Clause 8: Interview with Chief Judge Michel

JudgeMichel

Check out Eli Mazour’s new site Clause 8 – with its first interview of former Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel.  “We have a real mess on our hands . . . We need a really big course correction, we need very badly and we need it right now.”

Dennis Crouch

About Dennis Crouch

Law Professor at the University of Missouri School of Law. Co-director of the Center for Intellectual Property and Entrepreneurship.

38 thoughts on “Clause 8: Interview with Chief Judge Michel

  1. Eli,

    Do you plan to link in a page with transcripts?

    Often, as I am sure others will feel similar, I want to be able to read and/or use word search tools to key into selected portions.

    Good luck with your venture.

  2. I think we have almost reached a tipping point. I think some big Valley firms may turn away from patents. The engineers are going to be screaming when they figure out how their pay, mobility, and freedom to speak about their work is related to patents.

    A giant darkness is about descend in the USA. The light will shine in China, German, Korea, and Japan.

      1. Pull your head out.

        The value of patents are in flux (and negatively so, you “who needs enemies with friends like Malcolm” friend of the patent system, you.

        1. The value of patents are in flux (and negatively

          Gee, maybe it’s possible there was a bit of hyperinflation of patent value and the value is returning to something resembling normal.

          But you’re not a self-interested shill who was whining and crying about “not enough patents” even when the system was turned up to 11. Nope. Not you.

          LOL

          1. Yay for with friends like this who needs enemies.

            Once again Malcolm, please get into a profession in which you can believe in the work product produced.

  3. MM calls attention to a person’s race and age not because it’s just a fact that he innocently mentions, but obviously to marginalize him. Why not say something equally vapid about his religion or other aspects of his ancestry? It’s all just innocent facts, right? No harm in sharing mere facts.

    Ad hominem ad naseum. Utterly predictable sarcasm. Yawn.

    So MM, in your prolific and seemingly full-time role as defender of the common man who just wants the basic human right of software unencumbered by the common man’s patents, are you associated with or paid by any of those big rich software companies that hate (other people’s) software patents as much or more than you?

    1. I’ve been blogging here with MM (I am actually the one that gave him the nick name of MM) since 2005. I am convinced he is a paid blogger based on the amount of time he spends blogging and based on his arguments being very closely aligned with the anti-patent judicial activist movement. His views shift with theirs and he takes positions that indicate a protectiveness of his employers. For example, for years he denied that Google was lobbying for anti-patent judges, director of the PTO, and legislation even after I provided a link to the Financial Times that reported this.

      1. Minor nit: but back on the last dedicated “Let’s improve the ecosystem” thread, the actual evidence located and provided for Malcolm’s “debut” was February of 2006.

        If you have a link or other evidence to the 2005 date, could you share it? I want to make sure Malcolm is getting the full (or f00l) “credit” he deserves.

        1. All I have anon is a very clear memory of MM starting in spring of 2005. So, all I have is my memories. I think 6 was there too with NAL (who was always my personal favorite.)

          1. As I said, minor nit, but you might be off a year.

            At least 6 has shown some evolution (on a few topics anyway – certainly not the majority of his views)

              1. Sorry, it is indeed a wrong assumption. As I scrolled through other comments I learned saw that the thread’s comment section was left open for a very long time.

          2. I’m pretty sure it was 2005. Probably those first few years weren’t well backed up by D in his back up efforts for the site. Or at least the comments were left out.

          3. Noise was usually fine but I recall she seemed to have kind of gone around the bend with Forest Group and the subsequent false marking “cottage industry” that RR started.

    2. Well-stated, but don’t waste your time with Mooney, who has been trolling this blog almost since its inception. Comments from people like Ron Katznelson and Andrew Dhuey, on those rare occasions when they appear, are worth reading. Mooney’s never are, including for reasons you alluded to in your own comment.

      1. True Atari Man, but it can be interesting to read MM’s comments as they typically represent the current propaganda from K Street. You can figure out a lot about what is going on from their latest propaganda.

