Patentlyo Bits and Bytes by Anthony McCain

Get a Job doing Patent Law                  

89 thoughts on “Patentlyo Bits and Bytes by Anthony McCain

  1. At post 9, Malcolm is rambling away and largely being ig nored until this tidbit catches my eye:

    I won’t link to the thread but the comments are surreal and hilarious.

    What the H…?

    Sure as shoot, I venture over to another blog and yet again, Malcolm is insisting on having a conversation (with himself) here about a conversation over at Quinn’s.

    That’s some serious 0bsess10n.

    1. I’m sorry, “anon”, but if you’re a longtime observer of the US patent system and you don’t find the hysterical shrieking over the IPR system (probably the best-functioning part of the entire system) both fascinating and entertaining, then there’s something wrong with you.

      It started with you and your cohorts crying about “death panels” (echoing a certain disgraced Federal Circuit judge who really, really, really didn’t get it) and it just got sillier from there.

      I’m not sure I have enough popcorn for all this fun, frankly. Maybe you can run to the store and get me some?

  2. Erich Spangenberg pretending to care about “patent quality” and access to healthcare is about as credible as Boiron pretending to care about the scientific method.

    What we object to is the patent office cooperating with pharma to artificially extending monopoly pricing with bogus patents

    And the brilliant patent attorney Erich Spangenberg just stumbled on this practice recently? Sure, that’s believable.

    Get ready, folks! The Battle of the B0tt0m Feeders is coming to a theatre near you. By bullying the worst attorneys in pharma and their enablers in the PTO, will Erich succeed in getting the PTO to stop picking on those poor besotted “do it on a computer” filers and their awesome patents? Nobody can predict …

    LOL

    [grabs massive bag of popcorn]

    1. Erich Spangenberg: What is worse–being a notorious patent troll or a CEO who raises prices 1,000% over a five year period

      Deep stuff. He’s a very serious person!

      1. The super serious Paul Morinville: [Erich,] You are doing God’s work

        ROTFLMAO

        I won’t link to the thread but the comments are surreal and hilarious.

        Has there ever been a group of rich babymen with a absurdly outsized of entitlement than these oh-so-tortured cl0wns?

        1. Last paragraph should read:

          Has there ever been a group of rich babymen with a more absurdly outsized sense of entitlement than these oh-so-tortured cl0wns?

  3. The CAFC grew a couple inches taller this morning, reversing a jury verdict of infringement which was predicated on the “ordinary meaning” of one of the most frequently abused terms in the “do-it-on-a-computer” arts: “portability.”

    [W]e simply read the claims in the context of the specification which describes movement of portable units across cell boundaries to facilitate (for example) mobile viewing of world series baseball games—to conclude that utility meters, which spend their fifteen-year lifespan attached to the side of a single house, do not meet the claim requirements of portability and mobility.

    There are massive reams of patents out there that were rubber stamped by the PTO because, by reciting “do it on a mobile device”, the claims were deemed to promote the progress of doing stuff on mobile devices.

    News flash: little computers that can communicate wirelessly with other computers were old when this patent was filed. There is nothing non-obvious about making something small and wireless and that’s been true for a long, long time.

  4. Judge Middlebrooks, Dec. 1, 2015 : These Parties never competed, never lost business to each other, indeed had never heard of each other before AGIS lawyers sent a dem and letter to Life360, a startup company that, while showing promise, had never made a profit. The letter demanded that Life360 either negotiate a royalty or shut down its service. The Complaint claimed, without any basis, that it was being irreparably harmed by Life360, that Life 360 should be enjoined from operation. While I stop short of a finding of bad faith, continued assertion of these claims seemed designed to extract settlement not based upon the merits of the claim but on the high cost of litigation.

    That’s from the judge’s opinion finding that Advanced Ground Information Systems, Inc. should pay Life360’s fees. AGIS, folks will recall, was the company that sent Life360 a letter saying, basically, “Pay us in 3 days or we are sueing you.”

