A Warm Welcome to Chief Judge Prost

By Dennis Crouch

Chief Judge Randall Rader has announced that he is stepping down from his position as Chief Judge – effective May 30, 2014. According to the Federal Circuit’s rules of succession, Judge Sharon Prost will succeed Judge Rader as the next Chief.

Judge Rader is a longtime member of the court and has been a gregarious Chief Judge. His willingness to have frank and open discussions on a variety of patent law issues has been welcomed by the bar as has his work to build ties with patent law authorities from around the globe. Those connections will continue to serve the court well into the future. However, this outgoing approach has also been criticized as contrary to the traditions of judicial detachment and seclusion. Judge Rader is eligible to take senior status (and thus retain his full salary of approximately $170k). However, he has indicated that he will remain in active service for now. Although it is unclear whether related, Judge Rader’s transition comes amidst a potential brewing mini-scandal involving a public endorsement for veteran Federal Circuit litigator Ed Reines. There were three years remaining in his seven-year term as Chief.

Judge Prost has been on the court since 2001. During that time she has authored hundreds of patent law opinions, including the recent en banc decision in Bosch v. Pylon and a dissent in Apple v. Motorola. Prior to joining the court, she worked as the Senate Judiciary Chief Counsel under Orrin Hatch and has worked in the Federal Government since her graduation from Cornell in 1973. She was appointed to the court by President George W. Bush. Judge Prost is also known as a litigant – her early 1990′s custody battle resulted in a D.C. Court of Appeals opinion that continues to be taught in law schools. Link.

Moving forward, Chief Judge Prost’s history in government will be instrumental in considering the new administrative-law battles arising from the USPTO’s Patent Trial & Appeal Board.

= = = =

Succession: According to the rules of succession, the next Chief Judge is designated as the most senior judge on the court who is in regular active service but who is also not yet aged 65 and who has not previously served as Chief Judge.

= = = =

Update: Judge Rader has distributed an open letter that provides an explanation and appears to fully confirm the story that regarding his recent recusals and vacatur of his position as Chief Judge.

In particular, Judge Rader confirms that he previously emailed noted attorney Ed Reines of the Weil firm praising his advocacy and suggesting that the email could be used as a client development tool.  The letter then became public as Reines was arguing before the court.  Judge Rader now writes:

I have come to realize that I have engaged in conduct that crossed lines established for the purpose of maintaining the judicial process whose integrity must be beyond question. It is important to emphasize that I did not and would never compromise my impartiality in judging any case before me. But avoiding even teh appearance of partiality is a vital interest of our court, and I compromised that interest by transgressing limits on judges’ interaction with attorneys who appear before the court. I was inexcusably careless, and I sincerely apologize.

5-23-14_RRR _Letter

As I highlighted above, Judge Rader’s demeanor is gregarious and he is open with his praise. I have seen him publicly praise many different attorneys. In fact, I remember a couple of times where he praised my work — suggesting to me that his praises should generally be taken with a grain of salt.  I also don’t believe that this activity warrants him stepping down from his position as chief, but it appears he is going the extra mile to ensure that the court’s integrity is above question. 

I should also add that I also believe Ed Reines is a great appellate advocate. (Yes, you may show this to your potential clients.)

189 thoughts on “A Warm Welcome to Chief Judge Prost

  1. Regarding §101, the Supreme Court has a duty to ground its decisions squarely on the statute and should stop basing its decisions on so-called judicial exceptions.

    These “so-called judicial exceptions” are all that keeps the patent system from turning into a complete joke. I know you guys really, really, really love patents and you think that the world revolves around them. Step outside the bubble and ask your neighbors what they think about patents on mental processes.

    Until you or Hricik or anon any of the other faux-”principled” b.s. artists out there are willing to float some alternative statutory language that is acceptable to normal people who don’t make a living off exploiting the broken patent system, then it’s safe to assume your only goal is the notorious one: More Patents, All the Time, Easier to Enforce.

    Rader’s “legacy” is that, like Judge Rich, he lacked the intelligence and foresight to understand that if you allow “magic words” to trump common sense in the patent system, then you’ll see a bunch of low-rent “magicians” racing to the bottom. This is one of the reasons we have judges, after all.

    And I’ve yet to see Hricik complain about all the “non-statutory” b.s. that judges like Rader have injected into the patent system in their efforts to coddle patent applicants and patentees. There’s quite a bit of that out there, as everybody knows. Until that happens, well, he’s just another hypocritical whiner.

    [shrugs]

    1. MM, if the Courts would actually try to ground their decisions in the statutes, they would probably realize that law of nature and product of nature relate to “new,” mental steps, printed matter, knowledge and the like, not functionally linked to a machine, manufacture or composition, are non statutory; and “principle in the abstract” is actually the doctrine of functionality, a 112 concept.

      1. printed matter,… not functionally linked

        Perhaps we see why Ned has never referenced properly the exceptions to the judicial doctrine of printed matter – and why Malcolm, having made an admissions against interests on the same, forever struggles with an intellectually honest treatment of the concept, instead blathering about “circular gobbledygook” and what note when he just does not want to pull his head out and face reality.

        1. anon, properly, “printed matter” is non statutory and is the exception. Given that printed matter is non statutory, and given Prometheus, the PTO should be citing 101 if it rejects over printed matter.

          Now, anon, why is printed matter non statutory?

          1. anon, properly, “printed matter” is non statutory and is the exception

            Ned, once again you evidence an ignorance on a topic that runs to the heart of the software as patent eligible manufacture.

            The judicial doctrine of printed matter is a non-statutory doctrine. You have the basics backwards and seek to deny printed matter as if it were non-statutory but that is the opposite of the case – it is only through judicial doctrine that printed matter is kept from patent weight.

            It is NOT the exception.

            The exception is that the doctrine (the judicial doctrine) does not apply in certain circumstances – one of which has to do with the core reason for patent coverage: functional things.

            The exception that written matter of a certain type qualifies as patent eligible material (has patent eligible weight) is dependent on this functionality – it is thus NOT the same as a novel, or kit instructions, or words on the outside of a coffee cup. In such cases the exception to the judicial doctrine has been clearly recognized and patent eligible weight – that under normal statutory reading is there – is not removed by the judicial doctrine. The plain meaning then appears in the sense of an “exception to the exception.”

            I have explained this to you in the past in great detail. And yet again, You have chosen a path of deliberate ignorance that aligns with your agenda.

            How many times must I hold your hand and guide you along the right path?

            1. Anon, ? I thought you were the apostle of statutory basis for exceptions!

              The origin of the doctrine appears to be In re Russell , 48 F.2d 668 (C.C.P.A. 1931).

              The case held, “The mere arrangement of printed matter on a sheet or sheets of paper, in book form or otherwise, does not constitute “any new and useful art, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter….”

              This case is often quoted, but not the statutory basis. The statutory basis is clearly 101 and clearly because printed matter is not among the statutory classes.

              Of course in the measuring cup case, Judge Rich did hold that there was a functional relationship between the printing on the cups in the functions cups were to perform. Now look back to the quotation from the earlier CCPA case. What does the word “mere” connote?

            2. Ned – you are doing that opposite thing.

              Re-read my post and note what the judicial exception is. You have confused yourself again.

              Let’s take this in baby steps then:

              The statutory basis is the starting point – and that point is very wide. In other words a pure statutory reading is inclusive of even the possibility of printed matter.

              Then – through the judicially created doctrine – certain printed matter was deemed to not have patentable weight. The judicial doctrine serves to limit the broad statute. The judicial doctrine comes AFTER the statutory meaning, and by judicial edict is meant to limit the plain broad words of the statute (whether this action goes too far or not is NOT an immediate cause of concern – and I think you are tripped up here).

              Then – the exception to the judicially created doctrine comes into play when the realization that some printed matter does not raise the issues that other printed matter raised (that “other printed matter” that DID raise some concern and that created the judicial doctrine that limits the broad statutory meaning just was not applicable to ALL printed matter). A return to the original broad statutory inclusion is then made for the types of written matter that did not fall into the concern of the judicial doctrine.

              Or to put it another way: Think simple set theory.

              ALL printed matter is Set A.
              SOME printed matter that raised a judicial concern is Set B.
              OTHER printed matter that does not raise that same judicial concern is Set C.

              Software is within Set C and NOT in Set B.

              The judicial doctrine of printed matter is concerned SOLELY with Set B.

              When one speaks in broad general terms of Set A, one must be aware of the fact that Set A contains both of the mutually exclusive sets of Set B and Set C, and that for patent purposes, Set C is entirely permitted. Set C includes software (as well as measuring cup and magic hat bands).

            3. Unbelievably a long and perfectly gentle response is held in the mod filter.

              This particular post follows that post.

