Tom Bell on Copyright

Professor Bell provides his view on “Intellectual Privileges” rather than “Intellectual Property.” Although Bell’s ideas are directed at copyright law, it does not take an inventive step to to cross them over into patent law policy.

Bell’s book fully covers the topic from his perspective: http://mercatus.org/intellectualprivilege/Intellectual-Privilege.html.

HT to Stephan Kinsella

180 thoughts on “Tom Bell on Copyright

  1. Tom bell’s explanation is logically flawed..why?

    All forms of property rights are government granted rights including your rights to own your house & other physical items, eg a Car. Under a communist regime such rights may cease to exist.

    I feel Tom’s goal may be to downgrade the merits of IP by asserting intellectual property as a form of intangible and less significant type of property compare to a house or a block of land.

    1. Bingo!

      Nothing but semantic propaganda reminiscent of Orwellian doublespeak and redefining words so that a New Order can be ushered in (while misdirecting what the existing order actually is).

      1. “Nothing but semantic propaganda reminiscent of Orwellian doublespeak and redefining words so that a New Order can be ushered in”

        It isn’t quite doublespeak, but yes, language may be evolving so that we can differentiate between different things better. There’s nothing wrong with that. And yes, the “redefining” of words, or making their definitions more precise, may well be done so that we can have a “NWO”, or simply so that we can better manage our affairs.

        I’m not convinced that he’s “misdirecting” what the “existing order” actually is. Everyone knows what it “is”, but every single person has it in them to consider for themselves what they want to call it, or consider it to mean to them in their personal circumstances, and likewise what they want it to be going forward. In fact, this is one of the chief ways that people eventually break free of the previous generation’s legacy mind control. It is in fact essential for society to move forward, especially a democratic one. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

        Unless of course you’re preoccupied with the existing rules/laws and see the world in a strict right/wrong capacity. In that situation something might be very very wrong with doing such a thing.

      2. “Nothing but semantic propaganda reminiscent of Orwellian doublespeak and redefining words so that a New Order can be ushered in”

        It isn’t quite doublespeak, but yes, language may be evolving so that we can differentiate between different things better. There’s nothing wrong with that. And yes, the “redefining” of words, or making their definitions more precise, may well be done so that we can have a “NWO”, or simply so that we can better manage our affairs.

        1. 6,

          It is NOT a matter of language evolving, as it is a purposeful re-tasking of established language.

          That you do not understand this is not all that surprising. I suggest that you read the novel 1984 to gain some appreciation of this.

          So yes, it is precisely as I describe.

          That you may want the ends is of no consequence. The ends NEVER justify the means.

          1. “It is NOT a matter of language evolving, as it is a purposeful re-tasking of established language.”

            Purposeful re-tasking of established language may be how the language evolves brosefus. There are many many many established instances of this happening. The people at dictionary.com were btching about this same topic not the other day. It seems to be something fundamental changing in the nature of language. Grammar/language nazis are up in arms not understanding of course that they are subservient to the people around them using language however they want to (chosen by social convention through the masses) and not the dictators of language themselves.

            “That you do not understand this is not all that surprising”

            I understand it quite well. Doublespeak in the novel however involved a bit more if you’ll recall. And I’ve read it at least twice and seen the movie at least once (both of them actually I think, the shty one and the more true to form version). But yes, I can see how you’re wanting to use the term.

            Even so, one can just as well accuse the people using the term “property” of having used doublespeak back in the day to turn a privilege into something more while clouding that it was simply a privilege to begin with. Remember, the fad to call copyright “IP” began in what? The 80′s?

            “The ends NEVER justify the means.”

            Well in that case we may as well abolish our US government (US violence to split from GB), the police dept. (police violence to quell banditry), and the entirety of the justice system. And to all those people that want a decent society, tough sht, the ends simply do not justify the means.

            Shades of gray. The world really is made of them anon.

            1. There is no doubt that the world is made of shades of gray – but black is still not white, no matter how many times that is tried to be spun.

              The rest of your post is simply too far into the weeds to salvage.

              1. “There is no doubt that the world is made of shades of gray – but black is still not white, no matter how many times that is tried to be spun.”

                Well I’m glad to hear you state as much outright. Perhaps when we can get you to drop the later “but” part you’ll be right as rain!

                And you can talk about me being “out in the weeds” all you like, it isn’t going to stop the people from recognizing more and more the house of cards that a great deal of modern “IP” is built upon. Sit and stew about it all you like though!

              2. Not sure why you are “glad to hear” such – my posting is and has always been consistent with such.

                And the rest of your post is too deep in the weeds to salvage. I’m not “stewing,” because there is nothing for me to stew about – it’s your message that is lost in the weeds.

      3. Likewise I’m not convinced that he’s “misdir ecting” what the “existing orde r” actually is. Everyone knows what it “is” (statutor y rights that let you sue people), but every single person has it in them to cons ider for themselves what they want to call it, or consi der it to mean to them in their personal circumst ances, and likewise what they want it to be going forward. In fact, this is one of the chie f ways that people eventually break free of the previous generatio n’s le gacy min d con trol. It is in fact essen tial for society to move forward, especially a demo cratic one. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

        Unless of course you’re preoc cupied with the existing rules /laws and see the world in a strict right /wrong capacity. In that situation something might be very very wrong with doing such a thing.

      4. Likewise I’m not convinced that he’s “misdir ecting” what the “existing orde r” actually is. Everyone knows what it “is” (statutor y rights that let you sue people), but every single person has it in them to cons ider for themselves what they want to call it, or consi der it to mean to them in their personal circumst ances, and likewise what they want it to be going forward.

        Unless of course you’re preoc cupied with the existing rules /laws and see the world in a strict right /wrong capacity. In that situation something might be very very wrong with doing such a thing.

        1. Let me say this completely sans filter word.

          Likewise I’m not convinced that he’s “misdir ecting” what the “existing orde r” actually is. Everyone knows what it “is” (statutor y rights that let you sue people), but every single person has it in them to cons ider for themselves what they want to call it, or consi der it to mean to them in their personal circumst ances, and likewise what they want it to be going forward. In fact, this is one of the chie f ways that people eventually break free of the previous g e n e r a t i o n’s le gacy min d con trol. It is in fact essen tial for society to move forward, especially a demo cratic one. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

          Unless of course you’re preoc cupied with the existing rules /laws and see the world in a strict right /wrong capacity. In that situation something might be very very wrong with doing such a thing.