    More about the case here: link to arstechnica.com

    Next week we all get to listen to AGIS whine and cry to the CAFC about their unfortunate decision to play the tr0lling game (initiated by a board member’s suggestion, btw — I wonder if that board member is going to pony up the fees?).

  5. How are we talking about climate change in a patent blog? Seriously?

    But, if we are to talk about climate change, then I would say the anti-patent judicial activist are like the climate deniers in that they do not have the empirical evidence on their side. Moreover, the closest analogy with what is going on with patents is security law. We had a great financial system with proper controls and then Clinton removed them based on pseudo-intellectuals that were being fueled by Goldman Sachs (lunacy.) And now we have the best software industry in the world by a factor of ten that was nourished by patents, and we are being told the patents have to go by pseudo-intellectuals like Lemley that surely spends more time trying to make money then being an academic. Lemley’s papers are a joke to anyone that bothers to cite check for content. The SCOTUS quotes from Lemley, which illustrates the unbelievable ignorance of the justices who admit that they read the amici briefs and make findings of fact based on a selecting a group of briefs to read. We also have Google selecting, vetting, and approving federal circuit judges and the director of the USPTO. Google spends about as much as Goldman Sachs buying the favor of Obama and the Congress. We have a federal circuit stacked with judges that are ignorant of science and developed an anti-patent attitude before being appointed to the federal circuit. Again, it is baffling how people that went to college could form such strong opinions when they are so ignorant of the actual situation. I liken it to hate groups.

    Anyway, that is reality.

    1. So some guy named Night Writer knows more than the USPTO director, SCOTUS and the CAFC?

      Why should we trust your judgment over theirs?

      1. Ryan, when you start having to rely on judgment and not empirical evidence and not the law and the Constitution then you are in trouble.

        The things I wrote are factually based. For example, the OMB said there is no “troll” problem and they are by far the most respected agency in DC.

        Your comment is representative of the ignorant ce$$ poll this country has devolved into.

        1. The OMB did not say there is no troll problem. Do you have a cite?

          Also, what makes you think your side of the debate has the constitution or empirical evidence on its side?

          1. what makes you think your side of the debate has the constitution or empirical evidence on its side?

            Some crxppy patent bl0g run by a self-professed “patent apologist” tells him so endlessly.

          2. “For example, the OMB said there is no “troll” problem and they are by far the most respected agency in DC.”

            That’s not their actual words Ryan, that’s hyperbole that NWPA, Q et al. lurve to say, but OMB in fact did not find a troll problem in one of their reports where they made a passing glance over the situation. You can google IPwatchdog’s piece on their report and find a link if you want.

            It may well have been that they just did not know how to find the “troll problem” or do not even know what one would look like if they saw one. Or it may be that such a problem is usually a private matter kept behind closed doors away from the prying eyes of the OMB.

            1. I can’t find the piece or a mention of it anywhere though. Been looking. I am not saying this to be snarky. I actually want to see the piece (if it exists) so I can read what it actually says.

              1. Well anon, they didn’t really look into the whole demand letters situation (where trolls are alleged to reside). They looked at litigation rates iirc. So, yes, it was a passing glance at the overall situation, catching only the tip tail where people actually got sued.

                1. 6,

                  You are moving the goalposts if you want to switch to talking about demand letters.

                  Plus, you just went form “the situation” to “the overall situation” – which includes things OUTSIDE OF the patent system.

                  Lastly, how do you explain the LACK of response from the White House to the request from Ron Katznelson that is coming up on one year.

                  (and by explain, I do not mean in a flippant dooosh manner)

                  1. “You are moving the goalposts if you want to switch to talking about demand letters.”

                    Demand letters are half, or more, of the trolling “problem” as I recall. Along with offering to settle for a few thousand dollars (compared to a million to go to court).

                    That is not “moving the goalpost”. That’s where the “goalpost” was to begin with.

                    “Lastly, how do you explain the LACK of response from the White House to the request from Ron Katznelson that is coming up on one year.”

                    I don’t even remember any such “request”? What was it about? Why should the white house bother with Ron?

                  2. Demand letters are half, or more, of the trolling “problem” as I recall

                    Again – you are moving the goalposts.