              Your view confuses Set B with Set A and Set C with Set B. Your view starts with a universe only of Set B and then seeks to (incorrectly) carve out of Set B an exception and call that carve out Set C. That is an improper understanding of the exception to the judicial doctrine of printed matter.

              The plain error with your view is recognized when one correctly views that the items of Set C WERE NEVER A PART OF Set B. – your attempt to ‘carve out’ is simply misplaced.

              In part, I think you are confused based on your adulation of the court writing patent law. In your mind, Set B is a permissible starting point because judges made the first carve out with Set B (keep your eye on the ball of what is the judicial doctrine). You want to believe that this is perfectly OK (disregarding the reality that our constitution placed the authority to write patent law not with the judiciary, but explicitly with the legislature – you conflate reading maps with writing maps).

              You are not understanding that you must start at Set A – not Set B. Set A reflects the open and broad statute. And that is the statutory reason why software – as a manufacture in its own right – and as a machine component is a patent eligible material as meeting the statutory category requirement. Note again the stipulations in the Alice case. It is simply NOT AT ISSUE that the statutory category has been met. The issue in the Alice case deals with a judicial exception after the statutory category is agreed (by all parties) to have been met. Note too what Parry has put directly on the record: some pure software IS patent eligible.

              When the Supreme Court comes out with its decision – these types of facts are critically important to keep in mind in order to be able to discern dicta from holding. One must keep in mind what is and what is not at issue in the Alice case. I share this with you now given your propensity to mis-read case law and align only what you want to align and ignore that which is inconvenient for you.

            4. anon, I’m sorry, but was that post (14.1.1.1.1.2) directed to something I said?

              I was addressing your point that “printed matter” was a judicial exception, not grounded in the statute. But plainly it is grounded in the statute.

            5. Ned,

              I have a post hung up in moderation that explains (and precedes) the post at 7:30 am.

              Please be patient and wait for that first post to clear and then read the two posts in the order presented.

              Thanks.

            6. As to your comment about origins, the seventh paragraph of the reference you yourself supplies destroys that notion. The case you cite does little to elucidate the matter under discussion.

            7. Anon, I agree with your logic. But let us keep this simple. “Mere” printed matter (“mere” being a significant word) is nonstatutory because it is neither an art, machine, manufacture or composition. However, provide a functional relationship to the underlying subject matter, and we now have statutory subject matter because we have or potentially could have a “new” art, machine, manufacture, or composition.

              I think this pretty much sums up the cases on printed matter, in the logic is consistent with Diamond v. Diehr where the non-statutory subject matter modified the process – integration so to speak.

              But I still disagree that a program modifies the computer. I think rather that the computer uses the program to do what it is designed to do.

              In other words, a program is protectable as a process if it is protectable at all. Furthermore, the programmed computer must modify that process as in Diehr.

            8. I agree with your logic. But let us keep this simple

              Let’s keep it accurate instead, as my pal Einstein has a saying:

              Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.”

            9. I reject your crutch of process – especially given your historical “Story-like” bias about treating the method category as an equal statutory category (you view it as a sub-category necessarily tied to the hard goods categories).

              Further, software IS a manufacture.

              That is a simple fact. (if you want simplicity…)

            10. anon, a CRM having a new program is not technically a new manufacture either. It is a new use of CRM.

              Bilski broadly allowing any process unlimited by machines, manufactures or compositions was a prime example of dicta going amok. Nothing like that was in the historical precedent, if not limited to machines, etc., anything at all now becomes eligible. What a mistake by the Supreme Court.

            11. Your use of the word “use” is not appropriate.

              Further, your view on not a new manufacture is simply – and clearly – wrong.

              Your view makes as equals a Britney Spears CD and a Microsoft Operating disc.

              That’s just lunacy.

            12. No, anon, the first one who develops a recording format for music can get a patent on that kind of CRM. The first who develops a computer file system efficient CRM can get a patent on that. But thereafter, simply changing the music or the program recorded by the file system changes nothing about the CRM.

              Take a look at the Russell case which declared ineligible printed matter in a book, sheets of paper or otherwise because the printed matter was non statutory, regardless that a book, or a piece of paper or a CRM is itself an article of manufacture.

              It is these very kind of distinctions all of us have been urging on you for quite some time.

            13. Wrong Ned – you are seeking a patent on “kind” – no matter what else is “in there” (It really DOES matter if the “kind” has a Britney Spears configuration or a Microsoft Operating System configuration).

              That is the “Morse” fallacy – you cannot have a patent on “kind” and cover all future inventions. “oldbox” – without change really cannot “do” the new capability that comes with the transfer of the functionality from the manufacture to the new machine (upon configuration – and PLEASE do not skip [again] the fact that you must first configure ‘oldbox’ with the software BEFORE you can use the software. Otherwise, you can leave the software in the package next to the machine and have your new capability). Reality intrudes.

              Think of my analogy of the big box of electrons, protons and neutrons.

              Just three “kinds.” Do I then control all configurations of just those three kinds?

              And you must be careful, as you errantly slip back into the canard of a non-Useful Art example. That is a FAIL for other reasons.

              You also (so quickly) lose track of the fact that the functional relationship is in play, so the particular writing VERY MUCH matters still in the patent sense. That’s the entire point of the exception to the judicial doctrine of printed matter.

              Or returning to a hand-holding simple set theory example, put simply, you are confusing Set C items that are perfectly patent eligible with those items from Set B that have been quarantined by judicial doctrine.

              Don’t mix up Set C and Set B. Your Russell case does not apply to Set C items. You are ignoring the very functionality aspect that makes the difference – even as you agree with my logic, you fail to apply that logic.

            14. And while I have your attention on the simple set theory proper understanding of the exceptions to the judicial doctrine of printed matter, let me repeat a previous post that reaffirms that proper view with a few other simple points that go to the heart of the software as patent eligible matter discussion:

              In simple points for you Ned:

              a) Software is not math, as math cannot earn copyright and software can.

              b) Software is not “totally in the mind” and must have some aspect of structure – again, because software can earn copyright, and a fundamental aspect of earning copyright is that the item must be fixed in a tangible media, which necessarily involves structure.

              c) the written nature of software – that writing in this particular art field IS structure in the patent sense flowing from the exceptions to the judicial doctrine of printed matter. There is the required functional relationship of the written matter, through the substrate (or physical, tangible media) to what the software is as an invention (pulling in ALL aspects of what software is, those aspects that may separately earn copyright protection AND those aspects that may separately earn patent protection.

              d) software is not (and never has been) a “1.” Your fallacy to this has been repeatedly debunked (in at least the Morse allowance of a “space,” and the mischaracterization of you of that “1″ as something ONLY as an abstract entity, and not including EITHER the proper notion of fixed in a tangible media, or that “1″ is bit an aspect of the building blocks of software (the tie in to the analogy of my big box of other building blocks such as electrons, protons and neutrons – and the necessary further treatment of configurations of the building blocks)

              e) your refusal to accept as fact that software is equivalent to firmware and is equivalent to hardware does not change that fact into being not a fact. Neither is the notion that I am saying this makes the fact merely my personal opinion. The fact is a fact and must be accepted as such.

              f) your repeated unwillingness to understand, to accept and to incorporate these points into legal discussions are a “you” problem. To the extent that you may understand these things and yet pursue mischaracterizations in order to promote a philosophical agenda, I would posit that such mischaracterizations of material fact (and ensuing mischaracterizans of law, as in the Alappat case) are unethical.

              Of course, there are several other points that I have chase you about on your little merry-go-rounds of CRP-ignore valid counterpoints-and CRP again crusades that you engage in (for example, your anti-business method crusades). But it is the same type of rhetorical nonsense you engage in there too.

              Yes, the issues do get fleshed out – but (and this was the point of my post at 5.1.1.1), the fleshing out stops – and your involvement in the discussions stop when those discussions broach the points that I present to you.

              That you pretend not to see what is so clear borders on the edge between ludicrously funny and nigh criminally insane. To throw you a bone, I am willing to entertain the thought that you do not finish the conversations out of your sense of duty to your clients.

              To me, this type of shilling is most distasteful and does run afoul of Prof. Crouch’s mandates for posting here, as the conversations no longer can be intellectually honestly said to be strictly of a personal nature. I have proffered the reason for this “personal nature” requirement is reflected in the fact that such non-personal impetus results in threads being derailed and that legal topics become prone to obfuscation.

              C’est La Vie.

              From: link to patentlyo.com

              And see also two posts later which already addressed your propensity of want to use the “method”-crutch:

              I do not mistake you Ned.

              The desire to use the crutch of “method” as opposed to “manufacture.” is something that you refuse to discuss in detail. (we do not even have to take that next step to how your view of methods as a category suffers some old-time bias as being some type of sub-tier category to the old-school hard goods categories – the coined phrase Story-English-anti-method bias).

