By Ron D. Katznelson
A letter to Congress from 51 professors of law and economics argues that “the net effect of patent litigation is to raise the cost of innovation and inhibit technological progress.” In response, an equally strong letter to Congress from other 40 professors of law and economics expresses “deep concerns with the many flawed, unreliable, or incomplete studies about the American patent system that have been provided to members of Congress.” The response letter defends the patent system and notes a pattern of analytical flaws in some studies underlying the 51 professors’ letter, listing basic empirical analysis reliability criteria that such studies fail to meet. Are criteria for reliable empirical analysis fungible? Should our patent policy turn on a “they said – they said” contest?
The answer must be a resounding NO. It turns out that the government has developed detailed criteria, requirements and standards for reliable empirical analysis and information quality. Because the public disproportionately relies on information disseminated by the government, the government holds itself to substantially higher standards than those used by private parties or non-government entities in disseminating information on the internet or in academic journals, with its high variability in accuracy and reliability. Congress enacted the Information Quality Act (“IQA”) in order to ensure that information disseminated by government agencies meet the standards of “quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity.” 44 U.S.C. § 3516, note. Information disseminated by the government for reliance by government and the public must be “presented in an accurate, clear, complete, and unbiased manner.” The IQA forbids agencies from endorsing or approvingly disseminating information of substandard quality from third-parties.
The Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) promulgated guidelines for agencies to comply with the IQA, including the Bulletin for Peer Review and the Standards and Guidelines for Statistical Surveys. These quality standards are quite specific. For example, they set criteria for presentation and substantive balance and objectivity, transparency of data and methods, conditions under which peer-review is required, design of survey frames and sample coverage, minimum survey response rates below which specific bias analyses are required, etc. Virtually all government agencies, including the Executive Office of the President, are subject to these guidelines and standards. Under the IQA, agencies are required to establish administrative procedures enabling “affected persons” “to seek and obtain correction of information maintained and disseminated by the agency that does not comply with [the OMB IQA] guidelines;” agencies have established a 60-day period for their review and corrective action in response to such requests. Agency responses to such petitions are not judicially reviewable because the IQA establishes no Article III standing for petitioners. However, the President and OMB regulations require agency compliance with the IQA.
Whereas 51 professors, relying on works that do not meet the IQA standards, can freely publish and argue (as they have) that patent litigation inhibits technological progress, the government is precluded from doing so. But that is exactly what the White House has done in contravention of the IQA by publishing its “patent troll” report known as the Patent Assertion Entities (“PAE”) Report. It relies on many of the works cited by the 51 professors’ letter, without even having conducted an IQA pre-dissemination review—a basic first-level IQA requirement. For these reasons, I have filed with the White House a petition under the IQA, requesting correction and removal of this PAE Report from all government websites.
My Petition shows that the PAE Report contravenes the IQA because it expressly relies on third-party information that does not meet the IQA standards. The sources relied on by the PAE Report purport to document patent litigation rates, quantify the private and social costs of patent litigation, survey “victims” of PAE litigation, and show the purported adverse effects of PAE activities. This information includes studies that have undergone no peer review; that have relied on opaque or erroneous methods and surveys; that lack objectivity; and lack practical utility.
To achieve agency compliance with identifiable IQA standards, my Petition concludes with 21 specific requests for correction supported by evidence and arguments. My Petition provides a compendium of detailed analyses of fundamental flaws surrounding data and methods used in eight commonly cited studies purported to document PAE harms, upon which the PAE Report relies.
