Vote for Patently-O Today – Get Free Books! :)

(Click here to vote)

In the final two days of voting, Patently-O needs another 150 votes to win the American Bar Association's "Favorite" IP law blog. Gene & Renee Quinn's excellent IP Watchdog took the lead in the voting during the Holiday weekend with an offering of a free patent bar review course for votes in their favor. (Nobody reads Patently-O during the Holidays). 

What can I offer?: Free books!  I receive lots of interesting and excellent books in the mail. Two that I recently received from Oxford University Press (OUP) are the U.S. Patent Prosecutor's Desk Reference by Graham and Marlow and Patent Litigation in China by Douglas Clark. Each are listed at $225. 

To enter a drawing for the books, just vote for Patently-O in the IP Law Category and let me know via e-mail by Saturday (12/31) (

To vote, direct your browser to, complete the 15-second registration form (anon registration OK); locate the IP Law Category; and Vote.  

(Click here to vote)

Pic-107  Pic-108

For Republicans, think of this as a warm-up for next week's primary season.  For everyone else, this may be your most meaningful vote until November. 

PS: Get a second entry into the drawing by letting me know that you have posted the following to your Facebook or Twitter account: "Vote for Patently-O and mail @patentlyo to win $450 in patent law books.  Requires 15-second anon registration."

43 thoughts on “Vote for Patently-O Today – Get Free Books! :)

  1. 43

    all the evidence is to the contrary

    No. You are in fantasy land if you truly believe that.

    You’re a lixar and a foxol.

    The level of your retort once again meets the low expectations reserved to you.

    Please post again when you have nothing of substance to offer.

  2. 42

    doesn’t Shilling usually address Ned and MaxDrei?

    Sure, sockie, when shillywilly isn’t addressing me or Dennis or IANAE or whoever else he’s addressing.

    your refusals to answer questions

    Again, sockie: all the evidence is to the contrary. You’re a lixar and a foxol.

  3. 41


    Let’s talk a moment about childish actions – such as blaming me when it was your derailment.

    Do you really feel that your admonishment has any merit? Seriously?

    You now try to characterize your post as merely “quoting back at me words from my rant”?

    Let’s not try to rewrite the scene – the thread clearly shows what it shows. My posts of 7:38, 5:22 and 10:35 (and your replies) clearly show a different story than the one you are attempting to portray.

    It is worse to belabor a point you have lost – good money after bad, pearls before swine, and all that.

  4. 40

    So, anon, you choose to throw in your lot with A, B and Pigshot. I have to say, I’m surprised.

    But not as surprised to read that the bad start to this thread was all my fault, for quoting back at you words taken from your rant.

    Like you, I might have time later this week, for more childish banter, but not now.

  5. 39

    That’s been demonstrated numerous times

    Not sure what you mean about Shilling, MM.

    While everyone knows that you are a mere Office hack, doesn’t Shilling usually address Ned and MaxDrei?

    And yes, both have obvious agendas that are continually pushed.

    MaxDrei has his Euro-movement, while Ned has his anti-business method and anti-software (which he shares an affinity with you).

    Ned also shares an inability to answer simple, direct question with you. One does not have to go too far to see thread after thread of your refusals to answer questions (and your sellective memory plays to free speech’s “freedom to hear” much more so than Shilling’s mono track). Do you remember the thread in which you fell into the “Coward’s trap”? I may have some time near the end of the week to post a link if you do not.

  6. 38

    was it not your first posting… that got things off to a bad start?

    No. It was your attempted rebuttal that got things off to a bad start.

    chose not to prolong our discussion

    Yes. I chose not to prolong the discussion of a minor point that I know is correct, that you will not understand. I have led far too many thirsty horses to the full trough and watch them not drink to care further.

  7. 37

    anon, I’m driven to observe, was it not your first posting, right at the head of this thread, that got things off to a bad start?

    On “analogy” (supposing you are not using a slew of pseudonyms) you chose not to prolong our discussion. Bravo.

    Is Mr Quinn thin-skinned, or is it that arguments that conflict with his own conflict with the aims of his site? I agree with you though, there is nothing more to be said here on that issue either.

  8. 36

    one sure way of reducing postings by Shilling

    LOL!!!!!!! shillywilly will accuse anyone who disagrees with his/her opinion of “shilling.” That’s been demonstrated numerous times. Exactly who am I shilling for, sockie? The pharma patenting industry? The software patenting industry? The anti-patent industry? LOL.

    focus on the topic rather than criticizing the blog owner

    IP Watchdog blows donkey. That better?

    most can’t seem to focus on the actual patent law topic.

    And then there’s you, sockie, and shillywilly, and your hero Gene Quinn who refuses to directly address burning issues of patent law even when the US government puts them right in front of everyone’s face. Do you need me to explain exactly what I’m talking about, sockie?

