The following excerpt comes from President Obama’s recent townhall meeting in Ohio on Friday, January 22, 2010:
* * * * *
Q I’m an inventor, and I hold U.S. patent number 7,397,731.
THE PRESIDENT: Okay.
Q And before I ask my question I’d like to make a sales pitch. (Laughter.) If you can use my patent in your next election, I think you can raise a ton of money worldwide. You should take a look at it.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, we’ll take a look. All right.
Q If you can’t use it, the government could use it, and I could build a multibillion-dollar business here in Ohio. (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: All right, we’ll take a look at your patent. Go ahead, what’s your question?
Q Yes, okay, it has to do with international patent rights. With all this free trade and trade barriers falling, it’s really hard for an individual like me with a global-scope patent to file all over the world and get patent protection everywhere, and having to go overseas to fight infringement. So if you’re going to drop trade barriers, maybe you can extend my patent rights to the foreign countries.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, this is a great question, and this is a huge problem. (Applause.) Look, our competitive advantage in the world is going to be people like this who are using their minds to create new products, new services. But that only helps us and helps you build a multibillion-dollar company if somebody can’t just steal that idea and suddenly start making it in Indonesia or Malaysia or Bangladesh with very cheap workers.
And one of the problems that we have had is insufficient protection for intellectual property rights. That’s true in China; it’s true for everything from bootleg DVDs to very sophisticated software. And there’s nothing wrong with other people using our technologies. We just want to make sure that it’s licensed and you’re getting paid.
So I’ve given instructions to my trade offices — and we actually highlight this at the highest levels of foreign policy — that these are issues that have to be addressed because that’s part of the reciprocity of making our markets open. And so when I met with President Hu of China, this is a topic that, at dinner, I directly brought up with him. And — but as you point out, it’s got to be sustained, because a lot of times they’ll say, yes, yes, yes, but then there’s no enforcement on their end.
And one of the things that we’re also doing is using our export arm of the U.S. government to help work with medium-sized businesses and small businesses, not just the big multinationals to protect their rights in some of these areas, because we need to boost exports.
Can I just say, we just went through a decade where we were told that it didn’t matter, we’ll just — you just keep on importing, buying stuff from other countries, you just take out a home equity loan and max out your credit card, and everything is going to be okay. And it looked, for a lot of people, like, well, the economy seems to be growing — but it was all built on a house of cards. That’s what we now know. And that’s why if we’re going to have a successful manufacturing sector, we’ve got to have successful exports.
When I went and took this trip to China, and took this trip to Asia, a lot of people said, “Well, why is he going to Asia? He’s traveling overseas too much. He needs to be coming back home and talking about jobs.” I’m there because that’s where we’re going to find those jobs, is by increasing our exports to those countries, the same way they’ve been doing in our country. If we increased our exports — our share of exports by just 1 percent, that would mean hundreds of thousands of jobs here in the United States. Five percent — maybe a million jobs, well-paying jobs. So we’re going to have to pry those markets open. Intellectual property is part of that process.
* * * * *
The invention claimed by the 7,397,731 patent is pretty cool. It is a “perpetual day reminder calendar.”
The patent was prosecuted by the inventors and it is not surprising that the claims are written in some sort of modified Jepson language. Claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A perpetual day reminder calendar for illustrating day, date and month information, including:
a) a set of day indicating plates with day indica; b) a set of month indicating plates with month indica; c) a set of date indicating cubes with date indica; d) a display stand with locating guides in one of three possible configurations, top holding, center holding or bottom holding;
the improvement wherein said day indicating plates and said month indicating plates identically shaped to fit around said date indicating cubes in a manner providing an interlocking of, said plates and cubes and the shielding of unneeded indica allowing only the needed day, date and month indica to be viewed and the interlocking pieces forming a calendar stack having a unique locating interaction feature with said display stand whereby the perpetual day reminder calendar can be easily manipulated for the sequential displaying of day, date and month indica.
MaxDrie,
The veil of man has to do with the foundation of our system of government and law. Do you start with “man” himself, or is there something greater than man?
For all of the desired separation of church and state, there is an undeniable truth that our founding fathers believed in the more-than-man line of thought – it was not an absence of faith that the founding fathers sought, but rather an openness to pursue the faith of one’s own choice. Nihilists have no leg to stand on. The great documents that our founding fathers drafted simply cannot be merged with that belief system.
As to whose job it is to enlighten you – that is yours. It is up to you to discern what you can from that which is around you. (BTW – I caught some of your comments over at IPKat, and I must say you did an awesome job of intelligently presenting yourself).
Mr. Hobbes,
I appreciate your concern, but rest assured that I will not be tempted by the seductiveness of nihilism, being firmly tied to the masts of my beliefs. Momma always said – have an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out.
My appeal to Ned is that, while being a nihilist, he shows a depth, a passion, and even daresay an honor about the manner he expresses himself. It is not a far step for him to take, even along a path of logic, to see that nihilism is a dead end and that our founding fathers created our great country with higher ideals than mere “man” can ascribe to.
Rather than Ulysses, I wish to emulate Odysseus, gathering the sirens’ purported wisdom, but passing them by, depriving them of my flesh. Indeed, it is fabled that after their failed attempt to woe Odysseus, the sirens destroyed themselves in their frustration.
“Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh stated that… Hobbes would very much have loved to hear this.”
LOL @ Hobbes
I do find it interesting that though you are a nihilist, your dedication to your view results in a system of order that parallels what I see as AI’s.
Noise, your consistent open-mindedness is refreshing, indeed inspiring, given the overwhelming preponderance of negativity from nattering nabobs here at the Trainwreck. But, thence lies nihilism! Isn’t it likely, nay, a certainty, that the nihilists are trying to exploit your good will in their continuing struggle to force everyone into the tiny, windowless box that is the inevitable outcome of accepting their belief system? I applaud your sensitivity and willingess to try to find the good in Ned’s system of belief, but please, for the love of God, and for the sake of your fellow passengers on the Trainwreck, don’t succumb to the siren call of nihilism!
You would not be the first warrior to fall prey to the lure of bewitching words and beguiling “theories” that mask the cold, featureless, reality of the nihilist worldview. I beg you to follow the example of that great hero Ulysses – plug your ears, and march onwards to your noble destiny. For there are countless of us who depend on your leadership, your facilitation, your captaincy, as we seek our seats on the mighty Trainwreck.
I never thought I would have something in common with AI, but it seems that we are both:
“one personal experience away from seeing beyond the veil of man”
….whatever that might mean.
NAL will you enlighten me? Or is that somebody else’s job?
Only doing my bit here, trying to keep the thread going indefinitely.
Ned,
I think that you have a conflation between “self” in self-evident and the need in your theory to have evidence as supported by man. This runs throughout your need to have a right enforced in order to be a right. It just isn’t so. The one is NOT dependent on enforcement. It exists whether enforced or not. Its existence in the face of nonenforcement is what stirs the cries for justice. It demands our attention.
Your view simply does not jibe with our founding fathers. You can try all you want to restate their ideology from your perspective, but in the end, the differences remain glaring.
Even through the differences, I do find it interesting that though you are a nihilist, your dedication to your view results in a system of order that parallels what I see as AI’s. It’s almost as if you are one personal experience away from seeing beyond the veil of man.