Examples of some of the PAE Report’s assertions failing the IQA are:
- that PAEs take advantage of the patent litigation cost asymmetries to force settlements and that they have an incentive to drag out litigation; my Petition shows that this allegation lacks supporting evidence and merely relies on a citation to a reference that does not exist, therefore failing to meet the IQA;
- that the social costs of PAEs patent litigation is $83 billion per year; my Petition shows in detail that the Bessen et al. paper upon which the allegation relies is erroneous, biased and fraught with fundamental analytical flaws and the information fails to meet the IQA standards;
- that the direct costs to defendants of PAE litigation are $29 billion per year; my Petition shows that the Bessen & Meurer paper upon which the allegation relies, incorrectly defines “costs” and is based on a biased and opaque sample in a flawed survey that fails to meet the IQA Survey Standards;
- an allegation of a “dramatic rise” in PAE litigation and that PAEs brought 62% of all patent suits; my Petition shows that the Chien blog post upon which the allegation relies, fails to meet the IQA because (i) it is irreproducible by independent qualified parties since it is based on secret data and methods, and is financially supported by parties that have an interest in the outcome of the study, and (ii) because it lacks objectivity by failing to even mention the effects of the AIA joinder provisions on the surge in the number of suits;
- that 40% of technology startups targeted by PAEs suffered a “significant operational impact;” my Petition shows that the survey upon which the allegation relies fails to meet the IQA because the only thing known about the sample frame is its purposeful bias against NPEs. Solicitations (i.e., “trolling”) for the survey were made by entities that are “critical of the patent system,” encouraging respondents to participate in order to send a message to Congress—not to conduct bona fide research.
I also show (including through FOIA revelations) that the PAE Report’s secret author, a patent law professor, dominated its content by her own works, and those substantially reflecting her views. The White House omitted some in-text citations to the professor’s works from the bibliographic reference list and falsely attributed her survey results to a news reporter. Together, these errors had the effect of concealing the dominance of this professor’s works in the PAE Report. But where the professor’s own publications elsewhere strike a balance by at least acknowledging and crediting references with views opposing her own (see Petition, Sec. 5.5.1), it appears that the White House overruled her approach, as the PAE Report generally fails the objectivity requirement of the IQA. It lacks objectivity both on presentation and substance, because it focuses only on the ostensible negative aspects of NPEs or PAEs. The IQA “objectivity” standard requires analysis that also includes the salutary economic benefits of patent enforcement, or the positive role of NPEs as intermediaries—analysis that is entirely omitted.
The results are troubling. For example, the PAE Report disseminates this sweeping conclusory economic assessment: “the losses caused by excessive litigation [include] lost value to consumers who are not able to buy innovative products, and reduced income for workers whose pay is lower because they are unable to work with more productive new processes.” Absolutely no evidence or other bases are cited in support of this allegation. Ironically, the stark failure to meet the IQA standards may produce the opposite result of that intended by the proponents of patent reform. For example, estimates of the number of NPE demand letters based on extrapolation from one extreme outlier case (see Petition at 41) are so fantastic that they undermine the credibility of the legitimate efforts to address a genuine (but infrequent) problem of abusive demand letters.
The Petition and supporting material may appear to some readers as cumbersome and repetitive. This may be so because it is written to overcome the burden on the petitioner of establishing non-compliance with the IQA, including the requisite particularized requests for correction. Stay tuned to see what corrective action the White House may take.
“Mr. Katznelson should be applauded for his initiative to expose these White House and USPTO Information Quality Act (IQA) compliance failures. A similar disregard for the IQA and the rule of law (in the subject matter areas of environmental, natural resources and wildlife law) currently prevails at the US Environmental Protection Agency, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Department of Interior (EPA, NOAA and DOI). And, as I recently argued in Forbes, the lack of an IQA mechanism during the Reagan administration resulted in prior White House policy and political decision-making based mostly on ideology and misinformation, and inadequately peer reviewed science leading to the unwarranted execution of an international environmental treaty.
The U.S. Information Quality Act, which implements the U.S. Paperwork Reduction Act, offers the only federal procedural mechanism available to potentially challenge (administratively and legally) the validity of scientific, technical and statistical data and information that federal agencies develop and disseminate, both as support for standalone studies intended to have a ‘chilling’ (or behavior modification) effect on the markets, and as support for federal agency regulations and rulemakings which have their own compound effect(s) on market behavior. For these reasons, PAEs and their stewards should take careful notice of the Katznelson IQA filing and the opportunity it affords patent stakeholders to legally hold the PTO, FTC and White House to account for the unnecessary burdens their improperly peer reviewed PAE-related disseminations impose.”