              Plain fact: software IS a manufacture and a machine component all on its own.

              This must be accepted for the full benefit under patent law that such deserves.

              There simply is no such thing as software that is NOT meant to be a machine component.

              Such a thing does not exist.

              To understand this, is to understand exactly why anthropomorphication is such a beautiful word, and to understand exactly why the mental steps doctrine is a must-fail for properly understanding inventions in this art field.

              Each – and every one – of the points I present at 5.1.1.1.1.3 must be integrated into ANY intellectually honest conversation on the patent eligibility of software discussion.

              No mischaracterizations of these points should be undertaken.
              No conflation of these points should be undertaken.
              No denying of facts (or denigrating the facts as mere opinion) should be undertaken.

              Anyone wanting an intellectually honest conversation should start at the proper baseline – and NOT because it is merely I that says such is a proper baseline, but because such is a proper baseline.

              I am fully willing to listen to anyone that wants to propose changes to the law that incorporate the baseline items without conflation or obfuscation – even those that want to do so based on policy reasons, as long as the fact that facts and law are respected.

              If you want to say that yes, the facts are those facts, and yes, the law is that law, but for policy reasons a higher standard of invention is desired because software fundamentally alters the ease by which invention can be completed, such a post would earn my full respect. I might not agree with such a view, but such a view would be completely intellectually honest and worthwhile to discuss.

              And yet, the valid points I present are met with silence at best and met with obfuscation, conflation, mischaracterization (up to and including unethical mishcaracterizations) at worst.

              As I mentioned, I do give you the benefit of the doubt of a particular bone. Others, well, their posting does not have that apparent attribute.

            15. And let me nip in the bud what appears to be a new line of argument from you (or at least what appears to be a new sheepskin over the old wolf).

              Let’s call this new line of argument the Adopted Form Factor argument.

              You appear to now want to distinguish CRM as not patent eligible if it is merely the same type or kind of a previously newly invented software manner or method (or underlying type or kind of structure) with your comment of “The first who develops a computer file system efficient CRM can get a patent on that. But thereafter… changes nothing about the CRM

              You may note that I have previously addressed this type of fallacy with 6 – and that this type of fallacy fails the noted difference in Set B and Set C items (yes, Ned, measuring cups were old and hat bands were old prior to the allowed new inventions in those cases).

              For one that is said to have knowledge in this art field, you again appear to just not understand what software is. You not-so-subtly move the goal post from what the invention is (a particular item functionally captured on the CRM and only want to look at the underlying CRM and then demand a different vehicle. You want to (in pure error) equate the invention as to something that it is not – to the form factor involved with the invention, and you want to ignore the very thing that sets Set C items apart from Set B items. The claims are not to the cup or to the hatband – as you would wish to move the goalpost to. Rather, you must accept what the claim is actually to.

              As noted, your argument also fails because there is just as much of a real world difference between a blank CRM and a differently structured CRM based on the Functional-related contents of that non-blank CRM and the Nazomi case that you personally have refused to come to a proper understanding of, or – equivalently – the very real difference in the Grand Hall experiment between two machines that had been at one time identical in that they at one time were both devoid of all software, and that a real difference exists when one of the two is changed – by doing nothing other than configuring one machine with software.

              Your Adopted Form Factor sheepskin is nothing more than the old wolf of “House” – that the first ‘oldbox’ has somehow (and that somehow is never explained for its magicalness) all future inventions and improvements ‘already in there.’ In essence, you want to place a CRM as a patent eligible form and then “allow” different CRMs to be patent eligible only if they are different one from the other – conflating 102/103 with 101 (and which misses the fact that the software invention is not so dependent on the form factor of the type of CRM). Pay attention: for items of Set C, the content really does matter because it is not just the form factor that is the invention – it is not just the cup or the hatband – but it is the cup or the hatband AND the printed matter which is of the proper type. The type that has ALWAYS been eligible per the statutory language and the type that just does not fit into the judicial doctrine carve out (Set B) from the larger group of ALL printed matter (Set A).

              Keep your eyes open and on the ball: Set C is just not the same as Set B. Remember this whenever you attempt to build a hypothetical, and you will save everyone a whole bunch of time.

            16. anon, with respect to the CRM, software is information. Information is not a machine, manufacture or composition.

              Software while executing is functional — that is why one must limit the claims to “use” — methods.

              If the only thing produced by the execution is a number, the number is useful, but not used. Violates the “useful” aspect of 101. …

            17. anon, with respect to the CRM, software is information. Information is not a machine, manufacture or composition.

              Simply (and irresponsibly) wrong from a legal point of view.

              Software while executing

              I have rejected your attempt to obfuscate by forcing a “method” view – you are NOT addressing the fact that software IS a manufacture in its own right.

              Your attempt at “just a number” is no better than your attempt at “1.” NO ONE is saying “just a number,” as “just a number” is math, and you have admitted that software is NOT math. Please stop with the fallacious arguments.

              I have deconstructed all of your proffered views, integrating the totality of intellectual property protection (aspects of copyright and patent law), and your naked assertion that software is only information has no basis in an intellectually honest conversation.

              You are basically sticking your fingers in your ears, clenching tight your eyes, and chanting to yourself at the top of your lungs in order to remain in the state of ignorance that you have chosen to promulgate your agenda.

              Set C is not Set B, Ned. Set C is patent eligible.

              (it really is that simple)

              You misapply the useful aspect of 101 by not taking the claim as would be understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the invention pertains. You purposely butcher the claim and read it in a forced and contorted manner, and you quite frankly ignore the fact that software is a manufacture in its own right, purposefully manufactured for a utilitarian purpose (thereby meeting the useful requirement that you clench tight your eyes to), and that the 101 test is to look at the eligibility category and the Useful Arts category and recognise that generally speaking – software is written to fit the useful requirement.

              Clearly, software that is only equivalent to a non-useful art would not meet the useful requirement. But such is no different than any other manufacture. No different at all.

              And just as clearly, your attempts to force an utterly ridiculous and nonsensical view ON ALL SOFTWARE fails both the law and the simple logic that I have provided to you to understand the law (the same logic that you say you agree with, but then want to take another step and obfuscate).

              Sorry Ned, your obfuscation is just not accepted.

              Now if you want to address the logic that I have shared and do more than just stick your fingers in your ears, clench tight your eyes, chant loudly, and merely ASSUME the conclusion that fits your agenda, I am willing to politely discuss the logic that you may reasonably provide.

              So far, you have provided no such reasonable logic.

            18. anon, your position reduces to “software is a manufacture.”

              So is a book with recipes.

              But we look at Russell to find that even though books might be manufactures, where the only thing new are the recipes, the claim is nevertheless ineligible because a recipe is not a manufacture, citing cases.

            19. Ned, you are again simply incorrect in your statement of “So is a book with recipes.

              First, my position does not simply reduce – my position carries the many points that I have put on the table for your consideration.

              Second, my position clearly (and logically, by your own admission as to the veracity of that logic) dictates that software is a Set C item. Clearly, your counter example is a Set B item.

              You are not paying attention!

              I have already explained to you that Russell does not apply to Set C items. Therefore, your last comment is merely a repeat of something that I have already negated.

              You are not paying attention!

      2. an intellectually honest treatment of the concept

        Let’s hear your “intellectually honest” lesson in how one determines whether otherwise ineligible but useful information is sufficiently “functionally related” to an old method or article of manufacture, such that the combination become eligible.

        I’ve never seen a judge articulate the test in an “intellectually honest” fashion. Certainly Rader never did. So what makes you think you’re going to be able to do it? Oh, I forgot: you’re high.

        1. For someone demanding “show me,” your volunteered admission about knowing and understanding the controlling law as it pertains to the exceptions to the judicial doctrine of printed matter really must stick in your craw.

          Never mind the fact that when the archives were not available, you went to all manner of lengths to dissemble over even the fact that you made such an admission.

          Now that the archives are back, and any such dissembling from you can be seen immediately for the dishonest and extremely unethical tactics that they were, you are left with mere demands of something that you have already admitted to.

          Accusations of “you high” merit only the notice that you are still playing games and not accepting what you need to accept.

        2. And need I remind you Malcolm of the ethical duty to treat material items appropriately – be they material facts or material law?

          Or are you retreating to your notion that intellectual honesty is not required on a mere blog? That does wonders for your ‘credibility.’

    2. One has to wonder about “And I’ve yet to see Hricik complain” if Malcolm cannot even bother to ‘remember’ that Prof. Hricik took a year long sabbatical from his portion of this blog to clerk for then Chief Judge Rader.

      Maybe this “not seeing” is just due to Malcolm clenching tight his eyes. Of course, when Malcolm clenches tight his eyes, his denigration of “just another hypocritical whiner” is merely revealed to be just another AOOTWMD.

