Patently-O Bits and Bytes by Juvan Bonni

Recent Headlines in the IP World:

Commentary and Journal Articles:

New Job Postings on Patently-O:

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

  1. 1

    OT: the Supreme Court has weighed in on the “On Sale” portion of the AIA.

    The “Public right” still intersects with Private sales.

    1. 1.1

      Short opinion – and does not even address the arguments put forth as to why Congress MAY HAVE intended to change the meaning.

      A rather conclusory, “meh. is this against patentees? Yes? OK, that’s enough for us.”

    2. 1.2

      the selectivity of Amicus Briefs (or rather, paying attention to them or not) is a bit disturbing, given that the Namesake of the AIA provided a view that the Court does not bother to acknowledge (at all):

      link to supremecourt.gov

      1. 1.2.1

        the Namesake of the AIA

        Why are you unwilling to state the name?

        1. 1.2.1.1

          Why do you jump to the conclusion of “unwilling?”

          Maybe, just maybe, you might be able to join the conversation and show your grasp by including the name (aside from the fact that I provided a direct link — which might show that you actually tried to inform yourself, with my help).

          Somehow though, you want to make this into some type of “negative.”

          Please see someone about your cognitive dissonance.

          1. 1.2.1.1.1

            Why do you jump to the conclusion of “unwilling?”

            I’m not “jumping.” I’m drawing a conclusion based on evidence. You seem to be aware of this name, you’ve referred to it numerous times, and yet you won’t state the name. Just seems a bit … odd.

            1. 1.2.1.1.1.1

              That conclusion is NOT supported by the “evidence,” hence, you ARE jumping.

              It is simply NOT a matter as you attempt to project of some unwillingness to state the name.

              Instead of trying so very hard to find some oddity that is not there, why don’t you instead use that energy to remove your own obtuseness and dive into the substantive portions of that brief (and the Court’s choice of ignoring the architect’s view of what Congress did)?

              Get out of the weeds, son.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You can click here to Subscribe without commenting

Add a picture