Patently-O Bits and Bytes by Juvan Bonni

Recent Headlines in the IP World:

Source: USPTO

Commentary and Journal Articles:

New Job Postings on Patently-O:


43 thoughts on “Patently-O Bits and Bytes by Juvan Bonni

  1. 6

    Dennis, how is it OK to put links up to these anti-patent postings that are named “law journals”? I think you should demand disclaimers from these people regarding their sources of income. Are these articles some of the abstracts that Google writes and pays “professors” to write?

    The fact that the entire world has lost any ethical compass does not mean that you couldn’t enforce some standards on this blog. After all, probably getting a mention or blog post on your site is worth more to these “professors” than the value to your blog.

    Think about it Dennis. Plus, think about if the “professors” would agree to consequences for unethical conduct in their “papers.”

    Most of the writing that you push on this blog from professors is unethical and clearly not scholarly work. Stop facilitating unethical and immoral conduct from your brethren.

    1. 6.1

      The problem is much deeper than Crouch.

      We have an entire “industry” (academia) captured by an “advance by adherence to philosophy” instead of actually embracing critical thinking and meritocracy.

      Largely, on this point the Liberal (far Left) is to blame. Academia has literally evolved to be a philosophical bastion of Left thinking, and THAT is often taught instead of teaching how to think.

      1. 6.1.1

        I agree it goes way beyond this blog. But this blog can set its own standards.

        Frankly, I think it is way beyond any one political ideology.


          I would tend to agree that the problem is rooted in human nature, and (on that basis) is beyond any one political ideology.

          In other words, industries of any type are susceptible of being captured, and turning into a non-meritocracy, group-think generating body – and such capture can come from the Left or the Right (or other groups, no matter how labeled).

          However, as applied here with Academia, there IS one political ideology that is KNOWN to have corrupted “the industry.”

          I cannot put my fingers on it now, but I seem to recall studies done near the turn of the century analyzing the McCarthy era and one of the facts determined was that infiltration and co-option of the education system but the Far Left ideological forces was a real aim – and a real result.

          Along the way, the Far Left have made academia into their “stronghold,” and it has become ever more of the “advance by adherence to the party line” and ever less of the initial reason for higher education: learning how to think critically.

          I recall one of my own law school intellectual property professors who was a bit of an enigma. While he himself ideologically was far left of center, and had an active and known disdain for personal property, he welcomed critical thinking, and even held himself and his views open to the application of critical thinking. Many a class featured me phrasing questions and providing answers that had him (reluctantly, but doing so nonetheless) admitting the benefits of rewarding innovation through a personal property system such as patents.


            I agree that academia is left in general and exhibits the problems we are talking about. Mark Lemley is a good example.

            But, the right has its strongholds too and from what I’ve seen is just as biased as the left.

            We don’t have a lot of critical fair thinking in this country right now. Not many people care about ethics or reality, but there imagined goal. Much of this too is money based or based on some mythical belief that they are going to help people or right wrongs.

            I think that the process is most important and without the process there is no hope of good outcomes on regular basis.


              I agree.

              Far too much “Ends justify the Means” as well when it comes to “but this will right wrongs.”

  2. 5

    Brett Kavanaugh–what bothers me is that Trump supposedly said the person would have to be from Yale or Harvard law school. That pretty much de-legitimizes every other law school in the country.

    1. 5.1

      To all the comments below, he does sound like a complete toe licker political hack that would have done anything to get to the Supreme Court. He probably got the nod because he played to Trump’s ego on the telephone interviews.

    2. 5.2

      I am not happy with (yet another) Ivy League pick – in and of itself, as well as the fact that this represents a “swamp” factor of being from the Washington DC area.

      But the “toe-licker” and “hack” comments seem based on…

      …on what exactly?

      1. 5.2.1

        The problem with him is that he does assert his own judgement into decisions. He is activist judge. He is not like Scalia who said basically I don’t know what should be done but this is not in the Constitution.

      1. 4.2.1

        Instead of resting your case after attacking a “friendly” supporting statement – while not substantiating your own feelings with any third party views – maybe you want to make an actual case before you rest.

        Why is it that you feel that he has a lack of qualifications? What type of qualifications would you prefer (and who has those types)? From what I have gathered so far, his application reason and stare decisis does not earn a denigration of “political hack.”

        I “get” that his personal views do not align with your own liberal views, but when you (apparently) depend only on the fact that his views are different for your denigrations, you have descended to the discourse level of Malcolm. Your denigrating comment of “political hack” loses its meaning and merely becomes “he does not share my philosophies.” If anything, such “one-bucketing” makes YOU out to be the “political hack,” as it reveals a rather stark lack of appreciation of the spectrum of politics and philosophies in the real world.

      1. 4.3.1

        Still deciding…

        But on the plus side, strong separation of powers and anti-Fourth Branch of the government are definite pluses.

    1. 4.4

      AAA JJ: “massively unqualified”

      Seriously? And your background is?