I didn’t say, AI, that I did not believe in “inalienable rights.” I just said they were “self evident.” Their self-evidence exists and would exist in the common experience of man from time immemorial.
I believe in their self-evidence strongly and I do not believe that these rights require any belief in any god to be self-evident. The whole assumption that one must believe in a god to recognize these rights is a false assumption, and just a bit silly if you ask me.
Belief in god is common to any Islamic Republic or Jewish state. Ditto any Native American tribe. The belief in god alone is not enough to make a state prosperous.
But the belief in Liberty and the Rule of Law is.
You say you believe in government by the People. What you really believe in is Liberty and the Rule of Law.
No, Ianae, the committees of the French revolution were executive in nature and operated above the law. What they decided, happened.
The closest analogy today would be the central committees of the communist parties of communist states. There is a legal government, but the real power is in the committees.
Posted by: Ned Heller | Feb 18, 2010 at 10:33 AM: Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh stated that the reason the United States was a great nation, greater than many other nations that had been around much longer than we, was the declaration of independence and in particular the clause about the “creator” and “inalienable rights.” Noise and Hobbes would very much have loved to hear this. I would still like to differ of course, as I think our greatness is rooted in the rule of law, the Constitution and in particular its patent clause.”
Cannot one believe, like Lincoln, in both the “inalienable rights.” of the declaration of independence and the rule of law of the Constitution which provides for Inventors exclusive rights to their discoveries?
If my history serves me right, I do believe that Abe Lincoln was the only President at that time to also be an inventor with a US Patent.
Even bitter enemies like the Federalist Alexander Hamilton, and the Anti Federalist Thomas Jefferson, whom should of been the ones to duel, both agreed on the need for strong patent rights in the Constitution and saw to it that the Patent Clause was included.
God, Country, and Patents, they all go hand in hand.
But we ended up with the rule of law. They, the rule of the tyrannical committees.
It’s your position, then, that the US legislative process isn’t ruled by tyrannical committees?
Can you imagine these issues are being discussed publicly?
A few days ago, in salon.com, one of the writers asserted that the difference between the left and right came down to the issue of source of rights. She asserted that the left believes in “natural rights” while the right believes in the myth of a lost golden age. It was only a short piece, so I don’t fully understand how the author understood these concepts. I only wish to bring this to the attention of folks here because many of us seem to be trying to understand why we think the way we do.
Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh stated that the reason the United States was a great nation, greater than many other nations that had been around much longer than we, was the declaration of independence and in particular the clause about the “creator” and “inalienable rights.” Noise and Hobbes would very much have loved to hear this. I would still like to differ of course, as I think our greatness is rooted in the rule of law, the Constitution and in particular its patent clause.
We and the French both had our revolutions. But we ended up with the rule of law. They, the rule of the tyrannical committees. This is the reason the French revolution was a complete failure long before Napoleon.
The thread “Patentable Subject Matter of a Machine that Uses a Mathematical Algorithm”, started December 21, 2009 is currently at 580.
Is this thread from January 26th a record at 463 comments, and still counting, a record?
Posted by: Thomas Hobbes was here | Feb 15, 2010 at 10:43 AM:Gratuitous fluffing, if I may say so. And we all know what the Old Testament has to say about such behavior. Is it too much to ask that you confine your comments to those at least marginally relevant to the subject at hand?
Dear Mr Hobbes
As it stands now The Constitutional Right of inventors to have, for limited times, “the exclusive Right to their discoveries exists.
Not Malcolm nor anyone has been able to successfully refute this fact.
Whether they like it or not, If I discover a new and/or improved process for making anything, the Constitution says I have the exclusive right to the discovery for a limited time.
If there is a Constitutional Amendment to remove this Right, WE THE PEOPLE will simply act to put it back in.
If the PTO should act to declare business methods, or software non statutory then WE THE PEOPLE, in addition to other remedies can sue in Court that our Constitutional Rights have been violated.
If the Supreme Court should ban business methods or software patents then WE THE PEOPLE can return to the Court to have such a ban overturned because it’s Unconstitutional.
And if the Supreme Court should not so agree then WE THE PEOPLE will simply go to Congress to remedy the unjust injury.
So the nations system of checks and balances work to our favor and the Constitution is on our side.
And until any of the above scenarios actually occur the Constitutional Rights of Inventors remain in tact and unchallenged and this thread may come to a close.
Posted by: Orly Taitz | Feb 15, 2010 at 08:57 AM: The inescapable conclusion of any reasoned reader of this thread is that AI’s imaginary Constitutional (R/r)ight has been thoroughly eviscerated.
Malcolm, please stop ducking and answer the question:
Where does it say in the Constitution that Inventors have no Constitutional Rights?
Until you answer I shall take no more notice of your Puppyhood.
Alexander Hamilton
Posted by: Orly Taitz | Feb 15, 2010 at 08:57 AM: The inescapable conclusion of any reasoned reader of this thread is that AI’s imaginary Constitutional (R/r)ight has been thoroughly eviscerated.
Malcolm, please stop ducking and answer the question:
Where does it say in the Constitution that Inventors have no Constitutional Rights?
Until you answer I shall take no more notice of your Puppyhood.
Alexander Hamilton
Until you provide a substa
Should we both happen to be posting from Texas, you would be within your rights to shoot me (in the back, if you so desire) as long as you remember to plant your purse on my corpse afterward.
Gratuitous fluffing, if I may say so. And we all know what the Old Testament has to say about such behavior. Is it too much to ask that you confine your comments to those at least marginally relevant to the subject at hand?
Major typo: (R)ights, not rights
“Alas, the vagaries of the modern world are such that I cannot demand that you choose a suitable weapon”
Not necessarily true. Should we both happen to be posting from Texas, you would be within your rights to shoot me (in the back, if you so desire) as long as you remember to plant your purse on my corpse afterward. Correct, JAOI?
Heh, heh. She caught him “gratuitously Sockpuppeting.” Heh, heh.
yet more “malcolmy” fingerprints:
There was no Freudian intent – I was describing you. Yet it is a Malcolm trick to take what is being posited and reply that the one positing the statement is the perpetrator. This is only too clear with being caught gratuitously Sockpuppeting. The man cannot recognize his own shame.
What does ‘affriming the consequent” mean? Is that the same as “guilty as charged”? You have been caught in flagrante and no amount of your squirming will change that.
Personificaiton of “behavior” – a feeble attempt to hide behind less than stellar grammar. Feeble indeed, as pointing out a flaw in grammar does not answer the underlying gist. Then again, who expects answers from Malcolm, the original member of the skirt and track shoe club?
The quotation marks around “Which person…” were not intended to be indicative that you actually said the phrase – note the paragraph structure – the quotes were a heading. Methinks thou protest too much.
As to a lack of logic – please actually address my message, and not misdirect as is your want.
As I have said – I will sling as fervently – just not as basely (your descent into phallus-land needs no response)
Nonetheless, I am indeed honored to partake in this Trainwreck and play my part.
Hark the curtain rises, the stage is set, onward friends and foes – a new week is upon us.
