by Dennis Crouch
Here is a rundown of what’s happening with US Supreme Court cases:
Decided: The court recently decided Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., holding that Google’s use of Oracle’s Java API was a fair use and therefore not copyright infringement. The court made no determination as to whether the API was actually copyrightable in the first place. The case does not expressly decide any patent law issues, but does provide some guidance as to how courts should approach mixed questions of law and fact (such as claim construction) and the right to a jury trial. The jury trial issue was interesting. Although a number of juries were given fair use questions pre-1791, the court held that our current version of fair use claims its ancestry from the equity rather than common law. Thus, no right to a jury trial on the question of fair use under the Seventh Amendment. “In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved.”
Argued: On March 1, 2021, the court heard oral arguments in US v. Arthrex regarding it is proper for the Secretary of Commerce to appoint the PTAB judges as inferior officers of the United States. Or, instead, are they principal officers of the United States that must be appointed by the US President and confirmed by the Senate (as we do with Article III judges). Nobody likes the Federal Circuit’s decision, and the question really is which way it should fall. (My guess is that these judges will be seen as inferior officers). I expect that part of the majority decision (whichever way it goes) will involve interpreting the role and involvement of the PTO Director in PTAB decisions. An inferior officer decision will interpret the statute as providing the PTO director with substantial authority; a principal officer decision will downplay the role of the PTO director. Decision should be released by Mid-June 2021.
Argument Pending: One final case is set to be argued this term: Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., focusing on the issue of assignor estoppel. Can a prior owner of a patent right (such as an inventor) who transfers title to another (typically the employer) later assert in court that the patent is invalid? In this case, the employee started his own competing company and was sued for patent infringement. The lower court barred an invalidity defense. Now the question presented:
Whether a defendant in a patent infringement action who assigned the patent, or is in privity with an assignor of the patent, may have a defense of invalidity heard on the merits.
Oral arguments are set for April 21, 2021 with a decision by Mid-June 2021.
Other pending petitions:
Arthrex Issues: There are a large set of pending petitions awaiting the outcome of Arthrex. Some of these raise interesting additional issues, but most of them are pure follow-on cases : Iancu v. Luoma, et al., No. 20-74; Polaris Innovations Limited v. Kingston Technology Company, Inc., et al., No. 19-1459; Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Promptu Systems Corporation, et al., No. 20-92; Vilox Technologies, LLC v. Iancu, No. 20-271; Rovi Guides, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, et al., No. 20-414; RPM International Inc., et al. v. Stuart, No. 20-314; Fredman Bros. Furniture Company, Inc. v. Bedgear, LLC, No. 20-408; Micron Technology, Inc. v. North Star Innovations, Inc., No. 20-679; Iancu v. Fall Line Patents, LLC, et al., No. 20-853; Immunex Corporation v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, et al., No. 20-1285; Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Promptu Systems Corporation, No. 20-1220; Wi-LAN, Inc., et al. v. Hirshfeld, No. 20-1261
Patent Eligibility: Of the pending eligibility cases, I find American Axle and Ariosa the most interesting: American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, et al., No. 20-891; NetSoc, LLC v. Match Group, LLC, et al., No. 20-1412; NetScout Systems, Inc. v. Packet Intelligence LLC, No. 20-1289; Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., et al. v. Illumina, Inc., et al., No. 20-892.
Inventorship & Ownership: Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., et al. v. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Inc., No. 20-1258; In re Martillo, No. 20-1126 (suit to quiet title).
Obviousness: Amarin Pharma, Inc., et al. v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., et al., No. 20-1119 (secondary indicia); Sandoz Inc., et al. v. Immunex Corporation, et al., No. 20-1110 (obviousness type double patenting).
Willful Infringement: NetScout Systems, Inc. v. Packet Intelligence LLC, No. 20-1289 (this case also raises an eligibility question).