      Anyway, here’s the spin YLS and some of their profs are putting on that question.

      link to


      “The nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to be the next Supreme Court justice is President Trump’s finest hour, his classiest move. Last week the president promised to select “someone with impeccable credentials, great intellect, unbiased judgment, and deep reverence for the laws and Constitution of the United States.” In picking Judge Kavanaugh, he has done just that.

      In 2016, I strongly supported Hillary Clinton for president as well as President Barack Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge Merrick Garland. But today, with the exception of the current justices and Judge Garland, it is hard to name anyone with judicial credentials as strong as those of Judge Kavanaugh. He sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the most influential circuit court) and commands wide and deep respect among scholars, lawyers and jurists….”

      And Yale Law School itself issued a press release praising the Kavanaugh nomination (snippets from the YLS press release)

      “I have known Brett Kavanaugh for many years,” said Dean Heather K. Gerken. “I can personally attest that, in addition to his government and judicial service, Judge Kavanaugh has been a longtime friend to many of us in the Yale Law School community. Ever since I joined the faculty, I have admired him for serving as a teacher and mentor to our students and for hiring a diverse set of clerks, in all respects, during his time on the court.”

      “He is a terrific judge,” said Kate Stith, Lafayette S. Foster Professor of Law. “In my federal criminal law class, I love teaching his opinions because they are smart, thoughtful, and clear. He’s also been a wonderful mentor and teacher to our students—not just to those who clerk for him, but those who meet with him during one of his many visits to Yale Law School.”

      “Judge Kavanaugh commands wide and deep respect among scholars, lawyers, judges, and justices,” said Sterling Professor Akhil Reed Amar ’84. “Good appellate judges faithfully follow the Supreme Court; great ones influence and help steer the Court. Several of Kavanaugh’s biggest ideas have found their way into Supreme Court opinions. Thanks to decades of high-level experience and close observation, Kavanaugh also understands the intricacies of the executive and legislative branches.”

      “Brett Kavanaugh has been one of the most learned judges in America on a variety of issues, ranging from theories of statutory interpretation to separation of powers,” added William N. Eskridge, Jr. ’78, the John A. Garver Professor of Jurisprudence. “We are proud that he is our graduate and eager to continue to learn from his judicial opinions and scholarly publications.”

      “Politics have deeply harmed our Supreme Court nomination process,” added Abbe R. Gluck ’00, Professor of Law. “But in terms of the man now before us, Brett Kavanaugh is a true intellectual–a leading thinker and writer on the subjects of statutory interpretation and federal courts; an incomparable mentor–someone who picks law clerks of all backgrounds and viewpoints; and a fair-minded jurist who believes in the rule of law. He is humble, collegial and cares deeply about the federal courts.”

      1. 4.4.1

        “Judge Kavanaugh commands wide and deep respect among scholars, lawyers, judges, and justices,” said Sterling Professor Akhil Reed Amar ’84.

        …. who just happens to have taught Kavanaugh in law school.

        The rest of those quotes are beyond hilarious. What’s even funnier is the fact that Mellow somehow believes they should matter.

        “The nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to be the next Supreme Court justice is President Trump’s finest hour, his classiest move.

        The adjective “classier” is meaningless in any context associated with the p*ssy grabber in chief. The fact that Amar doesn’t know less is likely due to the fact that Amar is associated with Yale which is about as classless as a college can get. Anybody ever met a guy deeply connected with Yale who wasn’t an enbubbled pr ick? I didn’t think so.

        Last week the president promised to select “someone with … unbiased judgment

        Was he riding on a silver unicorn when he said this?

        William N. Eskridge, Jr. ’78, the John A. Garver Professor of Jurisprudence. “We are proud that he is our graduate

        Thank goodness Billy isn’t an unbiased rich white guy who will directly benefit from Brett’s @ h0le opinions.

        “Politics have deeply harmed our Supreme Court nomination process,”

        But this guy is a Rep u k k k hack so whatever.


          Anybody ever met a guy deeply connected with Yale who wasn’t an enbubbled pr ick? I didn’t think so.

          Is that just Yale or is that an Ivy League thing?

          (I ask, because you know, EVERY Justice is a product of the Ivy League…)

      2. 4.4.2

        So all the academics at YLS (OOOOOOHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!), where he attended, think he’s a genius.

        I rest my case.



          Apparently, per an article in today’s Law360 (by Jimmy Hoover):

          Over his four decades on the federal bench, there was one clerk U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy always praised effusively. Now, that clerk could be replacing the retiring justice on the high court.


          Justice Kennedy would ultimately take on seven of Judge Kavanaugh’s 48 former clerks as his own, a significant number even at the Supreme Court clerkship farm that is the D.C. Circuit.

          “I think it’s a measure of the respect that Justice Kennedy has for Judge Kavanaugh that he would turn to him so frequently to provide the training and the preparation for law clerks that he would then hire to work in his chambers,” said Travis Lenkner of Keller Lenkner LLC, who also clerked for both judges.


