Guest Post by Pamela Samuelson, Richard M. Sherman Distinguished Professor of Law at Berkeley Law School. I asked Professor Samuelson to provide a discussion of the recent Federal Circuit decision in Oracle v. Google. DC.
Application programming interfaces (APIs) are informational equivalents of the familiar plug and socket design through which appliances, such as lamps, interoperate with the electrical grid. Just as a plug must conform precisely to the contours of the socket in order for electricity to flow to enable the appliance to operate, a computer program designed to be compatible with another program must conform precisely to the API of the first program which establishes rules about how other programs must send and receive information so that the two programs can work together to execute specific tasks.
No matter how much creativity might have gone into the design of the existing program’s interfaces and no matter how many choices the first programmer had when creating this design, once that the API exists, it becomes a constraint on the design of follow-on programs developed to interoperate with it. Anyone who develops an API is, in a very real sense, designing that aspect of the program for itself and for others.
One of the many errors in Judge O’Malley’s decision in the Oracle v. Google case was her insistence that the merger of idea and expression in computer program copyright cases can only be found when the developer of an API had no choice except to design the interface in a particular way. If there is any creativity in the design of the API and if its designer had choices among different ways to accomplish the objective, then copyright’s originality standard has been satisfied and not just the program code in which the API is embodied, but the SSO of the API, becomes copyrightable. Indeed, harkening back to an earlier era, Judge O’Malley repeated the unfortunate dicta from the Apple v. Franklin case about compatibility being a “commercial and competitive objective” which is irrelevant to whether program ideas and expressions have merged.
The Ninth Circuit in the Sega v. Accolade case, as well as the Second Circuit in Computer Associates v. Altai, have rejected this hostility toward achieving software compatibility and toward reuse of the APIs in subsequent programs.
Although purporting to follow Ninth Circuit caselaw, Judge O’Malley in Oracle v. Google ignored some key aspects of the holding in Sega. Accolade reverse-engineered Sega programs in order to discern the SSO of the Sega interface so that it could adapt its videogames to run on the Sega platform. The principal reason that the Ninth Circuit upheld Accolade’s fair use defense as to copies made in the reverse engineering process was because “[i]f disassembly of copyrighted object code is per se an unfair use, the owner of the copyright gains a de facto monopoly over the functional aspects of his work—aspects that were expressly denied copyright protection by Congress,” citing § 102(b). To get the kind of protection Sega was seeking, the Ninth Circuit said it “must satisfy the more stringent standards imposed by the patent laws.”
Judge O’Malley in Oracle also ignored the Ninth Circuit rejection of Sega’s claim that Accolade infringed based on the literal copying of some Sega code insofar as that code was essential to enabling the Accolade program to run on the Sega platform. That Sega code might have been original in the sense of being creative when first written in source code form, but by making that code essential to interoperability, the expression in that program merged with its function, and hence Accolade’s reproduction of it was not an infringement.
The SSO of the Sega interface was almost certainly creative initially as well. Yet, once that interface was developed, it was a constraint on the design choices that Accolade and other software developers faced when trying to make videogames to run on Sega platforms. The Second Circuit similarly rejected Computer Associates’ claim that Altai had infringed the SSO of its program interface and suggested that patents might be a more suitable form of legal protection for many innovations embodied in software.
Under Sega and Altai, the SSO of APIs are not within the scope of copyright protection for computer programs. Subsequent cases—at least until the Federal Circuit decision in Oracle v. Google—have overwhelmingly endorsed this approach to compatibility issues in software cases.
Perhaps Judge O’Malley was worried that if she did not extend copyright protection to the Java APIs in Oracle v. Google, there would be too little intellectual property protection available to computer programs. After all, she was one of the Federal Circuit judges who would have upheld all of the patent claims for computer-implemented inventions in the CLS Bank v. Alice Corp. case that is now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. She joined an opinion that warned that if courts struck down the claims in CLS Bank, this mean that hundreds of thousands of software and business method patents would be invalidated. Given the Supreme Court’s skepticism about the Federal Circuit’s rulings on patentable subject matter, there is reason to think that at least some software patents may indeed fall when the Court issues its opinion in Alice. Would such invalidations affect the scope of copyright protection for software?