                  3. This blog featured a thread on it – I am sure that you commented on that thread. I have also been regularly providing comments noting the LACK of executive response and the white house should bother because it is required to respond under the law.

        1. I’m afraid we may have to take away your ability to call MM a liberal hippy birkenstock wearing commie if that is the case lol.

          It is a very strange presidential landscape though this year.

        2. What is yours? Mine is Bernie.

          Mine, too.

          I thought for sure you were going to say Hillary, though, given your staunch centrist Democrat leanings.

          LOL

    2. NWPA the closest analogy with what is going on with patents is security law. We had a great financial system with proper controls and then Clinton removed them based on pseudo-intellectuals

      “We had a great patent system with proper control and then Judge Rich and the CAFC removed them based on pseudo-intellectuals…”

      That is a pretty good analogy.

  6. Fried: As for Thursday’s ruling, the appeals court found that the trial court had improperly defined a key term in one patent at issue and that two other patents should have been declared invalid and tossed out a $120 million verdict. …

    Perhaps one of the more interesting aspects about Thursday’s reversal is that it comes just as President Obama has nominated Koh to become a judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

    Everybody makes mistakes. That was just a $120 million dollar mistake.

    Oh, well. Bygones!

    Seriously, though, those claims were some of the worst ever granted. Good riddance.

    And much more to come.

  7. I laugh at the fact that I have more than half the posts on this thread and reflect that that number alone can lead to a misperception of the blog owner based merely on volume (i.e., volume is “bad”) as opposed to any sense of volume while being on point (such volume being “good”).

    Nearly 75% of the current thread (40 posts) reflect Malcolm’s bizarre 0bsess10n with Quinn and an off-point curse-ade. Yes, half of that is my counter posts pointing out the ridiculousness of Malcolm’s 1nanity, the other half of that the 1nanity itself and the attempted defense of that 1nanity by Malcolm and 6.

    This sub-thread of distraction could be nuked with no loss of meaningful discussion.

    But let’s take a look at the volume that is more on point, shall we?

    Here too, I have about half (not counting a namesake post by someone else).

    How many of Malcolm’s Twelve posts have anything to do with the thread here?

    That’s right: zero (talk about your “most ridiculous person ever”).

    If one want’s to count signal to noise, my share outside of Malcolm’s nonsense is 100% signal.
    Malcolm has 0% signal.

    Sure, one might be tempted to count my posts pointing out Malcolm’s nonsense as a type of noise, and there may be a colorable argument to that – but only if we want to pretend that the source of any such noise is STILL the blight that is Malcolm.

    So remember to look at context and consider that if the originating blight were removed, the counter posts would naturally not be present.

    Of course, this is exactly the same point that I personally made to Prof. Crouch more than four years ago.

      1. Same deal (still) on the table for you, Malcolm:

        Stop posting so much C R P and I will stop commenting on the C R P that you post.

        Happy Decade of Decadence.

        1. I will stop commenting on the C R P that you post.

          Unfortunately for you, “anon”, we all know that it doesn’t matter what I post or what anyone else posts. If your fillings detect some scintilla of “anti patent bias” in the comment, then you immediately begin insulting the commenters intelligence along with whatever personal attacks you can muster.

          Same deal (still) on the table

          Nobody is ever going to make any “deal” with you, “anon.” You’re a crzy person.

  8. The most ridiculous person ever:

    While no one seemed ready to declare a bottom had been reached, whether a bottom had been (or has been) reached is largely irrelevant. It is time to start buying [patents] again, at least selectively.

    LOLOLOL

    Open your wallets, folks. The Big Q has spoken.

      1. In re Villena, CAFC Appeal 16-1062:

        I claim that there is the probability that my Clients’ case will have more legal and factual errors than all other 2016 appeals from the PATO combined.