See: “U.S. Information Quality Act Filing Reveals Patent Assertion Entity Propaganda,” accessible at: link to thecre.com
The effectiveness of those aiming to steer the conversation here away from the substance of my article is remarkable. Perhaps others should resist the deflection tactics and address the topic at hand. For example, should the 51 law professors adopt IQA-like standards before they publish or endorse substandard or erroneous empirical “studies”? Have these professors recently distanced themselves from their purported “increasing body of evidence” articles they cited in their letter to Congress? Why else would they remove the full letter (including the reference list) from SSRN and thereby frustrate one of their heavily-cited authors’ tweets at link to twitter.com ?
Ron,
I have posted several times (including when academia whine “don’t pick on us”) that those who teach law should be held to a higher standard, because they are the very ones who should know better and whose position is interwoven with influencing not just the active practice of law, but those in their charges most impressionable as to what law should be.
Not to get too biblical, but Mark 9:42 is apt.
“frustrate one of their heavily-cited authors’ tweets”
What’s that you say? An author’s tweet was frustrated? On my interbuts?!?!?!?! No WAI!
On a more srs note though Ron, I think everyone here would love to have all government cited research be top notch to the t’s and all that. But it just isn’t realistic here. Also, some of your “showings” appear to just be “allegations”.
6: “everyone here would love to have all government cited research be top notch to the t’s and all that. But it just isn’t realistic here.”
What’s so unrealistic about subjecting highly influential scientific assessments to peer review as the IQA requires? Other agencies do that regularly in order to comply with the IQA. Had that been done, I suspect that many of my other 20 requests for correction would not have arisen.
“Other agencies”
The white house and 51 professors are not agencies my brosef. We hold agencies to a high high standard because that is their professional responsibilities to the people, they are not a whole political branch or private citizens. If the prezzy wishes to express his concerns, or if private citizens want to express their concerns then that’s all good.
“Had that been done, I suspect that many of my other 20 requests for correction would not have arisen.”
You may well be correct.
6,
Had you read my petition you would have learned that the Executive Office of the President (EOP) is subject to the IQA.
Had you read my petition you would have also learned that the OSTP (sub-agency of the EOP), which issued the PAE Report, has adopted its own IQA Guidelines, which it fails to follow.
We do agree on the likelihood that other corrections would not have been required had the OSTP followed the IQA Guidelines
“Had you read my petition”
Sorry, didn’t get to read the whole article and the petition. Kinda too long. But if you say so, ok. Gl with that. Maybe the EOP/OSTP needs to go ahead and free itself from that if it is operating on the word of the president rather than in its professional capacity of producing numbers/info itself.
Night Writer is indeed correct in that the sample size here is not truly representative.
A better sample size, taking just one more thread which is far more typical of the “ecosystem” here yields very different results.
Using the Katznelson and recent Software threads then, one sees that Malcolm leads all with 20% of total posts, followed by Ned with 18%, and then Night Writer with 16% and myself with 13%.
As far as words used, well, again, Night Writer is more correct, as Malcolm uses a whopping THREE TIMES as many words as either myself or Night Writer (5623 versus 1660 and 1812 respectively).
And even though our dear friends, the Echoes of Malcolm (tsr, Mr. Snyder, etc.) might disagree, the plain fact of the matter is that even with this THREE TIMES as many words, Malcolm makes NOT A SINGLE legal argument, and engages fully and exclusively in ad hominem, and most definitely has not added any new or original thoughts to the dialogue here, merely repeating his stale trite scripted items.
Is this “blight” on the “ecosystem”…?
LOL – that kind of depends on what you view this “ecosystem” for, now isn’t it?
This is still not evidence that MM is a paid poster, which is Night’s fixation… And you know it.
The fact that you would deflect for a clearly ill man is sickening.
Night has a problem (or more than one perhaps). He needs to see a mental health professional.
I’m done talking about this.
Conveniently, you “are done” even as you still deny that there is a FAR worse problem than Night Writers “paid to blog” schtick.
Wake up son. You are focusing on the wrong problem.
(to wit, this is NOT a case of “someone being wrong on the internet,” but rather, it is a case of the “sAme one being wrong on the internet.”
Three times the words and zero content.
Same person – same tactics – nine years and running.
Your methodology is clearly flawed anon. How about going back to the first of the year? I bet “anon” is #1 in comments and word count by at least a 25% margin.
But a credit to all worthy opponents here; regardless of their potential derangement. The problems or putative lack of problems in the patent system are serious business and nobody should be discouraged from maximum advocacy in any appropriate channel. PatentlyO is certainly that.