My dear Noise, you are indeed honored, to an extent befitting your passion and eloquence. May it please you to know that I and your other comrades are warmed by the mere reflection of that honor, as we bask in its glow upon this stage that we share (however humbly) with you and other noble defenders of truth. May I also submit that the truest sign of nobility in a warrior is the ability for that warrior to emerge, unbowed, unscathed, and unblemished from a skirmish in the thorns and thistles. Surely we have witnessed this phenomena, at least figuratively, if not literally, right here on the Trainwreck. The obfuscating naysayers will argue that this is but a war of words, but, in fact, this is but the latest battle of principles, and for the American spirit, in a war of ideals that was ordained by our founding (F)athers.
“Which person am I now?” Misquoting of your opponent is a duplicitous action, indeed.
“Delusion of obsession. In his grandiose self-obsessed narcissism” Freudian fluffery.
“In answering under the Orly Taitz pseudonym, rather than the Malcolm pseudonym which would have been the proper speaker, the underlying person being the same is thus revealed.” Affirming the consequent.
“While this behavior would like to be deemed criminal” Personification of “behavior”.
“Nonetheless, I am indeed honored to partake in this Trainwreck and play my part.” Excessive pomposity.
Noise, I note that you are quick to accuse others of logical fallacy, yet you are oblivious when you are in fact the logical phallus-ee.
More snarky fingerprints:
“Which person am I now?” The accusation was not that Orly Taitz was the same as 6, but rather that Malcolm was the same as 6, Orly Taitz being a relatively new pseudonym. In the haste to be smarmy, this little tidbit has been overlooked. In answering under the Orly Taitz pseudonym, rather than the Malcolm pseudonym which would have been the proper speaker, the underlying person being the same is thus revealed.
Delusion of obsession. In his grandiose self-obsessed narcissism, only one poster claims to be the object of persistent hounding (by sockpuppets no less). That poster is not Orly Taitz , but yet again is a reflection of the persona of Malcolm. Once again, just which pseudonym is being worn has been forgotten, and the underlying person being the same is revealed.
Level of offense: While this behavior would like to be deemed criminal, this forum is not a court of law and such subterfuge, while despicable, does not rise to the level of criminal. That being said, the level of evidence also does not rise to clear and convincing. The snarky fingerprints, as explicated here, do show to any reasonable man beyond a preponderance of evidence the duplicity of the many pseudonym’d hydra-purveyor of fluff basely known as Malcolm. As also mentioned – guilt in this deed will not stop one who has no self respect from withdrawing his contemptuous posts.
Mr. Hobbes,
The call to honor our founding fathers falls to all that would take pride in our profession. Under this calling there is room for disagreement and gainful discussion of various beliefs unto even the Nihilists (being wrong does not mean that they should not be heard). Some will take the diligence and zealousness to clear the hurdles and sweep up the crap before it lingers and is tracked under every shoe that walks these paths to be a personal obsession with those that are afflicted with diarrhea of perversity. This of course would be a mistake.
There comes with this battle the possibility of snark infection. I thank those that I debate with not to be unduly put off with my own snarkiness that on occasion is applied to an uncalled for level. One cannot escape thistles and thorns when fighting from the brush.
Nonetheless, I am indeed honored to partake in this Trainwreck and play my part.
Hark the curtain rises, the stage is set, onward friends and foes – a new week is upon us.
“hyper-flouridated friend Orly Taitz”
I do strongly advocate oral hygiene.
link to drtaitz.com
Though you may have been quite the accomplished author in your day, we are dealing with the present, so better to leave this one to the big dogs of Patently O. As pointed out upthread by none other than the Founding Fluffer herself, your mental acuity may not be up to snuff to opine on this important issue.
Dr. Taitz, I dare say that in my day, impudence such as yours would have been dealt with harshly. Alas, the vagaries of the modern world are such that I cannot demand that you choose a suitable weapon, but can only deliver my ripostes via my keyboard, a decidedly feeble tool in (under?) the hands of a rank amateur like myself.
However, as a gentleman, I must admit that your blow has, at least partly, hit its mark. You are correct that my esteemed colleague has indeed pointed out, on at least one occasion, my inadequacies with regards to the regime of Constitutional (L)aw. However, you are mistaken if you expect that I found this to be a humiliating experience. Indeed, it was quite the contrary. If you were told by Einstein that your understanding of physics was subpar, would you be humiliated? If you were told by Renoit that your images lacked a certain je ne sais quoi, would you feel shame? If Descartes told you that you had only a clumsy facility with the two-axis coordinate system, would you be embarrassed? I should think not!
Hobbester (forgive my level of directness with your moniker, but please feel free to call me Orl) –
“some truths are indeed self-evident, as our founders so clearly pointed out, but that others become evident only through more careful analysis”
Heh, and by more careful analysis you of course mean amateur investigations of sockpuppetry conspiracies, fictional conversations between oneself and his opponent, and (baboon-like) flinging of logical fallacy buzzwords. What frequent fluffer Noise A. Law fails to appreciate is that one cannot prevail in a debate if one never presents an argument or a position and instead assails their assailee to ponder irrelevant matters such as rote capitalization issues.
Hobbes, your words, while delicious in their subtlety, yet again miss their mark. (Except for fluffeteer, that one’s great.) Though you may have been quite the accomplished author in your day, we are dealing with the present, so better to leave this one to the big dogs of Patently O. As pointed out upthread by none other than the Founding Fluffer herself, your mental acuity may not be up to snuff to opine on this important issue.
The inescapable conclusion of any reasoned reader of this thread is that AI’s imaginary Constitutional (R/r)ight has been thoroughly eviscerated. Noise’s red herrings, or AI’s red herrons, cannot change that outcome.
Ah, I am delighted to see that in my absence (Mrs. Hobbes and I were quite the busy bees this past weekend) my esteemed comrades-in-arms kept up the good fight against the sockpuppeting fluffeteers and nihilistic naysayers. I dare say that I speak not only for my pseudonymous self, but also for the silent majority of Constitution-defending, patent-loving, patriotic readers of this blog that Noise and I affectionately call the Trainwreck (for obvious reasons), when I declare that the origins of our beloved, Constitutionally-based patent system in our immortal founders’ joint recognition of the essential and life-affirming distinction between (r)ights and (R)ights shall not be denied, notwithstanding the huffing and puffing of the admittedly dedicated but malevolent fluffers (or is there only one?) that clog this board with their endless red herrings, strawmen, and duplicity (not to mention multiplicity, in the case of our hyper-flouridated friend Orly Taitz and his/her legions of minions).
It has been my experience, in my humble quest for a deeper understanding of the mysteries of great documents such as our esteemed Constitution (an understanding that, I dare to hope, may some day rival that of the most prolific and most clearly Constitution-literate poster on this board – I won’t name her, to spare her any embarassment from my homage, but she knows who she is), that some truths are indeed self-evident, as our founders so clearly pointed out, but that others become evident only through more careful analysis – an analysis, I venture to postulate, that might fruitfully inquire into the clarity and substance of the various writings published by the advocates and apologists for each of the plurality of positions that occasionally arise with respect to momentous Constitutional questions. The present inquiry is no exception to this rule. I entreat those of you who are on the fence in this epic struggle to make a choice – and to make that choice based on reason. Review these posts and ask yourself – whose posts are suffused, from top to bottom, with logic and clear expositions of foundational issues such as the essential distinction between (r)ights and (R)ights? In contrast, whose are filled with ad hominems, personal attacks, strawmen, red herrings, and other duplicities? Who among the posters here dares to answer the questions, and who chooses instead to dodge, weave, don track shoes and multiple pseudonyms, and otherwise avoid taking an authentic position? I think the answers to these questions are as self-evident as the truths that our founding fathers fought so hard to affirm.