        LOL

        The claims at issue here are laughably junky in the best possible way:

        133. A system for distributing real-estate related information [<–ROTFLMO], comprising:

        one or more tangible computer-readable mediums that includes one or more computer-searchable databases with entries for a plurality of residential properties with each entry including at least:

        a first field containing an address of a residential property, and a second field containing an automatic valuation method (AVM) value reflecting a computer-generated value of the residential property identified by the address of the first field; and

        one or more computers configured to: repeatedly update each of the AVM values using residential property information so as to enable the one or more databases so as to repeatedly reflect market changes in the AVM values of the residential properties; and

        distribute the AVM values to any one of a plurality of users over a publically-accessible network.

        This junk isn’t going anywhere, of course. But, hey, once some patent attorney has mastered the fine art of blowing sunshine up his/her brilliant client’s behind (“the PTO is shafting you, man!”) we all get some free entertainment. I can’t wait for the oral argument.

        Too bad about the magnificent waste of resources, though.

        1. As I said, your 0bsess10n is showing again. The In re Villena case is not being discussed by Quinn, but by some random commentator.

          But hey, you just cannot stop yourself from talking about him and his blog over here…

            1. Not sure why you think that that is hilarious.

              The commentator’s identity is not difficult to figure out, and it is abundantly apparent that the person is not a regular commentator, and is instead merely someone associated with a case (that Quinn is not discussing).

              It’s not like a regular speaker, nor is it apparent that any type of relation exists between the speaker and Quinn.

              On the other hand, we have you I>yet again driving traffic to a site to see what you are commenting about (and still the question as to why you feel so compelled to comment on this blog things happening on some other blog).

              Are you really that blithely unaware of your own 0bsesss10ns?

                  1. “anon” Are you afraid of something Malcolm…

                    I’m not afraid of you figuring out why the posting of that claim to the Big Q’s cessp00l was the furthest thing from “random” (LOL — “random”??? Too funny).

                  2. What part of:

                    I am not at all interested in carrying on a discussion that is on another blog that you want to discuss here.

                    was too difficult for you to understand?

                    As I said, you are so hung up on this, but on the wrong site – why don’t you have a conversation directly with the person (not Quinn) that posted that claim?

                    You are all full of glib, but I just don’t see you carrying through in any sort of meaningful way.

                  3. “anon”: you are so hung up on this

                    The projection is getting stronger all the time, “anon”! Keep working at it. Maybe the person in the mirror will start talking back to you.

                    the wrong site

                    …says the blogtr0ll. Funny, funny stuff.

                  4. Your attempt at “projection” is simply off.

                    What would I be projecting?

                    It is you that want to “discuss” a certain specific set of claims – and it is I that keep telling you that the person that wants to discuss those claims is not here.

                    Not sure what there is there to “project.”

                    You on the other hand have your well-worn (and worn through) AccuseOthersOfThatWhichMalcolmDoes.

                    Like your “blogtr011” reference – clearly that is your motif – a full decade now – Happy Anniversary.

                  5. In pieces due to hyper filter….

                    Sorry 6 – I have not ever expressed any such personal feelings**, and I am not the one that acts like a j1lted l0ve, constantly bringing up his name and fawn1ng and 0bsess1ng over him.

                    So “duh” right back at you.

                  6. …in case you haven’t noticed right here on these boards – no need to even go to or talk about another blog – I have sh0wn re spect to David Boundy and have d1sagreed with him. You would be “closer” (but still way 0ff) to try to make a connection of “lurve” between David Boundy and I.

                  7. **What I have brought up – and not to the man, but to the system controls of the blog – are the very things that Prof. Crouch whines about – and then refuses to apply rules consistently and objectively to achieve.

                    The blog run by Quinn just does not suffer f001s gladly, and if you persist in getting facts and law wrong (so often on purpose by the sAmeones here), then you will be banned. That type of propaganda and blight simply is not allowed. This clearly does NOT mean that opposing views cannot be heard there – just that views purporting to be more than just “feelings/opinions/philosophies” are not permitted to be (confusingly) posted as more than just those. There is a shorter leash on blight. It just so happens that one side in the pro versus anti patent battle happens to use those base propaganda t001s more than the other.

                    That’s NOT an uneven application of blight control – that’s just one side having the poorer arguments with the result of being bereft of the t001s of blight.