In the most expansive interpretation of software copyright law since Whelan v. Jaslow, Judge O’Malley in Oracle v. Google endorsed dual protection for APIs from both copyright and patent law. This ignored an important statement from that court’s earlier ruling in Atari Games v. Nintendo that “patent and copyright laws protect distinct aspects of a computer program.” The Oracle opinion instead invoked the dicta from Mazer v. Stein that “[n]either the Copyright Statute nor any other says that because a thing is patentable it may not be copyrighted.”
While it may have been true that the statuette of a Balinese dancer in Mazer was eligible for both copyright as a sculpture and a design patent for an ornamental design of an article of manufacture (as a lamp base), nothing in that decision or any other has upheld utility patent and copyright protection in the same aspect of the same creation, and it seems unlikely that the Supreme Court would abrogate the longstanding tradition tracing back to Baker v. Selden that copyrights protects expression in works of authorship and patents protect utilitarian designs.
In “The Strange Odyssey of Software Interfaces as Intellectual Property,” http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1323818, I traced the tortuous evolution of the law in relation to the protection of software interfaces. At first, they were not treated as intellectual property at all. Firms published APIs so that others would make programs to run on their computing systems. As firms recognized that they could license interface information to generate revenues, APIs were protected as trade secrets. In the mid- to late 1980s, some argued that the “structure, sequence, and organization” (SSO) of APIs should be protected by copyright law, but by the early 1990s, courts decided they were unprotectable elements of programs, more suited to patent than to copyright protection. And so firms began patenting interface designs, as well as continuing to license them as trade secrets.
If Judge O’Malley’s opinion in the Oracle v. Google case is to be believed, APIs have migrated back into copyright’s realm big time. Unless overturned by the Supreme Court or repudiated or distinguished in subsequent cases, the Oracle decision may well reignite the software copyright wars that so many of us thought had died out after the Sega, Altai, and their progeny.
Hypothetically, let’s say that Carl invents a new motor. He even claims the motor in distinct structural terms, such that the structures responsible for the motor’s improved functionality are expressly recited in the claim.
Question 1. Can Carl prevent people who purchase his motor from improving his motor by claiming, e.g., “the motor of claim 1, further comprising any structure which improves the motor’s efficiency or power.”
Question 2. Can Carl prevent people who purchase his motor from making compatible parts for his motor by claiming, e.g., “The motor of claim 2, further comprising a compatible part that affects the effiency or power of the motor.”
Question 3. Could Carl write a method claim that would achieve his goal of preventing people who buy his motor from attempting to make any improvements to his motor?
Question 4: Can Carl copyright all aspects of his motor such that nobody can design parts for it?
Your analogies are flawed.
A closer one would be where Carl invents and claims a power output of the motor and a device that couples to the power output of the motor.
In that case, Carl can prevent others from making devices that include the claimed device that couples to the power output, that is, devices that include the claimed device that couples to the power output that were not purchased or licensed by Carl.
Your analogies are flawed.
They are hypothetical questions, not analogies. There are no “flaws”. I’m asking exactly what I want to ask. They are serious questions.
Carl can prevent others from making … devices that include the claimed device that couples to the power output that were not purchased or licensed by Carl.
Which question are you attempting to answer? They were straightforward questions, each one separately identified. A reasonable answer repeats at least the question number, followed by your conclusion (yes,no,maybe) and an explanation if you are capable of articulating one.
Remember, of course, that nobody is forcing you to answer anything.
Les,
Strawmen is the better term.
Strawmen is the better term.
Nope. Not a strawman at all. The hypotheticals crystallize certain policy issues fundamental to our intellectual property laws, and this case in particular.
What is your view of the policy issues that these “questions” crystallize Malcolm?
Here’s my quick take on your questions:
1) Clearly keeping others from improvement patents cannot work, not as the law provides for improvement patents, even when the underlying invention is patented by another. This goes to the negative nature of the patent right. Note, this is not a clearance for anyone with such an improvement patent to violate the underlying patent.
2) Your question does appear to be flawed in that what you ask seems straightforward, until you get to the claim itself. The claim is flawed, and is so obviously a strawman as to negate any possible take-away. You might as well pull a Ned and claim Mozart’s Violin Sonata No. 21 in E minor, K. 304
3) Same as 1)
4) Once again you display your butchering of copyright law. Your question is just not intelligible.
Overall, your “fundamental points” include one obvious point that no one is arguing about and a bunch of muddled hot mess.
Good answers, anon, except for (4).
Question 2. Can Carl prevent people who purchase his motor from making compatible parts for his motor by claiming, e.g., “The motor of claim 2, further comprising a compatible part that affects the effiency or power of the motor.”