“level of directness with my moniker – Orly and I have not had the run-ins to use such familiarity.”
That one is the funniest. Noise, I do maintain that you are a fluffer. And quite a good one I might add.
AI, I thought you were accusing me of being 6. You two need to make up your mind. I can’t be both 6 and Malcolm. Or can I?
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Super sleuths, after all that, are you going to feel really stoopit if I’m not Malcolm? After all, all I said was I have never denied being Malcolm. You have never denied being Malcolm either. Does that make you Malcolm?
Your obsession is duly noted, though.
AI,
Do not forget that Malcolm has a shield of persistent ignorance and knows no shame.
Sure, any man with an ounce of self respect would not reappear on this thread after his duplicity was so exposed – not only on the level of the pseudonyms, but on his habit of charging others with his offenses, his penchant for meaningless misdirected drivel and strawmen, and running away from substantive points.
But keep in mind – this person has a rampant habit of such duplicity and shameful behavior. He “looked” for such duplicity and couldn’t see it, just as he traded barbs with me and then proclaimed my absence. It’s hard to see something when you purposely close your eyes (he is so intimate with his shield that he can polish it in the dark).
This is the Trainwreck – Malcolm will be back.
Posted by: Just an ordinary inventor(TM) | Feb 13, 2010 at 08:21 AM: “Anybody wanna’ bet?, anybody?, anybody?”
I don’t know about Obama but I would bet ya Malcolm Mooney will not be showing up in this thread arguing that inventors have no constitional Rights.
“Posted by: Noise above Law | Feb 13, 2010 at 02:36 PM :“Oh, and by the way – snarky fingerprints of “malcomy” in the sockpuppet of Orly Taitiz:”
[Malcolm gets hit with a quick left!]
“level of directness with my moniker – Orly and I have not had the run-ins to use such familiarity.
“troglodytic” and “mouth-breather” as ad hominem attacks infused in typical responses.
“teabagr” – NO ONE else enjoys this term to such an obvious degree.”
[ Mooney just takes a hard right! ]
“”substance-free”, “fluffing” – from the master of using terms that best describe your own style of posting in attacks on those that call you out. Malcolm, I guess “rare” and “usual” are no longer apt qualifiers for your sockpuppet game. Go ahead and throw out that lame “ask Dennis” line in yet another apparent disregard of my rationale for why that is completely meaningless.”
[And another a hard right! And another! Mooney is taking a beating! ]
Posted by: Orly Taitz | Feb 13, 2010 at 03:02 PM: “ I have never denied that I am not Malcolm.”
[ AND DOWN GOES MOONEY!!!! ]
Prediction:
Obama will move the civilian trial of the terrorists to a military trial at West Point.
Despite the fact that Obama himself was responsible for this incredibly ignorant, arrogant and inexcusable mistake in the first place, he will try to take credit as a hero for correcting the mistake.
You heard it here first on Patently-O.
Posted by: Just an ordinary inventor(TM) | Feb 13, 2010 at 08:21 AM
Anybody wanna’ bet?, anybody?, anybody?
How about it Lionel?, wanna’ bet?
We discussed this touchy subject a while back,
which is why I ask about making this bet with you in regard thereto.
But, since it’s a long shot, out of the blue,
so to speak, I ask for 5:1 odds,
say, my $100 to your $500, or some other amount
you propose, but nothing exorbitant – because I am
Just an ordinary inventor, and ordinary inventors, typically, are in debt.
We can ask Professor Crouch to handle the transaction, if he would be so kind, in this way:
The loser can mail the amount owed, money order or cash, in a sealed envelope with postage affixed, and with the intended recipient’s pseudonym written on it, and the winner can e-mail Professor Crouch with his pseudonym and name, and the address to mail the envelope to – with a request to keep any and all such information private.
In this way, I doubt that anybody could accuse Professor Crouch of being a bookie.
What we have here, is a patentable method of anonymous Internet blogging betting, via an intermediary – which I will think about, and perhaps file timely for a patent.
For what it may be worth – you heard it here first from JAOI™ on Patently-O.
I am assuming that two individuals can make a bet with each other, and the wager settled through a third party, without violating any state or federal laws.
But, what do I know?, I am Just an ordinary inventor.
From link to patentlyo.com
*sigh*
What a pleasant relief it was earlier this week without NAL and the usual sockpuppets clogging up every thread with their observations about yours truly.
And then lo and behold they all return, nearly simultaneously.
Posted by: Malcolm Mooney | Feb 11, 2010 at 03:13 PM
and
Oh yes, I keep up with those discussions religiously. They are so interesting. I’m sorry I missed your contributions. Did you “assail” JAOI or Actual Inventor?
Huhpuppet: Mooney. If anybody and their usual sockpuppets
As Dennis can tell you, I don’t have “usual” sockpuppets. I think I know who does, though.
Posted by: Malcolm Mooney | Feb 11, 2010 at 06:47 PM
AND
Can you show me some recent (last six months?) examples of one of these “same messages” being repeated by one of my alleged puppets? I’m not seeing them. I keep hearing about them, but I’m not seeing them.
On the other hand, I do see the usual sockpuppets demonstrating their usual obsessions with me, regardless of my comments…
Like I said, Dennis knows the score with the puppeteering. And it’s not my blog (as far as you know ;). If a bunch of whining patent teebagrs want to fill up every comment thread with false and/or unsupportable assertions…
Posted by: Malcolm Mooney | Feb 12, 2010 at 04:19 PM
which was preceded by my comment concerning the knowing (or lack thereof) of Dennis:
same old games – now the key modifier of “usual”. I guess “rare” lost its impact.
As if Dennis telling means anything – so you use multiple computers or your dial in connection establishes a different “identity” every time you comment. It doesn’t take a Columbo when you repeat the same message under different (“usual” or not, “rare” or not) pseudonyms.
More misdirection – it was not required that you keep up with any discussions religiously, the point was that your comment about my absence was errant – like I said – same old Malcolm.
Posted by: Noise above Law | Feb 12, 2010 at 06:09 AM
6,
Once again the discussion is over your head.
Funny you don’t see the very thing Malcolm is so quick to accuse others of – he is caught doing. Malcolm is caught in flagrante and you come rushing to his aid. Sweet. Pointless and absurd, but sweet. Funny that you don’t see the compromise in integrity since that is a foreign word to you.
OMFGWTFBBQ DECEPTIONS!!!! WEAVED DECEPTIONS!!!! AND DUPLICITY!!!!
OOOOOOhhhhhhhh the HUMANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111111111111111111111
“I conclude that you concede the argument.”
Once again, your conclusion is in error. Although I think you must be fairly healthy with all the jumping to conclusions that you do. You might actually try to read and follow my posts instead of spending so much energy dancing around them.
“I have never denied that I am not Malcolm.”
But you did challenge on another thread for evidence that you ever posted in pseudonym – much less “rare” or “usual”. On top of that, you also posted – in error – that I had been quiet this week – at the same time responding to me in pseudonym. The weave of your deceptions are plainly apparent. Such duplicity is your hallmark under any name.
Stop wiggling so much – it only tightens the net more.
