77 thoughts on “Happy Birthday Patently-O

  1. 18

    Fortunately, the content of the actual blog is generally fantastic. Because the comments section is mostly a badly behaved cage full of monkeys with no toilet paper (with a few notable exceptions).

  2. 17

    Professor Crouch – congratulations on 15 years and running, and

    Thanks For All The Fish!

    1. 17.1

      Thanks For All The Fish!

      +1

  3. 16

    The 67 (and rising) comment thread I see is one which presents a good microcosm of the current state of the blog.

    Out of the (with this one) 68 comments, this is the 16th decimal-point-free starting comment. Most of the previous fifteen are individual expressions of appreciation from individual posters.

    A few “rogue” strings of comments are useful to reveal the ongoing problems with this moderation-free blog.

    People, let us all try our hardest, to NOT rise to provocation. Some pollution is inevitable, but let us ignore those who would drag us all down. This is important, to nurture the readability and overall quality of debate on the blog.

    Understood? No replies. Please.

    1. 16.1

      LOL – says the guy most famous for throwing C R P against the wall to see what sticks, has posted admiration for Malcolm’s classless retorts, and enjoys “lively” discussion (but apparently, only when it aligns with his views).

      Thanks MaxDrei – but “dragging YOU down” and actually bringing you UP are clearly a matter of perspective.

      Personally, from one who has aligned with Malcolm, your “perspective” is rather easy to gauge.

      (and it’s kind of cute that you think saying “please no replies” is supposed to serve as some type of ‘inoculation’)

      1. 16.1.1

        I see where MaxDrei got the idea…

        But you do not have a license to limit who may respond to you and if that response points out errors or the inanity of your posts. You don’t get to be that Cens0r.

        1. 16.1.1.1

          “do not have a license to limit who may respond”

          But he said PLEASE, anon!

          You barbarian.

  4. 15

    Vaccination skeptics have been associated with Spr@ytan’s presidential campaign and his administration.

    In 2018, a top Veterans Affairs Department appointee named Thayer Verschoor came under fire for spreading conspiracy theories. Among one of his social media posts, he shared a list of 35 reasons to vote for Spr@ytan, which included Spr@ytan “warning” America of the “dangers” of vaccines.

    Darla Shine, the wife of former White House communications chief Bill Shine, has espoused anti-vaccine views for years. While Bill Shine was in the White House, Darla Shine called for bringing back childhood diseases, such as measles, which she claimed boosted immunity and “keep you healthy & fight cancer.”

    Science? Who needs it. Let’s just let the “invisible hand” of the “free market” figure out what’s important.

    1. 15.1

      I think there needs to be more balance in the arguments against MM.

      Feel free to be the first to apply this to Malcolm’s non-patent law rants, Night Writer.

      I am looking forward to learning this nice, polite, and effective means of focusing on substantive patent law and the various opinions of such.

      1. 15.1.1

        The intersection between patent law and science seems rather obvious to me, as does the relationship between a particular administration’s respect and support for science and that administration’s understanding of the relationship of the patent system to the promotion of technological progress.

        Of course, if you prefer to have Your Favorite Hacks in charge because you love what that hackitude does to your bank account, it’s your choice! Just don’t let me hear you and your maximalist cohorts whine onthe other side of your mouth about your sad fee-fees for “the children” who are “dying” because there aren’t enough patents on (LOL) correlations.

        1. 15.1.1.1

          The intersection between patent law and science seems rather obvious

          That’s nice – no one said that AN intersection exists between patent law and science.

          But like your other noxious attempts (i.e., patent law is a form of law and politics involves law), just because AN intersection exists, does NOT mean that your rants are appropriate for this forum.

          I have no clue what you mean to intend by “Your Favorite Hacks in charge,” but it sounds in your mindless “one-bucket” meme.

          “maximalist cohorts”…

          1. 15.1.1.1.1

            oops missed a phrase:

            “That’s nice – no one said that AN intersection exists between patent law and science.”

            should read

            “That’s nice – no one said that AN intersection DOES NOT exist[_] between patent law and science.

      2. 15.1.2

        I think that MM’s off point posts are a different issue.

        I think you also encourage them by responding to him. Why not just ignore MM’s political posts?

        1. 15.1.2.1

          Why not just ignore…?

          Sage advise. Just ignore.