You said this claim is “flawed.” What do you think is flawed about it?
LOL, except for 4)?
Really?
Your massacre of copyright law understanding continues.
“What do you think is flawed about [claim 2]?”
You mean, besides what I already told you that it is an obvious strawman?
/face palm
Your massacre of copyright law understanding continues.
How does my question “massacre” copyright law?
I note that you still haven’t answered it. It’s a yes or no question. Do you need additional information to answer the question? If so, let me know. I thought it was a pretty easy question to answer in the negative, myself.
“What do you think is flawed about [claim 2]?”
You mean, besides what I already told you that it is an obvious strawman?
Nice try but as you know that’s not a flaw in the claim and my hypothetical is not a “strawman.” I could have predicted you would crawl under your rock and refuse to follow up your statement.
Here is the claim again: “The motor of claim 2, further comprising a compatible part that affects the efficiency or power of the motor.”
You said there was a flaw in the claim upthread (in addition to being a strawman). Please identify the flaw. If you now believe there is no flaw in the claim, then just say so. You can still cling to your strawman b.s. if you like. Doesn’t matter to me.
Let everyone what flaw you see claim 2.
You might as well pull a Ned and claim Mozart’s Violin Sonata No. 21 in E minor, K. 304
That has nothing to do with claim 2. Please tell everyone what the flaw is in claim 2.
Malcolm before we get to your additional questions, let’s see you give some actual answers (you seem never to get around to that…)
Particularly, 9.1.2.1.1.
“and this case in particular.”
If, as I had previously assumed, and as you now admit, the questions were aimed at issues in this case in particular, then your questions are intended to present analogous questions in a different context.
Therefore, contrary to your assertion, there are analogies in your questions, and, as I previously noted, they are flawed.
In other words lester thinks that the policy should be different in some areas compared to other areas thus your hypo is not analogous.
No. In other words, the analogies of his questions don’t align with the case.
“No. In other words, the analogies of his questions don’t align with the case.”
Oh well yes, we all knew that from the get go. That doesn’t mean his analogies are flawed for doing what he wanted them to do: show what the policy underlying what the law actually is happens to be.
“That doesn’t mean his analogies are flawed for doing what he wanted them to do: show what the policy underlying what the law actually is happens to be”
Note 6, that Malcolm does not ever actually get to the point that you think he wants to get to – he never shows what the policy happens to be…
The request in 9.1.2.1.1 is never answered.
“Note 6, that Malcolm does not ever actually get to the point that you think he wants to get to – he never shows what the policy happens to be…”
Because we all know what the policy is. He’s just holding retarded people’s hands through why the policy is the way it is to begin with.
And, we also know that there are certain people that would like the policy to be different, based on the subject matter. The case at issue in this thread shows that quite well.
“Because we all know what the policy is.”
No 6, we do not all know what Malcolm thinks the policy is.
Are you into mind-reading now?
I would rather not ASSume something that you seem all to eager to ASSume.
“No 6, we do not all know what Malcolm thinks the policy is.”
That’s because you’re one of the aforementioned retards. Or, in your case, because you have psychopathy.
The answers to all 1-4 are “no”. And they’re all very simple questions and the reason for the answer being no is that patent law has some policy behind it. Policy that is turned on its head in the instant case iirc. Though frankly I don’t care enough about the subject to get all into it anymore. If we’d have gone through this a few days ago maybe I’d be more in the mood to hold your hand. Maybe next time the subject comes up.
“That’s because”
That’s because he has not answered the question.
The answer is not a simple yes/no. You are not looking at the right question being asked.
Up your game son.
MM, on the parts for the motor, they don’t need to claim the parts, but if they are material to the combination, not a staple, etc., then the sale could be an infringement under Aro II if the parts users does not have a license.
But the issue in this copyright case is building a competitive motor without a license in so that my new cars might similarly reduce gasoline consumption, even though I could have designed a non infringing motor with a little more effort that would also reduce gasoline consumption.
Huh?
Are we to ban patenting of motors so that everyone can enjoy reduced gasoline consumption? How does that make sense?
Ned: MM, on the parts for the motor, they don’t need to claim the parts, but if they are material to the combination, not a staple, etc., then the sale could be an infringement under Aro II if the parts users does not have a license.
Different questions. The questions I asked relate to bona fide purchasers of Carl’s motor. The purchasers aren’t selling anything.
the issue in this copyright case is building a competitive motor without a license
Why should anyone need a license to improve a motor that they own?