Posted by: step back | Feb 12, 2010 at 05:40 AM :Even if the US Constitution said: ‘Congress SHALL promote the progress …’, the folk in Congress can simply not abide by that. What are you going to do? Sue them? However, the US Constitution does not say: ‘Congress SHALL promote the progress …’. It merely gives Congress the option to (the power to); if Congress so chooses, pass laws that Congress believes will enhance the rate of progress.
Thankfully, the US Congress has chosen to pass such laws. However, on any given day they can choose to unpass them. It’s a scary thought. But that’s the way it is my friend. What we need to do is to keep pressuring Congress to not unpass the patent laws.”
________
Step my friend when you have a moment take some time to consider this from the Constitution of the United States of America:
[We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. The Congress shall have Power; To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;]
If the text read The Congress “MAY” have Power; To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries”
You would have a basis for interpreting that Congress has no orders from WE THE PEOPLE and have only been given an “option” to act and therefore Inventors have no constitutional Rights.
or…..
If the text read: The Congress shall have Power; To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, and “MAY” secure for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
You would have an even stronger basis for claiming Congress has an “option” to act and not an order from WE THE PEOPLE and therefore Inventors have no constitutional (R)ights.”
Interesting enough both of the preceding scenarios could only be valid if Congress chose not to act and secure for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
As you pointed out and we are all aware, Congress has acted and secured for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
So Inventors Constitutional Rights already exist and the point of this thread is mute.
Also, the fact that the operational details of the patent system are not included in the text of the Constitution, or even the word “Patent” carries no Constitutional weight for arguing against the extistence of Inventors Constitutional (R)ights.
The details for the existence of Slavery were not included in the Constitution, or even the word Slavery yet its a fact that white males of that era had the Constitutional right if not the (R)ight to own slaves.
As far as giving up fighting for the Constitutional Rights for Inventors, I would no sooner quit than would Dr Martin Luther King Jr. in fighting for the right to vote.
Take care my friend and in the words of Sir Wilfred Peterson, keep your heart young, and your hopes high and NEVER allow your dreams to die.
AI: “And if you face my team of Constitutional Law Scholars in court what are you going to cite in your brief as a basis for your interpretation?”
MM: “Uh, the Constitution? ”
” I believe that the authors of the Constitution had ample competence to write what they truly meant, and I believe they meant what they wrote. ”
_____________
So the basis for your interpretation of the Constitution is the Constitution because the Constitution says what it means and means what it says.
Sounds like a circular argument with no depth. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt and ask a logical question about your interpretation.
Where does it say in the Constitution that Inventors have no Constitutional (R)ights?
I have never denied that I am not Malcolm.
I point out that if my remarks are as ignorant as you allege, and your intelligence as superior as you apparently believe it to be, then it should be a trivial matter for you to rebut them. But since you apparently don’t have any substantive response to what I or others on this thread have said, I conclude that you concede the argument.
Don’t worry, I know your posterior hurts right now from the spanking, but it will pass in time.
Oh, and by the way – snarky fingerprints of “malcomy” in the sockpuppet of Orly Taitiz:
level of directness with my moniker – Orly and I have not had the run-ins to use such familiarity.
“troglodytic” and “mouth-breather” as ad hominem attacks infused in typical responses.
“teabagr” – NO ONE else enjoys this term to such an obvious degree.
“substance-free”, “fluffing” – from the master of using terms that best describe your own style of posting in attacks on those that call you out. Malcolm, I guess “rare” and “usual” are no longer apt qualifiers for your sockpuppet game. Go ahead and throw out that lame “ask Dennis” line in yet another apparent disregard of my rationale for why that is completely meaningless.
You need some new tricks Malcolm – you are getting stale.
“Noise, I must admit, when it comes to fluffing, you are simply the best. There is not one iota of substance in your above post.”
Straw and misdirection. My above post calls out your lack of substance. Taking my calling out of your behavior to be “not addressing the issue of the thread” is not only belaboring the obviousness of what I’m doing – its totally ignoring what I’m doing. You do not escape my calling out so easily.
Instead of setting up a strawman argument pile of crap and inviting me to step into the pile of crap, answer the heart of my post first. That way, you won’t have to wait for a substance free response to your typical strawman crap argument.
Calling me the best only emphasizes the fine art of deflection that you yourself practice.
Reasons why your statement and riddle are crap:
“Arguments presented above by yourself and AI are (mis)directed toward the Patent Clause creating a requirement that Congress must secure exclusive rights for inventors.”
Wrong. There is no mis-direction. I have tried to frame the argument to consider the proper level of abstraction between (R)ight and (r)ight. Your glib and fluff answer, evasively given upthread to this distinction was “the shift key”. YOU NEVER ANSWERED THE DISTINCTION.
Straw: “X+Y is still an invention, albeit an obvious one” You tell me the semantics involved as to why this is straw.
“No reasonable reader” – ad hominem.
C’mon Malcolm, raise your game. You continue to state that you are not an examiner, yet you keep falling back to examiner tricks.
Noise, I must admit, when it comes to fluffing, you are simply the best. There is not one iota of substance in your above post. However, I will not stoop to your troglodytic level and shall instead respond cordially and substantively.
Arguments presented above by yourself and AI are (mis)directed toward the Patent Clause creating a requirement that Congress must secure exclusive rights for inventors. However, riddle me this:
Inventor A invents X. Inventor B invents Y. Congress secures exclusive rights for inventors A and B. Inventor C invents X+Y which is an obvious combination of X and Y. Congress does not secure exclusive rights for inventor C. X+Y is still an invention, albeit an obvious one, yet inventor C is denied his exclusive rights. Is inventor C’s Constitutional right to a patent being violated because USC 103 is unconstitutional? Or does Congress have discretion as to how it wields the power given to it by the Patent Clause, the ability to decide which inventions are worthy of patent protection, and thereby which inventors get exclusive rights? I believe it is the latter and that leads to the conclusion that AN inventor, and AI in particular, does not have a Constitutional right to a patent.
No reasonable reader of the Constitution would conclude that the authors intended that Congress must be compelled to secure exclusive rights for an inventor if doing so does not serve the public interest or promote the progress of science and the useful arts.
I shall await your next substance-free response with bated breath.
Orly Taitz,
As other posts indicate, the snarky fingerprints of Malcolm ooze from your misdirected posts. If you are indeed not a puppet of Malcolm’s, your “malcomy” style does not advance your position, or the value of this thread.
“AI, you and NAL disrespect the founding fathers with your arguments that they could for some unknown reason not write what they meant.”
NO ONE has claimed that the founding fathers could not write what they meant. Your statement to that affect is pure crap.
What posters have debated – including your attempts at debate (if I may be so generous)- are what the words the founding fathers used mean. This type of discussion is by no means disrespectful or false – unless you mean to impugn every lawyer or judge who must weigh the words of the Constitution or supporting law and edict. Your balderdash attempt to impugn those who hold a view contrary to your own is a shining example of how you typically try to obfuscate the actual legal point under discussion, and is readily apparent that you truly do not have anything of substance to say, and yet feel the overwhelming urge to post.
The torture on this blog is your crap being posted when others are actually trying to reach on understanding of competing interpretations. Keeping the proper levels of abstraction in mind is difficult enough without the purposeful snark and meaningless drivel that you are compelled to inflict.
Just curious, who is actually on the “Actual Inventor Team of Constitutional Law Scholars”?