          1. Anon, just because some people, perhaps old or dead people decided they wanted to arrange their affairs one way does not mean that the new generations need to arrange their affairs in the same manner brosef. They can break free of the legacy systems though it takes effort and time.

          2. What do you think is “objective” compared to “subjective”?

            Just because some old/dead people thought about concept x in one manner does not mean that all people must forever.

      5. trol. It is in fact essen tial for society to move forward, especially a demo cratic one. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

            1. “break free” exclaims the lemming and his belieb system as he marches up the hill.

              How so very droll – even if (or especially since) unintentional.

    2. joho, but if they are granted pursuant to a statute, even if they have a fixed term, they are legal rights, not privileges.

      There is a strawman here that you are not recognizing.

      1. Ned,

        I think you misread joho’s post – nowhere does joho indicate that joho is talking about privileges, rather, joho is pointing out that Prof. Bell is misusing the terms of comparison (and I would point out that Prof. Bell surely should know better – given his profession).

        Just another example of the lack of accountability (and let’s hear the whining of professor’s about “picking on them” as they distort the law with their pet philosophies….)

      2. Pretty sure my driver’s license is granted pursuant to a statute and it is my “legal right” to obtain one in accordance with the statute. Even so, the state goes out of their way to tell me that it is a “privilege”.

        What makes you think they’re mutually exclusive?

        1. 6, they say, no one has a right to drive a car, and no one with a license has a right to keep driving if he or she cannot obey the law and drive safely.

          Patents are not the same thing. Patents can only be “revoked” if they are invalid under 282, or are invalidly obtained. This is an entirely different kettle of fish.

          1. “6, they say, no one has a right to drive a car, and no one with a license has a right to keep driving if he or she cannot obey the law and drive safely.”

            Ned, they say that nobody has a right to exclude others from making, selling or using any method, product, composition of matter or apparatus. And they say that nobody with a patent application/patent has a right to exclude others if he or she cannot obey the law.

            Patents are the “same” thing, in so far as they are simply another legal right and a privilege. Congress decides how patents may be revoked.

              1. I agree they’re not entirely “interchangeable” in all situations. Perhaps not even in this situation. Even so, it is fair to call the legal rights granted by copyright statutes privileges.

                He ll anon, it’s right in the definition:

                privilege: a special right … granted … to a particular person or group of people

                I’m pretty sure that the legal rights granted by copyright statute are special rights. They’re granted to particular persons or groups of people (bands). So yeah. Meets the definition exactly.

                The definition in full:

                “a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people.”

    3. Respectfully disagree re. “government granted rights”.

      Individual rights are inherent (albeit not intrinsic). If a government violates and/or ignores an individual’s rights those rights of the individual have not disappeared: what has disappeared in the legitimacy of the government in its role delegated by the people to protect individual rights.

          1. Yeah. You never defined what you meant by that term.

            John Marshall, however was clear, and you since have adopted his thinking as a truism, that the first inventor owns the invention and has a right, under the constitution and statutes, to the patent. Second comers are not inventors.

            Thus in an interference, we are looking no so much for priority among rival inventors, but to determine who the first and true inventor is.

            1. inchoate: Partially completed or imperfectly formed; just begun.

              Black’s Law Dictionary.

              The popular analogy was a track race, where Congress is designated the authority to set the rules of the race.

              Inventors (plural) show up – they still need to run the race to win.

              That you outright 1ie and then choose to 1ie about such a banal point, is despicable.

        1. Yes. It is a particular kind of property right, i.e. a right an individual has to reap the fruits of his/her own effort be it mental or physical.

    1. Hal Wegner has been pushing heavy for a few days now with a “lack of comment” means that action is brewing.

      I guess that after, what 700 days or so, any movement looks like progress?

  2. Copyrights are not statutory privileges, but legal rights, and, moreover, were recognized at common law as being common law rights: Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc., 523 U.S. 340, 118 S. Ct. 1279, 140 L. Ed. 2d 438 (1998).

    “Before the adoption of the Seventh Amendment, the common law and statutes in England and this country granted copyright owners causes of action for infringement. Id. at 348.

    “By the middle of the 17th century, the common law recognized an author’s right to prevent the unauthorized publication of his manuscript. See, e. g., Stationers Co. v. Patentees, Carter’s Rep. 89, 124 Eng. Rep. 842 (C. P. 1666). This protection derived from the principle that the manuscript was the product of intellectual labor and was as much the author’s property as the material on which it was written. See Millar v. Taylor, 4 Burr. 2303, 2398, 98 Eng. Rep. 201, 252 (K. B. 1769) (opinion of Mansfield, C. J.) (common-law copyright derived from principle that “it is just, that an Author should reap the pecuniary Profits of his own ingenuity and Labour”); 1 W. Patry, Copyright Law and Practice 3 (1994). Actions seeking damages for infringement of common-law copyright, like actions seeking damages for invasions of other property rights, were tried in courts of law in actions on the case. See Millar v. Taylor, supra, at 2396— 2397, 98 Eng. Rep., at 251. Actions on the case, like other actions at law, were tried before juries. See McClenachan v. McCarty, 1 Dall. 375, 378 (C. P. Phila. Cty. 1788); 5 J. Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶38.11[5] (2d ed. 1996); 1 J. Chitty, Treatise on Pleading and Parties to Actions 164 (1892).

    “In 1710, the first English copyright statute, the Statute of Anne, was enacted to protect published books. 8 Anne ch. 19 (1710). Under the Statute of Anne, damages for infringement were set at “one Penny for every Sheet which shall be found in [the infringer's] custody, either printed or printing, published, or exposed to Sale,” half (“one Moiety”) to go to the Crown and half to the copyright owner, and were “to be recovered . . . by Action of Debt, Bill, Plaint, or Information.” § 1. Like the earlier practice with regard to common-law copyright claims for damages, actions seeking damages under the Statute of Anne were tried in courts of law. See 350*350 Beckford v. Hood, 7 T. R. 621, 627, 101 Eng. Rep. 1164, 1167 (K. B. 1798) (opinion of Kenyon, C. J.) (“[T]he statute having vested that right in the author, the common law gives the remedy by action on the case for the violation of it”). Id. at 349.

    “There is no evidence that the Copyright Act of 1790 changed the practice of trying copyright actions for damages in courts of law before juries. As we have noted, actions on the case and actions of debt were actions at law for which a 352*352 jury was required. See supra, at 349, 350.[6] Moreover, actions to recover damages under the Copyright Act of 1831—— which differed from the Copyright Act of 1790 only in the amount (increased to $1 from 50 cents) authorized to be recovered for certain infringing sheets——were consistently tried to juries.” Id. at 352-353.