          1. 15.1.2.1.1

            Er, “advice.” Mea culpa.

        2. 15.1.2.2

          I think you also encourage them by responding to him.

          Maybe you should read the content of the posts (his and mine)…

          And where is your “niceness” application? Is “not responding” a part of that “niceness?” Hmm, seems more like being rude to me.

    2. 15.2

      link to g8fip1kplyr33r3krz5b97d1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com

      She’s in good… er… bad company then.

      Link is to a poll of some 28K citizens of EU countries.

      Surprisingly, 48% percent agreed that vaccines often cause serious side effects.

      Just less than half agreed that vaccines do not cause the disease they are supposed to protect against.

      However, almost 40% thought vaccines DO cause the disease they are supposed to protect against. (The other 11 percent weren’t sure.)

  5. 14

    After having anon follow me around and harass me, I think there needs to be more balance in the arguments against MM. MM takes many ridiculous positions and can be unbelievably offensive, but at the same time I wonder how much of that is being caused by anon.

    Anon needs to learn to have some respect for others opinions and to read and understand what people’s opinions are. The fact is that the anti-patent movement has some points that are hard to refute. Is there anyway to actually prove that patents are helpful? The biggest problem with the anti-patent movement is that they have cloaked themselves in lots of statements that are not scientifically supported and they are driven by the money of large international corporations (and have bought off the academics.)

    Nonetheless, the focus should be on trying to narrow the disputes and trying to get to a point where we can at least agree on what our disputes are.

    After having anon follow me around and insult me, I wonder in reading the interactions between MM and anon how much of it is driven by anon harassing me MM. Maybe MM would become more reasonable if he weren’t so obsessively harassed.

    anon, you need to chill out a bit and figure out what parts of your arguments are well supported and which parts of your arguments are not well supported.

    1. 14.1

      I know with me that when I say that the holding in Alice is that the Scotus held that the claims were unconstitutionally granted that this elicits from anon an unbelievable torrent of nonsense (I am running, I am doing this and that, etc.)

      And yet I have discussed my position with some of the most respected people in patent law including one judge. No one thought my position was outrageous. They see that the Scotus is probably moving in the direction I indicate and that my position is reasonable. Anon doesn’t like it so I get endless abuse from him. Anon’s behavior is just ridiculous.

      1. 14.1.1

        I am not sure what has happened to anon. 15 years ago he was fairly reasonable in that he would react strongly, but only to positions that were firmly held by all reasonable people. Now he seems to expanded out so that he thinks that anything he thinks is absolutely right and anyone that doesn’t hold his believe is a heretic.

        Anon needs a break.

        1. 14.1.1.1

          response caught in filter.

          In short: this ad hominem path of your Night Writer cannot hide the fact that you have refused to actually engage on the merits and do not like the fact that you only want to be able to post your opinion without ANY critical thinking applied to it.

          I invite you (yet again) to actually engage in an inte11ectually honest manner and take up those counter points for the very first time.

          1. 14.1.1.1.1

            anon, what is remarkable about your posts is that you don’t have some summary of your points, but repeat over and over that I haven’t responded. I have responded over and over again.

            What bothers you is that someone thinks differently than you do. Move on. You are not the patent g*d.

            1. 14.1.1.1.1.1

              I have responded over and over again.

              CLEARLY – you have not.

              Elsewhere I provided a direct link, and pointed out (post by post) where you falter.

              ps: I am not the one having difficulty “moving on,” as it was you that decided to bring up the subject (yet again) in a whining tone.

              This is yet another Malcolm Mooney Accuse Others move that ONLY paints YOU in a bad light.

              Get out of your own way. IF you are going to continue to put your energy into this, please do as I ask and put your energy into replying in a cogent and substantive manner to the counter points put to you. And yes, that does mean more than a dismissive (and untrue) “I have already done so.” It is beyond clear that you have done so such thing.

              And please, drop the empty rhetoric and attempted “ad hominem” with trying to make this about me. This is ALL about you and your unwillingness to face the fact that you were busted trying to advance something that was previously dismantled.

              1. 14.1.1.1.1.1.1

                You sound like a commercial anon. Where you just go on and on with descriptions of what the product will do for you without ever describing the product.

                Plus—I have responded to you. I get your arguments. I don’t agree with them. Most are prescriptive about how you feel the Scotus.