    3. “but obviously to marginalize him”

      Via nouveau raycisms. But mostly for lefties, which is why nobody around here but MM, and maybe occasionally AAA JJ, even understands what he’s doing or pays any attention to it.

      “So MM, in your prolific and seemingly full-time role as defender of the common man”

      Not technically true, only the common POC man, and occasionally woman of whatever race also. MM’s literally the first one to critique or attack the common whitey mail christian. Doncha know their IQ is low and they have a “lizardbrain”, certainly not like his virtuous “muh POCs” though.

  4. Marissa Mayer will leave Yahoo with $186M

    And the big problem facing the country is … not enough “do it on a computer” patents for the ultra-wealthy to invest in? Seriously?

    1. Marisssa Mayer has to do with patents how? If anything, Marissa Mayer is an example of the problems of the bloated companies using money to try and get their way. The reason she is getting so much money is the continued fiscal stimulus which has continued to drive the stock market higher despite the poor performance of Yahoo its stock has gone up.

  5. This isn’t much of an “interview” but more like a paid advertisement. I’m surprised Eli didn’t present Michel with some kind of lifetime achievement award at the end.

    Judge Michel, by the way, is completely full of it. He’s pressing this ridiculous mythology that more patents equals more jobs and that somehow returning to State Street Bank will turn the US into some kind of hyper-employed paradise. Only the patent kool aid drinkers think like that. Maybe Michel should consider less time shoulder rubbing with the 1% and self-dealing, softball-flinging attorneys like Eli Mazour and more time with regular people? But we know that’s not going to happen.

    A zillion more patents on obvious/ineligible “do it on a computer” nonsense aren’t going to help anyone except for the tiny tiny tiny handful of wealthy rich people who can afford to amass them and enforce them. How long does Michel propose that we keep doing whatever the people “with the money” want us to do, regardless of the damage it does to everyone else? Someone should ask him that question. That assumes, of course, that an old rich cr@bby white guy like Michel actually gives a cr@p about people outside of his bubble, which is a terrible assumption.

    Gee, if only there was a way to get incredibly rich US citizens to pay more to fix America’s failing infrastructure and carry out basic scientific research that would help everybody, thereby creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs pretty much instantly …. Oh, who am I kidding. Everybody knows what we really need is “more realistic” cartoon characters that you can “customize” from a “remote server.” That’ll make the US great again!

    1. Hi MM,

      Thank you for the passionate comment, and for taking the time to watch the interview! I really appreciate it.

      I hope to be able to tell a lot of interesting stories about well-meaning members of the IP community through the Clause 8 interviews. I expect most people to disagree with at least some of my guests but I want everyone to be entertained and educated by listening to their stories.

      In this case, I think the interview speaks for itself about what a great guy Judge Michel is and why it’s important to listen to his views.

      1. Why is it important to listen to him? Has he ever said anything intelligent about, e.g., Prometheus v Mayo? If so, please share.

        And learn how to do an interview. Ask some tough questions. Ask some follow up questions. Ask him to address the facts and not silly straw men.

        Or just keep scking up.

    2. “He’s pressing this ridiculous mythology that more patents equals more jobs and that somehow returning to State Street Bank will turn the US into some kind of hyper-employed paradise.”

      That’s silly right there. We all know that the only thing that could make the US into some kind of hyper-employed paradise is communism and feminism, isn’t that right MM?

      “That assumes, of course, that an old rich cr@bby white guy like Michel actually gives a cr@p about people outside of his bubble, which is a terrible assumption.”

      Yeah MM, tell him he’s raycist!