    Although Feltner focused on the right to a jury trial, it unmistakably held that copyright rights were recognized at common law to protect authors against publication. This does not suggest that the common law provided all the protections of the modern statutory framework. It does suggest thought that copyright rights are legal rights and not revocable privileges.

    As we know, actions involving the validity of legal rights and the right to damages must be tried to a jury.

    The suggestion that patents are similar privileges, revocable at will of the sovereign, is a question already answered in the negative by the Supreme Court – and that many, many times. Begin with ex parte Wood & Brundage, ex parte Wood & Brundage, 22 U.S. 603, 6 L. Ed. 171, 32 S. Ct. 589 (1824). Next see, United States v. American Bell Telephone Co., 128 U.S. 315, 9 S. Ct. 90, 32 L. Ed. 450 (1888).

    “The authority by which the patent issues is that of the United States of America. The seal which is used is the seal of the Patent Office, and that was created by Congressional enactment. It is signed by the Secretary of the Interior, and the Commissioner of Patents, who also countersigns it, is an officer of that department. The patent, then, is not the exercise of any prerogative power or discretion by the President or by any other officer of the government, but it is the result of a course of proceeding, quasi judicial in its character, and is not subject to be repealed or revoked by the President, the Secretary of the Interior, or the Commissioner of Patents, when once issued. See United States v. Schurz, 102 U.S. 378.”

    Next, consider Marbury v. Madison. A legal right is not subject to revocation by the executive or by congress. Its validity is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts, who must sustain the legal right if valid.

    1. “It does suggest thought that copyright rights are legal rights and not revocable privileges.”

      The old ones may have been, but the new ones ain’t. They sure as sht are revocable privileges.

      “The suggestion that patents are similar privileges, revocable at will of the sovereign, is a question already answered in the negative by the Supreme Court – and that many, many times. ”

      Only because of the statute tho bro. You keep missing that for some reason. If the congress changes the statute the whole house of cards you just built changes. And that is the good professor’s point. That the congress could just as well change patents from being property so that they can do as they will with them.

      1. 6, Marbury v. Madison was not based on any statute. It was based on the separation of powers. A legal right cannot be revoked by the executive or by congress — only by the courts.

        The a legal right is property — again, Marbury.

        6, the basics of the rule of law and the very structure of government is involved in this question.

        1. the basics of the rule of law and the very structure of government is involved in this question.

          What is “this question”, Ned?

          A legal right cannot be revoked by the executive or by congress — only by the courts

          You seem to be suggesting that only the Supreme Court can dramatically change copyright or patent law. That, of course, is a rather strange assertion. Perhaps you can let everyone what sort of changes Congress is allowed to make.

          Or maybe you’re confusing the revocation of an individual’s patent with a change in the law that results in the revocation of that patent.

              1. Question: which branch of government did the constitution delegate the power to decided cases and controversies? Yes that one.

                And what did Marbury say about legal rights? They are property and the courts decided their validity, not the executive.

                Marbury was followed consistently in the cases of patents, holding time and again that their validity was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts. See, e.g., McCormick Harvesting and the cases it relies on.

                Thus patents are not privileges, but legal rights. Pundits and European types simply cannot call them revocable privileges in order to render them revocable by the Executive as were patents in England that were granted by royal prerogative.

              2. See what that taste of historical rewriting is like Ned?

                Now view the 1952 Act and your predilection for granting the Royal Nine the power to dispense with that very same separation of powers doctrine.

              3. anon, the Supreme Court has never approved of the reexamination system adopted by Congress. In Stern v. Marshall, the court utterly condemned the insouciant declaration that so and so legal right was a public right so as to allow the right to be removed from the courts.

                I must add, that the district court in Patlex upheld reexaminations in part because a dissatisfied patent owner had a right to a trial de novo in District Court. It is noteworthy that that right of a trial de novo was removed by the AIA, and IPRs and other post-grant proceedings never had have a right of a trial de novo.

                These executive branch revocations have no justification whatsoever under the Supreme Court jurisprudence except if Congress has the power to grant something else other than patents that have exclusive rights for a fixed term, for example, gold stars to make inventors feel good.

              4. Your ‘problem’ Ned is in the uneven application of the separation of powers doctrine you wish to have.

                You cry when that separation appears to harm the judicial branch and its role, but you turn a blind eye when that same branch is overstepping its bounds. That is, until my words penetrate (somewhat) and you realize “abstract” (and Gist…?) are not any way to “interpret” the map as written by Congress. You fail to see the ends pursued by the Court, because those ends (currently) align with your anti-business method agenda. You fail to take an objective view, so your “taking umbrage” loses its force. The adage comes to mind: you cannot be a little bit pregnant. Either you endorse the separation of powers or you do not. Being selective – as you want to be – wrecks both the instances you do not want to see the separation of powers problem AND the instances you DO want to see the separation of powers problem.

                This ‘problem’ of yours is not one that disappears with repetition – it just gets worse.

          1. You seem to be suggesting that only the Supreme Court can dramatically change copyright or patent law

            That is not what it “seems” at all – of course you already knew that, eh, Mister Spin?

            1. “You seem to be suggesting that only the Supreme Court can dramatically change copyright or patent law”

              That is not what it “seems

              Excellent. So we all agree then that Congress could, if it wished, dramatically scale back the rights of all patent owners and copyright owners if it chose to do so.

              1. Um, you act surprised.

                Not sure why, as that has always been my position.

                Perhaps you would like to see my analysis on the the Oasis thread: link to patentlyo.com

                Heaven forbid you actually add a substantive comment on the merits, but hey, even a broken analog clock is right twice a day.

        2. Yeah I hear you, but whatever “legal right” of copyright that was imagined back 200 years ago was very very limited compared to the monstrosity we have today. And it is a creature of statute.

          “6, the basics of the rule of law and the very structure of government is involved in this question.”

          Nah, you’re just trying to involve it in this question. Like you have tendency to do. The scheme we have now is unquestionably a big ol creature of statute and your trying to pretend that “o it’s the same thing as the legal right they had at common law 200 years ago” is simply dreaming at best.

          1. 6, I really think you have a basic misunderstanding of the question at hand.

            A legal right is property. It really makes no difference if it is a common law right or statutory right.

            Legal rights, property, cannot simply be revoked by the government. See, Marbury v. Madison.