  9. 35

    thin-skinned that he can’t stand even the tiniest criticism

    Here’s an idea to help with that: focus on the topic rather than criticizing the blog owner. I know, that seems like common sense, but such is just not that common as most can’t seem to focus on the actual patent law topic.

    Besides, one sure way of reducing postings by Shilling is to stop the shilling (yes, more common sense).

  10. 34

    Spell them out for us normals.

    All you have to do is spend a little time reading the drivel written by those who post with a single mindset to be able to “divine” who is shilling; especially after repeated factual trouncings of those viewpoints are put forth. Even for “you normals” this should not be difficult.

    No delusion required.

  11. 33

    Oh, okay, gotcha. I was supposed to divine that you were insinuating that Max gets paid to post here. (By whom, I have no idea, although I’m sure that you think it’s plainly obvious.) Protip: you should take into account that most of us aren’t anywhere near as delusional as you are, and won’t immediately appreciate the subtleties of your little conspiracy theories. Spell them out for us normals.

  12. 32

    And you clearly don’t understand the concept of free speech

    And you clearly don’t understand my jibe at you and your reliance on posting numbers as any type of “reason” to rank a blog, nor on the subtle nuance with “free” when those who post with prolific abandon are paid for their speech.

    You’re one of the worst offenders for that
    The only reason why you see my posts so often is because I reflect those that get paid (you are so very confused about freedom to hear).

    Get a clue.

  13. 31

    You’re one of the worst offenders for that, Shilling. And you clearly don’t understand the concept of free speech. It doesn’t mean the freedom to hear only what you want to hear.

  14. 30

    There’s a reason that Quinn’s posts average two comments while Dennis’ average tens or hundreds

    There’s more than one reason for that.

    It’s called shilling.

    Pay attention to how many comments come from how few people and how those few people always seem to say the same things.

    I am sure that that is not “free” speech.

  15. 29

    There’s a reason that Quinn’s posts average two comments while Dennis’ average tens or hundreds. Gene is so opinionated and thin-skinned that he can’t stand even the tiniest criticism. Try posting a slightly critical comment over there and see how long it takes to get attacked and/or deleted. It’s really sad to see him having to stoop to buying his way into a blog award.

  16. 28

    You just aren’t making the mental connection.

    That is not something within MaxDrei’s wheel house.

    Posting on things he does not understand, on the other hand, most definitely is.

  17. 27

    Explore the words all you want MaxDrei.

    Then read the definition.

    You have been taken to the woodshed, no matter how you try to spin it.


  18. 26

    Until Dennis finds a way for us to filter out the likes of MM, 6, Max Drei and Ned Heller, this blog will continue to be a cess pit with a few diamonds that you have to dig through a lot of cr@p to find.

  19. 25

    So, let us explore the words “comparison” and “analogy”, shall we, for example by reference to the exasperated exclamation “That fellow is as thick as pigshit”?

    The exasperated exclamation is indeed a “comparison between two things”, that’s for sure. But is it for you also an analogy? Think: could it be, that something being a “comparison” is necessary, but not sufficient, to make it also an “analogy”?

  20. 24

    Now that I have the real information about the RISER.. I can start all over. The only thing wrong with me is i am about the most gullible person that ever lived. I believed I was a Lewis didn’t I.. THANK GOD that nightmare is over! NOW FOR THE DREAM!
    Marcella’s problem is she never wanted to be alone. So she made up a lot of stuff. And she also made sure i was with her when she died. the only problem .. when she died.. in order to keep the lie going they put her in the Grave a Day earlier.. and then claimed she died in Hanover. Hey you… Like it was yesterday when you said to Dick… You need to put it in the Globe! So who do you think “YOU” are? To bad about my Memory. Gullibility and Memory are not the same. Memory is verbatim, Gullibility is just plain dumb!

  21. 23



    1.A comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.

    There is no need for a C is…what?

    Your correction of Anon fails.

    Next time you attempt to correct someone, try being correct in your corrrection. Especially if you are giving tips to lawyers.

  22. 22

    Quinn has not banished me yet. He won’t get the chance.

    So he has forced you from his blog, then. You just aren’t making the mental connection.

  23. 21

    An analogy is like “A is to B as C is to….what?”

    I was not using analogy.

    Tip: as a lawyer, whether standing at a bar or typing at a keyboard, be sure to know what a word means, before you make use of it.

    That said, I agree with you, that words take their meaning from their context. Shorn of their context, words might mean more or less anything.

  24. 20

    Calling the Pickle puts you in a pickle. I don’t think you can advertise LLO as the real LLO ,and then some unsuspecting sap looks at the Yellow Page AD and they call LLO and it is really a PICKLE COMPANY.

  25. 18

    Ned I’m not sure you do “see”. The teasing remark to Quinn was about how he decides who to banish from his blog, nothing more than that. Quinn’s instant response was a straight flat threat to banish the teaser.

