By Jason Rantanen
I’ve created this post so that folks can comment on the “real names only” rule that I’m applying in the Interpretation-Construction Distinction threads. I’ll continue to delete posts under pseudonyms in that thread.
As a point of clarification: Your “real name” is the name that you would use when filling out documents that include the language “under penalty of perjury.”
And a second clarification: I’m only applying this rule to this series of posts. It is *not* a general policy change.
“Real names only” should be necessary for anyone who posts prolifically. Allow the occasional passerby to post anonymously. That said, overall, non-anonymity would elevate the level of discussion in these forums.
Really, though, the only way to have a blog on the Internet with high quality commentary is to police the comments, and that takes time. Remove offensive posts, ban people who cast insults or use (or simulate) offensive language, insert some editorial comments from the moderator, such as “please, keep this discussion on topic”, issue warnings, or outright remove entire threads of discussion that are bickering or are essentially repeats of prior remarks, allow readers to flag posts for moderator review, etc. A lot of blogs have comment sections that allow one to “collapse” entire threads … see Disqus, which has many of these features. Until something is done to shape these discussions and curtail abuses, Patently-O will continue to be mostly an excellent source for patent law updates with spotty quality of debate, which is too bad.
I wonder why Disqus was abandoned?
I wonder if it had anything to do with the fact that it was easy to see which poster said exactly what (unless of course, maximum privacy mode was selected).
See 36.1.1 for related musings.
Let me also add, as a reminder, that I have always been willing to live by any posting rules that I see enforced. Objective clear rules enforced equally is really the only way to go.
Seriously, just read through this nonsense. MM is the root cause of the problem. He has accounted for like 1/2 of all posts on patentlyo and is clearly being paid to do so.
He repeated posts the latest policy positions of the anti-patent movement, he regularly engages in name calling, sock puppetry use, blasting, etc.
Just verify that he isn’t paid to blog on here and all will be well. Most telling is that he won’t take me up on the offer to not respond to each other’s posts.
And yes I am limiting these type of comments to this thread of posts. But, note that wherever I post on this blog that MM follows with harassment.
link to nytimes.com
Here is an article that in general supports the proposition that anonymous posting is needed.
There is an interesting and somewhat counter-intuitive point that can be brought up here, and it regards another brief experiment for posting under the Disqus system.
During the time that that system was in use, very very very few people opted for the maximum privacy settings – which provided for far more than just simple anonymity. It provided that your history of comments on this blog alone could not be directly tracked.
I note this because every single one of the very small group of highest privacy settings posters were also regulars that have come out as anti-software and anti-business method patent people.
I asked (and was never answered) why that level of privacy was desired.
Anyone want to hazard a guess to fill in the void?
A little OT, but Night Writer, what do you think of this:
finance.yahoo.com/news/big-data-knows-youre-going-130331790.html
I think this is going to be commonplace in 10 years. I think that computers are going to start managing people. My guess is that most people will be working for a computer as a direct supervisor within 20 years. I also think that J. Ginsburg statement that the patent system wasn’t meant for these type of inventions that of organizing human behavior was and is perhaps the most ignorant thing I have ever heard from an educated person. It is frightening that the justices are so removed from reality. Or that they would try to hold that a machine that does their job is “abstract.” Just bizarre. Epic in how strange it is.
“My guess is that most people will be working for a computer as a direct supervisor within 20 years.”
Lulz. I’ll barely work for my current boss as is. Working for a computer appears a lot less likely than human level AI becoming commonplace. At least to me.
There have been some excellent science fiction novels about how computers are going to be used to manage people.
There is some truth to that, but I would add: don’t feed a troll. Ignoring one can be effective.
Eight years and running says otherwise.
L O N G before I started posting here, the exact same problems ran rampant.
See patentlyo.com/patent/2007/06/patentlyo_comme.html/comment-page-2
Wow, that was a cool post anon. Too bad you can’t see the comments.
Interestingly, that’s not the only glitch with the archives.
I have the link to the post with the posting “rules” (in which, for example, it states that posts are to be of a personal nature), but that particular post does not show up in the “by the month” archive look-up tool at the bottom of the blog (the direct link to a typical “terms of use” was removed awhile back).
Further, there are a number of past oddities that reinforce a perception (and note that I am saying only that it is a perception) that Malcolm has special privileges and leeway on this site (for example, prior to a software change that broadly enabled the function, Malcolm was able to provide an internal link to a specific comment. As another example, Malcolm’s posts skated through a filter and my direct copy of his exact post was detained. Lastly, limitations on postings ‘offered’ on a non-symmetric basis have been “justified” by a vague reference to history, while notations to certain other history have been inexplicably ignored.
I can only think back to the sage words of Anon2 – this is not an objective forum.