You do realize the “keep-out” exclusive nature of the patent right, right?
Sure, we have exhaustion in play here – bona fide purshaser and no reselling involved, but it appears that you are trying to reach beyond that with your dust-kicking (you appear to be driving at the item I covered in 1) at 9.1.2.1.2 – a point that no one is arguing about (hence my calling your posts a strawman).
“No matter how much creativity might have gone into the design of the existing program’s interfaces and no matter how many choices the first programmer had when creating this design, once that the API exists, it becomes a constraint on the design of follow-on programs developed to interoperate with it. Anyone who develops an API is, in a very real sense, designing that aspect of the program for itself and for others.”
You seem to be operating under the assumption that others have the right to inter-operate with MY API. Why would that be the case? If I make a box that I want to sell and a set of cartridges that connect to my box that I also want to sell, what gives you the right to also make cartridges that connect to my box? What gives you the right to reverse engineer my box and steal my trade secrets? Go make your own box. What gives you the right to piggy-back on the success of my box?
You seem to be operating under the assumption that others have the right to inter-operate with MY API. Why would that be the case?
Are you going to try to sue everybody who buys a product with your “application programming interface” and then “inter-operates” with it?
If I make a box that I want to sell and a set of cartridges that connect to my box that I also want to sell, what gives you the right to also make cartridges that connect to my box?
Hey, remember that box you sold me? I just made a set of cartridges that connect to it.
You have a problem with that? Exactly what is your problem with that and what are you going to do about it?
MM forgot to add: yeah I saw your box and liked it so I decided to start making and selling them myself. So what. That is the american way.
yeah I saw your box and liked it so I decided to start making and selling them myself. So what.
What box?
(don’t forget that Les has had his car keys taken from him)
First of all, what you do in the privacy of your own home, with the one unit you bought from me, is your business and please don’t tell me about it.
If on the other hand, you want to start selling cartridges in competition with me, piggy-backing on my API development, as well as the success of my box, without any of the risk associated with developing and marketing a box, I think I have the right to object.
You are playing in my backyard and trespassing.
Smithers, RELEASE THE HOUNDS!
you want to start selling cartridges in competition with me, piggy-backing on my API development, as well as the success of my box, without any of the risk associated with developing and marketing a box, I think I have the right to object.
Exactly what gives you the right to prevent me from competing with you?
You have a successful box. That’s nice. You sell cartridges. That’s nice. So do I. My cartridges don’t infringe your patent on your box or your cartridges, nor do they infringe any creative expression of yours.
So where is this right coming from exactly?
Because you “took a risk”? Golly, somehow I’m not terribly impressed. People take risks all the time. It’s not exactly a “risk” if you’re relying on the government to coddle you when it turns out your business or marketing skills aren’t at the level possessed by all those successful people who took risks in the absence of government coddling.
“My cartridges don’t infringe your patent on your box or your cartridges, nor do they infringe any creative expression of yours.”
Nice movement of goalposts there Malcolm.
Government coddling?
And you claim to be not anti-patent…
/face palm
“So where is this right coming from exactly?”
In order to develop your cartridges you had to steal my trade secretes, determine my protocols, determine the pin outs of my cartridge connector. There was no way to do that without transgressing my copyrights or patents or stealing my trade secrets.
Exactly there.
In order to develop your cartridges you had to steal my trade secretes,
There are no stolen “trade secrets” here.
determine my protocols
Perfectly legal.
determine the pin outs of my cartridge connector
Perfectly legal.
There was no way to do that without transgressing my copyrights
You have a copyright on a box? You have a copyright on a cartridge? What?
There was no way to do that without transgressing my ….patents
There’s no patent infringement. I own the box and my cartridges are different (and better) than yours.
What gives you the right to stop me from making these cartridges for the box that I own?
(sigh)
Contrast Malcolm’s seeming amazement at Les “You have a copyright on a box? You have a copyright on a cartridge? What?” with his own inapt language of “copyright all aspects of his motor such that nobody can design parts for it?”
Hint: it is your original post that is causing the confusion Malcolm.
“You have a copyright on a box? You have a copyright on a cartridge? What?”
Yes, I have a copyright on the software that runs in my box and in my cartridge. That’s what we this thread is about, API’s
“There was no way to do that without transgressing my ….patents
There’s no patent infringement. I own the box and my cartridges are different (and better) than yours.”