              1. “A legal right is property.”

                A legal right is simply a right bestowed on a person by a given legal system Ned. As to whether or not that right is “property” seems very much another question. One that the congress had to go out of its way to settle for patents through statute. So you’ll forgive me if I’m not on team “all legal rights are property” just now.

              2. …as is ALL property rights, 6 – even real property.

                (that’s the simple concept eluding Malcolm. Even real property only exists because the law is there to enforce the concept)

              3. “as is ALL property rights, 6 – even real property.”

                I can agree that pretty much all property rights are or involve/come with legal rights in our legal system. The converse is not the same, I do not agree that all legal rights are property or property rights.

              4. From Marbury v. Madison:

                “In order to determine whether he is entitled to this commission, it becomes necessary to inquire whether he has been appointed to the office. For if he has been appointed, the law continues him in office for five years, and he is entitled to the possession of those evidences of office, which, being completed, became his property.

                “It is, therefore, decidedly the opinion of the court, 162*162 that when a commission has been signed by the president, the appointment is made; and that the commission is complete when the seal of the United States has been affixed to it by the secretary of state.

                Where an officer is removable at the will of the executive, the circumstance which completes his appointment is of no concern; because the act is at any time revocable; and the commission may be arrested, if still in the office. But when the officer is not removable at the will of the executive, the appointment is not revocable, and cannot be annulled. It has conferred legal rights which cannot be resumed.

                The discretion of the executive is to be exercised until the appointment has been made. But having once made the appointment, his power over the office is terminated in all cases, where by law the officer is not removable by him. The right to the office is then in the person appointed, and he has the absolute, unconditional power of accepting or rejecting it.

                Mr. Marbury, then, since his commission was signed by the president, and sealed by the secretary of state, was appointed; and as the law creating the office, gave the officer a right to hold for five years, independent of the executive, the appointment was not revocable, but vested in the officer legal rights, which are protected by the laws of his country.

                To withhold his commission, therefore, is an act deemed by the court not warranted by law, but violative of a vested legal right.

                “The question whether a right has vested or not, is, in its nature, judicial, and must be tried by the judicial authority. … the validity of his appointment must have been determined by judicial authority.”

              5. Yes Ned, in Marbury the appointment was not revocable (by lawl). ANd yes, the legal right was a vested legal right not revocable by law.

                “The question whether a right has vested or not, is, in its nature, judicial, and must be tried by the judicial authority. … the validity of his appointment must have been determined by judicial authority.”

                I agree entirely.

                None of that means that congress cannot empower the executive to revoke a legal right, or perhaps even do it themselves by statute making (with pres’s sig on the law).

                Why this is so hard for you I don’t understand.

              6. 6, if congress did provide that patents were revocable at will, or through revocation procedures, by the executive, then what do we have? A legal right of exclusivity for a limited period?

                Think about the fixed term provided by statute in Marbury. That was critical to the holding.

                Now, think about the requirement for a fixed term provided by the constitution: “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”

                Congress does not have the authority to grant patents that are revocable by the executive. Such would violate the constitutional grant of power to congress. Neither can congress grant inventors gold stars, shiny certificates or a right to eternally litigate validity in the PTO.

                Moreover, having a right that can be withdrawn by the executive at their discretion is no right at all. Such a non right cannot incent invention, protect businesses that rely on the patent, and ultimately frustrate the constitutional purpose of promoting progress. Such a patent only buys a struggle against the deep pockets who can endlessly file IPRs and will do so because of their means, might makes right, and all that.

                Serial, anonymous reexaminations and IPRs by phoney LLCs are now the norm. Such is not a good patent system.

              7. “Think about the fixed term provided by statute in Marbury. That was critical to the holding.

                Now, think about the requirement for a fixed term provided by the constitution: “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.””

                I don’t need to think about any of that sht. Congress has the power. Period. End of fcking story. P O W E R. Look that sht up. Jes us H ch rist sakes. Stop tying yourself up in kno ts about this.

                “Congress does not have the authority to grant patents that are revocable by the executive. Such would violate the constitutional grant of power to congress. Neither can congress grant inventors gold stars, shiny certificates or a right to eternally litigate validity in the PTO.”

                Yeah well tell it to your beloved courts. I’ll be here to lol. There’s a case similar pending right now. And I’ll be here to lol when it goes down. You going to be ready to lol when that sht gets smacked down simpler than fly being swatted?

                “Moreover, having a right that can be withdrawn by the executive at their discretion is no right at all.”

                It is hardly “at their discretion”. You have a legal remedy.

                “Such a non right cannot incent invention, protect businesses that rely on the patent, and ultimately frustrate the constitutional purpose of promoting progress. Such a patent only buys a struggle against the deep pockets who can endlessly file IPRs and will do so because of their means, might makes right, and all that.”

                I may agree with you. But as of right now congress doesn’t. So go tell them about your troubles. Frankly I think you can either give up one of the two: after allowance reviews or the nonsense that is the current state of the business method/software paradigm in patent law. Your choice. Choose wisely. Nobody gives a flying fck about giving you strong patents in the actual useful arts. When you start fcking around trying to get patents outside that, they going to start tearing away your rights. It was the bars choice. And they made it. Now they’re living with it.

                Bully for them.

                “Serial, anonymous reexaminations and IPRs by phoney LLCs are now the norm. Such is not a good patent system.”

                Well if that is happening then I agree even more. And perhaps congress will as well. Mayhap they didn’t really expect that (save maybe on the worst of the worst).

              8. “power” to 6 runs right smack into his “control” issues, as is evidenced by his “brute force” thinking and “I don’t need to think about any of that sht. Congress has the power. Period. End of fcking story. P O W E R. Look that sht up. Jes us H ch rist sakes. Stop tying yourself up in kno ts about this

                Sorry 6 – your wanting to stop talking and run away is exactly the wrong thing to do. Hmmm, your running away again – that’s a symptom that you shared…. (you are doing that projecting thing again, aren’t you? :-) )

              9. the actual useful arts

                LOL – the invitation for you to join the Amish is still there 6.

                Funny, isn’t it how you and Malcolm are not willing to put your money where your mouth is and abstain from all of this so-called non-useful arts innovation that you have such “problems” with.

                Hypocrites.

            1. See below first.

              But, “so what” is that even if there is some “common law” origin to the legal rights behind copyright the legal rights we have now have so far outgrown that which is “common law” that the vast bulk of what we have now is not properly thought of as irrevocable just because some seedling of copyright is found in common law.

