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

« Democratic House Leadership Does Not Want TPP to Undermine Public Health | Main | Web Conference on Post-Grant Proceedings »

February 13, 2014

Comments

Andrew,

Thanks for the "alert." I'm about to get ready for "cringe mode." Frankly, I dread what it's coming up, especially Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International. Someone also needs to be brave enough to tell those Ivy Leaguers in the Ivory Tower that what they’re currently doing in our area of law, especially patent-eligibility under 35 USC 101, is not only causing utter chaos, but is flat out contrary to the express patent statutes, as well as contradictory with their own precedent, i.e., Diamond v. Diehr and Diamond v. Chakrabarty.

In a sense, the Court's trepidation of appearing inconsistent and weak by refusing to flat out say that they were wrong in the past makes the court inconsistent and weak.

It is high time that they 'come clean' and straighten up the mess they created starting in Benson.

It is high time that they release their dead letters of being able to shape patent law and give full weight to the actual explicit words that Congress choose to use when creating a wide open gate with Section 101.

It is high time that they realize that the half measures taken - wanting to respect the words of Congress, and yet not being able to not indulge their desire to imprint patent law with their philosophical views - only adds to the morass.

It is high time that clarity - even if that clarity opens 'too' wide the gates - be restored. If the gates are open too wide, then it is to the appropriate body of government to craft a more narrow entrance way.

It is high time. But will the Court let go? I am most...

Skeptical,

Amen to what you said and amen to your correct "skepticism" that Our Judicial Mount Olympus will ever "let go." Sigh.

EG: "what they’re currently doing in our area of law, especially patent-eligibility under 35 USC 101, is not only causing utter chaos"

"Utter chaos?"

Rich patent attorneys sure do know how to lay it on thick.

Will R.

Look at the enbanc panel - I do not know why you feel the need to throw out an insult towards a class of hard-working individuals, but there is no "laying on thick" here.

Have you heard of the phrase "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

That you have removed all doubt, I am NOT...

It now appears from a more current thread that Will R. is YET ANOTHER sockpuppet of the entity known as Malcolm Mooney.

Poe and his telltale heart have nothing on Mooney and his Prometheus will never be overturned (as well as his butchering of 101).

The comments to this entry are closed.

October 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