Patentlyo Bits and Bytes by Anthony McCain

Get a Job doing Patent Law                  

Anthony McCain

About Anthony McCain

Anthony McCain is a law student at Mizzou where he is focusing on intellectual property; He has a background in mechanical engineering. anthony.mccain@patentlyo.com

30 thoughts on “Patentlyo Bits and Bytes by Anthony McCain

      1. Fromthat article:

        “It could wind up being that you only have the right to an abortion up until you can put [a fetus] in the artificial womb,” said Cohen. “It’s terrifying.”

        It is unclear what prompts Cohen’s comment of being terrified.

        His word: terrifying.

        The nutshell of the article: “The Supreme Court has pegged the constitutional treatment of abortion to the viability of a fetus,” I. Glenn Cohen, a Harvard Law School bioethicist, told Gizmodo.

        Why is increasing the prospect of life something that a bioethicist would find terrifying?

        By the way, this academic: I. Glenn Cohen is a Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. He is also the director of Harvard Law School’s Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics

          1. I’m sure it was because of the author’s lineage. People are always hur dur against critiquing anything that comes out of that particular lineage because it just wouldn’t be fashionable/polite. They have special social powers granted to them, so to speak, by virtue of having been oppressed. As you can see in this instance.

            We must all bow before their superior oppression. We simply cannot compete with their oppression.

        1. Why is increasing the prospect of life

          I know that it’s extremely difficult for a certain class of intellectually and emotionally stunted/damaged men (and women) to understand this, but not everyone is a fe tus / embryo worshipper. Most people, in fact, will gladly ch u ck the embryo under a variety of circumstances in order to (wait for it — totally shocking!) live their life free of the maintenance issues that tend to arise when the embryo is allowed to develop.

          In other words, it’s obvious to most reasonable grownups that the “terrifying” issue is not the (trying not to laugh here) “prospect of life” but the prospect that one’s choice of whether to ab 0rt one’s pregn @ncy will depend on the existence of an “artificial womb.”

          Why is this difficult for you to follow, I wonder? I could take a guess (and I’d surely be correct) but Dennis would probably be offended by the “speculation” about your issues (especially since you’re so serious about “individual rights” <-LOL). That's an example (one of many, by the way) of Dennis' "bias" in your favor, "anon."

          [shrugs]

          1. Talk about being ethically challenged….

            Yes, that be you Malcolm, as we are talking about a separate and viable life that you deign to be a “maintenance issue.”

            Maybe pull your head out and read what is actually being stated here.

  1. ◾Steve Brachmann: Why Are These People Giving Testimony To Congress On Patent Reform?

    This is a really good article and illustrates the ubiquitous reach of Google. Google is one of Latte’s biggest campaign contributors and may have other business ties with Latte.

    So, we have purchased law journal articles, purchased legislators, purchased judges, purchased bloggers (MM), etc. Third world country all the way down.

    The silence is deafening that DC has not told us whether he has been taking money for this blog.

  2. “This is not literally matching strings of text, but evaluating when two things mean the same thing using different language” Mirho says.

    Wowee zowee!

    Gee, I wonder how the computer does that? Must be some super techn0 thing that is totally different from the way that little kids learn to “evaluate” when two sentences mean “the same thing.” Sure it is.

    1. This seems like a pretty dumb comment. Computers don’t evaluate things in the same way that the human brain does. If you could build a computer that did, then you would be a very rich man. Throwing out this comparison in an attempt to trivialize the problem being discussed is just silly.

  3. Little Stevie Brachmann, still gleefully peddling b.s. on behalf of the Worst Attorneys Ever:

    Why does Mapbox’s viewpoint on patent litigation echo in the halls of Congress given the fact that it doesn’t appear that it has faced abusive patent litigation? In fact, it almost looks like there is no merit to Lee’s statement that “Mapbox has had multiple experiences with patent trolls: non-practicing entities who file meritless lawsuits that are cheaper to settle than to defend.” Mapbox certainly hasn’t had multiple experiences with lawsuits; going back to January 1st, 2000, Mapbox has been sued just once

    Remember, Little Stevie Bachmann likes to pretend he’s an expert on patent law. Can someone spot the problem in Little Stevie’s logic here? This may be a tricky question for 1st graders but the 2nd and 3rd graders should be able to spot the issue.

    1. …and the editing games begin again….

      (Hey editor, you removed the wrong item as an invitation for Malcolm to engage in the merits is not the blight of Malcolm not engaging on the merits)

        1. You don’t remove 1? Why not? This is an ad hominem attack:

          “Remember, Little Stevie Bachmann likes to pretend he’s an expert on patent law. Can someone spot the problem in Little Stevie’s logic here? This may be a tricky question for 1st graders but the 2nd and 3rd graders should be able to spot the issue.”

          You see nothing wrong with that? Seriously?

          It’s no wonder I post so little here.

            1. Notice the lack of any reasonable response – then note that there really is no reasonable response to be had.

              Can you say “La Vee”…?

        2. Your method is part of the problem.

          There is no objective and measured criteria, and what happens is that your innate bias shows through in what is allowed and what is removed.

          You don’t like that fact that I point out Malcolm’s inanity with such sharp clarity?

          The problem there is NOT in my post, but in the fact that Malcolm posts with such inanity (as in, like 90% + of what he posts).

          As it is, your blog, your editing, but no matter the editing, the perceptions created are what they are.

          Say “La Vee”

Comments are closed.