Every blog site with vitality has its hardcores. That’s normal and not unhealthy unless its totally unmoderated, and here we have an exceptionally judicious and open-minded moderator- to whom we should all be grateful. Tussling with fellow nutjobs is a highlight of my day!
So wrong in so many ways Mr. Snyder.
Anon,
MM makes legal arguments all the time. Just because you disagree, doesn’t mean they aren’t there.
Go,
Wrong – “feelings,” ad hominem and dissembling are not legal arguments.
Again – it is NOT the Beliebs that I find fault with per se, but his manner of expressing those Beliebs.
Pay attention.
Way to break it down Dennis.
But blaming the white house? I hope you double checked your taxes this year.
Blame = criticize. Sorry for the poor word choice.
So what’s the plan? The next President is going to issue a statement praising the crucial role that patent monetizers who produce and make anothing except paper have played in the technological advances that have taken place in the United States?
Or is the story going to be that “the time has come” to recognize the awesomeness of patent monetizers, without whose brilliant insights we’d all be stuck with
1) random undirected invitations to buy stuff instead of “directed” offers (because people that sell stuff are never, ever smart enough to keep track of who buys what or why <– historical fact!);
2) computers that barely work (because nobody could have imagined that rules and logic were a crucial part of automating information processing tasks <–historical fact!);
3) devices without sensors or access to information about the outside world (because people like their machines to behave like blind drunks <– historical fact!)
All this stuff that rubs Ron Katznelson and Co. the wrong way happened for very good reasons. It was all predictable and it was all predicted.
But go ahead and keep defending the worst of the worst, ignoring the ongoing explosion of ridiculous information processing junkola, and blaming your endless public relations disasters on "commies", "thieves," "ivory towerism" and (really trying not to laugh here) Google. I mean, it's worked so well so far …
My oh my, MM has finally lost his mind. Try to get back to reality. Reality: information processing takes time, space, and energy. These things you claim are abstract ideas are machines. (I know you can see the moving parts so there must not be any.)
Please. Just don’t engage him.
You know MM, even your employers should consider that if Benson were explicitly overturned by Congress that examination would improve. The examiners could focus on 102, 103, and 112 as they should be.
I have heard more than one of the top scholars (I mean real scholars not Lemley judicial activist) say that Benson is the root of all evi1. And it is.
It would mean than rather than all these bizarre arguments about abstract things and thoughts etc. would be gone and the job would be to examine the application against the prior art. It would also facilitate more compact applications and more direct applications. Particularly if Lemley would halt his campaign of the functional claiming.
Think about it MM.
MM, …patent monetizers who produce and make anothing except paper have played in the technological advances that have taken place in the United States
Malcolm, I’m just trying to parse this to figure out with whom you have a problem – is it patent monetizers or is it with people who produce nothing except paper? IBM is a patent monetizer has been for decades. But I would not characterize IBM as producing nothing but paper. In contrast, people who deal routinely in so-called “software” and “business method” patents often deal in paper and produce nothing.
You should also know that a lot of the big companies spin off their patents on real technology to so-called patent monetizing firms. With whom do you have a beef, the the companies to invest in the technology in the first place to produce the patents or the companies who represent them?
It is simply hard to tell who and what you’re talking about when you combine monetizing and producing nothing but paper to describe a “troll.”
We also know that if a patent broadly covers an industry, then it probably either is a standard-essential patent or it relies on vague, indefinite and otherwise functional claims.
I think I know your real problem is not with IBM. I think your real problem is with software and business method patents and functional claiming and anyone who tries to take advantage of the the broken patent system that Judge Rich gave us.
^^^ never mind what the actual law is, or the fact that it was Congress that gave us the actual law, Ned is “faithfully” following his dissembling characterizations and his own broken agenda to wanting a different law.
For sh@me Ned Heller.
For sh@me. If you want to advocate for a different law, at least have the courtesy and the inte11ectual honesty to be forthright that you are advocating for a different law.
Anon, you know what the difference is between Judge Learned Hand on the one hand and Judge Rich on the other?
One studiously tried to follow the Supreme Court. The other studiously he tried to overturn it.