>Malcolm’s posts skated through a filter and my direct copy of his exact post was detained.
Well that’s weird. But, my guess is that MM is a massive trouble maker, but that Dennis likes him because he has kept the comments section active through thick and thin. You know that in many ways having a paid poster use your site is not all bad.
This is a great question and I really appreciate the attempt to improve comments here! However, I don’t think policing or real names are really the best solutions (besides obvious policing attempts to curb spam).
The best solution would be to limit the number of comments per user per post. For example, three to five comments per person ber post (e.b., based on email address). If they really have that much to say, they should write an article.
This would encourage robust debate available with anonymity while reducing the often ugly back and forth that I get annoyed with here. In fact, I generally don’t read comments much here because I get sick of the vendettas and immaturity that occupies 80% of the comment section. There are a few specific commenters that hate each other. I have seen huge and pointless back and forth arguments between some (I will not list screen names, we all know who you are). I am not interested in their hate for each other. I would be willing to skip through some of those if they weren’t so numerous.
I will say that I do often appreciate the input of the top commenters, but I think that if they are limited in how many posts, they may think them out a bit better and not fall into some of the low quality commenting that I often see. If you really have that much to say, write a nice article and try to get it posted or published.
One thing that promotes is making really big posts – trying to get everything into it all at once…
And then being unable to respond to replies afterwards.
Yes, that is a bit of a worry. But if you put the number at 5 or so, you get a number of more detailed, thought out comments, and then one big one… All joking aside, the number of one-line comments is a bit annoying. Say something and let it stand, don’t take sixty posts to say it. Or say it over and over.
Another option would be to at least reduce root posts (not replies) and automatically leave reply branches unexpanded…
You know, from my perspective, here I have an open offer not to respond to MM’s post if he doesn’t respond to mine. He won’t do it. He has a post below that basically says that he feels it is his duty to respond to my posts and that he feels that my arguments are so poor that he has the right to be abusive.
Now tell me who is the source of the problems.
And, again, a simple verification that someone is not a paid blogger would solve this problem.
I ask you: if Google is the number one contributor to Congress, then what is the likelihood that they are not paying people to blog? Answer from any modern marketing person: ZERO.
tl;dr: Please keep the commenting rules the way they are.
I never post but read many of the comments from the articles that are interesting to me. Please don’t require real names. Although the comments can devolve into a form of crassness usually reserved for middle school locker rooms, the analyses in the comments are invaluable, and I believe a loss of anonymity will lead to a loss of depth of treatment. Those of us who rely on keeping clients happy are justifiably worried about attaching our real names to our comments. Statements that are not controversial now have a way of becoming controversial years later.
As for filtering the comments before allowing them to post, although the theory is sound, its application often leads loss of readership and vigorous debate. People just lose interest when the comments are not posted quickly. A “good” example of active moderation is Redline. Although relatively new, it is not a hot bed of debate like its sister site, Above the Law (which, incidentally, has its share of crass comments).
In the legal profession, we need vigorous debate to develop the law. Sometimes that means exposure to ideas that make us feel icky, but that icky feeling is not any reason to stop the debate or even to impede it. Clearly the First Amendment does not apply to this private blog, but the ideals behind free speech are just as true here as in the public forum. We cannot truly find an optimal solution to the problems of today without debating the relative merits of as many ideas as possible, rejecting those riddled with nonsense and adopting and refining those truly worthy of development.
Well stated – see also my post at 1.1.4.1.
“[Responding to zombie arguments and/or debunked myths] doesn’t need to be done with personal insults. But it needs to be done. ”
How about letting D make that call?
D created a blog with a comments section (the only kind of blog that matters, as far as I can tell). People are going to comment and people should comment, both in response to the originating posts and to other comments, particularly when the posts or the comments includes a statement or argument that is either nonsensical on its face or that can be easily shown to be logically incorrect.
The problem here is not excessive comments in response to zombie arguments. The problem is the zombie arguments (and the inevitable ad hominems backing them up) and the tiny handful of commenters who insist on making them either because (1) they are hear to troll or because (2) nobody has ever explained to them why the statements are nothing more than self-serving slogans (or worse: because some “expert” elsewhere has been preaching those slogans to them).
Among the zombie arguments that we have seen trotted out here (and elswhere) endlessly: (1) if you disagree with me about patent expansionist position X, then you must be an Examiner or a thief; (2) every patent creates a job; (3) critics of patent expansionism are thieves, communists, anti-business or anti-american; (4) critics of patent expansionism are paid for by [insert company here]; (5) critics of patent expansionism don’t understand technology, law or business; (6) scholars are especially prone to espousing communist positions; (7) all processes are eligible for patenting; (8) all manufactures are eligible for patenting; (9) all improvements to eligible subject matter are eligible for patenting; (10) you can’t dissect claims for any reason, but especially for subject matter eligibility reasons; (11) obviousness can take care of all the patents that are being found ineligible today.