Procedure: Ericsson Inc., et al. v. TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited, et al., No. 20-1130 (is pre-trial denial of summary judgment appealable absent post-trial JMOL); Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., et al. v. Rick C. Sasso, No. 20-1284 (abstaining in favor of state court jurisdiction); PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC v. Patreon, Inc., et al., No. 20-1394 (preclusion under the Kessler doctrine); Tormasi v. Western Digital Corp., No. 20-1396 (does a convicted state inmate have standing to sue for patent infringement).
Retroactive Application of IPRs: Security People, Inc. v. Hirshfeld, No. 20-1380.
Attorney Fees: Roadie, Inc. v. Baggage Airline Guest Services, Inc., No. 20-1420; WPEM, LLC v. SOTI Inc., No. 20-1291.
Antitrust: Abbvie Inc v. FTC (standard for showing objectively baseless “sham litigation” exception to Noerr-Pennington immunity).
Before Arthrex there was a lot of talk about fixing 101-eligibility doctrine legislatively. I have always been skeptical, but since people are talking about court packing to change SCOTUS’ behavior, I have to wonder whether the 2nd Amendment can be unincorporated legislatively. I don’t understand the 14th Amendment argument for the incorporation of the 2nd Amendment. The country would be a lot happier if each state could for itself decide about the right to bear arms.
“the right to bear arms”
Some arms are best not bared. Regardless of state.
(Hey — cut me some slack . . . it is the weekend, after all; right? :-)
How about the right to bare nostrils and mouth?
… or the right to not be fettered by fear?
OT, but relevant re some prior blog comments and inventor confusion:
“The .. Federal Circuit on Friday reversed a win for General Electric Co before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that had invalidated parts of a Raytheon Technologies Corp patent covering an airplane engine. A three-judge panel reversed the PTAB’s ruling that a theoretical engine described in a NASA publication made Raytheon’s invention obvious because the publication didn’t enable an ordinary artisan to make the invention.”
Thanks Paul.
See link to cafc.uscourts.gov
Before LOURIE, CHEN, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
CHEN, Circuit Judge.
“We have also previously expounded the principle that if an obviousness case is based on a non-self- enabled reference, and no other prior art reference or evidence would have enabled a skilled artisan to make the claimed invention, then the invention cannot be said to have been obvious.”
The fiction part of science fiction — for the date of the reference is (and always is)….
…fiction.
If you want to rely on something “fiction,” you have to have something real to have a proper nonfiction reference — for patent purposes.
Not sure why this has ever been a difficult concept to grasp.
A good reason the question of enablement re 103 [versus 102] prior art is confusing is demonstrated from the following additional language in this very same decision: “In general, a prior art reference asserted under § 103 does not necessarily have to enable its own disclosure, i.e., be “self-enabling,” to be relevant to the obviousness inquiry. See Symbol Techs., Inc. v. Opticon, Inc., 935 F.2d 1569, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“While a reference must enable someone to practice the invention in order to anticipate under § 102(b), a non enabling reference may qualify as prior art for the purpose of determining obviousness under § 103.”); Beckman Instruments Inc. v. LKB Produkter AB, 892 F.2d 1547, 1551 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“Even if a reference discloses an inoperative device, it is prior art for all that it teaches.”). For example, a reference that does not provide an enabling disclosure for a particular claim limitation may nonetheless furnish the motivation to combine, and be combined with, another reference in which that limitation is enabled. See Apple Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 725 F.3d 1356, 1365–66 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Alternatively, such a reference may be used to supply claim elements enabled by other prior art or evidence of record. See Comcast Cable Commc’ns Corp. v. Finisar Corp., 571 F. Supp. 2d 1137, 1145 (N.D. Cal. 2008), aff’d sub nom. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC v. Finisar Corp., 319 F. App’x 916 (Fed. Cir. 2009).”
Seems like this would mostly be a non-issue.
If I publish a paper saying “If we could make an engine with 85% efficiency, we could have a car that achieves 60 mpg.” At the time, engines could only reach 70% efficiency, so my paper is non-enabled.
One year after that, someone invents an engine that achieves 90% efficiency.
One year after that, you try to patent a car achieving 60 mpg. You try to argue my paper wasnt enabled. Which it wasnt, at the time of filing, but it became enabled once someone invented the engine.