All I’ve ever heard from you, anon, is excuse after excuse after excuse as you attempt to justify functional claiming. You are an apostle of that doctrine. You preach the word. You carry a loft the holy book of functional claiming, personally autographed by your hero, Judge Rich.
Do you know that people like you are the problem, not the solution.
Absolutely wrong Ned.
I follow the law as written by Congress, carefully noting when another branch has violated the separation of powers.
You dissemble on what Congress has done, and seek to overturn the law, choosing a “ends justify the means” approach in your curse-ade.
Thank you for this latest effort … and for your many years of fighting the good and honorable fight Ron.
You are a credit to the profession … and a patriot to our country.
a patriot to our country
That’s the best kind!
You’re going to make Ron blush.
Dear President Obama,
Please tell Colleen Chien to stop picking on patent trolls. Eventually people will get used to being regularly threatened with the millions of junky patents out there, but only if these professors stop bullying the patent owners and drawing everybody’s attention to what is really just a few bad apples. As you know, we members of the Innovation Community are just like everybody else, except a lot richer and way more sensitive.
God Bless America.
Your friend,
Ron
Dennis – Can’t you do something to moderate the comments? There are often some good, insightful comments that further the discussion. But for the most part they are drowned in a sea of idiocy and self-promotion dominated by a small handful of self-important and uninformed know-it-alls. It is unfortunate that this has turned into something like a middle school twitter account. Main posts continue to be outstanding, but the comments are virtually worthless as they now exist.
Ron, let me know when the petition to impeach the Supreme Court justices gets passed around.
What a game changer that will be!
Here’s what’s so funny: these same patent lovers who “can’t understand” Prometheus v. Mayo and every other recent subject matter eligibility decision (not to mention KSR) also “can’t understand” why nobody gives them the attention and respect they apparently believe.
Why oh why are people so bothered about rich lawyers collecting junk patents and using them to further enrich themselves at the expense of entire industries and the broader public? Why can’t people just get on their knees and thank the patent trolls for their awesome innovation? After all, Tommy Edison was just a patent troll, right, and people just love Tommy Edison? Why can’t they love Ronny Katznelson and Gil Hyatt as much as Tommy Edison?
Oh, the humanity. Once this PAE report is retracted, maybe the golden era of patent monetization can resume again without all these pesky people asking questions and criticizing “perfectly legal” behavior.
Sure. That’s what’s going to happen. Watch and see.
I thought clients collected patents, not “rich lawyers”? Where is the animus toward the clients? Aren’t they the ones driving the lawyers to get patents? Why such hat red of lawyers?
MM, you keep denigrating lawyers for reasons that aren’t clear. Do you mean all lawyers who prosecute patents? Or are there lawyers who are worse than others? Are there ANY good patent prosecutors (maybe those in the semiconductor industry?)?
As I’ve noted before, I understand the policy positions and arguments on both sides of the Anon v. MM debate, and both sides have their strengths and weaknesses. Nevertheless, while Anon can certainly be snarky, MM’s tone reflects a truly miserable personality. I can only hope it’s an act for the blogosphere and that, in the real world, his interpersonal communication skills aren’t so poor.
Commendations to Professor Crouch. You are a credit to your profession.
The ad hominem attacks by Malcolm are nothing but dust kicking attempts to point the conversation away from the fact that the challenge here likely has merit.
Attacking the speaker and ig noring the content – how often does this “ecosystem” show (even encourage) this?
Plain fact for the anti-patent people to focus on: the Executive Office CANNOT be as biased and as shady as the academics with their desired ends.
The attempted redirection of focus away from the Executive engaging in what amounts to be pure propaganda is – and should be – unsettling, especially given the nine years and running history of a “whatever” propaganda-driven advocacy effort by those same dust-kickers.
The actions that Mr. Katznelson identifies (“undermine the credibility“) is a common point exhibited by Ned and Malcolm here.
More “spin” to cover the weakness of the first “spin” is the typical Malcolm and Ned response – the stark failure of these tactics should be evident, even to them, but nine years and running show that the desired ends overpowers any attempt at constructing a logical means to those ends.