These arguments are the intellectual equivalent of the “arguments” that “there is no evidence that humans evolved from apes” and “evolution is a myth created by communist scientists.” And yet we see them promulgated over and over again by (allegedly) college educated lawyers. Why? Because there’s other competing “information sources” out there that are still pumping people up with the nonsense, and — most importantly –because they don’t have any better arguments.
The idea that one becomes “a bigger man” by giving a free pass to the zombie arguments is barely worth addressing. Nevertheless, I just addressed it. It took me two minutes and now I’m going to return to my oatmeal.
“The idea that one becomes “a bigger man” by giving a free pass to the zombie arguments is barely worth addressing. ”
The idea isn’t that you become a bigger man, it’s that you already are the bigger man and you will be willing to show that to the world through your actions.
I understand all of your reasons for addressing them brosef, but the fact is that as of today most of their talking points are already without the “legal support” (aka judicial pronouncements) that they were leaning on 5 years ago. Thus, the influence of their comments is practically nil without you creating a ruckus on top of their comment. That is to say, at this point they’re just flappin they gums. So just let them for awhile just as an experiment if nothing else.
And again, D can banzor them anytime he pleases.
6, I read your words and found them to make good sense. I suspect that, as of now, goodwill remains with MM. having regard to your powerful point about the recent caselaw, it might be that, from now on, the most potent anti-zombie procedure is simply to ignore their postings.
MM is often very funny though. I should hate to lose that ornament to this blog.
6, there is something I want to ask you, about the Chiang claim construction stuff. I can’t ask it on the closed threads. So, if I may:
Chiang’s “Ladders of Abstraction” Paper 8that he invites us to read) gives as an example a claim to a method of treating AIDS with X-radiation. The specification recites in full enabling detail one such method (which for the sake of the example, we must assume, I suppose, is effective). Chiang postulates verious levels of abstraction in the independent claim, which might (for example) read:
A: A treatment for AIDS
B: Method of treating AIDS, with radiation.
C: Method of treating AIDS, with X-rays
D: Method of treating AIDS, with daily doses of X-radiation
E: Method ………with (dosage level and frequency specified)
Chiang writes about vagueness in the claim, and over-broadness, but to me this is making a mountain out of a molehill. I suppose that is what academics like to do but I think they and Supreme Courts should do the opposite, namely simplify issues, not make them more complex than necessary.
For me, there is an easier way, as follows. Can this easier way be utilised, inside the USPTO?
The specification of a patent application virtually always enables a technical problem to be solved (even if only to provide a mere alternative to a prior art product, process or apparatus). It enables one mathematical point within the balloon defined by the peripheral claim. As one ramps up the level of abstractness in the claim, it changes, from being a definition of that solution to a mere statement of the problem to be solved. A solution is a patentable invention. A mere statement of a problem to be solved is not.
Now, at the EPO, the Examiner uses Art 84 EPC (clarity of the claim) to get to the right answer. In the USPTO it would be a 112 issue.
The EPO Examiner observes that, according to the specification, the only enabled way to solve the problem is to use daily doses of X-rays (with dosage in a given range). There is no teaching in the specification that makes it plausible, that outside this range any effect is achieved. To the contrary. It appears from the overall teaching in the specification that the dosage specified is the only way so far discovered, how to achieve the effect. The independent claim becomes “clear” only when it recites those features which, in combination solve the problem ie deliver the effect. Any claim that omits these features, while holding itself out as a definition of “the invention” is disingenuous and in fact in contradiction to the teaching of the specification, as to what the invention is. So its presence renders the specification and claims, as a whole, unclear.
Looking at it this way, none of claims A,B,C above is allowable under Art 84, EPC.
Such an approach saves you having to tell the Applicant that his claim is vague or over-broad. With the EPO approach, the Applicant is the author of his own misfortune, so not best placed to rage at the iniquity of the Examiner or the law.
And the inventor can understand the objection too. For me, we all have a duty to make patent law easily comprehensible to inventors and businesspeople, to help them become fans of our patent system and see the goodness and commonsense in it.
Your thoughts?
“Chiang’s “Ladders of Abstraction” Paper”
Yeah I read a tiny bit. Figured I might read the rest later. He has some insights but at least so far he doesn’t seem to have come across the most fundamental insight regarding that topic. Specifically that letting abstraction rum rampant in the claiming of actual inventions in the actual useful arts is what led to the current conundrum in the law. Then you have people saying “if it is ok over there, then why not over here as well?”. Truth is, it never should have been ok “over there” in the first place. But lax oversight, coupled with some conscious policy decisions, permitted it over the years.
On to your questions tho.
