E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.

Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.

  • Law Blogs

Become a Fan

« Revision of Procedures Relating to Amending PCT Applications | Main | CLE on Venue »

July 02, 2009

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451ca1469e2011570b38d28970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference In re Fallaux (Fed. Cir. 2009):

Comments

"NOTE TO EVERYONE-

Anonymous comments that are confrontational and use obviously fictitious e-mail addresses, like anon@yahoo.com, are not going to get approved.

I do not require folks to register as users before they comment, but if you are not willing to use a real name or a real e-mail address your comment needs to be squeeky clean and not at all confrontational. Those are my rules and anyone that has a problem with it please keep your thoughts to yourself. I am growing tired of being told I don’t understand “freedom of expression.” I enjoy those rights as well, and I will not tolerate factually inaccurate, legally inaccurate, abusive, vulgar or confrontational posts. Open debate and disagreement is fine, but IPWatchdog.com has always been about conveying accurate information, and I will not tolerate junior high level attacks on those who are meaningfully contributing to a debate.

I have never revealed a source, never revealed an e-mail address and I am not going to allow IPWatchdog to be taken over by those with an agenda who are unwilling to let themselves be known to at least me, the administrator.

-Gene"

I'm calling you out Gene.

I posted under that name to see if you were straight up banning my name 6. If you are then fine. But you can at least man up to it if you are. I know you're lurking. Come out come out where ever you are.

I should note that the article to which you refer to as not being sqeaky clean was just as clean as one to which mr. plotkins personally responded which was sent directly to his work email. And, in addition, is very clean with no bad words, and, to my knowledge no personally disparaging statements. I in fact saved a copy of the post and can look at it right now.

Indeed, I imagine he posted under his thread because I sent him that email and was courteous in my entire discussion.

Your censorship of things which you regard as being "factually incorrect" or "legally incorrect" is most definitely a sign of a chilling effect and merely serves to support any and all who would accuse you of not taking an objective viewpoint on your topics, but rather, taking an agenda based viewpoint.

You accuse people who are against software patents of having an agenda, but I have no agenda, other than to see the patent system be able to stand upright in the public arena. And the only people who it seems can rightfully be accused of having an agenda as such, is you, those like you, and big tech corps. The rest of us are in it so that the patent system isn't regarded as a joke and for no other reason.

6,

You fooled me into thinking another examiner was nearly as foolish as you. I have to laugh at myself.

Of course, I have to laugh at you even more. Geting banned from IPWatchdog - nice. As I understand it, the primary reason you got banned is because you are so blatantly wrong when it comes to the Law. Don't worry, you can butcher the Law and avoid answering my direct scenarios in any number of other forums.

I don't know if you even bother going back to IPWatchdog now that you are banned under your main pen name as well as your other psuedonyms, so I'll post a few of Gene's posts here (interestingly enough, time stamped prior to your rant above):

***
Noise above Law July 3rd, 2009 10:47 am

Gene,

I realize that the rantings of the individual who calls himself Examiner 6k, 6, 6k, or 6000 are so pervasively idiotic that even seeing “6″ and “examiner” in the same line brings to mind the image of a fool and a fool’s prattling, but the prattling that you responded to above belongs to a different examiner. “16 year examiner” is not likely “Examiner 6k”. 6, while equally ignorant, glories more in his ignorance.

“They spend an extra day searching for the best art and make an air-tight rejection? ” – Hilarious. If only this were so. Rather, we have months to years and ill-founded rejection after ill-founded rejection, stubborn ill-founded rejction appealed and replaced with an equally bad ill-founded rejection. “16 year examiner”, you might actually pay attention to the body of the complaints before denying culpability. Then again, looking at the facts before you is not a strength, eh?


Gene Quinn July 3rd, 2009 11:06 am

Noise-

At first I tended to agree with you about 6, 6k, 6000, etc. I actually banned him/her from commenting here because when I would post information aimed at independent inventors and entrepreneurs he would comment with what was objectively incorrect legal advice and then claim his/her superior status as a patent examiner made him more qualified. He would tell inventors that they don’t need lawyers, lawyers are the problem and they should just file themselves and let the examiner write claims for them because examiners are far superior at doing that compared with lowly lawyers. I tolerate opposing views, but do not tolerate inaccurate and/or bad legal advice.

16 year examiner’s comments were getting trapped in spam, and I couldn’t figure out why. Then when he started calling me “dude” it started to make sense. It would seem that 16 year’s messages originate from the same location as did 6k’s messages.

I police the comments as much as I can, but once you have one comment that is approved your comments go straight through without screening (except in cases where you use a banned character string, which is why “assessment” was causing problems for some a while back, or have a hyperlink, then I have to manually approve). So, I set to spam those who like making threats, use profanity, make incorrect legal statements and pass them as qualified legal advice and those who are belligerent and try and remain completely anonymous.

I realize this is censorship, but I am not about to let this site be taken over like some of the other blog out there that are simply unreadable because of the nonsense spewed in comments.

-Gene

"At first I tended to agree with you about 6, 6k, 6000, etc. I actually banned him/her from commenting here because when I would post information aimed at independent inventors and entrepreneurs he would comment with what was objectively incorrect legal advice and then claim his/her superior status as a patent examiner made him more qualified. He would tell inventors that they don’t need lawyers, lawyers are the problem and they should just file themselves and let the examiner write claims for them because examiners are far superior at doing that compared with lowly lawyers. I tolerate opposing views, but do not tolerate inaccurate and/or bad legal advice."

Blatant falsehood. I told independent inventors that they don't need lawyers? Maybe in a joking manner, or in relation to a perfect world, as it stands pro se's can barely hit themselves in the patent behind if they know the location of their patent behind. Anyone with half a brain knows this as it is apparent from the pro se applications filed.

And I am not "16 year examiner". Perhaps someone has taken over posting on my name?

"and those who are belligerent and try and remain completely anonymous"

I will have to post my belligerence under a real name then.

Wrongful bananation Gene. Nice touch on the censorship also. You're welcome to it, and that's one reason why your blog will always be second rate.

Thanks for the cite Noise. Even if you did bungle it up into a bunch of hard to distinguish jibberish.

And yes, I'll go to IPwatchdog even without posting. Why? The lols are richer there than more proper websites. It is a realm where lawyers believe large companies infringe reasonably anticipated claims, software is magically more than "writing on a page", "writing in a .txt file", or "compiled machine code", and finally "math".

His directing me to a much more reasonable, and far smarter individual named Robert Plotkins also makes it worth my time to check it out. A pity that me and Robert can't discuss matter on ipwatchdog, Gene may see beyond the ridiculous arguments against software patents, and see the true issues. Issues which Mr. Plotkins appears all too familiar. I'm almost tempted to buy his book.

What do the above comments have to do with the In re Fallaux case?

CNS,

Pardon the intrusion. 6 Spew does tend to spread to anything patent related. Hopefully, the infestation will be minimal.

The comments to this entry are closed.

July 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31