My guess is AI, NAL/Nihilistic, and maybe JAOI’s rabbit.
“And if you face my team of Constitutional Law Scholars in court what are you going to cite in your brief as a basis for your interpretation?”
Uh, the Constitution? Your (L)awyers will no doubt counter with key passages from the notes that Lincoln copiously kept at the Constitutional Convention.
AI, you and NAL disrespect the founding fathers with your arguments that they could for some unknown reason not write what they meant. That, though they intended that Congress shall secure for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries, the authors for some reason that you have yet to explain or support wrote “The Congress shall have power To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”
I believe that the authors of the Constitution had ample competence to write what they truly meant, and I believe they meant what they wrote. It is you who tortures their words. Those such as yourself who sully the glorious founding of our nation by disrespecting the words of the Founders are FALSE PATRIOTS.
AI: : “THEY HAVE NOTHING!!!”
Orly Taitz:”…except the actual words of the Constitution. ”
AI: We all have the actual words/text of the Constitution. What we are discussing is the interpretation of that text.
My interpretation is based on the opinions of the founding fathers, the philosophers that influenced them, the declaration of independence and one of the greatest Presidents and most pivotal figures in American History.
Your opinion is based on…well, nothing but your opinion. And you will forgive me if I don’t take your opinion over John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the founding fathers, the Declaration of Independence, and Abraham Lincoln.
And if you face my team of Constitutional Law Scholars in court what are you going to cite in your brief as a basis for your interpretation?
The oppositions interpretation is wrong because Orly Taitz a.k.a Malcolm Mooney a.k.a. God knows who said so on Patently O?
Show up with that and my Lawyers will beat you in court in 5 minutes or less!
Unless you like hearing the replies from Actual Inventor, Thomas Hobbes was here, and the like, or are aiming to add posts to get to a certain volume (your allusion to fluffery being apropos), let this meaningless thread die.
I’m not sure I like where you’re going with this. If you’d like to join the ranks of the assailed, you just let us know. We’re keenly aware of the dangers of infiltrating nihilists in our midst…
Orly Taitz,
Just like IANAE, your post adds nothing – your use of “except the actual words” will only bring a response using those actual words yet again. Words, like “secure”, “limited”, “exclusive” and “Right”.
Unless you like hearing the replies from Actual Inventor, Thomas Hobbes was here, and the like, or are aiming to add posts to get to a certain volume (your allusion to fluffery being apropos), let this meaningless thread die.
IANAE,
What is it with these threads and the cheap misdirections in responses? Why would you draw attention with a “but that’s not what you said” type of comment – I know that I said that Congress would have to change the constitution – we were talking about the constitutional phrase “for limited times” and your errant comment about Congress can pass an ordinary law to allow patents for unlimited times. Your answer is a misdirection. I get it that you don’t have an actual answer. It’s OK to simply say so. It’s not such a big deal – you don’t have to be right on every silly point that you post.
Likewise with the restoration discussion. I am not asking for restoration – I was pointing out that the discussion was broader than asking for remedy. Your answer of you can ask all you want misses the boat. You also miss the boat with never imprison that person again – that’s a ridiculous statement and completely off target. Future crimes would not be germane to the violation of the person’s rights in the immediate instance of why he was imprisoned. I noticed that you glibly responded by choosing to focus on the tangential “Habeas Corpus” term without responding to the overarching meaning of what that entire element discussed.
That’s OK – I recognize that you do not have a response, because you know your position is wrong. You do not have to add yet another post to this thread unless you want to actually answer my point.
Prediction:
Obama will move the civilian trial of the terrorists to a military trial at West Point.
Despite the fact that Obama himself was responsible for this incredibly ignorant, arrogant and inexcusable mistake in the first place, he will try to take credit as a hero for correcting the mistake.
You heard it here first on Patently-O.
“fluffery”
What a great word. Incidentally, this thread is closing in on 500 comments.
AI, I thought the whole point of this discussion was “Does AI have a Constitutional right to a patent?” not “Does AI have the right to vote?”
“THEY HAVE NOTHING!!!”
…except the actual words of the Constitution. You’ve got to hand it to AI though: he LOVES the Constitution, he just doesn’t like what it says.
Thomas Hobbes was here | Feb 12, 2010 at 03:29 PM:
Obfuscation!”
______
Yes, in this thread and the other there has been from those opposed to the Constitutionality of patents, a non stop barrage of obfuscation, sophistry, sockpuppetry, red herrons, including an odd attack on NAL, and every type of intellectual dishonesty imaginable along with the customary range of juvenile taunts.
And how does it end? Exactly like it began. Without one shred of evidence from one constitutional scholar that agrees with the opposition.
Not one founding father.
Not one philosopher.
Not one historical influencing document.
THEY HAVE NOTHING!!!
And when all the dust has settled we see still standing, untouched, unscathed, amazing and shining through….
THE INVENTORS CONSTITUTIONAL (R)IGHTS!
Which include but are not limited to the following:
The Power to enforce Article 8 of the Constitution by instructing our representatives to enact appropriate legislation for Inventors to be granted patents.
The Power to Promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.
[ Note Useful Arts means process which can scientifically be proven to include algorithms, software and all manner of technological processes.]
The Power to Secure for limited times the exclusive right to our respective writings and discoveries.
I am truly sorry the public school system failed you so badly.
Obfuscation!
Wow.
I am truly sorry the public school system failed you so badly.
Posted by: IANAE | Feb 12, 2010 at 02:52 PM Just one question, though. When was the last time WE THE PEOPLE arrested and prosecuted Congress?
Well, I am not sure how it works in your world with of the gift of tyranny and all but in my world no one is above the law and plenty of Congressmen have been arrested, and then prosecuted by the PEOPLE.
Huh. I guess you’re right after all.
Just one question, though. When was the last time WE THE PEOPLE arrested and prosecuted Congress?
IANAE: Congress is not your servant or your subordinate.
AI: Who says?
IANAE:”Congress is in charge of the country. That fact doesn’t change just because you voted for two or three of the people in Congress. Once elected, Congressmen are not accountable to you no matter how much you dislike the laws they pass. No matter who you elect to replace them, that replacement will have the same power, and he won’t be you. “
AI: Okay, so according to your logic WE THE PEOPLE don’t have the power to change /replace Congress because WE THE PEOPLE have the power to change and replace congress.
Also according to your logic because Congress is locked into a 2 year social contract with WE THE PEOPLE, and since WE THE PEOPLE have the Power to hold Congress accountable by not renewing that Social Contract WE THE PEOPLE, do not have the Power to hold Congress Accountable.
And now your coup de grâce. Obviously according to your logic because Congress can be arrested and then prosecuted by WE THE PEOPLE for any crime they commit during their 2 year Social Contract, WE THE PEOPLE can’t change, replace, or hold Congress accountable during the 2 year social contract with WE THE PEOPLE.
Wow IANAE, thats dazzling! We maybe more like dizzying but its your world. Just glad I don’t live in it.
IANAE: So now you change your point the Constitution delegates the power to Congress.
The constitution gives the power to Congress. Gives. Yes, it uses the word “delegate”, but look at what the document actually does.
Here, I’ll give you an analogy. Suppose I have season tickets to the Montreal Exp… Washington Nationals. I then go and hand the tickets to you. I have delegated to you the power to promote the play of the Nats by securing for a limited time the exclusive right to sit in those seats.