” Chiang postulates verious levels of abstraction in the independent claim,”
First allow me to jump in with what I see as a crucial correction for you and Chiang. he calls this “abstraction” but it is really just “generalization” in his example. He isn’t really doing much “abstracting”. Generalization is legit. Abstracting, not so much and is especially vulnerable to going off the rails.
“So its presence renders the specification and claims, as a whole, unclear.”
You’re asking if we should try to utilize the approach of rejecting the claim under 112 2nd (or maybe 1st) for being “unclear”?
If that’s the question, no I don’t think that that will fly under Nautilus. One of ordinary skill is quite aware of what the claims A B C mean, that is to say, they’re clear.
“And the inventor can understand the objection too. ”
Somehow I don’t think they will.
In any event, rejecting most of his hypo should be addressable with 112 1st enablement even though that section has been so abused by the courts as to be entirely too toothless as of late at the office stage due to lack of evidence against the applicant. Which of course is stupid, the applicant should be the one having to provide evidence of his broader enablement in such situations. And yeah yeah, sometimes a scope of enablement rejection goes out ok, but sometimes they’re real arses about it and office personnel are not trained with it.
A gets knocked out ez with 112 enablement. B and C likely require scope of enablement rejections that might be hard for examiners in those arts to enunciate and find properly. What we really need to combat B and C is more recognition of scope of enablement rejections in the office.
What we need for a complete picture here (for the ladders of abstraction discussion) is for three additional ‘experts’ to join the fray.
What say you, RandomExaminer, DanH/Leopold, and Ned?
Thanks 6. Yes “scope of enablement” would work.
At the EPO, the notion “has Applicant made it plausible” has a lot of traction. But then, under Europe’s civil law system, EPO Examiners have more leeway, to assert themselves as a person “skilled in the art” and erect a prima facie case, whereupon the burden switches to Applicant, positively to demonstrate (as by evidence) that the Examiner’s prima facie case is not well-founded. Once you had learned the ropes, you would enjoy writing Office Actions at the EPO, and would scare the (brown stuff) out of many of them.
Further replies to you 6.
I do not say that the claim, as such, is lacking clarity. Rather, i say that the document is unclear, the one that comprises the description and the claim and in which the claims are to be read in the light of the decription. If they contradict each other, the doc is unclear even if, each taken alone, the claim by itself is clear and the description, taken in isolation, is clear.
You say that generalisation is OK. Up to a point, yes it is. That is the skill of the patent attorney, to take it to that point. The skill of the courts is different: it is to tell us all how to identify that point, where the claim ceases to define a solution and instead simply announces a research project to be undertaken, to solve a specific problem.
Scope of enablement? OK, it could work, but only when the PTO is given the power to hold to its line. The way I see it, you can’t object till you have evidence. At least in the computer-implemented arts, Applicant just tells you that for a competent programmer the necessary code is obvious, so the wide claim is enabled, across its full width. What can you do then? Back down? What else can you do?
“Scope of enablement? OK, it could work, but only when the PTO is given the power to hold to its line.”
We have that power, we just don’t use it often, preferring to only use it as a last resort or when we have good evidence against them. But then, we don’t really need to use it all that often either.
“The way I see it, you can’t object till you have evidence. ”
Right, it is very rare when we’d make one without evidence. They have to be going waayyyy beyond what is reasonably enabled to get hit without evidence against them.
“At least in the computer-implemented arts, Applicant just tells you that for a competent programmer the necessary code is obvious, so the wide claim is enabled, across its full width. What can you do then? Back down? What else can you do?”
Nothing, that’s why there is such a problem in the “computer-implemented” “arts” such as they are. Think on it max, all “programming” is is “typing” in almost all modern applications. If practically the whole “art” is just “typing” then of course you’re going to get absurdly broad patents if you allow them, and doubly so if you let them use functional language. But they get around this little fact by quite a bit of sleight of hand.
Thanks again, 6. One quibble. It is not right, to say “of course” the result is the allowance of “absurdly broad” claims. No inevitability about it, at least at the EPO.
I hope you agree that the issue is not with “broad claims” as such. Sometimes the inventor’s contribution to the art is so ground-breaking that an extremely broad claim is only fair. The problem is when they are “absurdly” broad. Why does anybody think “Absurd!” when they see some broad claims but not others?
The EPO has various tools to deal with this particular absurdity, of which “scope of enablement” is only one, and Art 84 clarity is another.
The tool I particularly like is Art 56 obviousness. At the EPO, the only sort of non-obviousness that counts towards patentability is non-obviousness of the solution to an objective problem in a technical field. Solving as non-technical business or accountancy problem doesn’t “count”, doesn’t carry any patentable weight. This is what eliminates the absurdly broad claims.