They may be different, but they include the patented aspects of my API. And during your reverse engineering activities you would have had to copy my copyrighted software implementing my patented interface process thereby both violating my copyright and infringing my patent.
“What gives you the right to stop me from making these cartridges for the box that I own?”
See the above.
oh snap
It is interesting that Lex Machina refers to their services as provided by a machine. They speak of the machine doing this and that in press releases. I think the position that it is a machine performing the work does not square with Lemley’s position that software has no structure. If software has no structure, then Lemley’s machine has the same structure has my laptop, and in the macro reality check, how can two machines with the same structure perform different functions?
I would be interested in Lemley posting on how he protects the IP of his machine.
Does he let the engineers/scientist publish papers explaining how the algorithms work?
Does he freely share the software?
Does he file patent applications?
Does he make the employees sign non-compete agreements and non-disclosure agreements?
Lemley put up. Let’s hear how he protects his machine.
(This was prompted by an article over at ipwatchdog on the annual report from the “machine.”) (Odd to be talking about a machine when their machine has the same structure as any other laptop.)
The fee by the way to use the “machine” with the same structure as my laptop is $50,000 per year.
Just think about how odd that is. Use of Lemley’s “machine” with the same structure as my laptop and yet Lemley is charging $50K per year. Maybe we should file a complaint with the FTC for usury.
I will bet ole Lemley is protecting his IP with draconian measures. ‘Cause it is his and people like Lemley want theirs and don’t mind burning down the commons to get theirs.
And yes all of this is related to copyright as at the core of this argument is whether or not software has structure, which the Great and Powerful Lemley proclaims that software has no structure!!!
…if software has no structure, then it cannot exhibit a fundamental requirement of obtaining copyright protection, as it would not be able to be fixed in a tangible media.
…the aspect of being fixed in a tangible media reverberates back into the patent world through the mechanism of the controlling law concerning the exceptions to the judicial doctrine of printed matter (sorry Malcolm, but the legal sense of structure explicitly includes written matter structure that has a functional relationship – you can run all day long from this, but you cannot hide from it – not if you want to be intellectually honest and not if you want to acknowledge all material facts and law in any ethical legal discussion).
Funny how Ned claims that Malcolm is always willing to address issues put on the table, and yet both he and Malcolm only run away from discussing this particular issue that shows that software is indeed a manufacture and machine component.
Funny too how the fact of software being equivalent to firmware and being equivalent to hardware is never addressed by those two very same people.
One has to wonder about the abject hypocrisy at the foundation of the software as patent eligible item discussion.
Funny too how the fact of software being equivalent to firmware and being equivalent to hardware is never addressed by those two very same people.
He’s your path0l0gical lying bl0gtr0ll, Dennis.
The equivalence is a fact Malcolm.
That you wish to portray this a as a lie is most definitely a “you” problem.
so much for the thought that data just wants to be freeee!
Another chapter in the date wants to be freeee! saga: http://news.yahoo.com/nsa-collect-then-094500179–politics.html
I wonder why I can’t get my machine–the laptop–to print out the annual report. Odd as it has the same structure as Lemley’s machine. Lemley could you explain this to me?
Maybe Malcolm (or Ned) would like to address that issue…
Then again, maybe not.
(well, so much for Ned’s insistence that the issues are always addressed – like anyone would have believed that statement anyway)
A stench of ivory-towerism abounds.
Dennis, it sure would be nice if you could make this go away. I like to read the comments, but this kind of stuff is just vile. It’s one thing for anonymous commenters to crab at each other, but these pointless and inane attacks on professionals who actually stand behind their work is disgusting. I honestly don’t understand how you still get others to provide guest columns.
* are disgusting
DanH,
Another Crybaby Veto attempt from you?
There is nothing at all “vile” with sharing the opinion that an academic has, shall we say, less than an objective viewpoint?
It is neither pointless nor inane to recognize a systematic bias that is present in any discussion.
When one seeks to put themselves in a position to influence law, one should be open to such criticisms. When one climbs the bully pulpit and uses their credentials as a source of authority, then it is especially pertinent that such authority be reviewed.
The plain fact of the matter is that the notion of “Ivory Towerism” is alive and well in our society today. Wanting to close your eyes to it is indeed your choice. Wanting to close everyone’s eyes to it is akin to censorship.
Hey Dan –
I agree with you that the comment could have been written in a more genteel way. However, it is somewhat unfortunate that you took the quote out of the context of the comment. The point of Anon’s comment was to highlight the fact that the author (Prof Samuelson) has a particular policy goal that is guiding her argument. The mere fact that some of us are ‘pure academics’ does not remove our biases or necessarily make our arguments more trustworthy.
