11 thoughts on “Michelle K. Lee Bobblehead

  1. 3

    In other news, ultrareepazoid Scott Cunningham of the Interactive Advertising Bureau (ROTFLAMO) now admits that he and his cohorts have effed up the Internet.

    link to arstechnica.com

    We lost sight of our social and ethical responsibility to provide a safe, usable experience for anyone and everyone wanting to consume the content of their choice.

    Like some of us have been saying since pretty much however. How many junk patents did Kappos & Company hand out on “new” methods of shoving an ad in a person’s face? Heckuva job.

    Okay, kids, now you can get back to your super serious concerns about the decline of Western civilization because somebody made a bobblehead of the PTO director.

    1. 3.1

      Ok, Malcolm,

      I read the linked article and there is nothing there at all having anything to do with patents and patent law.

      Please at least have some minimal connection with your rants and this blog.


      1. 3.1.1

        Please at least have some minimal connection with your rants and this blog.

        The connection is this: 90% of patents directed at methods for shoving an ad in your face are junk. On top of that, it has always been absurd to allow a patent system to be used to “promote progress” in that “art”. It’d make much more sense, in fact, to enact laws that make it illegal to employ ad-presentation software designed to “get around” ad blocking mechanisms put in place by Internet users. It’d make even more sense to expressly exclude any and all such skirting methods from the patent system. It’s a waste of everybody’s time (everybody, that is, except for the already wealthy who really don’t need additional help “monetizing” their existing wealth but who often believe they’re entitled to that help at the same time they weep over the idea that somebody somewhere is getting food stamps “for free”).


          Talk about your runaway rants….

          1) STILL nothing in the article that you linked to that is involved with patent law or patents.

          2) What is your “proof” of this 90%? (I notice the number has gone down for you…)

          3) Your view of which arts fall into the patent system is “nice,” but totally inconsequential to ANY discussion of reality.

          4) You want laws to block “getting around?” You falling back to the “moralty play” again? You?

          4A… HA – come to the table of “equity” with clean hands.

          4B… Don’t you remember the Juciywhip case I put on the table for discussion the last time you went “all high and mighty?”

          5) Once again, you trot out the “”already wealthy” line while trying to deny patent protection to a form of innovation that is most accessible to the non-wealthy. You NEVER have squared that serious disconnect, btw.

          6) Your B$ line of “weep for… food stamps ‘for free’</i.” is classless class baiting that has ZERO to do with patent law, patents or this form of innovation. For some (unknown) reason this classlessness is routinely put up with by the powers that be here (and diminishes those selfsame powers that be).

          You are an all around arse on SOOO many levels.


            trying to deny patent protection to a form of innovation that is most accessible to the non-wealthy

            The form of “innovation” most accessible to the “non-wealthy” is thinking new thoughts about stuff.

            I’m not “trying to deny protection” for that. It’s already denied. It’s always been denied, except for a brief period of history when you and your cohorts tried to perform a transparent end-around that restriction so you could stuff your bulging wallets with more money.

            class baiting

            LOL. Says the classless cl 0wn who has habitually defended classless lawyers for years, here and elsewhere. Your hero called. He needs you to wipe some quail grease off his chin.


              No need to put innovation into quotes as we BOTH know that I am not talking about the mere thought of software – and we BOTH know that software is not the mere thought of software.

              Try a little int3113ctual honesty in our conversations.

              As to somehow making defense of “our” profession into some type of “class” aspect – you are W A Y off base.

              Maybe too you should get into a profession that does not instigate such self-lo@thing within you.

              (not sure who you think my “hero” is – most likely there too you are way off – maybe try some of those short and direct sentences you are always on about)

  2. 2

    How utterly embarrassing for her, SCU and the country. This is the person whose agency makes policy and decisions affecting billions of dollars in industry and innovation? I miss the days when adults were in charge of federal agencies, and the White House.

Comments are closed.