Patently-O Bits and Bytes by Juvan Bonni

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

1. 3

   The Bloomberg headline for Brittain’s article is a touch off-point. The Chief Justice’s concern is not really with how venue is determined (a matter set by statute, and thus outside the Court’s ability to change), but rather how judges are assigned within a given venue.
2. 2

   What we all suspected – paid legal ‘scholars’ at it again. link to redstate.com
   1. 2.1

      … I doubt that you will get much clickthrough,

      (Genuinely surprised that Night Writer has not picked this up, as it is one of his bailiwicks)

      and I am not familiar enough with “Redstate” as a source to comment on their veracity, but the notion that “even the appearance of impropriety” should be watched for reminds me of my own statements that while attorneys must operate under a code of ethics (per at least their home State bar), teachers of attorneys (and advocates in their own right — as teachers) are not even held to that standard; their standard should be at least twice as strict, given their role and “authority” within that role.
   2. 2.2

      I said from the start that I’d bet that Stanford is pulling in big money to appoint her as faculty.
      1. 2.2.1

         Back in the policy war days – the fight over the AIA, the SCOTUS wars, etc. – it was obvious that these ‘legal scholars’ were groomed to publish various “studies” – and often misstatement of law by omission and of course, the uncanny ability of these ‘studies’ and legal scholarship(s) to end up as footnotes and cites in the various SCOTUS wars or Congressional testimony to weaken IP and pass the AIA. Bad patents, thickets and all that spin. It was a big sustained multi-year effort. You don’t need to vouchsafe for Redstate veracity to see this is the same playbook now being directed at copyright. Although creating a new restatement of copyrights is an interesting twist. Nimmer soon to be spinning in the grave next to Judge Rich and Justice Story to be sure.
         1. 2.2.1.1

            Your notion of now being applied to copyright is exactly why I have noted that the views of various pundits be checked for consistency (as many of such made noises along the lines of “copyright is good enough”).
            1. 2.2.1.1.1

               So if I said something here you would be paid. We believe you.

               Uhhh. How much? Exactly.
               1. 2.2.1.1.1.1

                  It is NOT “if I said something” – it IS if that something falls to one of the inane memes/tells that more than a year ago was put in black and white for you.

                  “How much? Exactly.”

                  Again — and this is the answer that you will get from me — I made this clear to you more than a year ago. It’s in the archives in black and white. I am not going to do your legwork for you.
                  1. 2.2.1.1.1.1.1

                     So, enough to live in your parent’s basement? Or not?
                     1. …

                        So thanks for the additional enterprise.
3. 1

   ” U.S. Chief Justice Roberts Pledges to Review Patent Venue Rules”

   What the Honorable Judge Roberts should be doing instead (along with restoring patent eligibility to all areas of innovation) . . . is reviewing why all the Dist Courts and the CAFC . . . don’t treat inventors and patent owners as fairly as the Honorable Judge Albright does.

   Far, far more important than reviewing the venue rules.
   1. 1.1

      The path may be through Kavanaugh — see the Kavanaugh Scissors.
   2. 1.2

      Justice Kavenough called. He said “Huh??
      1. 1.2.1

         Thank$$ for your choice of posting in such a manner, as clearly as has been shown with your dedication to observing my posts, the concept of the Kavanaugh Scissors is by now well known to you.

         And just as clearly, Justice Kavanaugh himself would most likely reflect well on the notion that two distinct levers operating at the pivot point of patent law, could be the implement that cuts through the Gordian Knot that the Supreme Court has tied.

         And thank you for drawing attention to this important concept, even if your choice was driven by less than ideal motives.
         1. 1.2.1.1

            Justice Kavenough called. He said “Huh??
            1. 1.2.1.1.1

               Thank$ Shifty – more coin for me because of your choice of post.

               Plus another chance to recite: “Kavanaugh Scissors.”
               1. 1.2.1.1.1.1

                  Justice Kavenough called. He said “Huh??
                  1. 1.2.1.1.1.1.1

                     Woooweee! – a triple payout by your choice of cut and paste.

                     Thank$$$

                     (ps: do you remember yet my posts on the Kavanaugh Scissors?)
                     1. …

                        Justice Kavenough called. He said “Huh??
                     2. …

                        What is your record for mindless exact copy-n-paste style posts?

Comments are closed.