Upcoming Senate Hearings on Section 101

Subcommittee on Intellectual Property
DATE: Tuesday, June 4-5, 2019 02:30 PM each day.

WITNESSES
Panel I
The Honorable Paul R. Michel; The Honorable Q. Todd Dickinson;
The Honorable David J. Kappos; Mr. Charles Duan; Professor Jeffrey A. Lefstin

Panel II
Mr. Robert A. Armitage; Professor David O. Taylor; Ms. Sherry M. Knowles, Esq.;
Ms. Alex Moss; Professor Mark A. Lemley

Panel III
Mr. Michael Rosen; Professor Paul R. Gugliuzza; Professor Joshua D. Sarnoff; Mr. Patrick Kilbride; Professor Adam Mossoff

Day 2:

Panel I
Ms. Barbara Fiacco; Mr. Scott Patridge; Mr. Henry Hadad; Mr. David Jones; Ms. Stephanie Martz

Panel II
Mr. Paul Morinville; Mr. Phil Johnson; Dr. William G. Jenks; Mr. Christopher Mohr; Mr. Jeffrey A. Birchak

Panel III
Mr. Jeff Francer; Mr. Hans Sauer; Ms. Natalie M. Derzko; Mr. Rick Brandon; Ms. Kate Ruane

 

151 thoughts on “Upcoming Senate Hearings on Section 101

  1. 21

    The relentless l-y-i-n-g sack of cash named Sherry Knowles:

    The proposed bill in fact would restore patent eligibility to the state that it was historically for over 200 years of American history.

    False. The bill restores eligibility to a state that existed only for a very short time following State Street Bank, which was a horrible decision and the lowest point in the history of the US patent system.

    Many are convinced it is the historic, pre-Myriad, Mayo, Alice application of patent eligibility that made the U.S. the successful country it is today.

    “Many are convinced” that you should crawl back under your rock and die, Sherry. Do us a favor, please. Granting patents on correlations, naturally occurring DNA sequences, and methods of managing bingo games “on a computer” did not make the US “successful.” State Street Bank might have made you and your buddies wealthy, Sherry, but that’s a completely different result. Probably that’s too nuanced for you to understand given that you’re an i-d-i-0-t and a habitual l-i-a-r. Please do us all a favor and crawl back up into Big Jeans’ b-h0le and die.

    1. 21.1

      Could you BE any more professional?

      1. 21.1.1

        Tell it to Sherry Knowles, the Lying Sack of Human S-c-u-m.

        I don’t play pattycake with these morally bankrupt pieces of dog-s-h-i-r-t. That would give the impression that they are something other than what they really are.

        1. 21.1.1.1

          I don’t play pattycake with these morally bankrupt pieces of dog-s-h-i-r-t.

          Malcolm ONLY plays pattycake with himself – a very different “morally bankrupt pieces of dog-s-h-i-r-t.

  2. 20

    Judge Michel: “I’ve spent 22 years on the Federal Circuit and nine years since dealing with patent cases and I cannot predict [under the current law] in a given case whether eligibility will be found or not found.

    Either Judge Michel is a lying sack of shirt, or he’s an i-di-0t. My bet is on both.

    Attorneys make these predictions all the time, and they make them accurately.

    Michel is a paid shill and he needs to go f——k himself.

    1. 20.1

      Judge Michel’s opinion that it is impossible to tell whether something will be held eligible under 101 is the same as the vast majority of patent attorneys.

      1. 20.1.1

        it is impossible to tell whether something will be held eligible under 101 is the same as the vast majority of patent attorneys.

        As I’ve said before: this might be true of the super serious “patent attorneys” filing claims to “apps” in Br0ken Crack, Montana where you practice. But it’s definitely not true where I am. Heck, even the pipsqueak fresh out of school Harvey Mudd alums can predict eligibility in most case.

        It’s odd that the patent maximalists think that bragging about their denseness is “impressive” or compelling in any way. Then again, they’ve never been the sharpest sticks in the bunch.

  3. 19

    Elsewhere, I have read a summary of Sarnoff’s position and (per that summary) he was completely off the rails.

  4. 18

    Hey Prof, any updates?

  5. 17

    Let me tell what happens if this pile of g@ r bage statute is passed: I will immediately infringe it, I will announce that I’m infringing, and we’ll go to the Supreme Court, and I will win, and the statute will end up in the trash. In addition, the public will hear all about the travesty that is patent maximalism, and they will learn how you insufferable t0 0 ls operate.

    At the end of this, the maximalists will have wasted a massive amount of time and money that could have gone to a productive goal (e.g., feeding a starving person; buying medicine or teeth for someone) and spent it instead on a gratuitous and absurd display of stuffing their empty brains and diseased egos.

    1. 17.1

      Moonbeam: ” … buying medicine … ”

      And just what medicine is that, pray tell?

      The one which was never invented … because it relied in part on your “someone’s” genes … and so couldn’t be patent-protected … and therefore never received the $3,500,000 investment necessary to bring it to fruition?

      Is that the medicine you’re referring to?

      The one which could have saved your “someone’s” life?

      The fact is, Moonbeam, that; given the conditions and diseases which end up killing most human beings; someday, that “someone” could also be you.

      Wouldn’t you be eternally thankful and great full to know that such a patent-protected medicine existed that would save your life?

      Thankfully for all American’s, from the sound of today’s first hearing, Congress understands this fact and will soon be doing something about it.

    2. 17.2

      You lost me after “Let me tell you

  6. 16

    Mark these words:

    If Congress were to shockingly permit folks like the EFF, ACLU, and Silicon Valley to get away with blocking or corrupting these innovation-restoring, desperately and critically needed, Section §101 changes, more than 1,000,000 Americans will die unnecessarily in the years and decades to come … because no companies, universities, or non-profits were willing to risk – or able to raise — the millions required to invent such innovations.

    Thank goodness our Founding Fathers and earlier Congress’ saw fit to protect and preserve them.

    How devastating to and for our Country that the Supreme Court unconstitutionally crushed; and continues to block; such innovations.

    Today’s Congress is these 1,000,000 Americans’ only hope

    Today’s Congress is our Country’s only hope.

    1. 16.1

      While your post does sound in emotional hyperbole (not everyone reading your comment may realize that the emotion comes from in part that you yourself are a cancer survivor and owe your life to protected innovation), one but may look at the withdrawal of the esteemed Cleveland Clinic from such very things that you speak of.