              1. ““Common law” is a meaningless red herring 6.”

                Tbh I kind of agree. The whole discussion re copyright needs to be about statutory rights. Aka privileges.

              2. “Privileges” – as used by the guest author – is simply the wrong word.

                The distinction he attempts with land is a FAIL – ALL things dissolve to be “privileges” if you understand the law and apply it with Prof. Bell’s “spin.” The State – as the voice of the “people” have all and the actual people have according to their needs.

                Jane welcomes you.

              3. “have all”

                Have all what? Power? Property? Privileges? What specifically do you think they “have all” of simply by calling copyright a privilege?

              4. Simpler terms?

                I would settle for ANY terms that make some semblance of sense.

                Yours do not. Not to a kindergartner. Not to an expert linguist.

                Try again – try to make a minimal amount of sense.

          2. As suggested previously 6, read Golan v. Holder to get a sense of what Congress can do with the legal right and that item fully retaining its legal right status.

            Your comment on “size” of the legal right is a non-sequitur to the nature of that right.

        3. I think the sister case to Marbury – Hayburn’s Case – is more directly on point. In other words, can congress conjure up a Patent or Copyright (or any right for that matter) – that is itself – a Constitutional anomaly? That is, the right itself – and the way in which that right is administered violates the separation of powers framework. Hopefully that answer will remain – No.

          Addressing the argument that congress could create a patent or copyright as a pure creature of statute – that is, could congress just exclude the Art III courts – and create a pure administrative right? In that case, at least, the separation of powers issue would appear to go away. But, of course, this total exclusion of the Art III court would violate the guarantees of the 7th Amendment. As SCOTUS once said – Congress cannot conjure away a right guarantee by the 7th Amendment.
          Here again, hopefully, the answer will remain – a US patent is a right protected by the 7th Amendment.

          The reasoning of the majority in Noel Canning shakes my confidence that any of our freedoms, rights and liberties will remain protected by the Constitution’s structural framework for government. Indeed, you can see that same caviler attitude here on the board – that the 7th Amendment is old – and new improved administrative state – will protect you much better, be more fair, etc etc. To that, we should all say – no thanks.

          1. iwasthere,

            What is the anomaly that you see?

            (ps, I concur that the abrogation of the separation of powers doctrine by the Royal Nine on matters far more important than the mere commission of a county justice of the peace is – and should be – most alarming to anyone with an inkling of the founding principles of that doctrine and the crystal clear nature of the authority to write patent law).

            Far too many people who should know better are content to bury their heads in the sand because the ends align with their agendas.

            1. Maybe it should be framed: ‘Constitutional Anomaly or Triumph of the Administrative State.”

              The anomaly is the now dual Executive and Art III jurisdiction over a patent right. One the hand you have the AIA jurisdiction:
              The never fully settled AIA inter-parte and ex parte reexamination of the patent – the exclusive remedy of only appellate review – where the Agency receives APA deference, the fact that the Commissioner herself can appoint herself to the AIA panel – and pick the other two APJ’s – to effect of policy outcome and decide the patent right on policy, and that the PTO ‘court’ does not apply res judicata or administrative estoppel (or even comity with an Art III court).

              On the other hand, your have Art III and the 7th amendment right to jury trial. A presumption of quite title (presumption of validity) and a statute that provides that a patent is private property.

              In the past, these types of dueling schemes have been repeatedly refused: Legislative veto, tax cases, government contract cases, land patents, spectrum auctions, and of course a right to a pension (Hayburn’s case).

              The net result being: A patent claim is either going to be treated differently – anomalously – than any other justiciable federal claim or the patent right is going to be continuoulsy administered by an Agency that never is at a loss of jurisdiction over the patent right (or at least will always have the final say in the matter).

              Ned, I would note that the author of Patlex has since done a 180 on that decision. You can also find prof Moshoff paper on the incorrectness of public rights concerning patents – if you need the SCOTUS cases that Patlex ignores.

              1. Yeah, I have heard that Newman regretted her opinion. She was quite adamant on the 7th Amendment issue in her dissent in In re Technology Licensing Corp., 423 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

                It is funny that the Supreme Court has been clear on this issue for so, so long and along comes the Federal Circuit and simply ignores all that case law to the contrary and redefines it as simply as whether the procedures provide due process. There is no problem, according to that special-purpose court, about the right to a jury trial or whether there is right to try the validity of legal issues in an Art. III court.

                I recognize that we are never going to get the PTO on our side, and neither the Federal Circuit.

          2. iwasthere, well the Fed. Cir. argument in Patlex is that patents are “public rights” b/c they can only be created by statute.

            At the time of Patlex, however, the SC had not handed down Granfinanciera, a case that held, as you said, that congress cannot conjure away 7th amendment rights by assigning their adjudication to courts of equity or to legislative courts.

            I think Granfinaciera is on point.

    2. This is a very good point Ned that is another erosion of rights that is actually rather profound in the aggregate.

      So, do you contend that the post-grant proceedings are unconstitutional? Or are the quasi judicial nature of them enough to save them?

      This professor is another wannabe Lemley. An attack from the left with PC justifications to loft the slick professor into wealth and fame while burning down our country. But, he has such a since smile–like a snake.

      1. Night, yes I do contend IPRs are unconstitutional.

        We filed a brief to that effect in a pending IPR. Oral argument were held June 4. We should expect a decision within two months.

            1. Ned,

              Is this the right patent:

              Claim 2. The controller chip of claim 1, wherein the medium ID contains specifications of the flash storage system.

              Did you really have a patent claim in which the only claimed distinction is that information is contained on a medium?

              1. anon, the independent claims at issue were 7 and 11. HP asserts a combination of two references and KSR. Our defense is that HP failed to show all claim limitations.

        1. Interesting Ned. Frankly, I think you have a good point. I wonder if an argument could be made that the abstract test in Alice is unconstitutional as it is essentially a test where no facts need be considered. Essentially, a judge can just take your property with judge fabricated arguments.

  3. That was pretty vacuous. “Intellectual property” isn’t really “property,” so let’s rename it, so he says. But, he reasons were lame and he didn’t provide any nexus between the name and any misconceptions of the public. And, his new proposed word privilege is a loaded term at best.

    His argument that we all break laws everyday and that isn’t good is true, but is it limited to copyright? No. In fact, this a major problem with ALL our laws and needs a comprehensive analysis not a piecemeal attack on one aspect of the law.