Also, we’re all human beings!
Thank goodness Dennis has anon here to remind everyone of that in his wonderfully comical way.
Dennis: it is somewhat unfortunate that you took the quote out of the context of the comment.
Right, because Professor Samuelsen was totally pretending to be the most objective and pure person on earth until the great anon “outed” here.
Give us a break, Dennis.
The point of Anon’s comment was to highlight the fact that the author (Prof Samuelson) has a particular policy goal that is guiding her argument.
Yes, that’s what anon, NWPA, and a few others say, over and over again. But so what? If there’s something wrong with her argument, then point that out. Accusing somebody of bias, without any support for it, is simply not productive.
My concern is that there are many of us who like to see the mostly well-written commentary in your guests’ posts, whether or not we agree with them, and I expect most of us are grown up enough to understand that any author may have more or less of an axe to grind. I don’t see why your guests ever come back here, given that it is inevitable that they will bombarded with substance-free attacks, some of them considerably less genteel than anon’s latest offering.
DanH–“If there’s something wrong with her argment, then point it out.”
We do that ALL the time. The reason we get frustrated is that the academics on here dodge the issues raised. They will not address the issues that we raise. I have said over and over again that they do this because they are policy oriented and that there is no policing in the academic world. They publish articles that are not peer reviewed with apparently few ethical constraints on their writings.
An example of an issue. Lemley says that software has no structure. He will not justify his position. The list is very long of real substantive issues with science and law that simply are not addressed by academics.
Note the simple list of facts on the whiny “stop picking on academics” thread – points that could not be bothered with, even though they were simple to address, few in number, and basic to any intellectually honest conversation on the matter.
Where is the umbrage from DanH on such a matter?
“Lemley says that software has no structure. ”
Well in his defense the federal circuit does too. Now. After years of pretending otherwise.
cite please (and please, do not pull one of the panel specific nonsense cites, ok pumpkin?)
The fact is DanH that you need to readjust your thinking to the real world. There are plenty of academics that will tell you that what the patent academics do on here is more vulgar than anything I could write. The fact is that they use their position to dodge issues.
That is the crux of the problem.
Dennis,
Valid points can be made without resorting to insults. It is your blog. You manage it as you want. But I offer you this advice. The only way to eliminate the occasional (frequent?) mud fight insult fest is to systematically delete all comments that are insulting in language or tone regardless of whether they also make valid points and regardless of whether you agree with their contents. People will learn how to make the exact same points in a more genteel way and the overall quality of discussion will increase.
paul,
A better idea: eliminate those posts that have NO redeeming quality whatsoever.
Why don’t we start there? They are easy to spot, mostly being penned by Malcolm.
A better idea: eliminate those posts that have NO redeeming quality whatsoever. Why don’t we start there? They are easy to spot, mostly being penned by Malcolm.
Heh. And of course you can be the arbiter of which posts have “redeeming value” because you’re so objective and, as everyone knows, you’re overflowing with well-written constructive commentary devoid of hypocricy or insults. Why, every day we all learn (from you) that nobody except you and Don Chisum understands what the “actual” law is. Where would we be without your guiding hand?
In addition, you entertain us by writing in such convulated prose that we are forced to guess whether you believe the words that you post here, or whether you are simply trolling in hopes that someone will take the bait and help you articulate your gibberish in English. And when that happens: shame on them! It’s truly the best way to move a conversation forward. Or we can waste 50 comments going back and forth with you about our own beliefs, after we’ve stated them in black and white 500 times only to see you lie about them and then (to top it off) smear the person based on the lie.
If that weren’t enough, you’ve got all those nifty ideas about neutrons and registered mail. Lord knows you won’t find insights like those being handed down from the “ivory tower.”
I have repeatedly stated Malcolm that any objective determination by Prof Crouch would be fine with me.
“smear the person based on the lie.”
Produce the lie.
any objective determination by Prof Crouch would be fine with me.
LOL. As if.
How high do you have to be to convince yourself that anybody else would believe you when you say stuff like this?
“how high do you have to be”
You just cannot help yourself, can you Malcolm?
…and paul, you might check into the history of the First Amendment here in the states, the protection of that amendment has often necessarily stayed away from the suggestion of your to only allow “genteel” postings.
And for a very good reason.