    2. 16.2

      If Congress were to shockingly permit folks like the EFF, ACLU, and Silicon Valley to get away with blocking or corrupting these innovation-restoring, desperately and critically needed, Section §101 changes, more than 1,000,000 Americans will die unnecessarily in the years and decades to come … because no companies, universities, or non-profits were willing to risk – or able to raise — the millions required to invent such innovations.

      LOL

      Reads like a parody! I laughed anyways.

      Meet your patent maximalists, folks. ALWAYS the dimmest bulbs in the room. And why the relentless b.s.? It’s almost as if they know they’re full of pure horse s- h – t , and they know everybody knows, so why not just dig deeper until they look like absolute and total f- 0 – 0 – ls. Maybe we’ll all feel sorry for them and just give them whatever they want …

      the emotion comes from in part that you yourself are a cancer survivor and owe your life to protected innovation

      Oh give us an ef-fing break already, you miserable little m-0-r-0-ns.

  7. 15

    By banning any and all attempts to understand the relationship of the claim to the prior art when determining eligibility, the statute effectively nullifies itself. It might as well just say “Transparent efforts to draft around the requirements of 101 are encouraged and such can efforts can not be relied upon to determine eligibility.” Crouch knows this, of course, because he’s still got half his wits about him. Unfortunately, he’s apparently allowed himself to become so compromised or conflicted over the years that he is no longer capable of discussing or teaching basic logic in this context.

    The really unfortunate part for everybody (except, of course, for that perpetually whining and entitled crowd of already wealthy patent game players) is that nothing good can result when you start from a pile of pure d 0 g s –t. That’s doubly unfortunate when many of us have spent decades describing the various flavors of ineligibility and the policy (or Constitutional) issues around them.

    For example, nobody except a tiny fraction of patent attorneys believes that a “computerized” database comprising some “non-obvious” information content should be patentable. Likewise, nobody believes that such a database constitutes a “new computer.” Determining what kinds of “improvements” in the “art” of using logic to instruct computers is eligible is undeniably an incredibly important determination but instead of facing that issue, the drafters of this statute intentionally and shamefully (or completely ig n 0 r@ntly) have chosen to pretend that they can simply turn back the clock 40 years. As I said, it’s a j 0 ke, and in a sane world the people responsible for this would be mocked by every professional patent attorney.

    Likewise, nobody believes that you should be able to patent a generic method of using a prior art detection tool to detect some “newly discovered” naturally occurring phenomenon, e.g., using a telescope to detect a “non-obvious” newly discovered asteroid that is heading towards the earth, or using a scale to weigh a “non-obvious” newly discovered Amazonian frog.

    But the profession has turned into a ce s s p00l so I guess let’s all just swim to the b0tt0m and pretend we were born yesterday and that nobody will ever be so bold as to try claim that sort of thing. Sure, that will work out just great.

    1. 15.1

      The blight of Malcolm and his “cut and paste”…

  8. 14

    By banning any and all attempts to understand the relationship of the claim to the prior art when determining eligibility, the statute effectively nullifies itself. It might as well just say “Transparent efforts to draft around the requirements of 101 are encouraged and such can efforts can not be relied upon to determine eligibility.” Dennis knows this, of course, because he’s still got half his wits about him. Unfortunately, he’s apparently allowed himself to become so compromised or conflicted over the years that he is no longer capable of discussing or teaching basic logic in this context.

    The unfortunate part for everybody (except for that perpetually whining and entitled crowd of already wealthy patent game players) is that nothing good can result when you start from a pile of pure d0 g s h i rt. That’s doubly unfortunate when many of us have spent decades describing the various flavors of ineligibility and the policy (or Constitutional) issues around them.

    For example, nobody except a tiny fraction of patent attorneys believes that a “computerized” database comprising some “non-obvious” information content should be patentable. Likewise, nobody believes that such a database constitutes a “new computer.” Determining what kinds of “improvements” in the “art” of using logic to instruct computers is eligible is undeniably an incredibly important determination but the drafters of this statute intentionally and shamefully (or completely ign0 rantly) pretend that they turn back the clock 40 years. As I said, it’s a sick j 0 ke, and in a sane world the people responsible for this would be mocked by every professional patent attorney. Likewise, nobody believes that you should be able to patent a generic method of using a prior art detection tool to detect some “newly discovered” naturally occurring phenomenon, e.g., using a telescope to detect a “non-obvious” newly discovered asteroid that is heading towards the earth, or using a scale to weigh a “non-obvious” newly discovered frog in the Amazon.

    But the profession has turned into a cessp00l so I guess let’s all just swim to the b0tt0m and pretend we were born yesterday and that nobody will ever be so bold as to try claim that sort of thing. Sure, that will work out just great.

  9. 13

    A 5/30/19 article from the Morgan Lewis & Bockius law firm includes this comment:
    “By abrogating the judicial exceptions to subject matter eligibility and exclusively focusing on an invention’s utility, the draft bill apparently attempts to expand patent protection to at least some inventions currently considered to be abstract ideas, laws of nature, or natural phenomena. A claimed invention that is “useful” under Section 101 will be patentable so long as it complies with all remaining statutory requirements—e.g., it is novel, nonobvious, definite, and described such that a person skilled in the art could make and use it.
    But the draft bill’s proposed definition of “useful” may ultimately create more uncertainty than it solves. To be “useful,” a process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or improvement thereof must be (1) an invention or discovery that (2) provides specific and practical utility (3) in any field of technology and (4) through human intervention. (Presumably, the utility must be provided through human intervention.) This definition may resurrect many of the judicial exceptions that the draft bill seeks to eliminate. In some cases, the components may create new uncertainties. For example:
    Can an abstract idea’s utility be “specific and practical”?
    Are mental processes, products that exist exclusively in nature, and business methods in a “field of technology”?
    Do wholly automated processes, laws of nature, and natural phenomena provide utility “through human intervention”?”

    1. 13.1

      Yes it appears there that moles are drafting the legislation. What a surprise. Just look at the largest donors. SV all the way down.

      1. 13.1.1

        ? NW, why would SV companies want to increase the scope of patentable subject matter, increase patent litigation costs by eliminating 101 preliminary motion disposals, and increase their employee medical costs? Have you seen any letters to Congress supporting this legislation from any of those companies?

        1. 13.1.1.1

          Paul,

          You are not paying attention.

          The 101 positions (your focus here) becomes the “oh, shiny” distraction for sneaking in the Trojan Horse of 112 (which eviscerates ANY gains under the 101 change).

