Patently-O Bits and Bytes by Juvan Bonni

Bits and Bytes, Patent

Recent Headlines in the IP World:

Commentary and Journal Articles:

New Job Postings on Patently-O:

Hide comments

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

  1. 3

    It is so much fun reading the EFF stuff and then going back and reading IP watchdog. More patent lawyers need to sit in on constitutional law classes. It is unfortunate but Supreme Court cases haven’t been viewed narrowly for 200 years. As much as I disagree with EFF on practically everything philosophically and morally I am afraid they are legally correct.

    Hopefully the data collected by people on lack of investment due to 101 will mean congress actually steps in.

    1. 3.1

      I disagree with EFF on practically everything philosophically and morally

      LOL

      That explains a lot.

      1. 3.1.1

        Only that I believe in patenting and don’t think it is terrible. *shrug* If I thought otherwise I wouldn’t be a patent attorney – or a capitalist.

        Law though should not be about politics or philosophy at least inside the court room even at the Supreme Court level. This is the realm of congress.

        See the recent study discussed here about how 101 issues are keeping investment from taking place. People do things to make money *shrug* not going (and arguably shouldn’t) change.

        Also please follow your own rules and refrain from such ad hominim or straw man arguments.

        1. 3.1.1.1

          Where does the EFF state that “patenting is terrible”?

          Law though should not be about politics or philosophy at least inside the court room even at the Supreme Court level.

          LOLOLOLOLOLOL

          101 issues are keeping investment from taking place

          So? Lots of issue are keeping investment from taking place. Someone somewhere isn’t investing in something because the location isn’t close enough to his favorite massage parlor.

          How fast are you going to scurry on your hands and knees to help that person, Daniel? Because “investment.” And capitalism! Whoo hoo!

          ROTFLMAO

        2. 3.1.1.2

          Daniel, for the record, as an alleged “capitalist”, do you believe that anything that is new or non-obvious should be protectable with a utility patent? If not, what specifically should be kept out of the patent system?

          I’m asking for your personal beliefs here. Don’t give me some jagoff answer like “Derp derp that’s for Congress to decide derp derp.”

          Be as specific as you can be.

    2. 3.2

      By the way, Daniel, please, please, please continue your oh-so-serious “views” here. I am hungry for lunch. I won’t eat you. I will chew you up and spit you out, however, which always gets my appetite going.

      LOLOLOLOLOL

      1. 3.2.1

        You are doing that “legend in your own mind while playing the Accuse Others game” thingie again, Malcolm.

        1. 3.2.1.1

          Sadly, the disembowelment of Daniel Cole will never make anybody a legend.

          It will be an educational opportunity for many other readers, however.

          1. 3.2.1.1.1

            …as is the nigh-constant disembowelment of Malcolm Mooney.

            But we both already know that – even as you also nigh-constantly run away from engaging in anything remotely resembling an inte11ectually honest dialogue (which would entail you actually integrating the counterpoints so often put to you).

  3. 1

    Re “Qualcomm Wins First U.S. Jury Trial Against Apple (Source: Yahoo Finance)”
    This may be one of the highest stakes potential patent infringement damages tests ever of “INefficient infringement.” Albiet complicated by parallel antitrust and license contract litigations.

Comments are closed.