25 thoughts on “Survey Results: Immunity for State Owned Patents

  1. 5

    Anyone who asserts patent rights should be considered to automatically waive any immunity they have with in that case at least. To not do so is fundamentally unfair and allows for abuse.

    1. 5.1

      Your view of automatic waiver simply does not accord with Sovereign Immunity.

      Whether or not “fundamentally unfair” simply goes to the basis of such Sovereign Immunity in the very first place (as noted by Greg below).

      1. 5.1.1

        oops – not below, but on a sister thread…

  2. 4

    Thanks, Dennis, for posting the survey and the results. I didn’t find the results particularly surprising but I did find them encouraging.

    1. 4.1

      woooh, “shiney”…

  3. 3

    I took this question to be about sovereign immunity and not whether 101 should be a defense.

  4. 2

    Dennis’s post is about state universities. How does tribal sovereignty and “screwing native Americans” come into play?

    Again, it appears you’re overreacting.

    1. 2.1

      My bad. Native Americans already lost their case. I don’t see why any citizen or sovereign should have their rights taken away under 101 since the statute says 102, 103, and 112. The answer to the question is no. No one should be voting in surveys for making up laws outside the legislative process we the people agreed to.

      And no citizen or sovereign should have their property rights taken without waiver. Nuisance litigation absent a case or controversy likewise upends the rule of law. Everyone should be immune from have their personal property challenged, unless they stole it or assert it in a suit or threat of suit. The question says “absent waiver”, exclusionary rights generally should not be challenged absent waiver.

      1. 2.1.1

        As I noted previously:

        The poll is quick and dirty and can provide only a “feel” with ZERO accuracy as to either DEScriptive or PREscriptive notions.

        Not only can I choose to vote multiple times, in order to “see” any results, I have to vote at least twice.

        Any “reaction” that attempts to take ANY conclusion from the survey is an overreaction.

        Josh, are you rally surprised at the results here? I suppose that you may not have been around during the DISQUS format experiment, which showed a routine “up-voting” for some of the most asinine anti-patent statements…

  5. 1

    Why does everyone want to add a law without an act of Congress? What is the point of passing a law (35 USC 282) that lists the defenses to infringement if the lawyers and courts are going make up their own law???!!! Disgusting.

    1. 1.1

      Why are you overreacting?

      1. 1.1.1

        It is not overreacting to grieve that there is no rule of law any more with respect to inventions or tribal sovereignty. Learning that readers of this blog support screwing native Americans and inventors is upsetting.

        1. 1.1.1.1

          The survey does not show that there is no rule of law.

          If anything, you should grieve for the website, as the survey indicates that it is failing to engage those who know the rule of law.

          More than a decade – a decade and a half even – of Malcolm blight can do that.

          1. 1.1.1.1.1

            I laughed so hard that I cried when I read this comment.

            1. 1.1.1.1.1.1

              Color me unsurprised.

            2. 1.1.1.1.1.2

              It was pretty funny.

        2. 1.1.1.2

          “Screwing Native Americans”?

    2. 1.2

      Josh, lawyers and courts making up their own law and forcing it on the populace is not limited to patents and native Americans. It happens on a WIDE range of issues from abortion to the rights of criminal defendants to yada yada.

      1. 1.2.1

        I agree SVG. I think, in fact, that if we look at anti-trust law that we see a similar pattern as with patent law. The big corporations didn’t want anti-trust law anymore and the SCOTUS came up with the rule of reason that slowly ate away almost all anti-trust law. What remains is that it is hard to be the only corporation in a market (probably need 2 or maybe 3) and there can’t be price fixing. The justification was that the big corporations had to compete on an international level.

        Patent law is experiencing the same reduction from holding of the SCOTUS. I think we can expect the SCOTUS to cripple patent law down to a small core. I know that we are experience a slight reprieve in the reduction of patent rights, but I expect that to be reversed and for patent rights to end up like anti-trust law. Just a bare minimum left. Not sure exactly what it will look like in 10 years, but you can be sure it will be reduced from what it is now. Probably there is an argument to dissolve the CAFC as patents become less and less important.

        1. 1.2.1.1

          Meanwhile I’ve got patent work coming out of my years, recruiters calling me every day, and the PTO is granting patents at historic rates.

          1. 1.2.1.1.1

            Your characterization of the U.S. patent system is not accurate. Patents have fallen in value by 80 percent since the AIA. The number of new US patent applications based on inventions made in the US is down. Corporations are cutting back on their patent budgets, etc.

            It is true that if you are an experience practitioner (like me and presumably you with 10+ years of experience) that there is still lots of work. But, some of that is that the supply of people has been reduced as people perceive patent work as less of an opportunity than pre-AIA.

      2. 1.2.2

        Right, the courts are forcing people to have abortions left and right.

        Meet the patent maximalists, folks. Very serious people!

        1. 1.2.2.1

          …back to your one-bucketing….

      3. 1.2.3

        Watch out Silicin Valley Guy! Next thing you know the courts will be forcing you to treat gay people and black people like human beings. Oh, the horror.

        1. 1.2.3.1

          Silicone Valley…

          …Guy…?

          Back to your intrusion of non-patent law matters….


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