          Politics (and philosophical batt1es) are not always blunt “in your face” moves.

          1. 13.1.1.1.1

            … as well as the Trojan Horse of changes to 35 USC 100 (apologies for the omission).

          2. 13.1.1.1.2

            As severally demonstrated, the proposed 101 expansions of patentable subject matter to remove several prior exceptions are far broader than the proposed 112 amendment in that regard, which only impacts the “abstract” 101 exception for purely functional claim limitations. Also, the Fed. Cir. has already held that the application of existing 112(f) is NOT limited to functional claims that recite the words “means” or “steps” proposed to be eliminated here.
            [As already noted, are other problems with this 112 proposal.]

            1. 13.1.1.1.2.1

              Wrong again Paul.

              There has been NO “severally demonstrated” as to the proposed 112 ONLY covering “purely functional claim limitations.”

              You simply are not paying attention.

        2. 13.1.1.2

          What anon writes below I largely agree with. Plus I agree with you Paul that the way that the changes to 101 would be as open to judicial interpretation as “abstract” was in Alice.

    2. 13.2

      Defining the term “useful” by reference to the term “utility” was yet another preschool maneuver. But look at who was involved in the drafting. No surprise that it was scribbled in crayon.

      1. 13.2.1

        While Malcolm’s other comment has been (suitably) expunged, the stultifying irony of Malcolm Accusing Others of “preschool” and “crayons” in view of scrivining (by the legislative branch) TO eradicate the ultra-p00r scrivining of the Judicial Branch is something to behold

    3. 13.3

      Conversations on this very thing are also happening on other (well-known) patent blogs, and not just individual law firm forums.

    4. 13.4

      I was hoping someone would point out why the authors of this law firm article think that “novel” would still be required by other provisions of the patent statute when it would removed from 101? Where? That word is only in the title of AIA 102 but it is not part of the actual definition of what is prior art therein.

      1. 13.4.1

        I was hoping someone would point out why the authors of this law firm article think that “novel” would still be required by other provisions of the patent statute when it would removed from 101?

        It is perfectly plausible to imagine that in a world in which “new” is no longer in §10, that those things that are presently excluded by §101 might nonetheless be excluded by the “in public use” exclusion of §102(a). After all, it is not necessary that the public use actually put the claimed item into possession of the public (e.g. Barnes’ corset staves in Egbert).

        Still and all, like yourself I would like a little more assurance that this is how we all agree that the public use exclusion will function in a world without “new” in §101. There is another equally plausible reading of “in public use” that says that (e.g.) a protein found naturally in human brains is not in “public” use because the insides of a human’s skull are not “public” places. I would not like to think that the point that is supposed to save us from the patenting of long-existing but as-yet-undiscovered natural molecules depends on how “public” we consider the organ system where these molecules exist.

        1. 13.4.1.1

          Myriad was decided by the Supreme Court six years ago. The Federal Circuit and the PTO have been developing case law in the meantime and the policy issues have been discussed ad infinitum.

          It’s more than a bit disturbing that literally NONE of these considerations have found their way into this proposed “fix” which boils down, fundamentally, to a request from the most notoriously bad actors in the profession to have a “re-do” where, somehow, they don’t swarm the PTO with massive reams of incredibly cr @ ppy patent applications which they don’t subsequently attempt to “monetize” at everyone’s expense. Anyone who’s been around for the past 20 years watching these characters and the games they play in court, online, and elsewhere knows exactly what’s going to happen.

          What’s most mystifying is why they didn’t also ask for 103 to be eliminated in its entirety. That maneuver would jibe perfectly with their lame excuses for expanding 101 into the stratosphere but I guess that’s too far even for some of the maximalists (but surely not all of them).

          1. 13.4.1.1.1

            There is NOTHING disturbing about a branch of the government waking up and taking back their Constitutionally appointed power to write the statutory law that is patent law and extinguish (abrogate) the ultra vires scrivining of Common Law law writing.

            If you had ANY appreciation of the Rule of Law (and has any control over your emotions), you would recognize the bankrupt nature of your “logic.”

            Besides, aren’t you getting all worked up over nothing? Aren’t you the one that constantly preaches that certain Supreme Court cases will never be overturned?

          2. 13.4.1.1.2

            Myriad was decided by the Supreme Court six years ago.

            So what?

            How long was the Dred Scott decision on the books?

        2. 13.4.1.2

          Greg, re an argument that even if ” “new” is no longer in §101, that those things that are presently excluded by §101 might nonetheless be excluded by the “in public use” exclusion of §102(a).” But reading the normal meaning of the word “public” as publicly available information out of the very provision of 102 where the word public specifically occurs would be a real statutory interpretation stretch, and not what prior cases support. Which is why we have the Fed. Cir. case law adoption of the Learned Hand Metallizing Engineering doctrine making secret use a personal forfeture and expressly NOT statutory prior art.

          1. 13.4.1.2.1

            [R]eading the normal meaning of the word “public” as publicly available information out of the very provision of 102 where the word public specifically occurs would be a real statutory interpretation stretch…

            Two points:

            (1) I share your concern. If the Congress is going to take “new” out of §101, it would be best if they were also to amend §102 to make it clear that pre-existing-but-unrecognized natural products are excluded from patentability on novelty grounds. Better still simply to leave “new” in there. The “shall be determined only while considering the claimed invention as a whole, without discounting or disregarding any claim limitation” language that they add in §101(b) already takes care of the concerns that motivate the removal of “new.”

            (2) While I agree that the reading of “public use” that I discuss above is a stretch, it is no more of a stretch than the Court’s reading of the AIA §102 in Helsinn that the details of an invention do not need to be made public in order to anticipate a claimed invention. I think that the Court got it totally wrong in Helsinn, but at least Helsinn leaves open a way to deal with the problem that would be posed by removing “new” from §101. It would be beyond perverse if the Court were to say that an enabling disclosure is not necessary to bar Helsinn’s claims, but would be necessary to bar the claims to (e.g.) a pre-existing brain protein.

            1. 13.4.1.2.1.1

              Indeed Greg, and if there is no “new” requirement left anywhere in the patent statute I wonder if that might even be challenged as outside of the Constitutional scope of a U.S. patent? Especially given the historic background to our system of the patent statute of Elizabeth I which ended patents for non-novel items?

              1. 13.4.1.2.1.1.1

                Golan v Holder has some intersecting historical facts that speak to your thrust, Paul.

  10. 12

    No software developer invited ™?