    Additionally, he is merely wanting to weaken the copyright act. OK. So, he thinks it needs some revisions. OK. But, that is a pretty weak argument, isn’t it? So, he is saying, I buy into the whole thing of intellectual property, but I don’t like the name and think the protection offered is too strong. Well, then you better have a fact heavy book and not a bunch of politically correct abstract arguments that have no meaning but to a few highly educated people. Facts and real world models. Please this PC crxp is stomach churning.

    1. His argument that we all break laws everyday and that isn’t good is true, but is it limited to copyright? No. In fact, this a major problem with ALL our laws

      Uh … what?

        1. What? You disagree with that?

          I do. I’m pretty sure I’m not violating 99.999% of “ALL laws” (your emphasis) right now and that will remain true through the rest of the day.

          I’m also pretty sure that nearly all of the 0.01% of laws that are out there that I might break today don’t have potential livelihood-destroying penalites associated with their violation (unlike copyright law, as noted by Prof Bell — “In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000.”).

          1. “I’m pretty sure I’m not violating 99.999% of “ALL laws””

            yeah but what about that .0001% you’re breaking every day/week/month? Those are the ones he’s talking about I believe.

            And a lot of them are for srs. Just as one example it’s criminal to hack people’s computers, including email, and yet it is a fairly common practice for girlfriends to hack their bf’s email these days I both hear, and have experienced. They snooping criminal like. Even some bf’s doing that to gf’s.

            And the letter of the law cannot be more clear on that subject. There is no de minimus exception except that federal attorneys don’t prosecute.

            1. In fact, 6, if you read about the problem there are many aspects of it. One is that federal prosecutors now hold all the cards because the law often is so severe that people are willing to plea bargain rather than risk going in for 20-30 years.

              So, MM is just again trying to disrupt the conversation. I don’t feel like spending 20 minutes getting a dozen cites to just this problem. There have been plenty of articles in the New York Times about this and pretty much every other news source I read.
              And this is not a new topic. My criminal law professor discussed this as well some time ago. And he had us read a number of journal articles about it.

              So, please, MM again you are acting absurd to disrupt. Disruptus Absurdio is your new name.

              1. “In fact, 6, if you read about the problem there are many aspects of it. One is that federal prosecutors now hold all the cards because the law often is so severe that people are willing to plea bargain rather than risk going in for 20-30 years.”

                Oh I know it’s absurd. Kid killed himself the other day.

              2. But you know what the worst part about it all is NWPA? The thing regarding getting rid of “criminal intent” is that it’s all focused on social engineering. The government wants power that the mere laws should never grant, much less that our particular form of government should even allow for the creation of. But the public is behind so much of that social engineering (either out of fear or what have you) that it’s impossible to fight back against.

              3. impossible to fight back

                LOL – says the lemming that gets all upset because posts “are retaliatory”

                6, do you bother listening to yourself ever?

              4. Well anon if you like criminal intent being removed from criminal law so that the feds have the power to toss pretty much whomever they choose to behind bars (including your own dmb as) then ok. Sit around and mock that happening and being backed by the everyman (or more like the everywoman).

            2. yeah but what about that .0001% you’re breaking every day/week/month? Those are the ones he’s talking about I believe.

              Ah, of course. When NWPA says “ALL” he means “0.00%”.

              Sure, that makes sense.

              1. Yeah but he means broadly “all” areas of the law.

                Oh, please.

                If that’s true, NWPA’s comment was an even more dxmbass criticism of Professor Bell’s arguments than the one NWPA actually made.

                For cripesake Bell is an IP Professor and he’s speaking about copyright law. Somehow his arguments are weakened because he doesn’t give equal time to “other areas”? What?

                The fact is that in “other areas of the law” people advocate for and change the laws all the time when they recognize that the punishments are disproportionate to the crime. Just like what you’re doing now. That’s the point.

              2. the punishments are disproportionate to the crime

                Great. Build that on more than misleading sound bytes and we just might have a worthwhile discussion.

            3. One (rather important) counterpoint – which creates a sizable step if you want to jump to the patent side of the Article I Section 8 authority grant – is that copyright has liberal defenses such as Fair Use or independent creation. Such greatly minimizes the “people break the law all the time” argument, and points out a serious flaw in the hyperbole style being rather cavalierly used by Prof. Bell.

              Contrast that with the strict liability nature of direct patent infringement.

              Now I know that several academics (including Prof. Crouch) have advocated for a conflation of the two types of IP, wanting to introduce a Fair Use concept into patent law. One should keep in mind a few critical differences between copyright and patents concerning exactly what is covered (expression vs utility) and the trade-off between strength of coverage and length of coverage.

          2. “I’m also pretty sure that nearly all of the 0.01% of laws that are out there that I might break today don’t have potential livelihood-destroying penalites associated with their violation”

            That’s the part you’re wrong about. Especially if you’re living up to your rather liberal personality by doing some weed.

            But let’s say you really really want to snoop on your gf and her phone is like right there in front of you. The same law that drove a kid to kill himself a few years ago after being arrested could take not only your profession, but your freedom.

            link to abcnews.go.com

            I’m pretty sure he ended up getting off the hook, but he was technically breaking the law and if there’s supposedly a thing called “justice” that involves applying “the law” then he should be in jail as we speak. And imagine the hooblah he had to go through. Not to mention though that from the “victim’s” perspective this law breaking may well have been harmful.

            This is just one example from at least a couple dozen I’ve heard about lately.

            link to threefeloniesaday.com

            Note that last bit on that page. Just think how many people make technically false statements to the office, even unintentionally.

            1. that from the “victim’s” perspective

              and therein lay the danger of the propaganda machine churning for “infringer’s rights” that rages on in the was against patents.

              (and your 3 felonies link does not even get into the broad cloak of being charged with “conspiracy to commit” – even as it, um, let’s say stretches a bit far in some of its examples)

    2. “And, his new proposed word privilege is a loaded term at best.”

      Well what do you suggest?

      ” In fact, this a major problem with ALL our laws and needs a comprehensive analysis not a piecemeal attack on one aspect of the law.”

      I totally agree, and I think just about everyone agrees. But it’s too big a job to get done as a whole most everyone seems to think. The legal bloat we’ve inherited weighs everything down. So I think it’s the general idea that we have to take it one aspect at a time.

    3. Worse yet is that he ignores the fact that real property rests on….

      ….law.

      This is nothing but abject propaganda for a “different system.”

      1. he ignores the fact that real property rests on….….law.