  2. Ouch, just saw the details of Rader’s slip via Greg Aharonian’s latest newsletter. Yes, more serious than I realized. Very puzzling error. Certainly raises many new and old questions about the judicial system.

  3. Worth repeating from 8.2.1.1.2.3:

    NWPA,

    I see what you are trying to say, but I tell you the stepping down has the opposite effect.

    He shows nobility by placing the institution above himself in response to his recognition of his stepping over a line.

    One cannot – as 6 attempts – to besmirch all of his judicial renderings in past cases by the present action.

    Yes, his surrendering of the Chief Judge chair will no doubt have some impact to how the CAFC reads the map as written by Congress, and we may have more cases in which we see a court willing to ignore the actual words as written by that branch of the government that has been authorized under the constitution to write patent law.

    To introduce another wrinkle, if anything, this now draws even more attention to the Chamberlain-Churchill spectrum of what will be coming from the Supreme Court shortly in the Alice case.

    If that Court can step up its game (a la Chakrabarty) and clean up its own mess, acknowledge its own complicity in its past addiction to sticking its fingers into the nose of wax, and strongly reiterate that the words of Congress (not implicit writings) are the chief guiding factors, THEN such a strong guidance may alleviate a changing of the guard at the CAFC. Prost (with all due respect) needs more guidance and hand-holding than Rader would need.

    There is no guarantee of what the Royal Nine will do. But what they do in the here and now can easily be seen as far far far more impactful than deciding whether a certain commission of a justice of the peace should have been enforced or not.

    The present battle is not between the Executive Branch and the Judicial Branch, but rather between the Judicial Branch and the Legislative Branch.

    The present battle is not a mere single post, but the direct words of the constitution and the concept of separation of powers that girds our entire checks and balances system, tied directly to the LARGEST area of innovation in today’s world.

    I seriously tend to doubt that there is enough votes (see my detailed analysis post-oral argument), let alone someone masterful enough to write an opinion that would be the equivalent of Marshall’s opinion in Marbury.

    I further see that the spotlight here will not allow a bone-tossing decision like Prometheus, which has been routinely panned as one of the worst patent decisions since Benson.

    The world today has a far brighter spotlight that will be on the decision in Alice. The Justices surely know this. Jefferson’s rebuke of the Marbury case, so often lost sight of in the sands of history, would draw a better result today, and would rest on a firmer foundation today.

    There is no one on the Bench today capable of penning what Jefferson called “a masterwork of indirection, a brilliant example of [Marshall's] capacity to sidestep danger while seeming to court it, to advance in one direction while his opponents are looking in another.” See McCloskey, The American Supreme Court 25 (1960; 2d ed., Levinson, 1994). The battle over software has become far too center stage. The ownership of the 101 nose of wax addiction far too known.

    The stakes here are far too high for a Chamberlain decision.
    We need a Churchill moment.

    And all that is really need is to stick to the realization that 4 is not 5 – and to respect the separation of powers doctrine.

    To bring this full circle, will those Justices on the Supreme Court be able to live up to the example of Rader, who was willing to forego his personal views for the sake of the court as a whole? Will the Court be able to do likewise, will the Court be able to set aside its addiction to writing patent law – albeit implicitly or otherwise – and recognize the greater good of protecting the sanctity of the Court by stepping away from violating the separation of powers, even though that decision may mean that the Congress has the power to decide on 101 issues, that the Court, may need to recognize that its implicit writings may need to become dead letters when those writings conflict with the direct and unambiguous words and intent of Congress.

    Will the Court have the courage of Rader to take that step down, that step back from its own dance of creating a constitutional crises? The courage of Churchill, or the patent peace in our time of Chamberlain… Rader has shown the courage of Churchill. What then, will the Royal Nine show?

  4. Judge Rader gained a lot of respect over here in China and influenced the Chinese legal system for good with his willingness to reach out, share his thoughts, and engage others. His respect for others, in spite of differences, was exemplary. He deserves some genuine praise–hopefully the kind that won’t force anyone to resign.

  5. anon, at 8.2.1.1.2.3, cited Marbury v. Madison, a case he and I have been discussing in connection with the concept of property and legal rights, and whether the Constitution provides that only a court may deprive one of property and legal rights outside of eminent domain. Anon I agree on this point that Marbury v. Madison is good authority in this point.

    Regarding §101, the Supreme Court has a duty to ground its decisions squarely on the statute, and should stop basing its decisions on so-called judicial exceptions. Anon and I agree on this point as well.

    As Prof. Hricik has observed, what he liked most about Judge Rader was his insistence that law be based on the statutes. If Judge Rader has a legacy, but that be his legacy.

    1. A slight correction, Ned:

      I do not mind if a Court uses extra-statutory material from the Constitution itself (e.g. limited times). I have no problem with the Court weighing in properly on a Constitutional matter – but that is not what the Supreme Court generally does in any of these patent cases.

      Further, when an item written by Congress (which does not have a constitutional question attached) is controverted and re-written (as would have had happened with Stevens in Bilski), then I do very much have a problem (centered on the separation of powers doctrine). For those items not touching a constitutional issue, the Court simply does not have the authority to re-construct and redraw the map. Even for those items that do touch on a constitutional issue, the Court is not at liberty to make up law on its own – they have the power to knock out the offending law and to tell Congress to try again – they cannot assume the authority explicitly given to Congress.

      Over on the Hricik side, Prof. Hricik noted a particular author that explained the difference between interpretation and active re-writing by judicial construction. Patent law is a different set of law to the extent that our Founding Fathers listed it explicitly with a particular designation of authority. This time around (with the Alice case), the Court should be aware that the legal community is not only aware of this, but more than willing to immediately let the Court hear about it. Those clerks serving the Court would do well to mention this to the Justices.

      1. Agreed. You might observe that the “exclusions” came originally from the English cases. See, e.g., their discussion in Leroy v. Tatum. Particularly, the Nielson case provided a summary of English law.

        Coming from England, the exclusions have never been well grounded in US statutes. It is about high time that the Supreme Court link the English law exclusions to a US statute.

        It is observed, that Flook linked the law of nature exclusion to 101′s “new.” Myriad linked product of nature to “new” as well. There is no good link for “principle in the abstract” save, perhaps, for 112, which is where Morse found statutory support.

        Whether “abstract” and “principle in the abstract” are intended to mean the same thing is unknown. But there was no exception for abstract outside the context of “principle in the abstract” in the English law adopted by Tatham an Morse.

        The Rubber-Tip pencil case was about “principle in the abstract” as the claim as broadly drafted covered the principle that rubber could be used on the tip of a pencil. This is either a 102/103 or a 112 issue, not 101.

        Business methods? Either tell us why the statutes forbid them, or allow them? They are not “abstract” as that term was understood in Tatham or in Morse.

        1. I also observe that the exclusions were generated in a time that Congress had allowed the Court to define invention by the tool of common law evolution.

          That ability was removed in 1952.

          I also observe that one of the drivers for this was the courts’ rampant misuses of such terms as “principles in the abstract.”

          I also observe that business methods have been noted as permissible subject matter by all three branches of the US government – including most importantly of all, the legislative branch as witness the fact that Stevens lost his majority position in the Bilski case because his writings would have necessitated a direct re-writing of the words of Congress and at least five Justices recognized the impending constitutional crises that would have resulted in a violation of the separation of powers doctrine.

          I also observe that I have explained this all to you in great detail – many many many many times now.

        2. the exclusions have never been well grounded in US statutes.,

          It wouldn’t be terribly difficult for the Supremes to ground the exclusions in the Constitution.

          But I don’t really think the Supremes care what the lunatic fringe patent txxbxggers think about “the exceptions.” You can file Tr0 llb0y’s complaints right next to that worthless theory about ineligibility not being a defense to patent infringement.

          1. To Malcolm, the ends always justify the means, and so, no justification is even necessary – just have the Justices do WHATEVER.

            (until that WHATEVER is directed against Malcolm, that is)

            A sad excuse for a lack of principles, as reflected in his lack of intellectual honesty in his postings because “this is just a blog.”

      2. Those clerks serving the Court would do well to mention this to the Justices.

        Because some looneytune clinical sideshow on a patent blog wishes it to be so.

        You really do make parody impossible.

        1. LOL – your tendency to believe that somehow you are this Holden Caulfield character protecting the children of the world when they run through the patent rye fields next to the cliff of “grifters” with your penchant for diatribes about the evi1s of a profession (and work product of that profession) to which you allegedly partake in, reveals the AOOTWMD of your post at 10.1.2.

          As to any possibility of parody, well, that is much more likely simply due to your lack of imagination and heavy reliance on your short and banal script of rhetorical tools.

    2. Regarding §101, the Supreme Court has a duty to ground its decisions squarely on the statute and should stop basing its decisions on so-called judicial exceptions.