    1. 12.1

      That would be to the “go ahead and copyright pure “logic,” no, wait,…” Congressional hearings coming soon…

      (Because somehow software must be thought of as an “either-or” type of thing, and everyone knows that since software is only logic, and logic can always be copyrighted, that only Copyright should exist for software…)

    2. 12.2

      Plus, “professor” should signify that the person likely is a paid for shill from SV.

      (Just look at the largest donors to the judicial committee. SV companies.)

      1. 12.2.1

        Wow, I see comments from several others have been “saved from the filters,” but mine remain trapped…

  11. 11

    The one substantive suggestion I noted in the 69 comments so far was that drug prices being attacked in another House committee are more appropriate for FDA and JD changes than patent law changes. I agree, but these proposed 101 changes in this committee would actually greatly expand the scope of patenting for pharmaceutical and diagnostics companies, apparently allowing for the first time even the patenting of naturally existing but previously undiscovered human body chemicals, genes, etc.? Even eliminating the “new’ requirement, which is NOT fully covered by 102 or 103. [Any chance these two different Congressional committees on these two different topics are communicating?]
    I also cannot help observing that logically if Prof. Lemley was really trying to eliminate the entire patent system, as asserted here frequently, he would be eliminating his own career and his outside income sources.

    1. 11.1

      The proposed Section 112 language [below] has been extensively attacked in comments here and elsewhere, so this is just one more issue I have not yet seen discussed:
      Besides the usual problems of introducing any new word changes that might take years to judicially clarify, what about the many patent specifications that do not disclose any “corresponding structure, material, or acts” for every functional claim element? Will this 112 change increase the number of such patent claims held invalid as ambiguous?
      —–
      “(f) Functional Claim Elements—
      An element in a claim expressed as a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.”

      1. 11.1.1

        This appears to be “more neutrally” presented, but I have seen comments questioning the thing that you seem to say has been missing (especially, in the “elsewhere” sense – see IPWatchdog).

      2. 11.1.2

        I like the proposed new §112 language, but only if we apply it in the same way as AIA §102 applies only to applications filed after the AIA start date. It would not be fair to apply this rule for claim construction to applications that were filed before the drafters knew what sort of written description support is required for functional claim terms.

        Of course, if a post revision application were to use functional claim language without corresponding structure, it would fail and deserve to fail.

        1. 11.1.2.1

          Of course you “like” it.

          It’s a monstrosity and nasty trap.

          1. 11.1.2.1.1

            I don’t think anyone could support the changes to 112 without exposing themselves as a judicial activists anti-patent person.

            The changes to 112 do not even make sense within patent law. They are removing what a person of ordinary skill in the art knows about the subject area.

            1. 11.1.2.1.1.1

              Even worse, it is a “turtles all the way down” scenario, for which the “atom bomb” against PURE functional language is driven to be no longer an option, AND drags into a quagmire the ENTIRE “Vast Midle Ground of ANY use of terms sounding in function.

              As David Stein as aptly pointed out (on multiple occasions when Random goes into the weeds), such would affect nearly ALL art units (and really, the only ones that would push for such a change are a VERY tiny minority that are perfectly content with painfully narrow “objective physical structure” picture claims).

            2. 11.1.2.1.1.2

              My proposed revisions doesn’t ignore what a person (or squirrel) of ordinary skill in the art knows about the subject area. I just want proof in writing, in the specification, that at the time of the invention the inventor actually contemplated the invention as claimed.

              1. 11.1.2.1.1.2.1

                You want more than “proof” of contemplation – you want an engineering style document (where NO such degree is contemplated for the legal document that a patent is.

              2. 11.1.2.1.1.2.2

                My proposed revisions [don’t] ignore what a person… of ordinary skill in the art knows about the subject area.

                “My” proposed revisions? Do you have a different revision in mind for §112(f) than the text that Sen. Coons’ office is circulating?

                1. It is. I would tighten up 112(a) to be closer to the European standard. I would prohibit an application that describes a crude system of using predefined questions to help book a travel itinerary from becoming a patent that claims the basic underpinnings of e-commerce when it is apparent that the inventor never contemplated that to be his invention. It would take more than arguing to an apparently half-interested examiner that the general principles where in the patent.

                2. I would tighten up 112(a) to be closer to the European standard.

                  Thanks for that clarification. I agree with you that much mischief would be avoided if the U.S. application of §112(a) were closer to the EPO’s application of Art. 123(2).

    2. 11.2

      I have seen this phrase before (and have found “explanations” wanting), but Paul, what do YOU mean by:

      Even eliminating the “new’ requirement, which is NOT fully covered by 102 or 103.

      Keep in mind that “prior art” is NOT limited to printed prior art.

      Also, I do not think your (equally) bald assertion of “he would be eliminating his own career and his outside income sources.” meets critical scrutiny.

      You make it sound that it is incomprehensible that a person would be willing to forego a sliver of present income in order to realize a deeply held philosophical goal.

      Your post is even less credible than the views that you wish to counter.

    3. 11.3

      >>I also cannot help observing that logically if Prof. Lemley was really trying to eliminate the entire patent system, as asserted here frequently, he would be eliminating his own career and his outside income sources.

      ??? That argument does not even hold a drop of water. Markie Lemley is already very rich burning down the patent system and will have plenty to go buy a ranch in New Zealand riding the patent system down to the nothing.

    4. 11.4

      As for “that drug prices being attacked,”

      I find it interesting that the easiest and most clear path forward (that of requiring transparency on full pricing mechanisms from ALL Pharma) is actively shunned BY all Pharma (including Generics).

      For all the “crowing” about how expensive R&D is, and how the (optional) rationale of “cost” is the great driver for need for patents, the players in that market sure have a strong aversion to any actual clarity on that point.

      And yes, I do have some specific insight as to just why that type of clarity is NOT wanted by Pharma.

    5. 11.5

      My question has been answered as to communications between the two different Congressional committees respectively on drug prices and on this 101 patent legislation. Reportedly ACLU and other lobbyists have already been hitting on members of both even before these hearings start. Prior apparent views of some pharma attorneys and some other patent attorneys that this 101 & 112 proposed legislation would be uncontroversial and sail though with little opposition even in the current political climate was never realistic.

      1. 11.5.1

        Goodness, I hope that no one thought that this would be totally uncontroversial. Really, nothing is totally uncontroversial any more. I hope that the proponents of this legislation expected some degree of pushback. It would be disappointing to learn that they have no strategy in mind when witnesses show up with idiosyncratic sob stories of how their brother’s best friend’s roomate’s uncle was killed by a patent that had gone invalid because of rabies.