                    Gee, let me think of the Echoes (that so often post here) that have been banned for this type of tomf001ery over there….

                    Well, wouldn’t you know it? You are on that list.

                    Go Figure

                  8. “The blog run by Quinn just does not suffer f001s gladly, and if you persist in getting facts and law wrong, then you will be banned.”

                    The blog run by the climate-denier nutj0b attorney bans people who disagree with said climate-denier nutj0b attorney.

                    Getting “Facts and law” law really has nothing to do with it. The interpretation of “facts and law” over there has been overturned three times at the Supreme Court recently, and will likely be overturned again and again, i.e. they are the ones in the wrong. So, as much as you are trying to paint that blog as objective, by noting “facts and law”, it is clear that the blog has an agenda.

                    And those who speak out against the agenda are banned.

                  9. And in case you’re wondering why the “climate-denier nutj0b” is relevant, it’s because it takes a special type of person to willfully ignore scientific consensus in order to justify his/her beliefs.

                    Likewise, it takes a special type of person to willfully ignore the purpose of the patent system as stated by the Constitution, the economics of software patents, and merely wave off the recent Supreme Court Decisions in order to justify his/her beliefs that people are “destroying the patent system”.

                  10. My be-speckled friend,

                    You are both assuming your conclusions AND incorrect in both your assumptions and conclusions.

                    You “logic” is circular and ig nores the fact that the Judiciary has in fact usurped the role of Congress in recent 101 decisions – such just does not make their decisions correct under the laws as (rightfully) written by Congress.

                    Think Dred Scott if you need a palpable reason why.

                    Think separation of powers if you need a concrete means as to why a desired ends – no matter how noble or “right” you may think that ends may be – is just not a forgone conclusion that you must be right.

                    As to Quinn’s place, you are simply wrong.

                    There are plenty of posters there who have no fear of being banished and who comport themselves appropriately and without the h1j1nks (read that as propaganda and purposeful distortion of law and facts) that are merely accepted here.

                    However, if you merely want to repeat mantra and NOT be able to apply critical thinking, your leash will be short – as it should be.

                    Your assertion of the parallel to “climate” deniers is as equally flawed as the “political correctness” that has been exhibited in that topic (moving from “global warming” to climate change without realizing that change is what climate DOES). You overplay any sense of “denier” status when you yourself turn around and DENY that the patent system is indeed under attack (and under attack from more than one political/philosophical source).

                    You are the one (at least one of the type) that:

                    – deny a critical review of recent Supreme Court decisions (and NOT attempts to merely wave them off) – merely accepting at face value without critical thinking is even worse that your accused “waiving.”

                    – ignore the purpose of the patent system as stated by the Constitution (which is a delegation of patent law writing to the legislative branch), AND

                    – deny the economics of software patents (and the BENEFITS of strong patent rights for the software industry, and the correlation (yes, as oppposed to “cause,” so we can put any desired wrangling over cause/correlation aside at the start) between the prior strength of the US patent system for innovation such as software and the US’s world leading role in that Art.

                  11. “without realizing that change is what climate DOES”

                    Heh, I had you pegged for same kind of nutj0b who would say something like this before I posted my comment.

                    “You overplay any sense of “denier” status when you yourself turn around and DENY that the patent system is indeed under attack.”

                    The patent system was under attack after cases like Hotel Security that turned it into some speculation game. But of course, you pretend like those were rightly decided. Alice is equivalent to Morse in many respects (of course, I don’t doubt that you think Morse was wrongly decided).

                    – deny a critical review of recent Supreme Court decisions (and NOT attempts to merely wave them off) – merely accepting at face value without critical thinking is even worse that your accused “waiving.”

                    And you’re denying a critical review of the cases that lead up to them. State Street, etc. But of course you’ll pretend like you did a critical review, what with your “software is equivalent to hardware” büllsh1t that nobody takes ser1ously.

                    – deny the economics of software patents (and the BENEFITS of strong patent rights for the software industry, and the correlation (yes, as oppposed to “cause,” so we can put any desired wrangling over cause/correlation aside at the start) between the prior strength of the US patent system for innovation such as software and the US’s world leading role in that Art.