      These “so-called judicial exceptions” are all that keeps the patent system from turning into a complete joke. I know you guys really, really, really love patents and you think that the world revolves around them. Step outside the bubble and ask your neighbors what they think about patents on mental processes.

      Until you or Hricik or anon any of the other faux-”principled” b.s. artists out there are willing to float some alternative statutory language that is acceptable to normal people who don’t make a living off exploiting the broken patent system, then it’s safe to assume your only goal is the notorious one: More Patents, All the Time, Easier to Enforce.

      Rader’s “legacy” is that, like Judge Rich, he lacked the intelligence and foresight to understand that if you allow “magic words” to trump common sense in the patent system, then you’ll see a bunch of low-rent “magicians” racing to the bottom. This is one of the reasons we have judges, after all.

      And I’ve yet to see Hricik complain about all the “non-statutory” b.s. that judges like Rader have injected into the patent system in their efforts to coddle patent applicants and patentees. There’s quite a bit of that out there, as everybody knows. Until that happens, well, he’s just another hypocritical whiner.

      [shrugs]

      1. More Patents, All the Time, Easier to Enforce.” is actually a GREAT motto.

        Provided – as I have always maintained – that the patent grant is proper, and the Quid Pro Quo met, how can anyone in their right mind deny that more of this is better?

        Your problem Malcolm is that you operate in a field you detest, generating work product you cannot stand. You have lost sight of what Quid Pro Quo means and only – and I do mean ONLY – see “grift.”

        You [shrug] but remain clueless as to what you are [shrugging] about.

        Wake up.

      2. Until you or Hricik or anon any of the other faux-”principled” b.s. artists

        “Nice” to see Malcolm attempt to slander Prof. Hricik for his views on statutory construction. In Malcolm’s world, the ends of his crusade justify not only the means of violation of separation of powers and the judiciary writing the law that he wants (because of ‘policy’ or ‘opinion’ or some such table pounding), but also appear to justify Malcolm’s boorish rhetorical tactics on these boards.

        Hmmm, didn’t Hricik work with Judge Rader…? (and yes, the Malcolm/6-induced intimation should not go unnoticed)

    3. I’m still waiting for someone to show me the evidence that any of the incompetent drafters of this miserably 1952 patent act intended to make mental processes eligible for patenting.

      And I know you’ve stated in the past, Ned, that mental processes “aren’t really processes” but you surely realize that you can’t be Mr. Principled about the statute and make that argument. Of course mental processes are processes. And they are super useful, too. And people “invent” new mental processes all the time.

      Same deal with abstractions, such as “facts” and “non-facts” and “correlations”. Can an old manufacture that stores information be “improved” by adding non-obvious information to its storage? Of course the simple answer is “yes.” And the simpleton “principled” folkss out there would have us believe that the Supreme Court isn’t entitled to hold otherwise!

      You either believe that mental processes and information should be eligible for patenting, or you don’t. If you believe they should be eligible for patenting, then go to Congress and demand that the law be written so that it’s clear that patents can be used to protect mental processes and information itself. And good luck with that.

      This faux-principled baloney is nothing more than wealthy entitled people complaining that that the government’s golden goose isn’t laying enough eggs for them. Your invoking Marbury v. Madison to defend the bizarre views of a patent apologist who believes that the courts aren’t entitled to interpret Federal patent statutes? That’s i n s a n e.

      1. 101 made simple, MM,

        New and Useful, machine, manufacture or composition, and a process that makes or uses one of these.

        New cannot be ignored. A law of nature is not new. Ditto product of nature.

        Math and other mental processes do not make or use a machine, manufacture or composition.

        Business methods, ditto.

        If one reads Curtis, all this is laid out. A process relates to the other three categories. It does not relate to abstractions.

        The problem is that the Supreme Court has not read Curtis in a while.

        1. That is not the problem Ned – Curtis is but a treatise – nothing more. I have shown you point blank at least two serious deficiencies in Curtis – one being related to the very heart of innovation itself.

        2. Ned, your bias seeps back in: “and a process that makes or uses one of these.

          That is clearly NOT what the words of Congress say. You are still attempting to make the category of process less than an equal partner under law – seeking to make it but a handmaiden of the physical categories.

          But that is just not the law.

        3. “The problem is that the Supreme Court has not read Curtis in a while.”

          Or the problem may be that Curtis has no authority in the US government.

      2. I’m still waiting for someone to show me the evidence that any of the incompetent drafters of this miserably 1952 patent act intended to make mental processes eligible for patenting.

        LOL – except for Les, the only one EVER to build that strawman Malcolm has been you.

        1. the only one EVER to build that strawman Malcolm has been you.

          It’s not a “strawman” at all (keep l i e ing, though — it’s what you do best).

          35 USC 101 says processes are eligible, period. If you believe that 101 is to be interpreted from the level of four year old, then mental processes are certainly eligible. Why? Because they’re processes.

          That’s the same argument you use to justify eligibility for all your beloved information-processing “machines.” Why doesn’t it apply here? Answer: because you’re a hypocrite and you wave your exhaulted “principles” about only when it suits you.

          Interpret and construct are two distinct things

          Check it out, folks: Hxmpty Dxmpty is on roids today.

          1. Identifying a strawman is not a lie Malcolm.

            Just like identifying when you move the goalposts in conversations from claims having elements that are mental steps to you talking about claims ENTIRELY in the mid is not a lie.

            You lie so much that you lie about what a lie is.

          2. Are you saying that interpret and construct are the same thing?

            Let’s be clear in your answer Malcolm – lest you play a pedantic game later and claim that you never actually stated such (ver batim).

            1. No answer Malcolm?

              Perhaps you wish to retreat from your previous accusation?

              Perhaps you took a moment and did a little research and found out that the two terms actually do mean different things? Maybe even following the comments I provided leading you to the Hricik side of the blog and the writings of others that verify what I stated?

              As typical Malcolm, you end up on the short side of the stick. Is anyone really all that surprised?

            2. Still no answer, Malcolm? Come, this is an easy concept – I even spotted you leads as to sources on the matter on Prof. Hricik’s side of the blog.

          3. That’s the same argument

            It is not.

            Do you really need someone to explain to you the difference between a claim to something totally in the mind and a claim that involves a machine?

            1. Do you really need someone to explain to you the difference between a claim to something totally in the mind and a claim that involves a machine?

              No I don’t need anybody to do that. More importantly, nobody here claimed that the two types of claims were the identical. There’s a word for your feeble attempt to attack a position that nobody is taking. Let me know if you need me to spell it out for you, again.

            2. “That’s the same argument”

              It is not.

              You’re just dissembling again. Of course it’s the same argument. Like Rader, you argue that a functionally claimed information processing machine (claimed in terms of its information processing function) is eligible because it’s a machine.

              So tell everyone why mental processes are not eligible for patenting under 101. They are processes, after all.

              Go ahead. Surprise everyone. It’s not like you haven’t been asked this basic question for. You’ve had plenty of time to come up with some answer that is a bona fide answer and not just your usual spin-and-insult bxloney.

            3. Lovely AOOTWMD – accusing someone of dissembling when they tell you that a claim to a machine is not the same thing as to a claim of something TOTALLY in the mind.

              Um, you have machines now in your mind,,,?

              (maybe this is why you stated that machines really do think – and yet you think that I am the one on meds…)

            4. accusing someone of dissembling when they tell you that a claim to a machine is not the same thing as to a claim of something TOTALLY in the mind.

              Good lord.

              I’m talking about the arguments you make in favor of eligibility that depend solely on the recitation of the word “machine” (e.g., “you can use it as a paperweight!”) being the same as an argument for eligibility that depends solely on the recitation of the word “process.” Somehow you are comfortable shouting the first argument from the mountaintop like it’s irrefutable but then you clam up and kick up dust whenever the same logic is applied to other words in 101, e.g., “process.”

              What’s up with that? <– rhetorical question

              We all know what's up that. You're a hypocrite.

            5. Your Accuse Others Of That Which Malcolm Does is one massive fail given the exchange captured in black and white.

              Don’t you get tired of being exposed like this?

            6. (and btw, I have many times explained that merely meeting one of the statutory categories does not get you through 101)

              Pay attention – stop trying so hard to dissemble and misrepresent what I say, and start trying harder to be intellectually honest.

        2. Just tell everybody how you’d re-write the eligibility statute, TB, to prevent the Supreme Court from interpreting it in ways that you don’t like but to allow the statute to have a chance in h— of passing.

          Should be easy for you.

          But you never seem to be able to make it from far left field to home plate.

          Go figure. And the same is true for all your “principled” buddies.

          Nobody could have predicted.

          1. Just tell everybody how you’d re-write the eligibility statute,

            You ASSume that it needs to be rewritten.

            Why?

            (hint: it does not)

            You predictions – as usual – are way off.