  12. 10

    Why isn’t Dennis on the list to testify?

    1. 10.1

      I want them to hear from Dennis.

      1. 10.1.1

        I’m not huge on that, I like D, but his only formal influence session that I have gotten wind of was ridiculous and has only now started to fade away after a fadish intro of his muh policy suggestion. I just don’t know how much of a policy genioos he is.

        1. 10.1.1.1

          6,

          I am not recalling his policy position on 101.

          What exactly was it that has now “faded away?”

  13. 9

    >>Professor Mark A. Lemley

    So someone that is married to a former executive of Google and has admitted that he has made many millions of dollars burning down the patent system is fit to testify? Really?

    Most of Mark Lemley’s “papers” are unethical.

    1. 9.1

      Lemley has made it clear his purpose is to destroy the patent system. He does not believe that patent are an incentive to innovation.

      A simple question should be asked to each person: do you believe that patents are an incentive to innovation?

      If the answer is “No” as it should be for Mark Lemley, then politely dismiss them. And maybe start with hearings that address the fundamental issue. Additionally, ask Mark Lemley if his papers are peer reviewed? If someone has an ethical complaint against Mark Lemley for his papers is there a way to address the ethical complain?

      1. 9.1.1

        Hi, my name is Mark Lemley. My wife and I have been making 10’s of millions of dollars burning down the patent system. I am here to tell you that patents are bad–real bad for my bottom line. I am here to tell you that it doesn’t matter how unethical you are the Scotus will still cite to your paper if they need to pretend they are making a valid finding of fact. I am here to tell you that Silicon Valley monopoly companies will fill your bank accounts if you say bad things about patents. I am here to tell you that I don’t care about the future of the country as long as my future is bright. I am here to tell you that 101 is good. Alice is good. Monopolies are good. Innovation is bad.

        I am Mark Lemley the man responsible for the destruction of the US patent system and innovation. I am very rich by doing so.

        1. 9.1.1.1

          My comment never made it out of the filter.

  14. 8

    No The Honorable Andrei Iancu? He put forward a pretty big shift in 101 practice within the USPTO, and it seems like some consideration for how that current practice fits within the existing jurisprudence might be helpful in deciding where to go from here.

    1. 8.1

      Had the same thought, Plurality.

      Perhaps they felt they’ve already heard from the Director about the critical importance of patents to our Country; and ending this innovation and job-killing 101 morass.

      Would, however, be good to hear his view(s) on the other draft reforms.

      1. 8.1.1

        job-killing 101 morass

        Unemployment is at a 17 year low, derpshirt.

        1. 8.1.1.1

          Wow, really? Is that because of President Trump?

          1. 8.1.1.1.1

            “Wow, really? Is that because of President Trump?”

            Yes lol :)

            1. 8.1.1.1.1.1

              I was waiting for Malcolm to admit that (in a delicious sense of Liberal Left irony to his pompous statement).

              1. 8.1.1.1.1.1.1

                As an intelligent individual, and a member of your so-called “Liberal Left,” I resent that you have lumped Madman Mooney in with me. However, the ridiculous puffery represented by the gathering of so-called patent practitioners commenting here (with some notable exceptions) both supports my views of the people who sneer when they say either “liberal” or “left” and sullies my view of my fellow patent practitioners. Fortunately, I am able to function in a world without absolutes, and I will continue to work in patent prosecution while assuming that my colleagues are generally decent people.

                Also, y’all need something better to do than egg MM on. Get some billing done, kids.

                1. ghostndragon,

                  Please do not confuse the lambasting of those that ARE extreme with those that (like yourself) may simply possess liberal views on any number of topics.

                  The term “Liberal Left” does have the connotation of the one (extremists) and NOT of the other (those that may inhabit a spectrum).

                  You should be aware that MY view is that MOST people are NOT to be “pigeonholed” into any one bucket or another.

                  As to “egg Malcolm on,” – please, I get plenty of billing done AND put Malcolm in his place. Remember: to be quiet may often be deemed to be complicit, and there are PLENTY of lemmings that will take a Malcolm post with no rebuttals to be some sort of “accepted” gospel and thus are encouraged towards even more egregious spouting and propaganda.

                2. Since this forum gives up on replies (at least on mobile) after a few decimal points, I’ll reply to myself.

                  Anon… Your cynicism is a severe handicap to your inclusive tendencies. Plus, I don’t think anything you say could possibly put MM in any sort of place.

                  6 – so… You’re here to make Examiners look bad?

                  Greg – thanks. I needed that. It’s nice to laugh sometimes. The other option is often mistaken for assault.

                3. Ghostsragon,

                  Your opinions, no matter how errant, are free to you to hold.

                  You also confuse critical thinking with cynicism, and neither constrain any sense of inclusiveness on my part. There is no handicap for me.

                  As for putting Malcolm in his place, such is not dependent on (nor reflected by) Malcolm’s continued blight. You would be correct in that nothing will change Malcolm’s behavior, but that is not the aim, nor the meaning of putting him in his place. Rather, the posts I provide contrast his blight with actual reasoning and sound points of law. Those without vested interests will then have a very real sense of just what place Malcolm has been put into.

                4. “6 – so… You’re here to make Examiners look bad?”

                  What about getting counts and doing whamen would make examiners look bad? Thems high status activities bruh.

                  Anyway, I’m just a homeless guy that lives on the side of an interstate.

                5. Greg I do like that groups vids. And that is a good one. But I will have to inform you that the “crippling” trade wars are going quite well back in reality and have already been “won” against several nations that just surrendered right at the beginning.

                6. [T]he… trade wars are going quite well back in reality and have already been “won” against several nations…

                  Just so that I understand what you mean, can you list out the victories and what we won from them?

            2. 8.1.1.1.1.2

              “Wow, really? Is that because of President Trump?”

              “Derp derp derp but it’ll be the libs fault when the economy tanks derp derp.”

              If you think Trump is responsible for getting us out of the Great Recession, you’re even st 00 piter than I thought.

              new company formations means more (and many great-paying) jobs

              Yes, and those jobs are so “great” that record numbers of people are working multiple jobs so they can pay their rent and eat.

              1. 8.1.1.1.1.2.1

                “Yes, and those jobs are so “great” that record numbers of people are working multiple jobs so they can pay their rent and eat.”