Let’s recap:
– You have the power to attend those games and sit in those seats.
– You may, if you so choose, not attend those games at all.
– You may attend those games and sit in different seats, if you also have other tickets (“powers”).
– I delegated those tickets to you.
– If I want the tickets back, or I don’t like how you’re using the tickets (maybe you’re wearing a Mets cap at the games or something), I have no recourse. Even if you’re not using them. The only way I’m getting those tickets back is if you and your friends hold a majority vote and decide you don’t want them anymore.
What does that look like to you? It looks like a gift to me.
IANAE: So now you change your point the Constitution delegates the power to Congress.
Okay, who delegates Power to the Constitution?
::Hint::
Now matter how big the circumference of the circle you are running, sooner or later it will end where it began
Clause 8 is a Constitutional clause, not a lower level law. It can be changed,
Of course it can be changed. But that’s not what you said. You said “to do so, Congress would have to change the Constitution.”
What is being asked for is the restoration of rights
You can ask for that all you want, but that’s not what you get. Just like you can ask for a billion dollars every time your patent is infringed, but you won’t get it unless you can show that you suffered a billion dollars worth of harm.
When someone violates your right, no matter which right, you get an appropriate compensatory remedy under the circumstances. It’s routinely a sum of money. You only get an injunction if no other remedy will fully compensate you, and an appropriate injunction would be useful to protect your rights.
ask yourself if acceptance of money (without more) would do if we were to strip other rights, such as Habeas Corpus , freedom of speech, your right to vote, your right to keep and bear arms. Would money make you whole?
It might or might not, depending. If you’re deprived of your right to speak or vote, by the time you get to court it’s probably too late to fix it with an injunction, so you’ll have to settle for money anyway. You might not even be entitled to that. People who are falsely imprisoned and later released shouldn’t expect any compensation other than money. The court won’t issue an injunction to never imprison that person again. If they’re still in prison, that’s a great time for an injunction.
Interestingly, habeas corpus is described in the constitution as a “privilege”, and it is itself actually a remedy – not a right.
IANAE, not to become embroiled in a conversation without end,
“Not at all. You should have read my entire post before responding. I explained all that.”
Respectfully, your assumption is in error – I did read your entire post. Your explanation is in error. Clause 8 is a Constitutional clause, not a lower level law. It can be changed, so the end result is the same.
You also appear to be in error regarding the pet name for “monetary damages”. I don’t think the argument is if monetary damages is or is not an appropriate remedy. As you point out, monetary damages is almost always an appropriate remedy – FOR DAMAGES. What is being asked for though while perhaps not even being understood that something else is being asked for, is not truly remedy for damages. What is being asked for is the restoration of rights (or (r)ights or (R)ights. “exclusive” is used in two different levels of abstraction. They may mean the same thing. They may mean different things. You have the level in the Constitution, what has been called the (L)aw level. You also have the level at 35 USC, what has been called the (l)aw level.
Where the proper abstract level collides with whether remedy is at issue can be thought of as follows. As to Right or right for remedy sake – ask yourself if acceptance of money (without more) would do if we were to strip other rights, such as Habeas Corpus , freedom of speech, your right to vote, your right to keep and bear arms. Would money make you whole? Is remedy enough for such transgressions?
Mixing up your levels is a bit sloppy – and prolongs the painful discussion. “and only Congress can un-delegate it. It’s their power now” is also a bit sloppy as there is more than one way to make Constitutional Amendments or other more subtle changes. You might find this link of interest: link to usconstitution.net
Returning to “exclusive”, both instances are merely (L/l)aw. Both can be changed. Changing one is more difficult than the other, but both are merely ink on paper. The Constitutional language of “for limited Times” can also be changed – but it cannot be contradicted by a lower level law. Limited cannot mean unlimited. So you are in error – but its only a relatively small error, as I said – change can still happen.
In reality, all this conversation matters little. The Truth is that the courts are acting as they want to and will continue to act. The Truth is that Congress is acting as it wants to and will continue not to act. No one will be formulating a revolution because of eBay. That’s just too messy.
WE THE PEOPLE delegate the power.
In order for WE THE PEOPLE to be as powerless as you say we are, WE THE PEOPLE would need to have not delegated but abdicated our Power to Congress.
If you’re going to make a semantic point, I should probably point out to you that your definition of “delegation” isn’t what the constitution does. Here’s why.
1) You can’t take the power back from Congress. Congress isn’t babysitting the powers until you get home, Congress has the powers forever. Well, at least until someone changes the constitution.
Have you checked who gets to change the constitution? Read Article V. It’s not WE THE PEOPLE. Congress has the power until Congress decides it doesn’t want the power anymore.
2) Congress is not your servant or your subordinate. Congress is in charge of the country. That fact doesn’t change just because you voted for two or three of the people in Congress. Once elected, Congressmen are not accountable to you no matter how much you dislike the laws they pass. No matter who you elect to replace them, that replacement will have the same power, and he won’t be you. The only body who can remove Congressmen from office is, interestingly, Congress.
When you give somebody something, forever, to use as they please, and only give it back in the unlikely event they decide to be so kind, that’s not a delegation. That’s a gift.
“With all due respect, biased, narrow-minded people can and will believe anything they want to despite the truth; such people can simply ignore reality.”
Truer words have never been spoken here on the blog affectionately known as the “Trainwreck,” JAOI. Indeed, the truth of this is amply demonstrated, nay, proven, on this very thread.
Correction: Now though you may and no doubt will continue to claim otherwise, there can be no denying that you have loss this argument on the merits.
Posted by: Actual Inventor | Feb 12, 2010 at 12:18 PM
Dear IANAE,
You have proven a point I have made several times on Patently-O.
With all due respect, biased, narrow-minded people can and will believe anything they want to despite the truth; such people can simply ignore reality.
Posted by: IANAE | Feb 12, 2010 at 10:41 AM: Congress shall have the power. The power shall belong to Congress. It’s not your right, it’s Congress’s right.
AI: And who delegated this Power to Congress?
Posted by: IANAE | Feb 12, 2010 at 11:23 AM Who cares? ”
AI: I do for one. So let’s proceed, first we start with the definition of Delegate.
According to the American Heritage Dictionary: Delegate: entrust (a task or responsibility) to another person, typically one who is less senior than oneself : he delegates routine tasks | the power delegated to him must never be misused.
Now the answer to the question you so cowardly ducked is ….
WE THE PEOPLE.
And here in the United States of America, WE THE PEOPLE are senior to the Congressional body that represents us.
WE THE PEOPLE delegate the power.
In order for WE THE PEOPLE to be as powerless as you say we are, WE THE PEOPLE would need to have not delegated but abdicated our Power to Congress.
The definition for abdicate according to the American Heritage dictionary is as follows: relinquish, renounce, give up, surrender, vacate, cede.
No where in the Constitution does it say WE THE PEOPLE abdicate, relinquish, renounce, give up, surrender, vacate, or cede
our power to Congress.
Now though you may and no doubt will continue to claim otherwise, there can be no denying that you have lost this argument on the merits.
Greetings and Happy Friday, Atlantic-Sinisters, especially JAOI.
It’s after 5pm for us Atlantic-Dexters, I have a selection of excellent Single Malts at home, and I’ll be there soon…
Slainte!
