with him? The horror!

    By your own “ethical” standards, you wouldn’t be able to publish anything without citing everything of Lemley’s (a prominent academic) and addressing his arguments like a rational adult human. You wouldn’t last a week.

  65. Not really LB. The nut of it is fact. And, the facts indicate a serious violation. E.g., not citing an article by a prominent (the daughter of a SCOTUS justice) academic that takes a completely contrary view.

  66. No, the fact is that your comments are libelous, or at least awfully close.

    “Well, Your Honor, we’ve got plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence.”

  67. The fact is that my comments about Lemley are facts.

    No, the fact is that your comments are libelous, or at least awfully close. Dennis has been awfully patient, if you ask me.

  68. Not the first time and likely not the last.

    What persists and what does not is fully up to the owner of the blog. The perceptions created? Yes, that is a different story.

  69. My comments that are being taken down are ones that accuse Lemley. My guess is that Lemley is putting pressure on this board. And, my guess is that my comments are coming to him via Stanford.

    The fact is that my comments about Lemley are facts. That Lemley is one of the biggest names in IP and he has been referenced by the SCOTUS.

    The fact is that Lemley should address my accusations against him and the fact that he is making it harder for me to make the accusations instead of addressing them makes is almost an admission of guilt.

  70. Certainly makes me wonder what else is being taken down. At least with the comment deleted notice, you knew the number and author of the deleted comments.

  71. Selective editing is a dangerous tool. Where is the line between such editing and a forum that loses protection for the forum host as a neutral hosting entity?

    C’est La Vie

  72. LOL, NWPA’s pointing out that ‘broad’ is not necessarily the same as ‘abstract’ reminds me of one other consideration:

    Is it ethical to promise to discuss something (oh, say like ladders of abstraction) and when reminded of this promise, to respond with a threat (completely bogus in itself) to ‘out’ someone who has chosen to exchange ideas under a pseudonym?

  73. Simple question: is it unethical to be intellectually dishonest?

    This goes beyond the model rules and to common decency.

    Some additional considerations:

    Is it ethical to knowingly twist (spin) facts, law and what others say in order to further an agenda, when it is known that such spinning is deceptive?

    Is it ethical to present arguments knowing that you have omitted critical elements of a legal hypothetical (strawmanning to mislead)?

    Is it ethical to present a position of law, call it “but-that’s-my-opinion” and attack anyone who points out flaws with the presented position, all the while refusing to incorporate the actual facts and law pertinent to the position of law under discussion?

  74. On a related topic. This preemption nonsense. This is just an excuse to try and use 101 to remove large swaths of inventions as if the judges were legislators.

    Go to google scholar and search “scope of enablement.” And there is rich history of real judges like Rich engaging this issue.

    “The relevant inquiry may be summed up as being whether the scope of enablement provided to one of ordinary skill in the art by the disclosure is such as to be commensurate with the scope of protection sought by the claims.” 439 F.2d 1232 (1971)

    So, let’s look at the logic the witch hunters are using.

    (1) too broad, so we are going to call it abstract;
    (2) can’t let that be allowed as it would exclude inventions that should be encouraged.
    (3) therefore, invalid.

    That is ridiculous. First, if (2) then the abstract invention is an invention and should be encouraged. And, the biggest reason it is absurd is that there is a cause of action already for an inventor to say that claims are too broad and should not cover my invention.

    “those skilled in the art to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without `undue experimentation’” in order to extract meaningful disclosure of the invention and, by this disclosure, advance the technical arts.[16] Koito Mfg., 381 F.3d at 1155 (quoting Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, 108 F.3d 1361, 1365 (Fed.Cir.1997).

    This abstract nonsense is not law, but witchcraft to burn. And, if you dare to let the word ethics pass through your lips, you should learn what ethics means. Ethics is not worshiping those that get what they can in anyway possible like Lemley. Ethics is not worshiping the powerful that can manipulate the mob.

    And, again all of this is stemming from the SCOTUS trying to run patent law from their common law and not the 1952 patent act. And, if you don’t engage in that intellectual discussion, then again you are a Nazi. You are a person that cares more about power then ethics.

Comments are closed.