Unless the person that invented the engine is the same person that tried to patent the car, then this wont ever apply. And if it is the same person, they would do better just to patent the engine itself.
I happily read along, ks, with your hypothetical fact matrix about disclosures both enabling and non-enabling, and the legal conclusion drawn, but wonder why so many in the USA make such a meal out of a very simple but crucial difference between 102 and 103.
For 102, the document asserted as novelty-destroying (call it D1) has to do the job on its own: no mosaicing allowed. And as of its publication date it has to enable what it discloses.
For 103, we consider D1 aa of the date of the claim under attack. We ask (or should ask) on behalf of the PHOSITA at that later date seeking to put into effect what D1 discloses, is D1 enabling?
It is not at all unusual or curious, given the relentless and rapid advance of science and technology, that a percipient disclosure, non-enabled on its publication date, later becomes sufficient to enable what it discloses. But it is not self-evident. The fact that the intervening advance of science and technology has enabled what D1 discloses has to be proven. By evidence.
Whereas, in this case, GE adduced no such evidence, choosing instead to rely on D1 alone. This suggests to me that under 103, GE’s case was a losing one, so its only hope was to prevail under 102.
MaxDrei, this statement of yours, “ non-enabled on its publication date, later becomes sufficient to enable what it discloses. ”
is pure bunk.
Fiction cannot be later enabled and have the date of the Fiction itself.
“Fiction cannot be later enabled and have the date of the Fiction itself.”
Indeed, were it otherwise, an untold number of breakthrough inventions including the laser (ala’ e.g., dawn-of-the-written-word fictional “death rays”), MRI, RFID; even space ships and the airplane; would never be protectible.
ksksksks,
You (again?) are missing the point.
The desire to use the earlier date of the fictional component of science fiction will — and must — fail.
A later item cannot “enable” an earlier fiction. The date that will play out will be the date of the later enabling item.
Anon,
You (again?) are failing to read, both my and MaxDrei’s post
the question isnt whether the fiction was enabled as of publication date of the fiction. The question is whether the fiction was enabled as of filing of the later patent application.
Again, if I say ‘If we can make an 80% efficient engine, then we can build a car that achieves 60mpg using the design described herein.”
Then a year later someone makes an 80% efficient engine, my original publication has become enabled. It has become enabled a year after its publication date.
If you, two years after that, try to file a patent for a car achieving 60mpg, then there is no enablement issue. Whether it was enabled three years ago or two years ago doesnt matter. It was enabled before you filed your patent.
In the meantime, I have read the Decision and see that it is concerned exclusively with 103 and not at all with 102.
So, there is no need for me to burden you with my pet issue: which of two possible dates (the date of its publication or the date of the claim) the D1 disclosure has to be enabling.
Rather, for 103, the relevant date for satisfying any requirement for an enabling disclosure is the day before the date of the claim.
“Rather, for 103, the relevant date for satisfying any requirement for an enabling disclosure is the day before the date of the claim.”
Simply NOT a complete statement – either of itself or of the issue at point.
EVERYONE already knows that the date of the item being examined is ONE of the two dates being compared.
The ISSUE is whether or not (hint; the answer is no) that the date of the FICTION item can attach to the analysis (as of the date of that fiction item) for the element being proffered.
This is the ‘notion’ that some later (perhaps intermittent, perhaps not) item that DOES ‘turn FICTION into nonfiction’ can somehow ‘magically’ make the date of the fiction item to be controlling — the notion of ‘later enabling of an earlier reference date.
It has always been my clear and unequivocal position that any such attempt is pure bollocks.
Not so, ksksksks – I am well aware that ONE of the dates in question is the filing date of the material being examined.
The point though is NOT that date.
The point is what is the date of the pure fiction component of science fiction.
You err in your emphasis here.
By the time the application by examined is filed, there is no pure fiction component of the science fiction. thats the point.
Sorry, but you STILL miss the point, ksksksks.