            1. Still waiting for you to address the issue you brought up Malcolm – why does 101 need to be re-written?

              (and we have not even gotten to which branch of the government has been explicitly granted the authority to do that re-writing)

              Where did you run away to, Malcolm?

            2. why does 101 need to be re-written?

              I don’t think it needs to be re-written. But I’m not the one freaking out every day about how the Supreme Court is wiping its behind with the Constitution when it interprets the statute to exclude the patenting of information, mental steps and other abstractions.

              That’s your hang-up, pal.

            3. Where did you run away to, Malcolm?

              Kookoo McPatentbutter needs better glasses. He’s kind like the Mr. Magoo of patent law, except older and uglier.

            4. Lovely AOOTWMD and misrepersentation.

              No one (leastwise me) is freaking out over an interpretation.

              Reading the map is just not the same as writing the map.

              Move the goalposts back to the actual conversation and try again.

            5. Malcolm,

              Your appeal to “folks” is just not compelling.

              “Folks” can easily read and see your short script machinations.

              You.
              F00l.
              No.
              One.

      3. Your invoking Marbury v. Madison to defend the bizarre views of a patent apologist who believes that the courts aren’t entitled to interpret

        Completely wrong and twisted Malcolm – and you know it – or should know it.

        Interpret and construct are two distinct things – the simple adage seems to befuddle you: reading a map is just NOT the same thing as writing a map.

        That you attempt to portray what I write as anything else is dishonest and unethical.

        1. Interpret and construct are two distinct things

          Maybe you should invent a computer to explain the difference to everyone.

          Oh wait, I just did.

          1. Nonresponsive dust-kicking Malcolm.

            Stop running away and address the item directly in front of you – without guile, subterfuge and with intellectual honesty.

            Do you recognize why the adage I use powerfully captures the situation? Do you recognize that writing the map (construction, or rather more precisely, re-construction) is not the same as reading the map (interpretation)?

            You are doing your usual dissembling thing here, playing coy and refusing to give a clean and direct answer to a very simple question.

    4. MM: law and product of nature: not “new.” So held in Myriad and Flook.

      Business methods, excluded as not statutory as not within the useful arts as defined by new and useful “machine, manufacture, or composition, or a process related to these.”

      Math? I personally think math is not excluded. But, a case could be made for not “new.”

      I think the Supreme Court just needs to stop screwing around.

      Bilski was a horrible decision because it did not base its holding on the statute. It Stevens dissent based on useful Arts, was close.

      1. I think the Supreme Court just needs to stop screwing around.

        Then someone needs to write and pass some patent legislation that doesn’t look like something a ten year old came up with after his jxnky patent was denied.

      2. Business methods, excluded as not statutory as not within the useful arts as defined by new and useful “machine, manufacture, or composition, or a process related to these.”

        Clearly not the law Ned – and ignores both Bilski and the fact that 4 is not 5.

        Business methods have clearly been within the useful arts throughout the history of the US patent system.

        Your repeated attempts to rewrite history will avail you nothing.

      3. I think the Supreme Court just needs to stop screwing around.
        Ned – it appears that somehow you still think that it is up to the Supreme Court to write patent law.

        Given the separation of powers, and the clear designation of authority in the body of the constitution as to which branch is to have the power of writing patent law, how in the world do you justify your view?

        That is a serious question my friend.

      4. Stevens dissent based on useful Arts, was close.

        Unfortunately, Steven was DEAD WRONG in what he had to say about the Useful Arts, business methods, the words of Congress.

        4 is not 5.

        Still.

  6. “It is important to emphasize that I did not and would never compromise my impartiality in judging any case before me.”

    I wish you did not and would never do so Rader. I wish.

    1. The irony here of 6 mouthing off and creating (impliedly) a condition of impropriety – and his inability to substantiate the implied condition of an actual case being compromised – should not be lost.

      Speak 6 – you seem so sure that a case has been actually tainted. What case was that? How was the case tainted? In whose favor did the former chief judge misapply the law? Or – is is much more likely – is this just you attacking a particular view of the law that you do not like, that does not fit into your belief system? Are you aware of the taint that attaches to your strategy? To you?

      1. ^Look at that, anon, at first inviting, but then showing he’s really infuriated and trying to control me into speaking. And not only that, but is quite preoccupied thinking about this asserted ethical violation. OCPD written all over his face.

        “Speak 6″

        Anon commands that it be so!

        Sorry brosef, I have nothing to say to you when you’re OCPDing out.

        1. and trying to control me into speaking

          You have that odd thing about control popping up again 6.

          Hey – you are the one that opened your mouth in the first place. All that I am doing is pointing out what your already opened mouth means. The invitation to you is a chance for you to defend yourself and prove that you are not as much of an arse as it appears.

          In other words, I am doing you a favor by calling attention to your writing – just in case you are such a doof that you are not understanding how you are coming across. I’m doing you a favor, and all you can do is whine and accuse me wrongly.

            1. You missed the point (again) that you provide no support for your positions, Malcolm.

              In that regard, like 6 in the immediate case, your wanting to jump up and down, and whine about backing up a position is quite out of place.

              Here, 6 makes an audacious statement beyond the pail of the situation, directly challenging a statement made by Judge Rader in his stepping down. 6 states that Rader in fact has now lied in his step down speech, but refuses to back up his statement.

              Sort of like you claiming that I lie, yet time after time refusing to actually provide the lie. You – like 6 – retreat to the baseless accusation mode, and feel no compunction at all to support your blatherings.

              Let’s see if you can venture past your short script of ad hominem, twistings of law, twistings of fact, twistings of what others state, posting in an intellectually honest manner that woudl meet the ethical requirement of ABA 8.4(c) and notes therein, and of course, your favorite rhetorical T00l of AOOTWMD.

              So far, you have not shown any inkling or ability to do so.

            2. …and yet another scintillating contribution from Malcolm.

              Notably, one of his clearest expositions of the mastery of his over the content of the discussion.

            3. ” 6 states that Rader in fact has now lied in his step down speech, but refuses to back up his statement.”

              I never stated such an absurd thing. You’re reading too much into what I said brosef (take a moment to thank your psychopathy). He didn’t lie and he didn’t knowingly compromise his impartiality. Things like compromising your impartiality happen without people realizing what they’re doing (like the email thing). Thus, you may safely conclude that I regard him as merely oblivious to having compromised his impartiality. Hope that calms you down a bit.

            4. You’re reading too much

              How else am I (or anyone) to read: “I wish you did not [compromise my impartiality in judging any case before me] and would never do so Rader. I wish.

              What else could you possibly mean?

            5. “would never do so” is prospective.

              “did” – well, if you meant to say something else 6 – perhaps an apology, a retraction and a clarification is in order…

            6. ““did” – well, if you meant to say something else 6 – perhaps an apology, a retraction and a clarification is in order…”

              And called it. You won’t accept you were simply mistaken from the beginning and learn from it. OCPD and sociopathy. Quite a combo you have.

            7. You admit that you used the past tense – and want me to admit that I was wrong (I was clearly not)

              What is the case that you reference in your use of past tense 6?

              You STILL have not shared the case, nor given any explanation of why you feel that such a case is an example of the calamity that you would accuse the good Judge of. You are still running your mouth and refusing to back up what you say – even after getting caught doing that.

              Don’t you get tired of being so wrong, so often?

            8. No I don’t want you to admit anything of the sort. Admitting the mistake is simply what a normal person would do (they might say o my bad). I’ve accepted awhile back that I’m dealing with someone with a condition that prevents him from admitting it to himself, much less other people, somewhere close to %99.9 of the time.

              I would appreciate you simply stfuing though since you might be able to manage that.

              As of right now you just can’t stop trolling me over a throw away comment on a blog. Just get over this ethical allegation mr. Ocpd. I know such is a huge task for you because matters of ethics just seem so interesting and important to you because of the ocpd.

              That’s all you’re getting out of me dude, your conditions have tired me out. I should have remembered that there’s no point in clarifying what I’ve said to you because no matter how outlandish your initial interpretation was your ocpd will kick in to stop you from being wrong (or rather your internalizing being wrong). and your sociopathy will stop you from learning from it in the future even if you manage the herculean task of overcoming your ocpd in the first place.

              Its ok anon, that’s the anon we’ve come to know and accept as our not so friendly antisocial blog troll.

  7. While I, too, believe the e-mail to have been a mistake, it does not rise to the level of requiring his stepping down.

    Judge Rader is a good, honorable, and fair man.

    He will be missed.

    Let those among us who have never made a mistake in our careers — or in life — cast the first stones.

      1. He’ll surely be missed by some.

        But others will be glad to know there’s one less champion of computer-implemented jxnk on the Federal Circuit. Rader and Moore’s opinion regarding claim 26 in the Alice case was, and always will be, an embarassment.