                    Your parenthetical is a poor attempt to pretend that you’re not attributing correlation to causation, but even with it, you still c0nflate correlation and causation. And pretty much every economic study says software patents are a net drain on the economy, but knowing you, I’m sure you chèrry pick your studies to see what you want to see. Just like you chèrry pick your information about everything else so it fits your belief systems.

                    – ignore the purpose of the patent system as stated by the Constitution (which is a delegation of patent law writing to the legislative branch), AND

                    Yeah, these vague, abstract, patents realllllllllllllllllllllly contribute to “progress in the arts and sciences.”

                  12. “anon” the Judiciary has in fact usurped the role of Congress in recent 101 decisions

                    Meet the True Believer, thumpin’ his holy book!

                    He’s so very serious!

                  13. “anon” change is what climate DOES”

                    Priceless.

                    But “anon” is a very serious person. He’s all about the science and “facts.”

                  14. LOL – look at the “nutjob” that you are hanging with, my be-speckled friend.

                    Or did you think that climate was static before man showed up on this little orb….?

                    As for “turned into some speculation game,” that is not a bug, but a feature – built into the system from the very beginning. It’s called full alienability of property.

                    Maybe you are confused with the concepts here. I suggest you go back and review some Adam Smith.

                    And you’re denying a critical review of the cases that lead up to them. State Street, etc.

                    Not at all – as I keep on reminding Ned – I do not depend on that case for my view of the law as written by Congress – I use the best source material itself: the words of Congress and the chief architects.

                    But of course you’ll pretend like you did a critical review, what with your “software is equivalent to hardware” büllsh1t that nobody takes ser1ously.

                    Talk about denier status (AND projecting….)

                    What part of that equivalency do you not understand? Are you too trying to use a “exactly the same as” type of understanding?

                    Continuing with your denial pattern here: I am expressly NOT conflating cause and correlation – you are denying the point that I expressly provide.

                    As for Malcolm’s comments… just more of the same short script baseless ad hominem.

                  15. How are we talking about climate change in a patent blog? Seriously?

                    But, if we are to talk about climate change, then I would say the anti-patent judicial activist are like the climate deniers in that they do not have the empirical evidence on their side. Moreover, the closest analogy with what is going on with patents is security law. We had a great financial system with proper controls and then Clinton removed them based on pseudo-intellectuals that were being fueled by Goldman Sachs (lunacy.) And now we have the best software industry in the world by a factor of ten that was nourished by patents, and we are being told the patents have to go by pseudo-intellectuals like Lemley that surely spends more time trying to make money then being an academic. Lemley’s papers are a joke to anyone that bothers to cite check for content. A. Joke.

                    There you have it. Reality.

                  16. ” LOL – look at the “nutjob” that you are hanging with, my be-speckled friend.”

                    I’m not hanging with anyone.

                    “Or did you think that climate was static before man showed up on this little orb….?”

                    Oh, you want to play 1gn0rant? No surprise there, it seems to be your MO. Prètend words mean things they don’t, or don’t have meanings. Fine, go right ahead.

                    I’m surprised you’re allowed to remain on this blog. Arguing with people like you is not conducive to anything; the world will progress (see Alice, Bilski, etc.), as much as people like you protest. I’m done with you and this place.

              1. Let everyone know what you think about the chances that the claim I posted ever gets out of the PTO, “anon”.

                After all, you’re a very intelligent and serious person.

                1. I am not at all interested in carrying on a discussion that is on another blog that you want to discuss here.

                  You are so “hung up” on this particular question (incorrectly stating that it was from Quinn), why are you not having a discussion with the person that apparently is involved in the matter – over on that blog where that discussion is taking place?

                  On this blog, how about you answer the questions I did put to you?

                  1. “anon” I am not at all interested in carrying on a discussion that is on another blog

                    LOL

                    This is a patent blog. That claim is on appeal before the Federal Circuit. And the attorney thinks he’s sitting on a pot of gold. The PTO is going to be soooo embarassed that they tried to prevent that claim from being granted! This isn’t about distributing information, after all. This is about distributing real estate information. Science!