                There is simply no resolution with you anon. You go on and on and on. No matter how I try to end it.

                And you arrogantly try to push your thoughts off on me as if somehow you are superior to me. Do you get this is an interpretation of a Scotus case and as such opinions may vary?

                1. There is simply no resolution with you anon. You go on and on and on. No matter how I try to end it.

                  Trying to have the last word is a famously ineffective way actually to end a pointless exchange. The way to end a pointless exchange is to walk away from it.

                2. Night Writer,

                  If you want a license to be vapid and post uninformed opinions in a Public forum, you have that license.

                  But you do not have a license to limit who may respond to you and if that response points out errors or the inanity of your posts. You don’t get to be that Cens0r.

                  Whining as you do about “harassment” and “not showing respect” shows that you do not understand the nature of the interactions, nor the nature of what it means to earn respect.

                  If you want respect on this particular point, then earn it. Stop whining, stop the mindless and off-kilter rhetoric and engage on the merits.

                  And yes, that does mean more than the bland “I responded” when your “response” is a mindless and empty disimissal.

    2. 14.2

      You are giving a lot more thought to the two of them than either really merits. Why let either one live rent free in your head, like this? Neither makes the sort of intellectually worthwhile contribution to deserve the sort of extended consideration that you are giving each.

      1. 14.2.1

        I think you are right Greg.

      2. 14.2.2

        Neither makes the sort of intellectually worthwhile contribution to deserve the sort of extended consideration that you are giving each.

        LOL – I won’t speak for Malcolm, but clearly Greg, your undies have been in a similar bunch and you simply are reacting in an emotional manner.

        Hey, your choice and all, but let’s not pretend that you are at all accurate, given that while I also employ biting rhetoric, my bite comes with substantive and critically thought through content.

        As to Night Writer’s efforts – if you had bothered at all to actually follow along (and be inte11ectaully honest yourself) you would see that from the start of Night Writer’s pouting, I have been attempting to have him actually redirect his energies from his vapid whining to the more productive addressing the counter points on their merits.

        But hey, why hold yourself to anywhere near the level you want to hold others to?

        1. 14.2.2.1

          >>As to Night Writer’s efforts – if you had bothered at all to actually follow along (and be inte11ectaully honest yourself) you would see that from the start of Night Writer’s pouting, I have been attempting to have him actually redirect his energies from his vapid whining to the more productive addressing the counter points on their merits.

          anon, the problem is that you seem to think you are superior to me and you can’t tolerate different opinions. I get your opinions. In my opinion, you are very wrong.

          I don’t follow you around and pester you, though.

          1. 14.2.2.1.1

            I don’t follow you around and pester you, though.

            You initiating constant whines about the same thing DOES pester me.

            Why DON’T you do as I have suggested and finally address the substantive content of my multi-prong counterpoints in an inte11ectually honest manner (which is of course, more than merely attempting to dismiss them)?

            Are you afraid?

      3. 14.2.3

        Oh, poor widdle Greggie Weggie. Nobody even remembers what you are sulking about anymore, Greg. I sure don’t.

        But just in the past week I’ve posted ten times more “intellectually worthwhile contributions” than you have. If your hands are tied and you can’t defend your views on, say, the patenting of correlations, just admit it. But don’t pretend that you can’t discuss them because “MM isn’t being nice enough to you.” That’s childish (and not even true).

        1. 14.2.3.1

          If your hands are tied and you can’t defend your views…

          EGADS – the whining from Night Writer is driving me to agree with Malcolm.

          (Where is my John Maynard Keynes quote on wild words…)

  6. 13

    Congratulations, Dennis! Your blog has been great since the beginning. I’m grateful for you.

  7. 12

    Wow! I was a young associate on the SKB Paxil district court and Fed Cir litigation. Can not believe I’ve been practicing that long!!!! Litigating in front of Judge Posner was something else.

  8. 11

    Congrats on 15 years of education and resources for patent attorneys, scholars, and MM.

  9. 10

    Since being radicalized about patent injustice 7 years ago, I’ve sought to learn what I might, as a non-lawyer leasure philosopher. I learn more here than just about anywhere because this site combines skillful curation and a vibrant (everything is relative) community.

    Basically the cheapest quality entertainment I regularly consume is MM pounding on anon. Selected excerpts of that years-long man-on-derpshirt epic will someday make a great New Yorker<i/) article.