Now that the appeal courts in the USA are increasingly telling us that they are tying patentability to the solution of a technical problem, I imagine that the USPTO treatment of obviousness, guided by the courts, might, in the fullness of time, come closer to the way the EPO does obviousness, thereby returning the patent system to its intended role, promoting the progress of the useful arts and not getting in the way of progress anywhere else.
This thread is about to drop off the list of current threads, so we should stop now. It has been fun though.
“I hope you agree that the issue is not with “broad claims” as such. Sometimes the inventor’s contribution to the art is so ground-breaking that an extremely broad claim is only fair”
That depends on whether or not the inventor’s contribution to the art is “ground-breaking” typing or something other than typing which might be inventive in the useful arts.
“Why does anybody think “Absurd!” when they see some broad claims but not others?”
I usually think “absurd” when I see a claim going well beyond the bounds of what was enabled by the inventor. As in, specifically by the inventor. Or outside the scope of enablement. And occasionally in light of anticipatory art known already to myself. But that’s just me.
“Now that the appeal courts in the USA are increasingly telling us that they are tying patentability to the solution of a technical problem, I imagine that the USPTO treatment of obviousness, guided by the courts, might, in the fullness of time, come closer to the way the EPO does obviousness, thereby returning the patent system to its intended role, promoting the progress of the useful arts and not getting in the way of progress anywhere else.”
We will see.
The exchange here, while pleasant and cordial (as would be expected from those sharing the same bubble), exemplifies several repeated fallacies that are propagated in such like-minded discussions.
Let me politely then add a note:
1) there is a non-US sovereign abdication. Comparison effects are one thing – glossing over actual differences is quite another. Even under our recent Court rulings, business methods have not been ruled as outside of the Useful Arts (3, the new 4, is still not 5)
Both 6 and MaxDrei use a de facto definition that such are outside of the Useful Arts as a foundation to their views. Clearly, when your foundation is so flawed, the edifice you build will not stand.
2) lack of respect for separation of powers and the limits of the judiciary in writing patent law. As covered by Prof. Hricik on the ethics side of the blog (in part), certain people appear to be needed (often) to be reminded that US patent law is by design statutory law with strict limits as to the use of common law development. Pre-1952, congress had invited the judiciary to help write that law by punting on the defining of the word “invention.” As has been shown, Congress changed the game in 1952 by choosing to eliminate this authority to the courts and setting up a new section of law – choosing obviousness in place of invention.
There is NO legally authorized manner for the judiciary to (now explicitly) write and insert an additional word (i.e. ‘technological’) to the words of Congress.
3) discussions on breadth can be – and must be – separated from discussions of 101. It is disingenuous to import that which is a 112 discussion into a 101 discussion. The Court itself said this in Prometheus explicitly. To say one thing (as to not to do something) and yet turn around and do the very thing under a different name is the very defintion of duplicitous.
4) the aim for “cordiality” can mask these types of deeply flawed discussions, and the fact that these points here have been made several times in the past to both participants (and yet so eagerly ignored by both) also should serve as a sign that the ‘experiment’ here is f@tally flawed.
My thoughts are in the filter I guess we’ll see if they pop up or if I have to repost without “g e n e r a l i z a t i o n”.
My thoughts Max are that you are as culpable as MM for his behavior. He consistently support him, and I think that MM has captured your attitude in this post. You somehow believe that MM has the right to become abusive or post 10’s of posts if he judges the merits of the arguments to be not high enough.
This is some really ridiculous stuff MM and 6 are posting. 1) 101 is currently not anywhere near settled. 2) The opinions expressed by me are also expressed by dist. court judges, many practicing patent attorneys, and some retired Fed. Cir. judges.
And MM is saying what? That he has evaluated the arguments and since he believes them to not have merit that he may then become rude and as obnoxious as he wants, ’cause, ’cause.
And let’s not forget that MM is currently blowing about as much smoke as he can to avoid having to be verified as not a paid blogger.
Really, the nonsense of MM and 6’s posts are just ridiculous.
“This is some really ridiculous stuff MM and 6 are posting. 1) 101 is currently not anywhere near settled. 2) The opinions expressed by me are also expressed by dist. court judges, many practicing patent attorneys, and some retired Fed. Cir. judges.”
I can agree with 1) but that’s because it is only likely to become more strict on ya as time goes forward. Not less. The 101 cases that just happened will not be overturned in our lifetimes bro and nothing short of overturning them or a new statute is going to loosen them up. The supremes have already shown willingness to set the Federal circuit straight should they step out of line. You can continue to talk about the subject all you like, in terms of governance your discussion will have zero impact at this stage. Sorry. This is real life and that’s how that works.
And re 2) I’m sure they are. It’s too bad that those folks are likewise in the same boat as yourself. Your positions had their day in court. Now it’s time to move on. That’s how governance works bro.