The horrific “spin” by Ned, attempting to “agree” with David Stein even as David absolutely blasts Ned’s concocted “pet theory” out of the water is an absolute example of utter loss of credibility. See the 3.1.1.2.1.2 and 3.2.1.2.1.1.1 and 3.4.2.1.1 posts of link to patentlyo.com
As I put it to David though: does David really think that the advocacy efforts will cease or even bother to acknowledge the counterpoints put on the table for dialogue?
Ned here appears to laud Ron’s efforts to remove the brazen bias from the Executive, but in truth, he does not appear to condemn the use of that brazen bias (because he himself uses those same tactics here).
Anon, unless I missed something, David Stein and I agree that a book with different words is not patentable subject matter. Therefore on basic principles, he and I agree.
He does not seem to be aware that the source of the printed matter doctrine is Hotel Security. I am trying to open his eyes.
Set B and Set C printed matter, Ned.
If I were David Stein, I would be very afraid of you trying to open his eyes when yours are clenched tight.
Maybe you should pay attention to ALL of what he is telling you, including the important part about how your “pet theory” is just not grounded in controlling law.
The Obama administration, conducting blatant propaganda? Unthinkable!
link to youtube.com
This video is about a different problem domain, but it illustrates the problem with law professors such as Lemley. I think that Lemley writing things like software has no structure in a law journal should be sufficient for his removal from Stanford. This video addresses the issue of the support given to people like Lemley.
If nothing more, this video illustrates that there are few constraints on what a law professor can get away with.
Legal arguments have “structure” and they are useful, but they are not patent eligible. Why not?
Asked and answered, my selective learning friend.
The legal realm has never been considered as belonging to the Useful Arts, so this too falls into the well noted canard of attempting to use examples from outside the appropriate sphere.
You simply refuse to grasp the fact that software, defined as machine component and manufacture in its own right, simply has aspects that garner BOTH copyright and patent protection for each of what those areas of protection are meant to cover: copyright for expression and patent for utility.
Instead of accepting this fact and integrating this into an intellectually honest dialogue, you (again) merely attempt to obfuscate – and to attempt to do so on an area that you simply are not equipped (nor have you shown the willingness to learn objectively to be equipped) to intelligently discuss. Instead, you insist on only being biased and reinforcing your own clutched-tight Belieb system.
Who says the legal realm falls outside of the useful arts (other than every non lawyer in America?)
Ron Katznelson: my Petition shows that the Chien blog post upon which the allegation relies, fails to meet the IQA because …. it is financially supported by parties that have an interest in the outcome of the study
Ron Katznelson actually wrote that with a straight face.
Try to believe it.
Mooney, I’d tell you to try saying something constructive, or intelligible, or both, but you aren’t even worthy of shining Ron’s shoes.
I think it is pretty clear that MM is sponsored by the same people as Chien.
you aren’t even worthy of shining Ron’s shoes.
you aren’t even worthy of shining Ron’s shoes.
Nobody cares how shiny Ron’s shoes are.
Did they ever?
Maybe you can answer the question since Ron’s shoes seem to matter to you. What on earth has Ron Katznelson done for me or anybody else who isn’t directly invested in maximizing the patent system?
The number of people who get positively excited by muckraking petitions like this is miniscule and — this is not trivial — they are all far wealthier than nearly everyone else in the country.
Where was Ron when the floor melted underneath the patent system and Judge Rich wrote State Street? Where was Ron when Prometheus took Mayo to the Supreme Court on the theory that doctors who thought about a “new correlation” and did nothing else were patent infringes? Pretty sure Ron was dancing around with his pompom’s. Happy to be wrong about that. Let me know.
And now we’re supposed to believe that Ron really cares about the health of the patent system and “accuracy”. Sorry. I’m not buying it.
MM, how much weight do you give a noninfringement opinion written by a law firm hired to give you a noninfringement opinion?
It depends on what the work product looks like. I think that is the point. You get the best arguments (with a good lawyer) that can be made of non-infringement.
But, seriously Ned, think who you asked. MM is paid by the people that are intentionally clouding the issues. Rather than people like Rich who would try to make patent law more certain and rational we now have the opposite. With the AIA and Alice everything is more complicated.
Night, you are aware that non infringement opinions were becoming a joke?
Yes I am very well aware of the perception of non-infringement opinions. I have written a number of them for clients.