          Democrats are lining up against the D.C. Circuit judge, but it’s unclear whether their efforts to block the lifetime appointment will work in light of a Senate rule change deployed last year allowing Republicans to confirm Supreme Court justices with a simple majority, which the GOP narrowly holds.

          The article does not go into why the democrats are lining up against the nomination.

  3. 3

    >>Prof. Lauren Cohen, Prof. Umit G. Gurun, and Prof. Scott Duke Kominers:

    This is another one that looks like it is probably trash. There appears to be no standards at all for these publications. Wan kers just feel empowered to write whatever nonsense pops into their minds to justify their conclusions.

    If there were ethical standards, all these people would lose their jobs.

    1. 3.1

      By the way, I note that there are real disclosures about the money they are taking. I wonder how many of these were Google abstracts that the authors then penned their trash to get the Google bucks.

    2. 3.2

      Wan kers just feel empowered to write whatever nonsense pops into their minds to justify their conclusions.

      Stop picking on G e ne Qu inn! He can’t help himself.


          Of course he and the other anti’s come hard after Ge ne. He is one of the last pillars of strength left before the total collapse of the patent system.

          (And since this blog started patents have lost at least 80 percent of their value.)

  4. 2

    >Prof. Shobita P:arthasarathy “This grassroots activism might seem strange. ”

    This is a highly unethical article and Prof. Parthasarthy should be removed from any position of authority.

    Just as an example, this unethical POS is saying that the anti-patent movement is a “grassroots” movement (without even any counter cites) when it is well-known that the large tech companies have financed an anti-patent movement and even Lemley now admits that his personal fortune is dependent on him burning down the patent system with money from Google.

    Please “Professor” resign.

    1. 2.1

      large tech companies have financed an anti-patent movement

      Yes, the checks from Google just keep coming and I just keep cashing them! I can’t believe how much money I’ve made since joining the movement.
      Without that cash, I’d otherwise be totally be in favor of patents that protect methods of generating a credit score or ranking DVDs by popularity, wherein the DVDs comprise adult content.


      1. 2.1.1

        Not sure why you are laughing as you dissemble on a logical fallacy – nowhere does Night Writer indicate that ONLY the Googles of the world are interested in weakening the patent system.

        It is funny though that you do not address past showings of Google’s involvement, or how they as a member of the ultra-rich seek to deny parenting on a form of innovation most accessible to the non-wealthy.

        So yet again, your own screed brings attention to an alarming disparity in your proselytizing. Why is it that you are so against patenting of a form of innovation most accessible to the non-wealthy?


            The “what” you are doing was not the question.

            Aside from your feelings (which I just do not care about), the “why” was the question.

            You do not seem to have a cogent law-related position on why you are laughing. As I noted, your reply veers into a logical fallacy, and you seem intent on disregarding known facts that are related to the situation.

            As I also note, your “feelings” and position highlight (again) the severe cognitive dissonance of your anti-software patent views and your “distaste” of the “rich white people.”

      2. 2.1.2

        MM, your posts have nothing to do with reality. Google’s lobbying efforts to weaken patents is well known and has been documented including something like 200 visits to the White House in one year and participation in the selection of federal circuit judges and the director of the PTO. Moreover, it is also been documented that Google and others give money to non-profits to pay bloggers to post on blogs like this.

        For years you denied that Google was even involved. Your posts are a disgrace.


          Night Wiper: Google and others give money to non-profits to pay bloggers to post on blogs like this.

          LOL The projection is strong in this Night Wiper derp! Derp, derp, derp, derp. And so he goes on and on.

          I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if Google really wants to “weaken the patent system”, all they need to do is give me $20 million bucks (a drop in the bucket for them). They’ll get the weakening they want and then some.

          Because really there is nothing easier than making maximalist cl 0wns like you and “anon” dance around like the greedy ign 0r ant entitled f 0 0ls that you are.

    1. 1.1

      Its hardly a “great article,” given that it starts with a lambast against Protestant preachers being papists…

      I “get” the point about various legal views co-existing (and that “originalists” may themselves be inconsistent in their application of their own dogma, but this piece is nowhere near being even good writing. All that it is, is puffery and elevation of feelings over any actual argument. Does not each separate legal camp feel the same way about their own views?

      1. 1.1.2

        Does not each separate legal camp feel the same way about their own views?

        You wish, Billy.

        Thanks for demonstrating once again why you are the laughingstock of this blog and every other legal blog you post in. Glibertarians: they never cease to amuse!


          That is not laughter with you that you hear – that is laughter AT you.

          Your comment above about “projecting” is nothing more than the well worn and trite Accuse Others meme that is your number one staple.

          You really don’t f001 anyone.

    2. 1.2

      More trash. You cannot write an article where you go into your office with a wet warm towel and fabricate any nonsense you want.

      Just trash.

Comments are closed.