It is NOT whether at a later time – it IS what actual critical dates are afforded each of the asserted items.
Fiction – as of its date – will ALWAYS BE fiction as of THAT date.
Based on several recent Sup. Ct. decisions on other subjects, no significant changes in patent law are likely unless infringers start asserting religious freedom to do do.
oops, “do so.”
Y
A
W
N
Nice virtue signaling Paul.
Coming from an Efficient Infringer cheerleader, your “religious” concern falls more than a little flat here.
Better luck on other forums.
Anon, I’m not sure how you could have missed that being a joke unless you missed all the recent legal and media commentaries on the current Sup. Ct. emphasis on religious freedom issues, especially as overcoming Covid-19 or other such restrictions or requirements? [Obviously far more of interest to them than patent issues.]
I do not find ANY of the Liberal Left PC movement funny.
What exactly was the point of your ‘joke?’
I am a subject of this blogpost instead of merely a commentator. I would rather have an issued patent in my hands.
What is the application number?
The original patent application filed Oct 8, 1991 is 07/773,161.
You can find a continuation at the following URL.
link to patents.google.com
I don’t know. I’d have to take a closer look at this to understand what happened.
This issue of quieting/trying title is explained in the petition. I don’t believe it is hard to understand.
link to supremecourt.gov
I petitioned because Massachusetts courts assert that ownership of a Massachusetts patent application is a matter of substantive patent law, and as far as I know, the assertion is not true.
The position of the Mass Trial and Appeal Courts was not expressed clearly because they were trying to dismiss the action peremptorily.
I think they were assuming Gunn v Minton did not apply because the controversy of Gunn v Minton was legal malpractice while to the Massachusetts courts ownership of a patent application must belong to substantive patent law, and the trial judge asserted during the evidentiary hearing that 35 U.S. Code § 261 (Ownership; assignment) proved:
1) that the case was in the wrong court and
2) that I was trying to get a second bite from the apple.
The SAWS insanity is a separate issue. There is much complexity associated with the fake prosecution. SAWS and fake prosecution is not an issue about which I am petitioning SCOTUS for writ of certiorari.
You can find out about the SAWS insanity in the appendix of the document below. I describe the fake prosecution in detail on pages 8-26.
link to drive.google.com
In the petition for writ of certiorari, I suggest that a senior official at the USPTO may have been shaking down a corporation that would infringe if the patent were issued.
[Something of that nature seems to have been happening, but I can think of other ways to make money corruptly at the USPTO.]
Otherwise, why allow me and my erstwhile partner to revive the abandoned patent application only to challenge title in the DCEDVA during the 35 U.S. Code § 145 lawsuit?
You guys probably believe most USPTO senior officials are honest. I don’t. I have an uncle, who became rich while he was a senior IRS official. An honest IRS official does not become rich by working at the IRS. Uncle Nat’s son-in-law worked as an SPE at the USPTO before he went to work in the legal department for AT&T Bell Labs. When Pat explained the USPTO organization to Nat, Nat told us
1) that he had worked at the wrong agency and
2) that he would have become so much richer if he had worked at the USPTO.
SAWS is real. I had an application that came under that program. Marked never allow.
Yup. The whole federal government is corrupt. There is no doubt about it. I could tell you lots and lots of stories. I’ve never ran into it directly at the PTO.
LOL – and don’t you just love the attempt by Ben to play the “That’s a Conspiracy Theory” shame game for anyone that dares mention SAWs?
As I have pointed out many times now, when the Office finally fessed up to the existence of SAWs and ‘retired’ the program, they made an oopsie statement that SAWs was but one of many such shadow programs (in clear violation of 37 CFR 1.2).
Joachim,
Ownership is not substantive patent law.
It is not entirely clear that you are recognizing this.
I told 6 Massachusetts judges during hearings and with filings that ownership and title issues for a patent or for a patent application are not matters of substantive law. Only one of the six paid any attention to me and seems to have actually read Gunn v. Minton with comprehension.