“And MM is saying what? That he has evaluated the arguments and since he believes them to not have merit that he may then become rude and as obnoxious as he wants, ’cause, ’cause.”
I don’t think that’s what he is saying. He’s simply saying he should be allowed to post after you and clean up your mess. Your getting his goad isn’t usually directly addressed by him in the manner you just stated it supposedly was.
“And let’s not forget that MM is currently blowing about as much smoke as he can to avoid having to be verified as not a paid blogger.”
Ummmm, okaaaaaaay. Right. Newsflash, ain’t nobody but you give two shts about his being paid or not. I know you’re the most important person evar in your mind, but on here you’re somewhat less so.
>>Your getting his goad isn’t usually directly addressed by him in the manner you just stated it supposedly was.
This is the part that is most offensive. Really? MM has this special status where he is allowed to have his “goad” gotten and then this justifies his behavior and the support of this gang of friendlies. Sorry no special status for MM.
>Your positions had their day in court. Now it’s time to move on.
Certainly I do recognize the new cases. And have moved on to responding to the new decisions from proposing responses. Do you really think you understand the state of 101 better than me? Or that I am not entitled to my opinions? The law does not work that way. 101 is not settled law. 101 is very active and I am sure the judicial activist would just love for everyone to roll over and give up.
Fact is from a legal perspective, MM’s argument to “move on” is ridiculous. One does not “move on” (roll over) in a fluid area of the law.
Frankly, 6, I can’t even think of your arguments without laughing because they are so absurd. And the fact that MM has you guys repeating them is ludicrous. 101 is a fluid area of the law. No one is going to “move on” anytime soon. 101 will be contentious for years to come. You should read what some of the district court judges have said about the SCOTUS. Worse than anything I write.
Or read what Chisum has written about Benson. Fact is that there are many people that are highly respected that say that the current state of 101 is madness. And, 6, again, law does not work like “move on.” A contentious area of the law like 101 will remain contentious probably for our life time. I am afraid that the zeitgeist of the judicial activist have mucked with patent law and now we are stuck with this mess created by Stern and Lemley.
MM’s attempt to use this as a justification for bad behavior should not stand and should be seen as just silly tro ll behavior. The fact is that after watching this blog for 10 years there is no doubt in my mind that the problems would be solved by reining in MM. The fact that he believes he has a special status where he is allowed to have a “goad” that if gotten entitles him to become abusive is reason enough.
“This is the part that is most offensive. Really? MM has this special status where he is allowed to have his “goad” gotten and then this justifies his behavior and the support of this gang of friendlies. Sorry no special status for MM.”
I didn’t say he gets special status. I said he has yet to address that topic in the manner you keep on ascribing to him as having already addressed the topic.
And to be clear, I’m not excusing him going all crazy on a few threads of late here. You all need to cool it a bit. This be the new tomorrow after all, and even though we aren’t rid of anon entirely yet we still need to do better.
But MM does have some decent analysis he posts on a variety of topics in addition to his fighting. You on the other hand rarely seem to post on anything other than to fight or spread a certain position which we all already know.
“Certainly I do recognize the new cases. ”
I’m glad to hear you say that. Though I’m not sure they have really sunk into your soul just yet. From the rest of your post you don’t seem to be getting it.
101 was never “contentious” within the last 50+ years. The only thing that was ever “contentious” was the federal circuit’s meddling in it. Now that is over. Kaput. Ended. That is what ended. The meddling. By the CAFC. Now 101 gets to go back to being not contentious again because the meddling is over. That meddling isn’t going to resume in our lifetimes and the supremes aren’t going to about ship. And that is what you don’t understand.
Of course there will be contentious cases, but that is a different matter.
“The fact that he believes he has a special status where he is allowed to have a “goad” that if gotten entitles him to become abusive is reason enough.”
Careful brosef I remember you going all apoplectic, positively bat sht insane, for awhile around a year ago. And at the time you were all “o it’s ok”.
>101 was never “contentious” within the last 50+ years. The >only thing that was ever “contentious” was the federal >circuit’s meddling in it
This is factually wrong. Benson was all about 101. The 1952 Patent Act stretching back a bit more was about 101 too without explicating getting rid of “flash of genius.”
“Benson was all about 101.”
Of course it was “all about 101”. And it was resolved under the uncontroversial law of 101 at the time. And that law hasn’t changed one bit in 50 years.
“The 1952 Patent Act stretching back a bit more was about 101 too without explicating getting rid of “flash of genius.””
Right, they dropped 103 out of 101 and got rid of the req for “invention” as it was understood in the day (requiring flash o genius).
“brosef“….
6, and the Rob Lowe “Meathead” cable version….
Way too funny.