        1. MM,

          It pains me to be the one to rain on your parade, but the Professor’s article indicates that Judge Rader is not yet retiring: “However, he has indicated that he will remain in active service for now.

          However, I will join you in celebrating the balance of influence tipping from Judge Rader’s direction, towards Judge Prost’s, in the transition to a new Chief Justice.

    1. Dittos. I was highly critical of Judge Rader mainly because I disagreed with him on the law. But he was a warrior and a prince. I cannot express how profoundly sad I am right now to see this happen to a good man, a good judge, an a leader in the patent law.

      I look forward to my next case at the Federal Circuit and hope he is on the panel.

      1. I cannot express how profoundly sad I am right now to see this happen to a good man, a good judge, an a leader in the patent law.

        Geez, you act as if he had a stroke or something.

        He’s 65 and he’s retiring with a nice parachute. If he wants to keep working I’m sure he’ll have no shortage of well-paying options for years to come.

        1. Interesting that you would take such a view. Rader spent his life being a moral ethical person. He spent his life not in the pursuit of money, but for the love of the law and patent law specifically. This must be a enormous blow to Rader. His entire life’s work has been tarnished. He could have easily have cashed in on for millions many times during his career, but instead he chose the route of being a custodian of the law.

          I guess a judicial activist such as yourself just wouldn’t understand such a person.

          1. Rather than “tarnish,” Judge Rader took the one step (as some have noted, a step not required to be taken) that removes the tarnish from his mistake.

            He acted selflessly and based on mere perception of impropriety acted to come forward and inoculate the institution that he led. And in so doing, removes the reproach from his life’s work.

            Realizing that he stepped over a fine line, he owned up and rectified the situation.

            Who among us has not made a mistake?

            It is not the fact that we fall down that is important – it is the fact that we pick ourselves up and continue that is important.

            It is more telling how some of the regulars here reacted to this event: who gloats at another’s misfortune? Who obsesses so much on a tangential philosophy and misses the underlying nobility of human action?

            We see the wide spectrum of human capability laid out before us. And as typical, I doubt that those truly on the low end of the spectrum recognize or are aware of their position.

            1. It is really sad for the antis to be reacting the way they have. Shameful. Anyone that knows Rader knows that his life has been dedicated to ethical and honorable behavior.

            2. “Anyone that knows Rader knows that his life has been dedicated to ethical and honorable behavior.”

              I’d like to make clear that I have no doubt this is the case. It is an easy thing to accidentally your impartiality in a case where the entirety of the propriety of the subject matter is riding on nothing more than your say so (and that of your few comrades). Or to accidentally go a little far in praising a long time colleague. And it is easy to do so while not even realizing what you’re doing.

            3. The sad thing Malcolm is that I am aware of no one that thinks you are not an arse for your posts on this topic.

              And yet – as usual – you feel compelled to play your AOOTWMD about not in touch with reality.

              Maybe you can find someone to insult that just lost their father.

          2. “His entire life’s work has been tarnished. ”

            Now it’s my turn to come to his defense. His whole body of work isn’t tarnished by him sending a questionable email. Ironic isn’t it in light of your “piss-off” comment above? I’m slighting him a tiny bit, in a few cases above, and here you are slighting his entire career.

            1. I’m slighting him…in a few cases above, and here you are slighting his entire career.

              That’s just it 6 – you’v been completely nebulous about this “slighting” and it ends up only making you look as bad as Malcolm.

            2. I am being realistic 6. He resigned as the chief judge at a time when he himself has said it is such a critical time. This cannot help but to tarnish his career.

            3. NWPA,

              I see what you are trying to say, but I tell you the stepping down has the opposite effect.

              He shows nobility by placing the institution above himself in response to his recognition of his stepping over a line.

              One cannot – as 6 attempts – to besmirch all of his judicial renderings in past cases by the present action.

              Yes, his surrendering of the Chief Judge chair will no doubt have some impact to how the CAFC reads the map as written by Congress, and we may have more cases in which we see a court willing to ignore the actual words as written by that branch of the government that has been authorized under the constitution to write patent law.

              To introduce another wrinkle, if anything, this now draws even more attention to the Chamberlain-Churchill spectrum of what will be coming from the Supreme Court shortly in the Alice case.

              If that Court can step up its game (a la Chakrabarty) and clean up its own mess, acknowledge its own complicity in its past addiction to sticking its fingers into the nose of wax, and strongly reiterate that the words of Congress (not implicit writings) are the chief guiding factors, THEN such a strong guidance may alleviate a changing of the guard at the CAFC. Prost (with all due respect) needs more guidance and hand-holding than Rader would need.

              There is no guarantee of what the Royal Nine will do. But what they do in the here and now can easily be seen as far far far more impactful than deciding whether a certain commission of a justice of the peace should have been enforced or not.

              The present battle is not between the Executive Branch and the Judicial Branch, but rather between the Judicial Branch and the Legislative Branch.

              The present battle is not a mere single post, but the direct words of the constitution and the concept of separation of powers that girds our entire checks and balances system, tied directly to the LARGEST area of innovation in today’s world.

              I seriously tend to doubt that there is enough votes (see my detailed analysis post-oral argument), let alone someone masterful enough to write an opinion that would be the equivalent of Marshall’s opinion in Marbury.

              I further see that the spotlight here will not allow a bone-tossing decision like Prometheus, which has been routinely panned as one of the worst patent decisions since Benson.

              The world today has a far brighter spotlight that will be on the decision in Alice. The Justices surely know this. Jefferson’s rebuke of the Marbury case, so often lost sight of in the sands of history, would draw a better result today, and would rest on a firmer foundation today.

              There is no one on the Bench today capable of penning what Jefferson called “a masterwork of indirection, a brilliant example of [Marshall's] capacity to sidestep danger while seeming to court it, to advance in one direction while his opponents are looking in another.” See McCloskey, The American Supreme Court 25 (1960; 2d ed., Levinson, 1994). The battle over software has become far too center stage. The ownership of the 101 nose of wax addiction far too known.

              The stakes here are far too high for a Chamberlain decision.
              We need a Churchill moment.

              And all that is really need is to stick to the realization that 4 is not 5 – and to respect the separation of powers doctrine.

              To bring this full circle, will those Justices on the Supreme Court be able to live up to the example of Rader, who was willing to forego his personal views for the sake of the court as a whole? Will the Court be able to do likewise, will the Court be able to set aside its addiction to writing patent law – albeit implicitly or otherwise – and recognize the greater good of protecting the sanctity of the Court by stepping away from violating the separation of powers, even though that decision may mean that the Congress has the power to decide on 101 issues, that the Court, may need to recognize that its implicit writings may need to become dead letters when those writings conflict with the direct and unambiguous words and intent of Congress.

              Will the Court have the courage of Rader to take that step down, that step back from its own dance of creating a constitutional crises? The courage of Churchill, or the patent peace in our time of Chamberlain… Rader has shown the courage of Churchill. What then, will the Royal Nine show?

            4. Anon waxes poetic in his little rant imagining up a grand battle taking place. Meanwhile the supremes will simply enjoy a tasty sandwich and proceed to pen one of the easiest decisions of the last few years without thinking a second thought or batting an eye.

            5. roceed to pen one of the easiest decisions of the last few years

              LOL – seriously 6? Your reading comprehension and listening abilities have failed you once again. Go back and read (or listen) to Breyer’s oh-so-painful retreat from his “Prometheus” pen – the dude is in serious backpeddle mode.

              Wake up and stop letting your belief system get in the way.

            6. The courage of Churchill, or the patent peace in our time of Chamberlain… Rader has shown the courage of Churchill. What then, will the Royal Nine show?

              I’m disappointed that you failed to insert the Gestapo into your awesome epic.

            7. I will just have to learn to deal with your disappointment, Malcolm.

              Maybe you can hold your breath until I do – I will let you know when.

            8. “I’m disappointed that you failed to insert the Gestapo into your awesome epic.”

              Jane Fonda didn’t get a shout out either. She must be sad for not having made it into such a tail.

              Maybe he’ll issue an epilogue that will bring intellectually dishonest Jane into an AOOTHWMD (sp?) situation where the churh-turing thesis will face-spike her position.

              I should probably feel bad for making fun of the mentally ill, but he’s been super annoying of late.

          3. His entire life’s work has been tarnished.

            Hardly. He wrote at least one really great opinion — Abbott v. Sandoz. Of course, we could probably go back in the archives and find NWPA and anon disparaging that one because it “weakens patents” or something.

            But the “tarnishment”, if any, came before this latest kerfuffle. It came with his dissent in Alice.

            Also, the idea that either anon or NWPA gives a hoot about anything except for the precious patent rights is a joke. We all know that. Spare us the crocodile tears.