I never spoke with any of the appellate judges. I did speak with the trail court judge. He never seems to gotten past the distinction between litigation of alleged legal malpractice in a federal patent case and an action to try/quiet title to patent application. In his mind there was no patent law in the former case, but he assumed that the existence of 35 U.S. Code § 261 (Ownership; assignment) meant that an action to try/quiet title to a patent application must take place in federal court.
I pointed out that that § 261 merely created a federal registry for state intellectual property
1) that has attributes of personal property (like a car) because it makes no sense to have 50+ registries for intellectual property (even if state registries for an auto vehicle causes no problems),
2) that the rule associated with transfers of IP title was more or less the same as the rule associated with transfers of RE or of auto title, and
3) that the statute does not enable a federal court action to try/quiet title to either a patent or a patent application, either of which remains registered state property even if the registry is federal.
Maybe there was a more effective way to explain, but it seemed to me that the Massachusetts trial court judge was unwilling to pay attention to me because I was a pro se litigant.
Excellent update Joachim – and best wishes on a successful journey.
I actually meant the prosecution of your patent application, which looks a bit too complex to figure out in a half an hour.
I thought you meant the patent application prosecution, and — yes — it is much too complex to comprehend in a half an hour.
The prosecution is not an issue in the petition to SCOTUS for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.
It would take me more than casual blog time to look at that order.
Isn’t the whole family abandoned anyway?
If I can quiet title, I will petition for revival of the ‘161 Application once again. I already revived it once. The basis for revival would be exactly the same. If a new petition for revival is rejected, it would be arbitrary and capricious under the APA. The application is pre-GATT. The first time I petitioned for revival from unavoidable abandonment.
The USPTO agreed to revival from inadvertent abandonment with 2.5 years of term. By its inequitable actions, the USPTO has proven that I was correct originally to seek revival from unavoidable abandonment.
Discussing my strategy is counting the chickens before they are hatched, but I am perfectly willing to litigate each issue to SCOTUS. I have good reason to go to law school.
I think that Night Writer’s point (he can correct me if I am off), is whether or not your cause of action is itself justifiable.
You seem to have a “case within a case” issue with any aspect of “receiving justice” in a first case having a questionable dependency of “receiving justice” in a second case — and you may not have an actual cause of action (to which resolution of the court in one or the other – for that case) would permit the court to entertain your action.
Interesting…
Be better off finding a good litigator as it takes many years to become an expert.
Apologies – justiciability was the word I had meant to use,
The value of a patent application comes from its possibility of issuing. Even though the ‘161 Application is in abandoned state, it can still issue because it can be revived just as it has already been revived once before. Because it is pre-GATT, it can issue with full term.
If SCOTUS denies cert because the ‘161 Application is abandoned, SCOTUS would be handing the USPTO another mechanism of corruption. If the USPTO does not want to issue a patent, it just challenges the original assignment and the patent application goes abandoned while the owner spends years in quieting title.
I have spent 6 years so far in trying to quiet title, and I have yet to get a Massachusetts Court to acknowledge it has jurisdiction. If SCOTUS agrees with me, I may have a year in state litigation before responding to the 1993 office action and petitioning for revival. The USPTO is not likely to grant the petition without some APA litigation. I may have another 10 years or more of work before the patent issues.
Even if the ‘161 Application were a post-GATT patent, there might be value in quieting title to an abandoned ‘161 Application because an issued patent would be eligible for patent term adjustment.
The error of the Massachusetts court comes
a) from denying its jurisdiction over ownership
1) of a patent or
2) of a patent application and
b) from asserting that issue preclusion exists.
I don’t even see how the issue of abandonment comes up.
There is no opposing party. I suppose that if SCOTUS orders the Massachusetts Courts to hold a quiet/try title proceeding, the Massachusetts Court could invite the USPTO direct to become an intervenor/guardian ad litem (???). I doubt the Massachusetts Court would not be able to dismiss on the basis of an abandonment argument.
I meant USPTO director and not USPTO direct.
Too many typos.
I doubt the Massachusetts Court WOULD BE able to dismiss on the basis of an abandonment argument.
