Patently-O Bits and Bytes by Juvan Bonni

Recent Headlines in the IP World:

Commentary and Journal Articles:

New Job Postings on Patently-O:

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

  1. 2

    “Nextleaf Solutions Granted U.S. Patent for THC and CBD Oil Processing”

    As time goes on, CBD oil sounds more and more like snake oil … the latest incarnation of DMSO or some such …

    Geeezzz … even my local grocery store has started carrying the stuff (in a “special” locked “display” next to the manager’s deck in the front of the store).

    Anyone here able to vouch for this stuff?

    1. 2.1

      As time goes on?

      Of course CBD is totally bogus for 99% of claimed applications. That’s always going to be the case.

      But eating fish makes you smarter.

  2. 1

    The Journal section features more academic tripe aiming to change views on those “bad” things called patents. In particular, there are heavy thumbs on the scale in the Professor Ouellette and Professor Goold articles that are thinly veiled attacks on a strong patent (along the lines of not wanting both a carrot and stick approach to having a strong patent system.

    Two adages come to mind:

    Necessity is the mother of invention.

    Spare the rod, spoil the child.

    1. 1.1

      Yes. Let’s enforce a strict orthodoxy where we are not allowed to think about any ideas except those approved by the patent maximalist line. Apparently, patent law is not to be the subject of innovation.

      1. 1.1.1


        I “get” the thrust of your comment, but what you
        to recognize is that the direction offered here is NOT an innovation at all, and instead is KNOWN to weaken innovation.

        I suggest that you take up some studying of the history of science, technology and innovation.

        Rather than incriminating yourself with the (attempted) denigration of “patent maximalist,” you would do well to understand why “maximizing” is to be understood as a highly desired state.

      2. 1.1.2

        Apparently, patent law is not to be the subject of innovation.

        I realize that it sounds a bit paradoxical phrase like that, but the above is correct in its straightforward, non-ironic sense. Patent law should not be all that innovative.

        The essential logic of a patent system is that inventors should feel that innovation will be rewarded. Therefore, you want them to be able to infer how the patent system will work ten years out by looking at how it worked ten years ago.

        Naturally, in a common-law system like ours, some number of bad decisions will creep into the jurisprudence over time, and become legacy imperfections. There is a temptation to aim for the perfect by fixing these imperfections, but that temptation should be mostly resisted. Often, the cure is worse than the disease once you start trying to “improve” the workings of the patent system. I suppose that some number of corrections will be unavoidably necessary, but even those should come only at the end of a substantial deliberation (which is why all of these law review articles are good and play an important role in the system, even if most of their suggestions will be ultimately—and rightly—ignored).


          These law review articles are only “good” as an example of what NOT to do.

          Greg, your statement on its face is simply TOO polite and would have been much better if one notes (in suitably critical terms) that the “aim” of these academic “improvements” do NOT align with an improved innovation ecosystem.

          Of course, that is the “PC-disfavored” maximalist viewpoint, which (apparently) is not ‘polite’ to want to have.

Comments are closed.