            1. Concerning the Abbot case and Malcolm’s (incorrect) dust-kicking on comments as to that case, the archives simply do not support what Malcolm said now – or then.

              In the late 2008 to May 2009 timeframe, the focus of the patent blogosphere was (correctly so) more on Taffas and Bilski and the fiasco of Dudas/Doll and the dust-kicking of “Marking Trolls”.

              Nonetheless, reviewing the patently-o archives, specifically the months of October to December 2008 (one post):

              link to patentlyo.com

              And the months of May to July 2009 (also show only one post):

              link to patentlyo.com

              and the sum total of this is the product-by-process realm?

              LOL – your overt focus on your protein fragment realm and the elevation (in your mind) of the importance of this obscure area says far more than anything that anyone else to post – Malcolm self FAIL.

              (btw, Boundy’s post 24 on the en banc thread hits the nail on the head) – Malcolm as typical chasing an ends by any means, even as his means were wrong.

            2. “But the “tarnishment”, if any, came before this latest kerfuffle. It came with his dissent in Alice.”

              I would tend to agree that the dissent will tarnish his career (for all the few people who pay attention to it 20 years from now) far more than the instant mini-scandal.

            3. 6,

              You apparently are not familiar with the colloquial version of the longest river in the continent of Africa. – yet, that is the state you are in.

            4. the dissent will tarnish his career (for all the few people who pay attention to it 20 years from now) far more than the instant mini-scandal.

              No doubt. That’s because at the end of the day nobody really cares who the “Chief Judge” of the Federal Circuit is unless that judge fundamentally changes the manner in which the court does its job.

            5. What is “its job” that you want the court to be doing, Malcolm?

              Or do you think someone asking you a question and wanting you to explain yourself is “kicking dust?”

              /eye roll

  8. it appears he is going the extra mile to ensure that the court’s integrity is above question.

    That’s something he wouldn’t have to do, necessarily, if the Federal Circuit’s jurisprudence was a bit more thoughtful and bit less prone to cater to various “industries” and their efforts to protect information with patents.

    I wonder if Rader has any regrets about that cutesy “interview” he gave to a high profile self-professed “patent apologist” a couple years ago?

    1. Do you not pay any attention at all? Who was behind “patent reform” again? Is that the same industry that was “paying Rader to protect them”?

      1. Who was behind “patent reform” again?

        Last time I checked it was the commies, led by the devil incarnate in his stenchy ivory tower.

        Is that the same industry that was “paying Rader to protect them”?

        Who said anything about anybody paying Rader to do anything?

    2. Industries in quotes…?

      Feel free anytime to refrain from the benefit of those things that you would so broadly denigrate.

      1. Industries in quotes…?

        Yes because there is nothing “industrial” about writing jxnky patent claims that protect new (or old) facts about medicine, or any other kind of information that someone might want to store on, or retrieve from, a computer.

          1. Feel free to abstain from all such “non“-industrious type activities.

            Why? What’s the connection?

            Oh, right: there isn’t any.

  9. Meh, all in all I still think he was and is a good judge. But yeah, I’m glad he’s finally getting a reminder of what his position actually is. The man hasn’t really been acting as an impartial judge for a few years it seems to me like.

    Good to have Prost in the position, she’s something else! And also, she’ll be the first woman chief judge right?

    1. A judge should avoid lending the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others.

      Granting glad-handing interviews to deeply self-interested players in the system over which you have jurisdiction is generally unwise.

        1. I’m not attacking the Big Q at all. I’m questioning Rader’s judgment in granting the interview to the Big Q.

          It was a bad idea.

          1. It was a bad idea

            A vapid comment, as you have supplied exactly zero reasons why (unless of course you are attempting some devious implication, and then my comment fully applies).

            So which is it Malcolm? Are you being vapid or are you attacking in a devious manner?

            1. A vapid comment, as you have supplied exactly zero reasons why

              Here’s one reason:

              A judge should avoid lending the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others.

              Dennis noted the oddity of the interview in real time. There was no reason for Rader to grant an interview to a personally invested self-professed “patent apologist” like Big G or anybody remotely like Big G. It was a bad decision on Rader’s part, and definitely part of the “bigger picture” leading up to this unfortunate moment.

              We’ll leave it up to the readers to determine why this was so difficult for you to figure out.

            2. being interviewed does not “[lend] the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others.”

              Try again.

            3. or anybody remotely like Big G

              LOL – so you are then attacking Big G deviously.

              Thanks for proving that I am right – again.

            4. As the post in moderation points out, your spin-choice of the word “oddity” is itself odd.

              You wish to impugn, but no such view is supported.

            5. Another try again – moderation on this…?

              Malcolm,

              I have checked the archives (April through June 2010) and it appears that you have 1ied yet again.

              In particular: link to link to patentlyo.com

              Is in no way, shape or form, even remotely reasonably to be construed as your immediate spin of “Dennis noted the oddity of the interview in real time.” and the implication that Prof. Crouch though that the interview was either untowards or of questionable judgement in any way.

              It appears not enough that you don’t care what you post (as witness another slew of your offensive posts have been removed), but blatant dissembling that you are doing to implicate Prof. Crouch as agreeing with your petty views and devious attacks on the Big Q is downright reprehensible.

              6′s comment about putting things in black and white rings ironic.

    1. Rader’s shining moment, IMHO, was his authorship of the Abbott v. Sandoz opinion, wherein the CAFC plugged a considerable crack in the foundation of the system. But that was before he was made Chief Judge.

  10. link to blogs.wsj.com

    In the email, Judge Rader said he and other court colleagues had been impressed by Mr. Reines’s skill as an appellate lawyer, according to people familiar with the details of the judge’s note. The judge encouraged the lawyer to share the endorsement with others, a tool that could be used to impress clients, people familiar with the matter said. . . .

    The incident shines a light on the clubby world of patent law where judges from the Federal Circuit and its top lawyers often develop a familiarity that can spill over into friendship. Judges from that court and lawyers often appear together on panel discussions in Washington and Silicon Valley, and hobnob at patent-law conferences.

    It’s a “clubby world” indeed. Rader isn’t the first Federal Circuit Chief Judge to forget that his job isn’t to bend over to protect the software industry. But hopefully he’ll be the last.

    1. Because “software” just does not fit the Red Queen / Humpty Dumpty’s version of patent eligible material…

    2. I quit reading your posts a long time ago, but I read this for the WSJ quote. You’re cracking up man. You should really see about getting out of this field. Your relation of everything back to software patents and how evil they are that any tool should be used to stamp them out is bordering on a psychotic episode. Take a step back.

      1. Your relation of everything back to software patents and how evil they are that any tool should be used to stamp them out is bordering on a psychotic episode.

        Meanwhile, the softie wofties types here regularly call for the imprisonment or impeachment of people with whom they disagree and “bad joke ahead” sits quietly on his soft, pink hands.

        Get a life, man.

        1. LOL – all the while you employ a consistent stream of Accuse Others Of That Which Malcolm Does, blindly lump everyone who does not agree with you together into one giant ad hominem, and then tell others to “grow up” or “get a life.”

          The word for you: hypocrite.

          1. anon, may urge you to stop attacking MM? I urge MM to do the same.

            You and I once went at it the same way, but not any more. I made a deliberate effort to be polite if not friendly to you. It paid off. We often have excellent back and forth discussions on interesting issues.

            I can only suggest you try to do the same with MM.

            As to 6, he is harmless. Just laugh it off.

            1. Ned,

              There is a world of difference between you and Malcolm.

              At least you try to make cogent legal arguments.

              You may not always succeed, and you tend to go silent at critical points (we both know why), but Malcolm adds nothing to the board or to any conversation. All that he has is ‘policy’ and is without basis in law or fact. I have provided him the path to not draw my retorts. It is up to him to post in an intellectually honest manner.

              When (if) he does so, then you can expect more cordiality from me.

        2. I don’t even know what you just said. Was that supposed to be some kind of race thing? You don’t even know what you’re talking about anymore. Seriously, consider taking a step back.

          1. I don’t even know what you just said.

            What do you do for a living, bja? I mean other than defend softie wofties and their junky claims on the Internets.

    3. Thanks MM for this link. We were all wondering why Rader recused himself in those two recent cases. A story is published on May 22 describing the scandal. On May 23, Rader announces he is moving on from being Chief Judge.

      I can only hope Judge Rader saw fit to do this on his own motion. He made a mistake, it appears. But if he steps aside from the leadership role voluntarily, it can be said that he acted with honor.

    4. Man he even wrote it in an email. How stu pid can you be? It’s like, “here, let me generate some evidence of some wrongdoing today lalalalaala”. Old people. Not yet careful what they put in print.

      1. Old people. Not yet careful what they put in print.

        The irony clearly escapes those like 6 and Malcolm.

Comments are closed.