You bros ready for another lotta SC justices added on?
Also anon did you check out the PRO Act? Has some things in there to boost the power of unions, not sure if it would affect federal unions tho.
No, but I’m braced for plenty of fear mongering regarding it.
You see Ben? It’s comments like these that paint you as fair target for Night Writer’s tarring you with the Neo-Marxist brush.
You seem to want to dismiss ANY ill-effects of wreaking havoc and making the Supreme Court a full-on political football (a la Venezuela Chavez debacle).
When you have perhaps the most Left Liberal Justice on the Bench coming out and warning against packing the Court, do you really want to play your “It’s a Conspiracy” shaming card?
Night Writer,
It’s this type of pure amateurism from Ben that makes me think that no one in their right mind would be paying him as a paid blogger.
I don’t know anon. Maybe but seems like the type of antagonizing and disruption that the anti-patent people like.
It is not me, by the way, the intellectuals are the ones that are saying the cancel-culture left are neo-Marxists whom we should be very, very afraid of. You will be hearing a lot more about neo-Marxists.
The Chinese are moving to a society that fulfills 1984 where there is total monitoring of each person’s behavior and there is a file on everyone. Your rights in China are now tied to the evaluation of your behavior. Russia is actually doing something similar.
Biden is moving in this direction or his handlers are. Anyone that isn’t a neo-Marxist should be afraid.
“The Chinese are moving to a society that fulfills 1984 where there is total monitoring of each person’s behavior and there is a file on everyone. Your rights in China are now tied to the evaluation of your behavior. Russia is actually doing something similar.”
Every leftist’s dream come true. Didn’t hear about the rusky doin’s just yet on this front yet though. I’m surprised they have the $$$ for it. They’re rumored to be so corrupt I’m not even sure what the point to the system would be other than to have the corrupt people have even more control.
“Leftie” and “corrupt” are not mutually exclusive sets, 6.
“and making the Supreme Court a full-on political football”
Well to be fair they’re worried about that football being in the other team’s hands for the rest of their natural born life, or at least 25 years, statistically speaking.
The football adage, 6, is that the D are losing, so instead of 11 on 11, they want to add four players in their side and play 15-11.
(It’s not a perfect analogy, but the gist is that since the D’s are in power, they want absolute power — and control over the third branch has been deemed necessary to that absolute power)
I don’t know 6. Seems unlikely that the Ds would actually change the Scotus to 13. Their biggest problem is in the Senate where some D senators have already said they don’t like the idea and they would need every non-R senator.
So seems unlikely, but shocking that the Ds would propose this. I am actually a liberal D but want to distance myself from the neo-Marxists that have taken over the D party.
My biggest problem with that is happening now is the amount of debt that is being taken on. It is ridiculous.
Today, no one understands at all what Marxist socialism is.
Marx: “ce qu’il y a de certain c’est que moi, je ne suis pas marxiste.”
I have given up suggesting to patent professionals that they should read Kant to understand what the Framers of the Constitution meant with the Patent and Copyright Clause.
Senator Tillis liked my first essay entitled: Preface: Fixing § 101 Requires Fixing § 100.
Senator Tillis also considered the following essay to be helpful:
Fixing the US Patent System (Part I): Title 35 Changes.
I did not bother the send him the third essay. It seems that legislatively healing the patent system is unlikely at this point.
The real scary thing is China and Russia monitoring what everyone does like in the book 1984. The difference is that China and Russia also have a system of rating people that determines what rights they have such as schools they can attend, jobs they qualify for, and so forth.
It is easy to image how once you fall into the black hole of being monitored that you could never break free of that black hole.
Biden is definitely a neo-Marxist and is advocating for more and more monitoring and the big tech companies are onboard because it means they can continue to be monopolies.
And China is the biggest exporter of technology to control your population. It is very easy to see how the entire world could fall into the black hole. The CRT people are squarely neo-Marxists using race and gender to cease control.
We’ll have to see what the reactions are to the Rs launching their own Twitter/Facebook, and so forth. If somehow the R sites are shutdown for some reason, then we should all be very, very afraid.