You get my point that the entire patent system is becoming a joke of uncertainty.
Night, also consider the MM is radically, and openly anti-Republican. Do you really think a “paid blogger” paid to comment on a patent blog would be so political?
This by itself proves, at least in my mind, that MM cannot be a paid blogger.
He could be verified and end the discussion. The fact that he spends so much time blogging each week is prima facia evidence that he is a paid blogger.
Besides, Ned, be realistic about how sophisticated political lobbyist are. They give the paid blogger an identity and the person then pushes their agenda under that identity. You know, there have been a number of links to posts on this site about paid bloggers and how sophisticated the political lobbyist are.
Be real. Who has 40+ hours a week to blog? This isn’t even MM’s only blog.
Night you seemingly post more words than MM. Prima facie evidence that YOU are a paid blogger?
Not being an honored legal thinker, maybe I am missing something?
Probably a mistake in your sampling. What you wrote may be true for one blog post, but certainly not over 10 years or even a week, and probably not even true for today.
I guess you skipped statistics — too busy investigating IBM’s innovative software for your own design no doubt.
Ned,
The patent system is under attack from BOTH the Left and the Right.
Your attempt to say (in essence) “But Malcolm is from the Left” is not availing.
But to the direct point if whether Malcolm is paid to blog – as I previously posted “bah.” I rather care more about the shameless tactics and unwillingness to engage in an intellectually honest dialogue, giving credit where credit is due for valid counterpoints raised and put on the table for discussion.
Yes, Night Writer does have a point with the whole “paid blogger” line – but that point is more directly reached by focusing on the tactics used as opposed to the philosophy itself.
We can all have a dialogue on different philosophies – IF (and that is a huge IF), the tired short script of tactics were better controlled.
But exercising that type of control evidently is beyond the authority of the blog master here.
Leastwise, that is the perception created by allowing the same v@pid tactics nine years and running – well before I ever started posting here.
Is the same Ron Katznelson that is directly invested in keeping as many of his patents in force as possible and who has never written a thoughtful word about subject matter eligibility in his entire life?
Right.
legitimate efforts to address a genuine (but infrequent) problem of abusive demand letters.,
Hey Ron — what’s the difference between an “abusive demand letter” and a letter suggesting that I take a license to a junk patent that any reasonable person can see in five seconds should never have been granted?
the PAE Report’s secret author, a patent law professor, dominated its content by her own works, and those substantially reflecting her views. The White House omitted some in-text citations to the professor’s works from the bibliographic reference list and falsely attributed her survey results to a news reporter. Together, these errors had the effect of concealing the dominance of this professor’s works in the PAE Report.
Oh boy! So scandalous!
It must be really hard to be Ron Katzenlson these days. The suffering … the suffering … the endless suffering …
The paid blogger chimes in. I am sure once his central office puts out a policy sheet on Ron’s petition we’ll get an update.
The Obama administration LIE or MISREPRESENT something? Heretic!
The Kenyan usurper! He’s coming to take all yuz patents!
Too funny.
Yeah right MM. Anyone that has an accusation against Oboma is a birther. Sure. And anyone that criticizes patents is a Naz1.
This is actually more evidence Ned that MM is a paid blogger. He responds to each post that disagrees with his policy sheet. It is as if that is one of his job responsibilities. “Respond to each post that presents a view that is counter to one of the policies points listed on Sheet A.”
You have already been asked by Crouch to stop cluttering this blog with accusations that MM is a paid blogger.
Why do you persist? Are you really this unhinged?
You mean someone spends 40+ hours a week for 10+ years pushing the policy goals of the anti-patent movement and remains completely anonymous on the blog, and I am “unhinged” for saying he is clearly a paid blogger?
Really?
MM also responds to EVERY post with attacks if the post does not agree with his policy sheet. But, I am the one “unhinged.” Sure.
What I think is at this point it is absurd to postulate that MM is not being paid. I think restrictions should be placed on him. He shouldn’t be able to clutter every blog post with his nonsense.
Out of 37 posts…
MM has posted at least 6 times (give or take one or two)
Night Writer has posted at least 11 times (give or take one or two)
And you, Night Writer, have the gall to crow about MM being paid.
You, good sir, are acting ridiculously.