      “basic scientific research that would help everybody”

      What do you propose? More feminist glaciology to help womenz? Maybe some more victim studies in sociology to help “muh pocs”? To be clear, we already do quite a lot of normal basic white hetero cis patriarchial scientry on the public dime.

      link to journals.sagepub.com

      1. Vigorously sweeping aside the inane Breitbart/keyboardkomando nonsense for the sake of everyone’s mental health, I’ll make just two comments in response:

        (1) noting that Michel is cr@bby old rich white guy who lives in a bubble isn’t “r@cist” according to any reasonable definition of the term. It’s just a fact. I’m a relatively cr@bby, relatively old, relatively rich white guy myself, just not nearly as old and rich as Michel. The idea of being as old and rich as Michel is and spending my remaining time worrying about how to make the richest people in the world happier is both alien to me and revolting.

        (2) The bizarre and false dichotomy between granting zillions more patents on micromental “improvements” to computer logic (on one hand) and “communism and feminism” (on the other) is noteworthy for its extreme lunacy and that’s about it.

        1. “I’m a relatively cr@bby, relatively old, relatively rich white guy myself, just not nearly as old and rich as Michel”

          That’s true, and at least doubly as raycist! But let’s be honest, you think “his bubble” is a bunch of “rich white guys”. Thus, if he doesn’t care about the people outside his circle, then the implications is he’s obviously not caring about POCs and the other 90% of the people of the world outside the US who also happen to be POCs right? Certainly no raycist implications there!

          “The idea of being as old and rich as Michel is and spending my remaining time worrying about how to make the richest people in the world happier is both alien to me and revolting.”

          It is entirely possible that he is also concerned with furthering the whole mission/policy of the patent system. Which, I know, I know, you’re not that concerned about.

          “(2) The bizarre and false dichotomy between granting zillions more patents on micromental “improvements” to computer logic (on one hand) and “communism and feminism” (on the other) is noteworthy for its extreme lunacy and that’s about it.”

          Communism to send the unemployed to the gulag to work. And feminism to ensure that women work and don’t get to live a privileged life like most western women do, not actually having to work and getting to choose not to. Hyper-employment on the way!

      2. Oh, my. I thought you were joking about that “feminist glaciology”. Horrified to find out you were not.

        From the abstract:

        “Glaciers are key icons of climate change and global environmental change. However, the relationships among gender, science, and glaciers – particularly related to epistemological questions about the production of glaciological knowledge – remain understudied. This paper thus proposes a feminist glaciology framework with four key components: 1) knowledge producers; (2) gendered science and knowledge…

        Merging feminist postcolonial science studies and feminist political ecology, the feminist glaciology framework generates robust analysis of gender, power, and epistemologies in dynamic social-ecological systems, thereby leading to more just and equitable science and human-ice interactions.”

        You know it’s a really, really serious paper because they used a form of the word “epistemology” twice in the abstract. Yeah, they went there.

        1. “Yeah, they went there.”

          They did indeed went there. And your tax dollas paid for them to go there.

          To be clear though, upon review I think most of us would protest a lot of money going to any of the papers in the entire field of study that the paper was in. I forget the name, but it basically means “the study of how people interact with the land” or something like “human geology” or along those lines.

          I just read an interview with the guy that lead the overall project that the underling that wrote the paper was associated with and he was talking about why he wanted it written and all. Standard issue leftism applied to scientry.

    3. Interesting fact: Judgr Michel, during oral argument for In re Chomisky (a case that came up on appeal on a 103 rejection) said, “wait a second, these claims look like they could be infringed by some guy thinking about his work at his desk. That’s not right!” Boom. Next Stop: Alice.

        1. Next stop because defendants become much more emboldened to bring 101 challenges. As someone knowledgeable about the law, you know judges decide the disputes and issues clients bring to them.

    4. except for the tiny tiny tiny handful of wealthy rich people who can afford to amass them and enforce them.

      Malcolm’s obsessive and yet unexplained dichotomy continues.

      Placing the comment in context with Malcolm’s known class w@rfare and anti-software biases, we see a true disdain for patents as patents.

      Malcolm’s rant applies to ALL patents, and he offers no distinguishing (legal) differentiator.

      Malcolm, please please please help yourself and resolve the apparent cognitive dissonance that fuels your angst and get into a line of work in which you could believe in the work product produced.

Comments are closed.