The funny thing is that I am liberal D and align with most of the liberal D policies. But CRT is neo-Marxists. I like many white males have spent my life trying to change the USA to provide equal opportunities to everyone. I’ve taken a lot of hits in my life standing up for black people and hiring black people when it wasn’t popular 40 years ago.
And we made incredible progress (!) with things like black people now making up their population share or more of the Scotus, the Congress, and the Executive Branch. But somehow there are these wild claims that racism and opportunity is worse than it was 60 years ago, which it is not.
And yes all this is related to patents as it does go to personal liberty and protecting your intellectual freedom and property.
The reality is that the patent system is under attack from neo-Marxists (Lemley and such) and the giant SV corporations.
Absolutely — and in perfect alignment with my characterizations of the patent system being attacked on multiple fronts (“no personal property is good” AND “disruptive personal property of others is bad”)
“I like many white males have spent my life trying to change the USA to provide equal opportunities to everyone. ”
Right, but under an overall system that “perpetuates white priv/money/power”. As we’ve clearly seen from the last 30ish+ years.
The people you’re trying to help have “equal opportunities” want some tasty tasty “equal” (or at this point “better”) OUTCOMES (as well as “social equality” which isn’t even on the menu at this point tbh as far as I can see, but is a totally other discussion), which are what was supposedly supposed to flow from the “muh equal opportunity” in your original proposal to provide equal “opportunity” 40+ years ago. But of course the equal or better outcomes don’t tend to actually happen for a variety of reasons (reasons which leftists are willing to attribute to your inherent tendency towards what they regard as white supremacy broadly defined beyond the white supre macist ter rorism explicit opp ression of yesteryear).
So the real question is, did you ever actually want those equal opportunities to lead to equal OUTCOMES, or was it all just a massive virtue signal/virtue project mainly for white people like yourself to do the right thing/be seen doing the right thing (or were you perhaps deceived for 40 years)? For my part, I will admit that I spent quite a few years just trying to do the right thing. Thinking that “equal opportunity” would likely lead to more or less, or at least moreso, “equal outcome”. And I was somewhat deceived (perhaps not intentionally) that such efforts would actually help “equality” in general. That was all fallacious logic for a thousand socio, socio-economic, socio-economic-political-religious-historical etc. etc. reasons.
Be honest NWPA, knowing what you know now after 40+ years of yours and thousands of other’s failure to actually bring black NET WORTH up to around parity with white people (ostensibly one of the major points to your quest for equal opportunity), why do you not join the leftist cause? Obviously other than them calling you ra cist in their world view. I’m not trying to be mean or play gotcha here, why not join their cause? Did you never want equal outcomes in the first place and you were solely dedicated to the equal opportunities? Do you not now? Or do you simply concede to the fact that leftist policies will be a disaster, period? Something else?
6, the Critical Race Theory (CRT) people don’t care about facts or rational thought. And they want to categorize people and then legislate that people get their percentage in each profession.
No I wasn’t doing the right thing when I helped black people. In fact I was told that if I kept hiring minorities that I would be fired. And took so much heat. But I was determined to hire the best qualified person for the job regardless of gender, race, religion, or ethnicity. Took a lot of heat for this.
And, the fact is that in the last 20 years black people have doubled their representation in Congress. The CRT people want to pretend that black people have no power when, in fact, they have an enormous amount of power in the USA.
Etc. Real social scientists will tell you that the problems have to do with how difficult it is to get out of low-income neighborhoods and that white, black, and Hispanic low-income neighborhoods are very similar in the their problems.
I think there is still a lot of racism in the USA but I also think that the target should be to insure equal opportunity and help people based on their situation and not the category.
“No I wasn’t doing the right thing when I helped black people. In fact I was told that if I kept hiring minorities that I would be fired. And took so much heat. But I was determined to hire the best qualified person for the job regardless of gender, race, religion, or ethnicity. Took a lot of heat for this.”