        Please explain to everyone how you arrive at this conclusion, txrdbrain.

          1. Again, please tell everyone exactly how arrived at the conclusion that Professor Bell is “ignoring the fact that real property rests on….….law”.

            If it’s “really basic”, it should be really easy for you. What’s the matter, Mr. Intellectual Honesty? Do you need your mommy to hold your hand? Or are you having the usual difficulties with English as a second language?

            1. Try reading his materials and not the distinction that he is trying to draw between real property and intellectual property.

              Think man. Think.

      2. Yeah, that’s pretty much the point. Why do you dislike that so much anon? I know you’re preoccupied with the law and rules and all, but why do not like citizens IN A DEMOCRACY advocating to those around them a different way? Why are you always so quick to poo poo that?

  4. I notice Big G has given relentless subject matter puffer Bob Sachs a forum to vent this week. Try to believe this:

    Alice: “We have long held that this provision contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.” Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U. S. ___, (2013) (slip op., at 11) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted).

    Thus, the Court appears to no longer expressly rely on a mental steps framework to evaluate patent claims for Abstract Ideas. This is also a signal that the courts and patent examiners should not too quickly assume that they can apply a mental steps to patent eligibility determinations.

    That’s funny stuff.

    Remember, Sachs is the same guy who characterized Prometheus as “not even wrong”. Now he wants us to believe that Alice has somehow removed mental processes from the logical framework established by Prometheus (wherein a mental step was crucial to the eligibility failure — it wasn’t an inherency case, folks). Never mind that a mental process is the quintessential example of a disembodied abstract concept.

    Let me perfectly clear: nobody will ever be able to successfully enforce a claim that protects a mental process, nor will anybody ever be able to enforce a claim in the form [oldstep]+[newthought]. And Alice is crystal clear that, in 2014 (or as of the time Alice’s patent was filed) adding the phrase “on a computer” to your claim is no different for eligibility purposes than saying “wherein the determination is made with a pencil and paper”. ”

    Anyone who doesn’t understand this is invariably ignorant (having not thought more than two seconds about the issues) or just pretending (trying to kick up dust to obtain a claim for oneself or a client).

      1. The rant of the zombie pet theorist

        I agree that there is certainly something zombie-like about Sachs’ rants. Prometheus was predictable and it’s never going to be overturned and the fundamental problem with Prometheus’ claims is never addressed by Sachs.

        You suffer from a similar affliction, as everyone knows.

        Have you managed to come up with a claim in the form [oldstep]+[newthought] that is sufficiently “integrated” to be eligible? I didn’t think so. That’s because there isn’t any such claim, and there never will be. That’s not a theory, just the application of common sense to the fundamental underpinnings of any non-insane patent system.

        But go ahead and keep pretending otherwise, zombie. It’s even easier now to appreciate how completely wrong and m0 r0n ic you’ve been for the past five years. Why should you bother to change? Just keep digging. People like you need deep, dark holes to hide in.

          1. You keep telling me to keep digging, but you won’t let go of the shovel…..

            Nobody knows what you’re talking about, Billy.

            Maybe you should spin your insult wheel again and see what comes up.

        1. Mischaracterizing my post as being against Sachs when it is clear that it is your pet theory that is the zombie pet theory is a rather unfortunate habit of your Malcolm.

          Such is the dross that you routinely engage in.

          Just as the rest of your spewing rhetoric is simply false.

          I need not provide ANY example to highlight the fact that your pet theory uses a de facto assumption that the claim elements are not integrated.

          Also lost in your rants being expunged was the reply highlighting three or four other major faults with your zombie pet theory that you never seem to want to clarify. What remains of your pet theory is an excessively banal proposition of a mere appended thought, non-integrated and tacked onto a claim resulting in a claim being not eligible. But even a claim element, completely claimed in structural terms merely tacked on and not integrated also fails (such as a claim to a bicycle and a goldfish in a copper bowl) – thus the crux of your little pet theory and your advocacy falsely centers around the mental step portion.

          Your pet theory does not handle or address the fact that perfectly patent eligible and patentable claims can have elements in the claim that are mental steps, and such steps can carry patentable weight. This has been highlighted many times when you strawman a discussion and move the goalpost to talking only about claims completely in the mind and never get back to discussing claims not completely in the mind, but having only a portion completed in the mind.

          Your pet theory does not handle or address the fact that perfectly patent eligible and patentable claims can have [oldstep]+[oldstep] configurations, let alone [oldstep]+[newthought]+[oldstep] configurations. This highlights the failure of your logic wanting to hold that “doing what is already allowed” is made infringement with but a thought, as clearly there are cases (with NO thought added) that doing a combination of things – already fully allowed – is NOT allowed.

          You seem unable to comprehend these things, and you continue to advocate even when these things are brought to your attention. Your “pet theory” is shown to be nothing more than a zombie and you just don’t care.

  5. Let’s take a different step (I will not judge if this one is inventive or not):

    A countervailing view:

    A letter from James Dyson to the editor of the Wall Street Journal.

    Patents are Fair and Protect Innovators

    Patent are put in place to allow the patentee to recoup his time, expenses,
    creativity and risk

    Elon Musk’s move to open source Tesla’s patents (“Tesla Releases Its Patents to Rivals,” Marketplace, June 13) may be a necessary step for the electric-car industry, which could benefit from a jump start, but in many ways it is a step backward for the talented engineers he aims to attract and motivate. Patents are put in place to allow the patentee to recoup his time, expenses, creativity and risk. When patents are upheld, vulture companies are forced to develop their own ideas. The result is real choice for consumers. Remove that barrier, and these companies are able to copy successful commercial products developed by others.

    We are taught in school that copying the work of another is cheating. Yet some courts believe encouraging copycat companies spurs competition. This view is shortsighted. Intellectual property is enshrined in law to protect those who have created it, at least for a limited time. If patents are offered up to competitors, why would they bother to invest in developing new technology? They will merely wait until the creator company has taken the massive risk for them, invested to make a product a commercial success and only then climb aboard the bandwagon. This doesn’t breed a competitive marketplace-it creates knockoffs from which the world’s most talented engineers will surely shy away.

    James Dyson
    Founder and Chief Engineer Dyson
    Malmesbury, England

    1. Elon Musk’s move to open source Tesla’s patents (“Tesla Releases Its Patents to Rivals,” Marketplace, June 13) may be a necessary step for the electric-car industry, which could benefit from a jump start, but in many ways it is a step backward for the talented engineers he aims to attract and motivate.