    Quinn has not banished me yet. He won’t get the chance.

  26. 17

    I tend to call a spade a spade

    Right, sockie. Except when the “spade” is a piece-of-shxt patent that should never have been granted. In that case, you and your hero Gene simply stick your heads in the sand and accuse anyone with a different opinion of being “anti-patent.”

  27. 16


    “It was a playful remark, directed at Mr Quinn himself.”

    Ah, I see.

    Even if Quinn himself is dishonest, and his remarks that the US was a first to file system until 1870 prove him to be dishonest, I think he has the right to prevent his blog from becoming a referendum on his own intelligence or honesty or the like.

    We should do that here, and do it every time Quinn says something remarkably stu….pid, which, as I understand it, is not a rare occurrence. Then his blog will get the reputation it well deserves.

  28. 15

    Well any hard-drinking rowdy can tell you

    And any hard-drinking rowdy can tell you the difference in context between a bar and a online patent blog (well, at least most can tell you and most would understand if told – in simple enough terms that 1) there is no alcohol involved and 2) actual physical presence is not involved – perhaps you should rely on situations that do not require hard-drinking).

    Your analogy fails.

  29. 13

    Well any hard-drinking rowdy can tell you the difference in practice between “forced to leave” and “threatened with banishment”.

    What was it then, that prompted the threat of banishment. It was a playful remark, directed at Mr Quinn himself. He didn’t like it one little bit.

  30. 12

    I don’t know if that is off topic Ned. There is obviously a national emergency when Eugene’s hole of a site is seriously contending with the premier aweseomness that is PO due to bribery.

  31. 10

    Will you now show us

    No I will not show you verbatim.

    You may choose to portray the incident differently – as is your perogative – but I tend to call a spade a spade, and your “choosing” not to post at the IPWatchdog because Gene called you out and threatened to banish you is every bit a spade as “forced from Quinn’s blog.”

  32. 8

    There you go again, with your slur that I was “forced from Quinn’s blog”. Will you now show us verbatim the words which you characterize as “force”. Then, all those who are keen to learn can see just how Gene Quinn uses force to keep his blog the way he likes it to be.

  33. 7

    Though arguably justified this sentiment is inconsistent with seasonable sentiments of good cheer.

    And bribing voters is, I fear, a built-in feature of the democratic process in both of our countries.

  34. 4

    I voted for Patently-O without any inducement, and have urged others to do so.

    Voting should be on the merits, not on the basis of inducements of any kind. The winner should be the better blog, not the blog that offers more favorble course discounts or a raffle. That proposition is self-evident. Both of our countries would be the better if the same were taken into account more generally in the democratic process. Indeed it is a matter of amusement that as an Englishman I am not welcome at receptions at the AIPLA meetings concerning liaison with Congress, on the ground that I might corrupt the US political process.

    On the other hand, the Graham and Marlow book looks to be a very useful reference, and I have every intention of buying a copy. May I also recommend Rules of Patent Drafting: Guidelines from Federal Circuit Case Law, Joseph E. Root, published by Oxford University Press. It has been described as “an instant classic” and having read through the first 2/3 of it (to date) I concur in that assessment, although it is important to bear in mind the limits that the author has set himself.

  35. 2


    Entertaining indeed – but perhaps not in the way you might think – having been forced from Quinn’s blog yourself, your view of entertaining is suspect.

    Consider, Crouch whines (in a darn good MM impersonation) about why he has lost the lead with not one but two reasons:

    1) “offering of a free patent bar review course

    2) “Nobody reads Patently-O during the Holidays

    In answer to 1), we have the very entertaining “What can I offer?: Free books!… Each are listed at $225.” I don’t know how much Quinn’s course lists for…

    In answer to 2), how is this substantiated? I certainly hope that readership is not correlated to number of blog posts, as 90% of posts here at Patently-O are generated by (or in response to) the empty wagon crowd of about four posting pseudonyms. Does Crouch think that more people read the Quinn blog over the holidays for some specific reason?

    Although I will give you credit for the question of “In the end though, how much does it signify…?” I am reminded of Shakespeare’s “…full of sound and fury,
    Signifying nothing.

  36. 1

    Compliment to the ABA for having screened out of their page the accumulating number of votes for the neck and neck rivals Crouch and Quinn. Thinking about Putin party members, does the ABA have a way to monitor voting activities and to screen out any “irregular” voting?

    In the end though, how much does it signify, if the ABA counts more votes for the one blog than the other, given that both blogs have their devoted legions of anonymous supporters and both blogs now show enough votes to be attractive to advertisers? Presumably advertisers are shrewd enough to know whether they want to reach the Crouch readership, or that which Quinn targets?

    Nevertheless, compliment to Dennis for having devised the very entertaining “call to arms” above.

Comments are closed.