    I hope Prof Crouch gets to write it.

    1. 10.1

      Martin — “MM pounding on anon?”

      Um, no. Rather; anon correcting MM.

      Over and over and over again.

      Thank goodness.

      The only pounding MM does is in his personal home sandbox; because he’s apparently unable, or unwilling; to pound either the facts or the law.

      1. 10.1.1

        Thanks Pro Say,

        It is rather unremarkable that Marty has the opinion that he has concerning the interactions between myself and Malcolm.

        Marty is wrong in just about anything connected with patent law (maybe he should take a more serious approach than his “leisure philosopher” stance, especially given his known bias of “radicalized patent injustice.”

        Meh, he would rather stumble about with his eyes closed in the terrain of patent law. That way, he can continue to nurse his feelings of “victimhood.”

  10. 9

    Many thanks for all the infoz, all the manipulatin’ of patent lawl for the better, all the lulz and everything.

  11. 8

    I believe too that since this blog started that Dennis has married and had two girls.
    And a new job as professor.

    1. 8.1

      “two girls”

      Both huwhite? :(

      Come on D, where’s the diversity? :( :( :(

      1. 8.1.1

        Wierd and creepy, this comment is…

        1. 8.1.1.1

          Yes very creepy. What, 6?

    2. 8.2

      Yes, many reasons for congratulations all around.

  12. 7

    Pretty sure I was a contributor from the spring of 2004.

    1. 7.1

      I had lapsed in maintaining an accurate count of the years of the Malcolm blight, and this does help restore that accuracy, as Malcolm’s blight was objectively traced back to the month of February near the start of this blog.

      So it is a happy 14 years of blight (and that first ten months Malcolm-free must seem like an entirely different world).

      1. 7.1.1

        Yes I remember those early days.

        1. 7.1.1.1

          I do, too. That was back when a substantial number of the s00per serious “pro-patent” commenters here were openly h0 m0 phobic big0ts ranting about people who “don’t know anything about technology” while they argued elsewhere on the Internet against the legalization of gay marriage based on some cr @p written by a “holy man” 2000+ years ago.

          Now we’re stuck with MAGAb0y 6.

          1. 7.1.1.1.1

            The Holy Man of whom you speak of and denigrate MM is the Son of God; whom created the Earth you walk on, the air that you breath. and the food that you eat.

            The passage of mere man-measured years since the Lord also walked on Earth to teach men and women right from wrong and good from evil changes nothing.

            Shame on you.

            1. 7.1.1.1.1.1

              Not the place for this stuff from either of you.

              Let’s try to focus on patent law issues on this patent blog (maybe for the next 15 years…)

            2. 7.1.1.1.1.2

              The Holy Man of whom you speak of and denigrate MM is the Son of God; whom created the Earth you walk on, the air that you breath. and the food that you eat.

              Or it’s a fairy tale for people who need that sort of thing, in addition to an excuse for behaving horribly to people who aren’t on the same “team” (e.g., women, g@y people, J e ws, M u sli ms, etc., which is what was happening here in the comments because a bunch of the commenters were a bunch of right leaning entitled xian bros who were used to flinging their trash around without anyone daring to confront them).

              Go thump your b@ l0ney someplace else.

              1. 7.1.1.1.1.2.1

                an excuse for behaving horribly to people who aren’t on the same “team”

                Malcolm needs no such excuse – witness his mindless ad hominem and one-bucketing.

                which is what was happening here in the comments

                That number one meme of his of Accuse Others…

                Yay 14 years of blight.

          2. 7.1.1.1.2

            MM, Carter was one of the biggest proponents of patents. I am a liberal Democrat that voted for Obama twice and did not vote for Trump. I am for patents.

            I also am very familiar with the German patent system and know how great of a boon it has been for the Germans.

            It is ridiculous to try and say that patents are some kind of scam that the R’s are doing.

            1. 7.1.1.1.2.1

              NW,

              One of Malcolm’s long running meme’s is the “one-bucket” approach wherein he does not bother to constrain his feelings or apply critical thinking to any actual point at hand. It is a function of his “mindless ad hominem” as a replacement for actual engagement and dialogue on the merits.