      Sounds like a great opportunity for Dyson to hire some disgruntled but talented engineers. I wonder why he’s whining to the Wall Street Journal?

      We are taught in school that copying the work of another is cheating. Yet some courts believe encouraging copycat companies spurs competition.

      Apparently Dyson is just a silly l i a r preaching his kindergarten-grade “arguments” to an ever-shrinking choir.

      1. MM, it is pretty clear that you don’t care about facts or the law, but that you an agenda that you think provides you with an ends justifying the means position.

        Civilize yourself. Your positions are antithetical to a modern society.

        1. you don’t care about facts

          This from the guy who just wrote that “all our laws” are broken by everybody, every day.

          Civilize yourself

          This from the guy who said that people who disagree with him about software claim eligiblity are like “rapists and killers.”

          1. Not people that disagree with me, but people that don’t care about the rule of law and morality–like you.

            So, you have missed one of the greatest stories of our time where news agencies have been writing about the end of intentionality in criminal law? And how many people end up in jail with felonies without even intending to break the law? I guess you haven’t been keeping up.

              1. It’s easy to believe.

                Let’s compare the number of posts that have been expunged, shall we?

                Oh, that’s right – you just don’t care about that.

              2. Ohhhh, such intelligence in that post…

                /eye roll.

                Tell me Malcolm, do you even know what “keep digging” means? Clearly, your posts with catchphrases like “Try to believe it, folks” only highlight your own duplicity.

              3. Ohhh, let me guess “fxckhead” is one of those things you consider highly meritorious that just so happen to be expunged and hidden from all the readers searching for posts of yours that have this fabled attribute…?

                Malcolm self-FAIL.

            1. let me guess “fxckhead” is one of those things you consider highly meritorious that just so happen to be expunged and hidden from all the readers searching for posts of yours that have this fabled attribute…?,

              Not at all.

              It’s just a really accurate description of you.

              [shrugs]

          2. Typical of you too MM to deny something that few if any legal scholars would deny. Just one of your uncivilized intellectually dishonest tactics to disrupt your opponents. Such a cute boy.

              1. MM doesn’t respond to this. Hits too close to what is actually going on.

                Right. Me and Lemley are too busy trying to figure out whether to rape you or kill you.

              1. the further away we get from when I said that to you the more distorted it becomes from you

                I’ve no idea what you’re talking about.

                Here’s the quote from June 24, 2014: This group is little better than the fundamentalist that are raping and killing in Iraq. Reason and the enlightenment mean nothing to this lot.

                And then your fellow cheerleader “anon” piped in immediatley to say “They want their ends, no matter what the means” (“they” referring to “attackers of the patent system”).

                Maybe you two should get together and make a list of the people who are “like rapists and killers” and the ones who aren’t. Then we can start to get a sense of what exactly you were talking about.

                As it stands, you both come across like drooling nxtcxses who forgot to take their meds. But we’re all pretty used to that already.

              2. I’ve no idea what you’re talking about.

                The Vinnie Barbarino short script reply.

                Then onto (yet another repeat) mischaracterization.

                Y
                A
                W
                N

            1. Meh the former for sure, and that might have the side effect of the later, but the later isn’t something we should hold our breath for sans the former.

      2. I wonder why he’s whining to the Wall Street Journal?

        LOL – another Malcolm self FAIL.

        If you have to wonder, then you don’t get the point.

        Instead of broadcasting your ignorance, perhaps spend a little more time in understanding the content of Dyson’s letter to the editor.

        Your labeling is what is silly. No,it is beyond silly. It is just more of the same Malcolm CRP, sure to be followed by more of the same AOOTWMD.

        Your mommy must be so proud.

        1. perhaps spend a little more time in understanding the content of Dyson’s letter to the editor.

          Translation: “If you just drink our kool-aid you would understand all these dog whistles!”

          LOL. No thanks, loser (<– and I do mean "loser" — it's a regular habit of yours that we've all noticed).

          Please don't forget to cheerlead alongside your buddy NWPA when he accuses critics of the patent system of being "rapists and killers". You didn't hesitate last time. It'd be sad to think you were changing teams this late in the game.

            1. again with the false association…?

              False association? Here it is again, folks:

              NWPA
              June 24, 2014 at 9:11 am

              This group is little better than the fundamentalist that are raping and killing in Iraq. Reason and the enlightenment mean nothing to this lot.

              17.2.1.1
              anon
              June 24, 2014 at 9:33 am (direct response to NWPA)

              They want their ends, no matter what the means.

              Yup. Clearly these two l0 sers really think completely differently about this stuff.

              As if.

              1. You of course left out the denial and perfect alternative to your bogus forced choice of how to actually read the comments – not surprising given your propensity for mischaracterization.

                Mindless Malcolm Nutshell response:

                What is there to address?

                You yourself show NO signs or any willingness to engage in reason. You yourself HABITUALLY engage in point blank unethical treatment of law, facts, and of what others post.

                Tell me Malcolm, when are you going to change from your own bankrupt posting style, and drop your short script tactics?

                Drop the ad hominem
                Drop the spin
                Drop the mischaracterization of law (including the exceptions to the judicial doctrine of printed matter)
                Drop the mischaracterization of facts
                Drop the mischaracterization of what others post
                And above all, drop the Accuse OthersOf That Which Malcolm Does.

                If your point is that you purposefully misrepresent what others post….
                … then your point is just another Malcolm Self-FAIL.

                Nice job. Run with that, pumpkin.

                Um – you really really love that self-FAIL feeling, don’tcha?

              2. You of course left out the denial

                What “denial” was that, Billy? You’re denying that you didn’t pipe in to echo NWPA’s sentiment? Gee, the facts show otherwise.

                Too bad about that. Own it, Billy.

                Own it.

          1. But, MM, that is you, isn’t it? You seem to think repeating an accurate characterization of you is a denial. Weird. No. I think each time you repeat it that most of the people on this board nod in agreement with me.

            Fact is that you prove it everyday you are on this board.

            1. Fact is that you prove it everyday you are on this board.

              Without a freaking doubt.

              His short script and number one rhetorical t001 of AOOTWMD are rather infamous.

  6. from the link (emphasis added):

    and dismisses copyright, like other forms of property, as a mere plaything of political forces.

    Jane would be so happy.

    1. You’re only going to accuse Professor Bell of being a communist?

      C’mon. I was looking forward to your usual “ivory towerism” rant. What happened? Is your insult generator on the fritz?

Comments are closed.