Your position is, in essence, that a court can require that a patent owner license his patent to an infringer for a fee. No!, no!, no!
Yes, yes, yes. It’s the court’s position too. Only, the court phrases it more in terms of “we’re not going to order a remedy to cure a harm you haven’t suffered”, which is perfectly reasonable.
You poor, poor patentee. Someone else is using what you weren’t using anyway, and you’re getting paid for it. Cry me a river.
The Framers used the adjective “exclusive” to describe the specific “Right” that was to be secured to the Inventor,
The Framers also used the noun “people” to refer to white males.
But, yeah, you’ve almost achieved comprehension. The word “exclusive” describes the right. Not the remedy. The remedy is determined (mostly) by the harm you suffered due to the infringement. The purpose of a remedy is to compensate you for a loss, not to give you whatever you feel like just because you won your case.
Dear IANAE,
I see I am not getting through to you.
Re:
“An exclusive right just means a right you have that other people don’t also have. It’s not magical. When you go to court, the court still checks to see what harm you’ve suffered, and decides what remedy is appropriate to make you whole.”
You Just don’t get it.
Your position is, in essence, that a court can require that a patent owner license his patent to an infringer for a fee. No!, no!, no!
This ought to settle it:
The Framers used the adjective “exclusive” to describe the specific “Right” that was to be secured to the Inventor, and that does no wash with your cockamamie remedy of a court dictating that monetary damages be paid and allowing the infringer to continue infringing against the will of the patent owner.
“[T]he exclusive Right”, of course, certainly is not akin to “pretty much any right out there.”
Sure it is. Ownership of property is an exclusive right, and money damages are normal and adequate in the vast majority of cases. Most contractual rights are exclusive, and money damages are the norm. In fact, it’s almost impossible to get a common law court to order specific performance of a contract.
An exclusive right just means a right you have that other people don’t also have. It’s not magical. When you go to court, the court still checks to see what harm you’ve suffered, and decides what remedy is appropriate to make you whole.
“Hear hare hear!” was, of course, for Mr. Thomas Hobbes was here’s laudable comment.
Dear IANAE,
Re:
“… “monetary damages”, which is universally considered an appropriate remedy for pretty much any right out there.”
Except, of course, logically, literally and by (Constitutional) law, “the exclusive Right.”
“[T]he exclusive Right”, of course, certainly is not akin to “pretty much any right out there.”
Am I getting through to you?
And who delegated this Power to Congress?
Who cares? It’s delegated, and only Congress can un-delegate it. It’s their power now.
Posted by: IANAE | Feb 12, 2010 at 10:41 AM: Congress shall have the power. The power shall belong to Congress. It’s not your right, it’s Congress’s right.
And who delegated this Power to Congress?
Hear hare hear!
Nihil: the strong unwritten caveat being that to do so, Congress would have to change the Constitution.
Not at all. You should have read my entire post before responding. I explained all that.
JAOI: “compulsory licensing” which, in salient meaning regarding patents, is, in essence, the antithesis of “the exclusive Right.”
You’re entitled to your opinion. You can be displeased with that particular remedy all you want, but nothing about it is contrary to logic, law, or Section 8. It’s just your pet name for “monetary damages”, which is universally considered an appropriate remedy for pretty much any right out there.
“… to do so, Congress would have to change the Constitution. No big deal – it’s been done before, even changes to the constitution have been changed.”
Ah, but our inalienable (R)ights, belonging (inalienably) to WE THE PEOPLE, are not to be extinguished even by amendment of the Constitution. Thus the continuing necessity for the proper level of abstraction in the present discussion. Absent the expression recognition of the distinction between (r)ights and (R)ights, all this fluffery is nothing more than obfuscation, obstruction, red-herrings, strawmen, and, to be frank, advocacy of nihilism. Battle stations, defenders of truth and the American patent system!
Dear IANAE,
Re:
“JAOI: “the exclusive Right” (emp. added) does not = r e m e d y.
I’m glad we finally agree.”
Good. Of course, that’s because a regular “remedy”, could encompass “compulsory licensing” which, in salient meaning regarding patents, is, in essence, the antithesis of “the exclusive Right.”
“Congress could give inventors a perpetual right”
ANYTHING is possible. The Constitution, while THE bedrock, is merely law. Law can change.
However, the statement quoted here is only partially true – the strong unwritten caveat being that to do so, Congress would have to change the Constitution. No big deal – it’s been done before, even changes to the constitution have been changed.
However, if I understand the debate correctly, such changes and woulda-coulda’s are off limits.
The point remains, as aptly put by Step Back – we are talking about ink on a paper. There is nothing sacred here, merely rules to be understood and manipulated the best we can, bending without breaking.
JAOI: “the exclusive Right” (emp. added) does not = r e m e d y.
I’m glad we finally agree.
AI: The Congress “SHALL” have Power
Check your definition of “shall” again.
Congress shall have the power. The power shall belong to Congress. It’s not your right, it’s Congress’s right. Technically you shouldn’t even be telling Congress what to do with that power, but for the First Amendment.
Congress shall have the power. You have no right to that power. Quit usurping the power.
Posted by: step back | Feb 12, 2010 at 05:40 AM:
Although I very often agree with your politics, on this one my friend; you are simply plain wrong and should give up on the noble windmill chasing cause you have undertaken.”
______
Step my friend, Welcome to the discussion.
The United States Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land. It will be enforced by the American people through a system of checks and balances that forms a government by the People for the People.
As I have repeatedly pointed out, the fact the Constitution can be amended does not negate the existing rights and (R) ights ratified therein.
It is not that Congress or any branch of government has the duty or obligation to act so much as it is the duty and obligation of WE THE PEOPLE to ensure our Constitutional rights and (R)ights are honored and enforced.
I do believe if you check, the word “SHALL” is used 306 times in the US Constitution. Shall is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as follows;
shall: expressing an instruction or command : thou shall not steal.
The word “MAY” is used 44 times in the US Constitution. May as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary means: expressing permission : you may use a sling if you wish | may I ask a few questions.
____________
So clearly when using the word MAY there is an option as to take an action.
Likewise when using the word SHALL, there is a command to take action. It is a MUST do, not a do if you wish.
In section 8, line 7 of Artcile I, WE THE PEOPLE, ordain that, (note my added caps and quotes) ………
The Congress “SHALL” have Power To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
WILL THE PEOPLE issued this duty and command to Congress as part of our Social Contract with one another so that we could have an orderly system for securing this very important Constitutional right and (R)ight and ensuring it was available for all that wished to exercise it.
I say to those of you that do not wish to exercise such a Constitutional right and (R)ight, by all means don’t do it!
To those of you that do not wish to recognize such a Constitutional right and (R)ight for yourself by all means don’t recognize it!
To those of you that wish to try and strike from the Constitution such a Constitutional right and (R)ight go ahead, MAKE MY DAY.
the Constitution’s Patent Clause is in fact explicitly binding in regard to two lawful limitations,
Actually, it’s not. Congress could give inventors a perpetual right, or a non-exclusive right, they’d just have to justify it under another head of power. Interstate commerce is popular, I hear.
If that was the only right Congress granted to inventors, and you challenged it in court, the DOJ would say “Oh, Clause 8? Congress chose not to exercise that power.” And you’d need to come up with a better argument – just like now.