                Hey bruh, nobody can help that you boomers wanted and want to import more people to whatever brown the country, or secure democratic votes, or show your virtue or whatever it is that your generation thinks it is doing.

                1. “By our estimate, total revenue over the time period in question has actually fallen by 1.3 percent after accounting for inflation in the last year.”

                  Since modern inflation is nothing but a stealth tax that just means it’s all even steven (thereabouts).

                  “Measured relative to GDP – a sensible way to measure since a steady tax system would be expected to capture the same share of the economy year-after-year”

                  Lulz why on earth would it do that? Fantasy land conjectures.

                  “Committee for a responsible federal budget”

                  Muh establishment thinktank lol.

                  Greg bruh, even your article admits what I said (though they say 1% only). Even if we go with:

                  “Excluding October through December as well as non-withheld tax payments, individual income tax revenue is essentially unchanged from 2017.”

                  Ok, that’s still great.

                  “In other words, revenue has dropped substantially post-tax reform.”

                  Mmm, we can see about that in 4 months.

                2. Bruh, you’re full of digested and extracted animal feed. And a Tea Are Oh Double Hockeysticks, to boot. I imagine you resemble Martin Shkreli in real life. And that probably pleases you to no end.

                3. Since modern inflation is nothing but a stealth tax that just means it’s all even steven (thereabouts).

                  Two points:

                  (1) “[F]allen by 1.3 percent” is not “even.” It is down.

                  (2) “[E]ven steven” is not “literally up.” It is even.

                  Either way you look at it, in other words, your claim in 8.1.1.1.1.2.2 is nonsense.

                  Honestly, the most egregious part of the nonsense is that you said that “revenue [is] literally up,” and then gave a link that talked only about revenue from individual taxpayer returns. If I ran a publicly traded retail store that saw gross receipts fall by 50% year-over-year, but saw an 80% year-over-year increase in revenue from the sale of one particular variety of cargo shorts, how do you suppose the SEC would classify my 10-Q statements if I announced an “80% year-over-year increase in revenue” (full stop)? Do you think that it would be a good defense—when they brought me up on security’s law charges—to say “well, it was true in some sense; there was one particular stream of revenue that was up, even as total revenue was down”?

        2. 8.1.1.2

          “Unemployment is at a 17 year low …”

          The currently very low unemployment rate . . . has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that new company formations means more (and many great-paying) jobs.

          Nothing.

          Such Moonbeam conflation is of course nothing new to any of us.

          1. 8.1.1.2.1

            This is true, but overall I just don’t know how much evidence you have to support what you’re saying.

    2. 8.2

      It does not seems like the 2019 Guidance really fits within existing jurisprudence. Until the Fed. Cir. blesses it, buyer beware.

      BTW, is Electric Power Group a great eligibility decision or the best eligibility decision?

      1. 8.2.1

        Electric Power Group…?

        Thank you for confirming your anti-patent bias OSitA.

        Too bad for you that THAT decision has been seriously limited by subsequent decisions (noting as well that THAT decision was one of the most OVERUSED and MISused decisions and that such over use and misuse is what prompted Director Iancu to provide the 2019 Guidance).

        But you DO have a valid point with “buyer beware” – and NOT just to the 2019 Guidance, as was evidenced in the (semi-) recent Cleveland Clinic case — there, the judicial branch found ineligible a claim directly comparable (written to directly reflect) a claim that the Office stated would be eligible in a much earlier guidance.

        You do NOT have a point though vis a vis “does not seems like the 2019 Guidance really fits within existing jurisprudence

        This is because the Guidance DOES FIT – and does so to a fault.

        Unless you want to be like Malcolm and ignore all the decisions that are contradictory (in order to say that you see no contradictions), the PLAIN FACT of the matter is that the existing jurisprudence is a Gordian Knot of contradictions.

        The Guidance ITSELF explicitly notes this state – but then (and this is the “to a fault” aspect), goes ahead and attempts to encompass ALL of the case law, including the contradictory nature — as noted.

        1. 8.2.1.1

          “This is because the Guidance DOES FIT – and does so to a fault.”

          It’s strikes me as not only being too clever by half, it is too clever by a factor of a gazillion.

          1. 8.2.1.1.1

            Yup – as I said, it recognizes the absurdity of the courts muckery- and then replicates it all.

            The “gazillion” is merely the Einsteinian “expect something different while doing the same thing.”

            At least Director Iancu was attempting to avoid the UNconstitutional use of Common Law legal writing that the Supreme Court unleashed with his “don’t use (contradictory) case law and use off-ramps instead.

  15. 7

    As a friendly reminder, the “proposed statute” at this stage permits at a minimum: (1) the patenting of a method comprising the steps of drinking milk and thinking a non-obvious thought; and (2) the patenting of non-obvious information stored on a prior art computer (e.g., a database of medical information).

    On top of that, the statute does absolutely nothing to address the issue of protecting otherwise ineligible abstract logical operations carried out on data where those operations are carried out by pre-existing machines which were designed exactly for that purpose.

    In other words, rather than have a reasonable starting point for a discussion, our congresspeople are discussing a statute that was written by the worst actors in the contemporary patent system. It’s like pretending to “reform” health care, and having that discussion against the background of a statute written by pack of convicted w-ife-beaters and child molesters. Heckuva country.

    But you’ve done a really great job of educating your readers over the years, Dennis. Really really impressive.

    1. 7.1

      otherwise ineligible abstract logical operations

      You are A$$uming your conclusions there…

      1. 7.1.1

        I’m not a-ssuming anything.

        Even Fraud Iancu isn’t going to grant you a claim to a method of applying logic to data absent the recitation of some sort of “processor.” Go ahead and try it, Bildo.

        Or better yet: just come out of your chicken shack and tell everyone that methods of applying logic to data in the absence of a “processor” should be eligible for patenting and that Congress has always intended this to be the case because applying logic to data is a process and it’s so darned useful especially when the data relates to a technical subject.

        Then we can all point and laugh at you (again).

        Come on, chicken. Take a stand and declare your views for a change instead of just telling everyone else that they are wrong (your usual game). Make everyone’s day, chicken.

        Or maybe just do that little dance you do. You know the one: where you don’t really say anything or you pretend that you were talking about something else. That’s always entertaining.

        1. 7.1.1.1

          You confuse software as a “ware” with the execution of software through that processor.

          Sorry Malcolm, there is no “gotcha” for you here.

          All the rest of your post here is nonsense and more than just a little of the typical Accuse Others meme that is your trademark.