That sounds suspiciously a lot like, in your own mind, you thought that hiring the best person regardless of their ID classification was the “right thing to do”. You really think that hiring the best person for the job, regardless of the ID classification was not you trying to do the right thing? Not trying to be shtty here, just curious. Or did you just never consciously think about this being you, in fact, trying “to do the right thing”?
“And, the fact is that in the last 20 years black people have doubled their representation in Congress. The CRT people want to pretend that black people have no power when, in fact, they have an enormous amount of power in the USA.”
You say that, and I understand what you’re saying. But … there’s a very real real life reason why one of the most popular black congresscritters, Cory Booker, openly acknowledged, not more than 5 years ago, that he was consciously afraid that white people (in congress itself iirc) may just up put him out of congress. That is, as far as I can see, in his mind it seems, and I’m not going to naysay him, his position of power and the power he wields therethrough is not based on his, or black people’s actual power, it’s based on him being given power/a position of power by a white power structure (the federal gubmit). They also had no appreciable say in the creation of the overall government scheme/setup 100+ years ago. And they are still more or less powerless to change the overall power and government structure(s), and will be for the rest of my life, and likely generations after that. After the capital riot/protest/”attack” many more people are hyper aware of where the real power lies, and apparently it’s the ebil whitoids. If 2k (ish) ebil ones and their bros along with them, mostly just jollying around and bsing without trying to take over, can put the whole of the gubmit elite class to the floor, they’re the power, regardless of whether they choose to use it. Note also during the capital goings ons AOC was literally, a po op you not, quaking in fear/afraid of her own security dude. Even with 20k troopers and barbed wire in DC, there’s no assurances, half the troopers outright turned their backs on biden and it is not at all clear how many troopers would tiananmen a horde of ebil ones intent on ahem, “exchanging” gubmits (maybe for a gubmit that actually abides the constitution, sans generous “interpretations” thereof by the supremes). These are but a tiny handful of reasons why people are saying black people have no actual power.
“Etc. Real social scientists will tell you that the problems have to do with how difficult it is to get out of low-income neighborhoods”
Yeah but why is it so difficult to “get out of low income neighborhoods” bro? It’s because they don’t have da powa to, within the currently existant power structure. I do believe anyway. You with your old school liberal ideas can’t even conceive of this way of viewing things, it is an alternate way of viewing things.
“white, black, and Hispanic low-income neighborhoods are very similar in the their problems.”
True but nobody cares about the white problems, the boomer promise was to save the black people, not the poor whites of Appalachia etc. and the bulk of the hispanic population post dates, in large part, the boomer promise.
“I think there is still a lot of racism in the USA but I also think that the target should be to insure equal opportunity and help people based on their situation and not the category.”
Again, not trying to be shtty here at all, but do you think that, should we do that, as we have been, that it will a. preserve the preexisting white power structure, or b. liek totally make black people as powerful/wealthy as white people (equalish) one day (perhaps even 200 years from now)? And if it be a., again not trying to be shtty, is that not what leftists call it, a very sophisticated form of white supremacy (whites being socially/socio-economically supreme, esp with respect to black people)?
6,
Your postulations take as a given the kool-aid dogma that is to be rejected
I hear you on that anon, but I’m asking NWPA why it is to be rejected. You can chime in if you like.
6, what I think I already said. I answered your questions.
There is no white power structure anymore. The USA has gone through an incredible transformation in the last 50 years.
And the bedrock of that transformation has been the principles of the Enlightenment.
The core of understanding what is going on in this country right now is that the left are neo-Marxists and the right are neo-fascists. Reject both. Stick to objectivity, rational thought, and facts.
All the progress that has been made has relied on these principles. There is no evidence that CRT or intersectionality offers anything to society but hate and violence. This is similar to the white supre mist that offer nothing but hate and violence. Neither one has any basis in fact or reality and are nothing more than politicians trying to grab power and deceiving people to do so.
The problem is that the right way is rather boring.
And just remember that 10 percent of people have IQ less than 90 and 10 percent of people (not necessarily the same 10 percent) are clinically in sane.