Patently-O Bits and Bytes by Juvan Bonni

Recent Headlines in the IP World:

Commentary and Journal Articles:

New Job Postings on Patently-O:

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

  1. 1

    It is good to see not so many references to so called law journal articles that are produced by large corporate advocates pretending to be professors where the “articles” are written with no disclosure of their financial interests and no disclosure that they have complied with ethical rules.

    What we know is that many “professors” have become rich by being paid to write articles in law journals. What we know is that many “professors” have huge financial motives to burn the patent system down.

    1. 1.1

      Law professors are getting “rich” by …. writing articles in law journals …?

      Funny stuff.

      Heckuva blog, Dennis! So important that you keep this lizardbrain NW around! A paragon of LOL “civility.”

      1. 1.1.1

        MM, you decided to ignore the recent article about Google paying the “professors” to write articles in compliance with the abstract that Google wrote?


          There is a meaningful difference between getting “paid” and getting “rich.” The clerk who bags my groceries gets “paid,” but no one would say in earnest that he is getting “rich” doing that work.

          Before we can agree that “rich” applies here, one would need to see documentation of the sums involved. Have you such documentation? If not, then “rich” is a bit of unbecoming hyperbole.

          I say this as one who agree with you about the value of requiring conflict of interest disclosures in legal academic publishing. One does no great service to that meritorious position by indulging such hyperbole.



            We know that Lemley, who is perhaps the best known article writer, has made millions from a recent article about his conflicts of interests.

            Additionally, the article disclosed some rather princely sums for a law journal article that I topped $100K for some work.

            Plus, a mere reference to getting “rich” does not detract from the message that many of this group of people is motivated by making money from clients and not scholarly work. And some have gotten rich.


            And don’t encourage the likes of MM. He is taking a single word and trying to discredit the entire post. Typical tr ol l behavior in that rather than trying to have an intellectually honest discussion, he wants to nit pick.

            You are little better in this case Greg. As we know that some have gotten rich and we know that many have sought money over scholarship and that most of that money is dark money.

            We don’t really know the extent to which some of these “professors” have been paid off or for that matter the universities that are backing them.

            But given how difficult it was to get what we have and from all the indications of the intentions of the parties involved, we can assume there has been a lot more money changing hands from SV to academia to make sure the academic world puts out the SV view of the world.


              Honestly, it is never worth your while to take notice of MM’s dross. Just ignore it. When was the last time he wrote something that you found to have been worth your trouble of reading?


                “When was the last time he wrote something that you found to have been worth your trouble of reading?”

                Your question presumes an initial instance.

                1. Too funny, Ben. Acting as if in the days of DISQUS, you did not ‘upvote’ most everything that Malcolm posted with comments such as the one does not hide the alignment of your views.


              Greg (as typical) ignores a sizable problem with his advice of “just ignore it” because (sadly) there are plenty of people who at any instant would “upvote” what Malcolm writes (Our examiner friend Ben being a prime examiner).

              When such tripe is routinely NOT countered, there are (unfortunately) plenty of dullards who take the lack of the item being countered as a sign of validation.

              This too feeds the old saw on propaganda:

              Repeat a
              often enough, and it garners the semblance of truth.

              Greg’s penchant for living in a bubble also derives from his own inabilities to hold sway with his legal views. Somewhat recently, older threads were linked to and showed a time that Greg engaged somewhat. The topic of the engagement was exhaustion, and Greg’s views were being ripped to shreds by yours truly.

              Greg advances (under his incorrect portrayals) that such interactions can bring no merit, while the truth of the matter is that such interactions showed that Greg’s positions had no merit.

              Now, I am not saying that Greg’s interactions with Malcolm also wrecked Greg’s viewpoints, but any ‘noble’ reasoning being given by Greg for lack of interaction MUST be taken with a rather large grain of salt.


            “There is a meaningful difference between getting “paid” and getting “rich.” ”

            If you don’t think they’re getting paid handsomely for that kind of work I’ve got a bridge to sell you muh bro.


              [T]hey’re getting paid handsomely for that kind of work…

              Possibly. I have no priors on this question. I am equally willing to believe that Google pays lavishly, and that Google pays pittances (to people who would have been willing to write the piece anyway, even for no remuneration). I, however, have no info one way on the point, and (as Wittgenstein advised us) “whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.” If you have actual data, I would be obliged to you for sharing them.


                … and yet you were not actually silent (and appear to want 6 to share something that would ‘atone’ for your own lack of silence.

                I chuckle as a I bet that Greg does not even ‘get’ his own hypocrisy nor the fact that he just appears to be a douche by quoting Wittgenstein — while not actually following that quote.


          you decided to ignore the recent article about Google paying the “professors” to write articles in compliance with the abstract that Google wrote?

          Compare as well how dismissive Malcolm was of the fact of the record number of content-undocumented meetings between former top USPTO meetings and the large, well-monied, established, SV-types (especially after Kappos and before Iancu).

          Inconvenient facts — another thing that really should not be ignored.

Comments are closed.