“and even though we aren’t rid of anon entirely”
So much for that fake politeness…
>>ain’t nobody but you give two shts about his being paid or not.
People should. 1) it is a policy of this blog that forbids paid bloggers. 2) If you were educated about the modern tactics of paid bloggers, you would care. They pollute a blog with policy statements repeated over and over again, and just like MM’s posts typically engage in abusive behavior to obfuscate issues.
I saw this recently when I blogged about the vapor cigarettes. Wow, it was clear that the tobacco companies had paid bloggers that came after me. I post a short two paragraph post and was blasted for it. (Basically, I said we know nicotine is addictive so why in the world are we allowing kids to use these things.)
Maybe you’re right that they “should” (i.e. are obliged to be). But they aren’t. They “should” care about the elections of the government. But they aren’t. We’ve got more important things to care about. Like counts, money women, etc.
You been vaping much? Or are you just doing work on them?
“Basically, I said we know nicotine is addictive so why in the world are we allowing kids to use these things.”
I thought they were regulating the use of the nicotine additives and all that? I mean, I know nicotine in and of itself doesn’t hurt people much iirc. It’s the additives and smoke from cigs that hurts people.
To be sure, you could get “blasted” for posting that a few times in smoker’s areas. Even with no paid people. Don’t get too paranoid old timer. Sometimes people just like to get on the interbuts and show they arse.
Bah, Marbury v Madison was just a row over a silly little Justice of the Peace commission – why could not those parties “just move one”…
One fallacy (just move one / just accept it / come up with a fall back position) dutifully exposed.
You are welcome.
They did just move on after the decision iirc.
Not after the initial decision 6 (that’s kind of the point)
Plus, you need to visit again the Hricik side of the blog and the several posts which show just how often the Supremes get it wrong.
“Not after the initial decision 6”
Right, after the USSC decision. Like the ones just made.
You are missing the point.
Justice does not stop being sought if the court (or Court) is wrong.
What would you tell Mr. Scott?
“What would you tell Mr. Scott?”
That depends on what he asked me. And when he asked me. But a good response as a lawlyer post decision might be to offer him some options. His “legal” option in the realm of “legal actions” appears to be to petition congress. Not file yet another lawsuit and hope the supremes change their minds.
A slightly less “legal action” minded option for Mr. Scott might be to simply wait 3 months until he is freed and then die a year or so later. That option appears to have worked out for him fairly well as it was probably faster than yet another lawsuit and freed him before he died.
So I will tell you, like I would tell him, in terms of legal actions to take, you petition congress. Probably best to start with your rep, and work your way to members of the judiciary committee. Or you can wait three months and die a year later.
In effect, 6 advocates a lay down and die approach.
No thanks.
(and yes 6, as I have mentioned in the past, I do contact both my House and Senate representatives – thanks. I also avail myself of public forums; and will continue to do so)
“In effect, 6 advocates a lay down and die approach.
No thanks.”
Brosef, how is contacting congress “laying down and dying”? I contacted Goodlatte and got some of his constituents to do the same. Now look who’s writing bills up ins of the congress. You could do that as well. IF you were able to persuade people.
Read my 6:21 post again 6 – especially the part in the parentheticals.
By the way, have you seen the latest Rob Lowe satellite versus cable commercials? They are quite humorous.
This obviously got missed in the shuffle below as anon did not answer the question below, so I will repeat it here:
“Are you currently licensed to practice law in at least one state, anon?”
Lost in the shuffle… or just merely lost?
What is the point of your question?
(btw, the answer is yes, I am currently licensed to practice law in at least one state)
This thread is like Dante’s inferno dei superbi. Compare it to the threads with the real-name policy and the difference is striking. The ratio of wheat-to-chaff in the real-name threads is at least three orders of magnitude higher.
Greg, I think that you missed the stated purpose of this particular thread. Prof. Rantanen stated “I’ve created this post so that folks can comment on the ‘real names only’ rule”
Let me ask a clarifying question: are you gauging your wheat-to-chaff ratio on the “Real Name” experiment or on the Chiang/Hrdy-Picozzi/Solum topic?
Yeah, I am almost resolved to the fact that maybe real names is a better policy if the blog owner is not going to spend a good deal of time policing.
The one with 8 comments or the one with 4?
The point is well taken. Obviously the real-name only threads have gotten much less commentary. On the other hand, I am not sure how much of that is a function of the real-names policy, and how much is a function of the less controversial nature of the topic. Obviously the pseudonymous commentary on the real-name threads has moved over to the neighboring threads, and even those threads have not gotten a lot of comments on the subject of the Chiang article. In any event, as others have already noted, the quantity/quality trade off in the real-name threads is not such a bad thing.
“as others have already noted, the quantity/quality trade off in the real-name threads is not such a bad thing.”
