23 thoughts on “IPWatchdog turns 20

  1. 4

    Gene is the last bulkhead against the complete collapse of the patent system. He is also a good and honorable man that is a straight shooter. No hidden agendas. Puts it all out front.

    1. 4.1

      The “utterly slanted” comment below is utterly ridiculous, as the blog routinely entertains guest posts across the spectrum of patent views.

      Where the “that place is slanted” whine comes from is the site’s editorial controls against blight.

      Anyone can have any opinion.

      But you may not continue to express uninformed opinions without regard to informing counterpoints presented to you.

      Those that wish to soapbox without regard to actual law or actual fact OFTEN see their efforts curtailed, and errantly view this as some type of “repression.”

      That those who whine most happen to have an anti-patent viewpoint is not a coincidence.

      Some (hint: Malcolm) insist on whining here, and insert Mr. Quinn (with vehemence) into all manner of “conversations” of which Mr. Quinn is not involved — and based merely on the feelings that Mr. Quinn (and his website) is TOO Pro-Patent.

      1. 4.1.1

        If Big Jeans really is the last bulkhead against the complete collapse of the patent system (LOL) then maybe Bildo and NW should start getting him out for some regular exercise and fresh air.

          1. 4.1.1.1.1

            As amusing as the Beavis nature of Malcolm and Marty — both would rather focus on insults than focus on the actual anti-blight mechanisms in place at that other blog.

    2. 4.2

      Big + 1 Night @ 4. Says. It. All.

  2. 3

    In my opinion, I agree with Mr. Snyder.

  3. 2

    GQ is an extremely abrasive person with a massive written history of high hatting. He works hard and runs a diligent, if utterly slanted, journalistic enterprise.

    1. 2.1

      … and you have NO personal bias since you were not banned because you could not follow the rules against blight…

      Right.

      What is the extreme opposite of “high-hatting?”

    2. 2.2

      Martin, you consistently think that you can advocate for positions that simply are not tenable within a framework of patent law.

      You simply don’t understand how a legal system works. Nor do you understand how to read an opinion issued from a court.

      That is why you get blasted by a lot of lawyers. If you’d stick to what you know–technology–and policy arguments about what you think should be eligible for patentability, then you wouldn’t get it from lawyers.

      1. 2.2.1

        It’s a classic “foot in a world” issue with Marty.

        He believes himself knowledgeable in the technical world (having a foot in that world) and has some (for him, highly disappointing) experience in the legal world, and jumps to presume that he has a foot in both worlds (as does the typical prosecuting patent attorney — not just a litigator who litigates patent matters).

        Sadly though, as I recall, Marty’s foot in the technical world is not that sturdy in and of itself. He is largely driven by emotion, and has fallen in love with his own ideas. Thus he views any critique of those ideas as a personal affront, seeks only to “hear” those things that provide confirmation bias, and is plainly unable and unwilling to recognize the terrain of patent law.

        1. 2.2.1.1

          to clarify: the “as does” comment is that patent attorneys (REAL patent attorneys) WILL typically have a foot in BOTH the world of technology AND the world of law.

      2. 2.2.2

        I’ve run my stuff by dozens of lawyers, probably hundreds on here, and the usual response is “interesting and probably better than what we have now”.

        Sure tubby banned me. He bans anyone off the party line. I’ve been flicked from far better blogs than his, and naturally if I really want a comment on one of his threads its trivial to place one. Go ahead and make the case for what a charmer he is. That will get traction.

        The parent of law is politics, and the major eligibility problems are political, not legal. I’m as well equipped- better equipped probably- than many of the so-called lawyers who post here…if they even are actual lawyers to explicate the political aspects of the problem.

        1. 2.2.2.1

          “to explicate the political aspects of the problem.”

          Which I think is fine. I don’t agree with your positions, but I think it is fine for you to argue policy issues and technical issues. I respect that and think your opinions, although not agreed with, are important and should be considered.

        2. 2.2.2.2

          You entirely miss on why you were banned, Marty.

          Thus, you refuse to understand — quite the common theme for you.

          Reminds me: there is a difference between ig nor ance and stu p1d 1ty, as one can be corrected (yours, Marty, refuses to be corrected)

          1. 2.2.2.2.1

            MS wrote: “Sure tubby banned me. He bans anyone off the party line.”

            I don’t know why MS got banned from GQ’s place and maybe he’s missing the point of his banning, too. I’m not banned, but I seldom bother commenting there (even less than I do here).

            But I do lurk there off/on, and I’ve seen 4 or 5 people banned in what amounts to “real time” (the ban being announced by GQ in the comments) and it seemed to me that simple disagreement with the host’s opinions was enough to turn the trick.

            But as I said, I don’t know what got MS banned.

            1. 2.2.2.2.1.1

              But I also guess there could have been a backstory involved as well; like maybe the banned had been nasty in other, prior convos. I dunno.

            2. 2.2.2.2.1.2

              Mellow I’m banned for pushing the notion that methods that result in information, and nothing but information, should only be patent-eligible under a specific condition.

              But of course you are correct about GQ’s proclivity to ban for mild dissent and thin skin.

              Prof. Crouch on the other hand moderates with an easy hand, so you have actual disagreement and argument rather than a bor ing circle j erk that amounts to a digital patent cargo cult.

              1. 2.2.2.2.1.2.1

                Marty,

                That is not why you were banned.

                As I have stated, you refuse to learn because you have your eyes clenched tight and you refuse to let your opinion become an informed opinion.

                As I recall, you compounded your initial transgressions with violating the posting policy concerning submitting comments with false emails (after having been given notice that that violated the posting rules (and was a source of attempted abuse from Slashdot/TechDirt types).

                Backstory?

                Most definitely. Just don’t expect Marty to fess up to it.

  4. 1

    Clapping sheep. Seems about right.

    1. 1.1

      Maybe if the good professor had stuck with the DISQUS system (and you had not inexplicably upped your “security” level to the absolute max), we would have had a veritable Book of your 0bsess10ns over Quinn.

    2. 1.2

      I know MM. I wonder if that was intentional on the part of the Dennis.

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