                    C’mon, “anon.” Step up. You’re a very serious person, after all. People really care about what you think. They really do!

                    Put on your big boy pants and make a prediction. I know, comp00ters is really hard for you but I think you can handle this one.

                  2. Quinn’s place is a patent blog too. Over there is the person that posted the claim.

                    Here?
                    Not so much.

                    And yet, you seem confused.

                    Here, I have other questions put to you (since you are here).

                    Funny that, you do not seem to want any part of those questions.

                    Why is that?

                    (don’t worry, we already know, don’t we, pumpkin)

                  3. LOL – nothing but empty ad hominem from from you – apparently, you have a fixation on that “s ucky” that you just cannot seem to control and you hover about there reading all of that “filling.”

                    Maybe you should just ask Quinn out already….

                  4. (lol – and the ig nrarnt sycophants line was already used to describe the Echoes here – get your own material, son)

    1. MM you yap on here constantly with no empirical evidence. Breyer said in the recent oral arguments that his empirical evidence for why patents are so much trouble are form the selected amici briefs he decided to read.

      So, what we have is this psychotic nonsense not tethered to the real world swirling about in the minds of the justices and on the blogs by paid bloggers.

      1. what we have is this psychotic nonsense not tethered to the real world swirling about in the minds of the justices and on the blogs by paid bloggers.

        Keep reciting that myth, NWPA, if it makes you happy.

        We all know what’s really going on. You’re a big part of the problem, of course, and once you and and your fellow b0tt0m-feeders are eliminated from the system the system will be much better off.

        More reforms coming! Cherish the memory of State Street. It’s all you guys are ever going to get.

      1. That’s an interesting read – and disclosure is nice. I am more interested in a peer-reviewed system for legal writing (is that asking a lot of professors, I’m not sure – every other field with serious quality control does it).

        I understand that legal research is sometimes “soft” as in it is purposefully policy driven reasoning (which means ideology can/does/should creep in) so peer-reviewed would, at a minimum, check method and logical congruence (not legal or policy substance).

        Next, some weird hybrid for structured debate like articles?

        1. I emphatically reject the “(which means ideology can/does/should creep in)” mentality.

          Legal research should be the opposite: hewing as close to objective as possible. It should be the last place that we want “ideology” to be creeping in.

          Attorneys take a special oath of ethics due in part to our relative closeness with the law.

          Those who would teach attorneys, and whose aim includes actually shaping that law, should be held to an even higher standard.

          The problem with mere peer review (as can be seen in the cessp00l of academics is that such merely promotes groupthink and a caste system of favoring the established desired ideologies, a “don’t question us, only question what we want to question” approach.

          No thanks.

          Note as well one of the signatories…. (Bessen)… Talk about a lack of ethics in his attempts to shape law through bogus numbers….

      2. Pretty funny Lemley talking about ethics. What is it a how to avoid any ethical problems while breaking every rule in the book?

        The fact that Lemley has a good name before the SCOTUS is outrageous.

  9. Wamsley:

    The U.S. government has a bad history of taking money from the USPTO. Since 1991, $1 billion has been skimmed from the office’s budget during the appropriations process and diverted to unrelated agencies. This isn’t taxpayer money, but fees paid to the USPTO by patent and trademark applicants (i.e., inventors and brand owners).

    Ouch.

    1. Yeah, if you want something to complain about, complain about that. That money could’ve gone to hiring more examiners, better training, etc.

      1. Good luck with that. Fee diversion was complained about for a long time. And it was supposedly “solved” with the passage of the AIA. Right.

        1. AAA JJ, I do not think that the AIA was purported to be a full solution, but rather a step towards a full solution.

          For whatever reason (not too difficult to figure out), the critters in Congress did not want to set a firm “keep-out” on the ability of Congress to steal from the piggybank of innovators. They wanted that slush fund still available, but also wanted the appearance that they wanted to “help” innovators with a gloss of “control” over that “tax source.”

Comments are closed.