Not to be contrarian, but not all others have held to this, and from a quick impression, there is no overwhelming majority one way or the other, and no conclusion (including yours) is warranted.
“On the other hand, I am not sure how much of that is a function of the real-names policy”
It’s an experiment that’s been run a few times now here and elsewhere. It is.
“The ratio of wheat-to-chaff in the real-name threads is at least three orders of magnitude higher.”
Yes, ratio high, numbers abysmal.
So, again I will make the offer that below. MM’s response is that he must respond because people will say things about him that are lies in our posts. OK. I won’t mention you. I am sure he is going to expand “MM” into a category and say he must defend the judicial activist and their cause. Seriously, Dennis read this these posts below. MM is obviously the root cause of the problems on this board.
Still MM the offer stands.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You know maybe one simple rule would solve over 1/2 the problem. Forbid anon from responding to MM, and MM from responding to anon. I’d be happy to be included in that deal with MM (and if you threw in jesse, I’d be in hog heaven.)
You can see below that MM will not take this deal with me because of ……, well, you can try to figure that out yourself.
I also suggest a less stringent requirement that at least the poster (if they are frequent ) be verified as a non-paid poster.
This seems to be a very minimal requirement, which I think would eliminate most of the problems on this board.
Below is MM’s response to me regarding not responding to each other’s posts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why on earth would I make a “deal” with a shameless pile of lying sh t like you?
All I’d be doing is giving you free reign to smear people like me who disagree with you with completely fabricated horseshirt, just like you did in this thread.
Why in the world would I do that?
NWPA, remember this?
“NWPA – I have never seen any evidence that any of the the posters are being paid directly to post comments. That said, most of the patent law professionals who post on this board have a strong vested interested in various aspects of the patent system.
I would ask you to refrain from accusing individuals from being paid bloggers unless you are able to present actual evidence of such.”
Dennis Crouch – September 11, 2014
– and your response –
“Fair enough, although I would contend that spending greater than 3 hours a day blogging on this site is at least circumstantial evidence particularly when they blog on other sites as well. But, apparently you have higher evidentiary standards.”
NWPA (Night Writer Patent Attorney) – Sept. 11, 2014
You have already been asked to knock off the paid blogger accusations.
Get back on track with taking your meds and stop filling this blog with nonsense.
Can we likewise have evidence from Malcolm for his accusations of “bottom feeder grifters” and the like…?
(or any of the countless spin-mischaracterizations…?)
his accusations of “bottom feeder grifters”
Accusations? More like “the evidence is right in front of your face and here’s what it means”.
You can’t remove discussion of “bottom feeders” and grifters from the patent system because (1) they exist and (2) they are both a symptom and a cause of many widely recognized problems with the patent system.
You see how that works, “anon”?
Again: Dennis knows this. Jason knows it. David knows it. Anybody who practices patent law knows it. Non-lawyers know it. Everybody knows it.
There’s a big difference between discussing such people, their behavior, and (most importantly) the legal/circumstantial situations in which they thrive versus some commenter’s paranoid, baseless (and most likely hypocritical) obsession with “people being paid to post comments here.”
Ask a friend to hold your hand and help you if you can’t understand this simple stuff, “anon.”
All that said, even if I completely remove the terms “bottom feeding” and “grifting” from my lexicon, you’re not going to keep me (or anyone) else from discussing the fact that certain patent lawyers (like certain lawyers in any other field) are going to do whatever it takes to take advantage of whatever loopholes exist to extract cash from everybody else while contributing the least amount possible to the larger system.
Your obsession (and you’re not the only one) with removing recognition of this fact from the discussion of patent law that only makes you look like a defender of the worst behaviors. This has already been pointed out to you. But please keep it up. I mean, it really is your problem (and the problem of anyone like you continually, ritually plies the More Patents, All the Time, Easier to Enforce script).
(Let’s try again – s igh) – you missed the point Malcolm – as not unexpected when it comes to applying ‘rules’ uniformly.
Your Be lieb system notwithstanding, law here can be discussed without your (rather dupl1citous) edge-of-grain-field-when-employing-poor-rhetorical-t001s manner of posting. You really do not have to mischaracterize law, mischaracterize facts, and spin and mischaracterize what others say in their posts to express your own opinions.
And yes, all of the moderators and readers know this.
You sir are not the one to point fingers when it comes to ob sessions.
Lastly, if you truly understood patents and the patent system, you would recognize that “More Patents, All the Time, Easier to Enforce” is a good and proper thing, as that would mean that the patent office is fulfilling its mandate. And yes, I do mean that granting these patents means granting them when they meet the law (the law as written by Congress). Nothing I have EVER posted is contrary to this.
But we have seen how much of a ‘friend’ you are to the patent system, haven’t we?