          1. 7.1.1.1.1

            Ah, so you chose option B (“the one where you don’t really say anything or you pretend that you were talking about something else”). So surprising!

            there is no “gotcha” for you here.

            LOL I already “got you”, Bildo. We can all see that you’re a coward and a hypocrite who doesn’t have the courage to stand behind his own senseless mewlings.

            But that’s true of all your maximalist buddies when we hold your little b@by feet to the fire. And Congress will learn that soon enough.

            [shrugs]

            1. 7.1.1.1.1.1

              I am not the one pretending.

              (There’s that infamous Accuse Others in action yet again)

        2. 7.1.1.2

          ” Iancu isn’t going to grant you a claim to a method of applying logic to data absent the recitation of some sort of “processor.””

          Processor? Processor? Wedonneenostinkin processor

          1. A method of processing broadcast data in a broadcast receiver, the method comprising:
          receiving a broadcast signal being generated by
          first encoding service data to add parity data,
          second encoding the first-encoded service data at a code rate,
          first interleaving the second encoded service data,
          second interleaving the first interleaved service data,
          encoding signaling data for signaling the service data,
          interleaving a part of the encoded signaling data, wherein positions of data in a fore part of the encoded signaling data are maintained and positions of data in a rear part of the encoded signaling data are changed, and
          building a frame including a first region and a second region, wherein the first region of the frame begins with a synchronization symbol and the second region of the frame includes the second-interleaved service data;
          demodulating data of the frame in the received broadcast signal;
          decoding the encoded signaling data in the demodulated data; and
          decoding the second encoded service data in the demodulated data.

          US10244274B2

          Issued March 26, 2019

        3. 7.1.1.3

          “Iancu isn’t going to grant you a claim to a method of applying logic to data absent the recitation of some sort of “processor.””

          Processor? Processor? Wedonneenostinkin processor”

          1. A method for dequantization and inverse transformation, said method comprising:
          (a) receiving a matrix of quantized coefficient levels;
          (b) receiving at least one quantization parameter (QP);
          (c) determining a reconstructed transform coefficient (RTC) matrix wherein each value in said quantized coefficient level matrix is scaled by a value in a scaling matrix which is dependent on QP % P, where P is a constant value;
          (d) computing scaled reconstructed samples (SRS) by performing an inverse transformation on said RTC matrix values; and
          (e) computing reconstructed samples, by normalizing the SRS values.

          USRE47258E1

          RE-Issued February 26, 2019

    2. 7.2

      “designed exactly for that purpose.”

      OMG really?!, Still?

      The machines are designed to be reconfigurable.

      They are not designed for the exact purpose of transcribing audio signals to text. They are not designed for the exact purpose of reading NMR results to detect tumors. They are not designed for the exact purpose of diagnosing illnesses. Each of those requires that your prior art machine be modified/combined with new components.

      Capice?

      1. 7.2.1

        He purposefully will NOT understand, Les.

        To do so means that he would have to give up his House/Morse “but all future improvements by way of the ‘ware’ design choice of software are somehow magically ‘already in there’ ! ”

        In other words, he would have to be inte11ectually honest. To do so, he would have to also LOSE his number one whining topic.

  16. 6

    I wonder if there is a reason why they put Bob Armitage on Day 1, when all of the other pharma people are going on Day 2?

    1. 6.1

      I hear when you get a bunch of pharma patent people in the room, the price of every prescription goes up $100.

      1. 6.1.1

        But seriously, when are we going to get FDA reform?

        1. 6.1.1.1

          One simple (direct and easily implementable) aspect of reform:

          Require full clarity of pricing mechanisms.

          Heck, this does NOT force or constrain any pricing, but WOULD place in the public eye (and thus open up ALL of Pharma – including the generics) just how much profit (and from which sovereign) Big Pharma is raking in.

          1. 6.1.1.1.1

            Pricing will not show profit. If you want to see profit, read a 10K or the annual disclosures…..

            1. 6.1.1.1.1.1

              pricing mechanism goes well beyond mere pricing.

              Be that as it may, I trust the (large) scope of making information clear is understood (and noting, xtian, that you were opposed to such on that other blog)

        2. 6.1.1.2

          Your guess is as good as mine when FDA reform is going to happen. Not very soon, because no one seems to be clamoring for FDA-law reform. Instead, the relevant relevant advocates all seem bent on changing patent law instead of FDA law. Rather like the proverbial drunk looking for his keys under the streetlight to my mind, but then so much of public policy debates is…

      2. 6.1.2

        Ha!

  17. 5

    Well, this is encouraging. Tangible signs of actual forward movement on statutory reform. Moreover, the witness list that indicates that the Congress really wants to hear from all sides. This will not just be a Potemkin hearing, preliminary to a statutory deformation.

    I am starting to feel really good about the prospects for an improvement in U.S. patent law.

    1. 5.1

      Congress really wants to hear from all sides

      Right. One one side, some thoughtful and articulate people who know that the proposed statute is a pile of cr @p and can explain why in a simple paragraph.

      And on the other side, a pack of b0 tt0m feeding shameless li @rs and hypocrites who will literally do and say anything if it directly benefits their pocketbooks.

      Both sides!

      The important thing is that Greg “The Chicken” DeLassus has given this proceeding his stamp of approval. He’s a very serious person, after all.

      1. 5.1.1

        Your feelings are noted.

    2. 5.2

      “I am starting to feel really good about the prospects for an improvement in U.S. patent law.”

      In what proceeding were claims held invalid for non-statutory subject matter and should not have been? And why? Not a trick question, just curious.

      1. 5.2.1

        Ariosa v. Sequenom. If that is not an eligible invention, there is something badly out of whack with the patent system.

        1. 5.2.1.1

          Greg, it is very weird that you seem to get patents when it has to do with your area, but you want to remove eligibility from information processing patents.

          Ridiculous. You have no principled reason for your positions. Your position is obviously just naked aggression towards one area of patent law to preserve your own area of patent law.

          1. 5.2.1.1.1

            For Greg, I think it to be one a bit less than “Na ked aggression,” and more one of lack of individual rigor, intellectual cowardice, and a clear capture of the Big Pharma mindset. Let’s not forget that Greg has fully owned up to be in the employ of Pharma.

            If one only has a base in Pharma, it is difficult (especially if one is inte11ectually weak-willed) to escape some bizarre twists when it comes to innovation protection (as can easily be seen by the pervasive Big Business model that largely controls the Pharma world).