            2. 7.1.1.1.2.2

              Hey your ain”t all bad Night! Not voting for a demented proto-fa$cist is a low bar, but I’ll take it;-)

              1. 7.1.1.1.2.2.1

                I did not vote for Trump either – but so what? You miss the point Marty.

                1. I did not vote for Trump either – but so what?

                  LOL

                  It’s okay Mr. “Rule of Law”. We all know how the glibertarian “mind” works.

              2. 7.1.1.1.2.2.2

                Not voting for a demented proto-fa$cist is a low bar, but I’ll take it;-)

                You are being just a tad too generous, Martin. I will agree that voting for Clinton is a low bar, but still something. I am not convinced that any credit should be awarded for voting write-in or third party. With the future of the republic at stake, waffle is as bad as proto-Mosleyism.

            3. 7.1.1.1.2.3

              It is ridiculous to try and say that patents are some kind of scam that the R’s are doing.

              I’ve never said that.

              What I have said — because it’s true — is that there is a substantial overlap between the patent maximalists and right wingnerttery. That’s been the case for quite some time. See, e.g., East District of Texas, Big Jeans blog, etc.

              In part, it’s because patent maximalists adhere to a variation on the “trickle down” mindset. The belief is that “we” (the public) must make it as easy as possible for them (the “innovators” who make the world go around) to obtain and “monetize” patents on everything because otherwise we (the public) will end up back in the stone age without anything shiny to play with. In their minds, there are simply no downsides to turning up the cranks to 11 and letting “the invisible hand” sort everything out. We can trust them!

              In reality, they are greedy entitled hypocrites and, based on their “arguments”, at least, they’re not very creative or intelligent either. Given years to come up with something reasonable to protect the patent system and their precious logic patents, all they can come up with is incoherent debunked nonsense that benefits them only and pretty much nobody else. It’s a familiar game.

              1. 7.1.1.1.2.3.1

                You do realize that the economic concept of the Invisible Hand is NOT a political concept, right?

                Brush aside your typical mindless ad hominem and all you have is error to your post.

                Happy 14 years of blight.

                1. You do realize that the economic concept of the Invisible Hand is NOT a political concept

                  Thank you for admitting that it’s nothing more than a concept.

    2. 7.2

      I think I started somewhere in the 2006-07 time frame.

      Not under this name (which you gave to me); I don’t recall how many I’ve had over the years.

      But never more than one at a time.

  13. 6

    The thing is, despite its longevity the blog has suffered no decline in quality. On the contrary, I would say it is more and more the leading patent law blog. Many congratulations. Dennis do please keep up the good work.

    And all this without filtering out (and thereby delaying) the contributions your readers offer. Impressive! Although some contributions are tiresome, I can live with that, as the price to pay for pre-eminence, the topicality and liveliness of the blog.

    1. 6.1

      Good points MaxDrei.

  14. 5

    Congrats, guys! Fifteen years is a real feat.

    Zillions of blogs have arisen and perished over the past 15 years. Somehow this one is still going. I attribute its success primarily to its inherent ivory towerism and its transparent Marxist leanings.

    But mostly I keep coming back for the snacks. ;)

    1. 5.1

      Amazingly then with all that “ivory towerism and Marxist leanings” that Malcolm Mooney has had more posts expunged than all others combined.

  15. 4

    Well-deserved and hard-earned congratulations — and many thanks — Dennis.

    The IP world would be poorer indeed were PatentlyO not one of the integral parts of our landscape that it is.

    Here’s to at least 15 years more … ideally without Moonbeam Mooney running from post to post and comment to comment … like an unleashed wild dog running from tree to tree.

    In the same way such a wandering dog prevents flowers from growing wherever it stops, MM prevents untold numbers of others whose comments and insights would add so much more to PatentlyO from joining the conversation.

    1. 4.1

      If you let Malcolm stop you, you are no better than the likes of “I don’t engage because I want things nice and polite — and I get ripped apart for my weak points” Greg.

      Sure, it would be “nice” if Malcolm actually restrained himself, stayed on the topic of patent law, and actually engaged on the merits instead of his oh-so-typical blight, but that should not stop anyone from sharing substantive and critically thought through content.

  16. 3

    Thank you very much professor Crouch for maintaining this site.

  17. 2

    Many years!

  18. 1

    Congrats, Dennis. You have made a very positive contribution to the field of patent law. Keep up the great work.

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