Hide comments

9 thoughts on “”

  3. 7

    That is why Lemley is a very destructive force in patent law. He has no qualms about making false assertions–and I would argue he is doing it knowingly in law journals.

  4. 6

    MM: do you want to put some money up for something like this? It is actually something that could be done in a factual basis. The fact is that those so-called functional claims connote structure and to one skilled in the art a definite set of solutions.

    It is–without question–destructive of our system of law to be falsely asserting otherwise.

  6. 4

    guess what, Lemley, they are not functional claims they specify a definite set of solutions that is very large, but definite.

    More like an infinite set without any meaningful limitations other than the desired functionality. But keep repeating your script. You’ve been very successful so far.

  7. 3

    I read a good chunk of Lemley’s paper on functional claiming. I had to put a clothes pin on my nose. Missing, of course, is the most fundamental analysis and the most important—how would PHOSITA interpret the claims.

    And, guess what, Lemley, they are not functional claims they specify a definite set of solutions that is very large, but definite.

  9. 1

    Is there an official T-shirt?

    Ive got an idea for one:

    “Writing your own software to process information is killing the Internet start-up industry.

    [image of computer monitor with crossed bones underneath it]

    And it’s illegal.”

    It’ll be an instant classic.

Comments are closed.