            1. 5.2.1.1.1.1

              …other examples that come to mind include that if one is immersed in Big Pharma, one is more likely to accept a “Sport of Kings” mindset, as well as accept – let alone promote – an asinine “make Jepson claim format mandatory” view. Also, from that Big Business influenced silo comes the notion that very limited “picture claims” (notably those with tight “objective physical structure” claims are more than enough to provide “adequate” patent protection.

              There is also a mental bias against other forms of innovation that are deigned to come “too easily” (based in part that the level of schooling for bio and Pharma is typically higher). There is an unhealthy level of “God-complex” afflicted individuals in that art sector. In this sense, “lack of inte11ectual rigor” means lack of critical reasoning outside of the narrow but over-hyped Technical Art slice to which long years of rigor may well have been applied. Many in that sector have become “too smart” in a very narrow manner, and think (egregiously) that their applied intelligence in that narrow sector somehow naturally carries over to any other topic that they have feelings about. They tend to lack the ability to actually employ critical thinking outside of that very narrow art field scope.

              1. 5.2.1.1.1.1.1

                Greg definitely does not have a consistent intellectual framework for analyzing patentability and inventions.

            2. 5.2.1.1.1.2

              From what I can tell, there are those that are saying dump all the other patents and we will let you keep the pharma patents. The pharma people seem quite happy to throw us under the bus.

              1. 5.2.1.1.1.2.1

                I am sure that such people do exist, but I earnestly assure you that I am not one of them. I am just as much disgusted with Alice as you are, and just as eager to see it overturned.

                1. … just as much disgusted with Alice as you are, and just as eager to see it overturned…

                  … and Flook, and Benson.

          2. 5.2.1.1.2

            I do not know where you get the idea that I want to disqualify software patents on eligibility grounds. My position is quite the opposite.

            I think that many issued software patent claims deserve to be tanked on §112 grounds. My position on §101 eligibility, however, is definitely in favor of software eligibility.

            If I did not name a software case in answer to Pain’s question, that is merely a coincidence—not an indication of hostility to software claims.

            1. 5.2.1.1.2.1

              Your hostility manifests in many other ways, Greg.

              See my post above (if you have the fortitude to do so).

          3. 5.2.1.1.3

            “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it”

            1. 5.2.1.1.3.1

              Ouch! I plead innocent here. If I get something wrong on these boards, I assure you that it is because I am not clever enough to understand rightly, not because I am willfully refusing to understand.

              1. 5.2.1.1.3.1.1

                Your “assurances” ring hollow.

              2. 5.2.1.1.3.1.2

                I wasn’t refering to you and I think your good faith is clear.

                1. “Good faith” does not exist just because you think that his view MAY align with your anti-patent stance, Ben.

                  Maybe you should man up and not be so “cryptic” with your insults.

                2. Specifically, Ben, see posts 5.2.1.1.1 and 5.2.1.1.1.1.

                  Any sense from you regarding “good faith” while IGNORING clear signs of a lack of good faith greatly reduce the viability of your assertion.

                  This is why you appear to be “glad-handling” Greg (and engaging in your typical “upvote because you agree” LACK of critical thinking mode).

                3. Ben you have the stench of arrogance with you from the PTO post KSR and Alice. The fact finder has become a little king or queen. We have to deal with your egos to represent our clients. Really difficult putting up with egomaniacs like you in your little ponds and your delusions of rationality.

                  The stench will be with you for the rest of your life Ben.

                4. The funny thing about Ben is that on top of the fact that he really does not “identify” just whom he think his phrase applies to (even as he responds directly to a post by Greg, but then says that he is not talking about Greg), is that that phase can equally well be turned against patent examiners who view their own job as one of merely making rejections (and NOT wanting to understand why their rejections are bogus and should not be made).

                  Granted, I do not recall having an examiner named “Ben” (if that be his real name), but I have had TONS of examiners who fit the phrase that Ben wields.

                5. “(even as he responds directly to a post by Greg, but then says that he is not talking about Greg)”

                  FYI: Post X.Y.Z is a response to X.Y So 5.2.1.1.3 is a response to 5.2.1.1. 5.2.1.1 was posted by NW, so my post 5.2.1.1.3 was a direct response to NW.

                6. Ben,

                  You are correct that your post was a response to a post made by Night Writer, so let me clarify: Night Writer’s post was about Greg, and your addition reads as augmenting (and not contradicting) what Night Writer was saying about Greg.

                  There be the inherent ambiguity in a post that provides merely a quotation without explanation.

                  You may have had something else in mind, but the natural read of your post was to take your comment to be about Greg.

                  It is beyond clear that Greg’s biases taint his posts, and THAT what was what the discussion was about.

  18. 4

    The Honorable Paul R. Michel; The Honorable David J. Kappos

    Oh, cripes almight, spare us the “honorable” nonsense when it comes to these two mindless shills whose collective “insights” into subject matter eligibility could fit into a f king thimble.

    1. 4.1

      Are you really an attorney?

      Or do your feelings simply overwhelm reason for you?

      Quite clearly, the titles are “positional” rather than “personal.”

      That you are unable to control your feelings and are compelled to insult in this manner is so very Trump of you.

      It is actually hilarious that you seem unable to muster any level of self control in regards to this topic of patent law that you lash out at any and everyone that does not fit into your own single bucket.

      It is also a clear sign of your deep cognitive dissonance that THAT one bucket of yours is anti-patent, as anyone that ever indicates a desire for a strong patent system is castigated by you.

  19. 3

    Does anyone have tickets for Day 1 Panel 3 (Sarnoff v Mossoff)…?

    1. 3.1

      I hear they’re going for $1000 each on eBay.

    2. 3.2

      I’d love to hear Mossoff…

      Tickets? C SPAN not broadcasting?

  20. 2

    Perjury is a crime, of course. I can’t wait for the transcripts.

    “What were the salient facts in Mayo v. Prometheus, Mr. Sauer?”

    LOL

  21. 1

    Wow. It’s like they scraped the bottom of the patent law cess p 00l to find those people. But somehow they missed Bob Sachs and Big Jeans?

    Get out the air freshener.

    Would be soooooooo much fun to ask Derphead Paul M 0-r0n-ville and the rest of those g 0 0ns a few questions under oath …

    1. 1.1

      The Accuse Others Derp dance on display.

      Does “under oath” actually mean anything as applicable to you?

    2. 1.2

      Bob Sachs has a great blog. You are now responsible for promoting it.

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