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

« Court Report | Main | Allergan, Inc. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2013) »

January 28, 2013

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451ca1469e2017d408c77ac970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Government Sticks to Its Guns in Bowman v. Monsanto Amicus Brief:

Comments

I find the comment "Which modifies Farmer Bowman's Question, which begged the question it purportedly asked" disingenuous.

Battling over the question asked is to be expected, but this is an ambush without defense.

"I find the comment "Which modifies Farmer Bowman's Question, which begged the question it purportedly asked" disingenuous."

Why do you find Kevin's comment insincere? It seems sincere. Also accurate.

"this is an ambush without defense."

Pardon me? What are you referring to you when say "this"? What is being ambushed? What is doing the ambushing?

It's an ambush given that it presents as fact that which is merely a supposition, on a site that features an opponent of the actual question presented, and one likely to escape notice and not be challenged for what it is.

Perhaps an explanation of why Bowman "begs the question" would ameliorate the perception...

"it presents as fact that which is merely a supposition"

I don't follow. What is the "supposition" being presented as fact? And who or what is being "ambushed"?

"one likely to escape notice"

You noticed it, apparently (although at this point, it's not clear what you noticed).

"Perhaps an explanation of why Bowman "begs the question"

If you don't understand what Kevin meant, why would you accuse him of disengenuously orchestrating an "ambush"?

Robert G.

There are several logical fallacies that you purport in your response.

If I wanted to be misconstrued, I would post on other blogs.

You imply that I do not understand what Kevin meant. This is false. I know what is meant - and that is the problem, as what is meant is not backed up (and Dr. Noonan typically does a better job of establishing his position with reason). Here, not.

You don't follow me, and then suppose I don't understand...? Do you see the logical problem in this?

You also say "it's not clear" - that would be a "you" problem. It's pretty clear to me what I said. The "Bowman begs the question" comment is a naked assertion without any foundation. It is nonsense. the who or what is also pretty clear: it is Bowman's position.

If you have serious questions, please press on. If you just want to troll, please do not.

"You imply that I do not understand what Kevin meant. This is false. I know what is meant"

Oh, excuse me. You had asked Kevin for an "explanation" which is something that people typically due when they need more information or are not sure if they understand what a person is saying.

"It's pretty clear to me what I said."

I'm glad. That makes one person who understands you.

So it was "Bowman's position" that was "ambushed" by Kevin. Did Kevin sneak up on "Bowman's position" from behind when it wasn't looking? Was Kevin supposed to yell out to "Bowman's position" that he was going to make a "supposition" on the Internet?

That reminds me: you still haven't answered the question I asked. Exactly what is the "supposition" being "presented as fact" by Kevin? I don't see any "supposition" being "presented as fact". I see an opinion being presented as an opinion. Are you incapable of determining the difference between an opiinion and fact without unambiguous signifiers? That would explain a lot of your comments and your difficulty in getting people to understand you. Perhaps it's an issue of English as a second language?

Robert G.

Are you trying to be difficult or pedantic? Because it is working.

As for "explanation" - I am glad you put that in quotes, as it is apparent that I am looking for the establishment of the basis for the stated position (or stated opinion), and I am sure that you recognize that in such cases, an "explanation" also fits. Opinions without proper bais, and that demean an opponents view, are typically not the types of opinion stooped to by Dr. Noonan.

"I see an opinion being presented as an opinion"

You see what you want to see. Just like your twisting (and false attribution) of "your difficulty in getting people to understand you," you seem to relish misrepresenting others and projecting onto them your either actual or feigned ignorance. It is a pathetic rhetorical tool, and it fools no one. Right Malcolm?

While this is indeed an "opinion" piece, it is also a legal opinion piece - and you should know the difference. Unless you believe that legal opinion pieces can fully disregard available facts and pervert reason (which I am sure that you can [shrug] and stand by), and in that case, you will understand why our conversation is at an end.

The comments to this entry are closed.

August 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