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.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristant #4 Overall Rank

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


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.
Juristat_165
Juristat #8 Overall Rank

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

« Top Stories of 2010: #8 to #5 | Main | Top Stories of 2010: #4 to #1 »

January 04, 2011

Comments

"that there will be continued uncertainty over stem cell patents."

Gd dammit. Now you're patenting on my stem cells too? WHAT DO BIO PEEPS NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT 101?

Sorry, 6, as it stands isolated human stem cells are patent-eligible (and, so far, patentable).

The progeny thereof are not.

I wish I'd get some mis-docketed cases from interesting arts sometimes. I'd have this worked out rather quickly if the applicant had any *****.

I've killed no less than 2 computer "related" applications with 101 and 112 this past year. And I just threw in 112 for giggles.

Yet, courts will continue to rule nonsensically on issues where people who can actually argue the issues properly get no say.

And don't even pretend that amicus briefs matter.

Once again, 6, I am glad the PTO segregates by technology area and expertise. You know how much we disdain shouting (metaphorically) on this blog, but YOU. DON'T. KNOW. ANYTHING. ABOUT BIOTECHNOLOGY (and please don't forget it).

All the best.

Kevin,

Not knowing anything about a topic does not make a difference to the poster known as 6. His sophomoric positions are well known if you read the Patently-O blog. In fact, I understand that another blog (IP Watchdog) has actually banned 6 from posting due to 6's insistence on clearly errant postings. I wonder if that move helped that blog obtain the number one ranking in patent blogs this past year.

Keep up the good work, your column is very enjoyable.

lulz, I finally got Kev rilled up.

Either way, I don't give a hoot what technicalities you guys are using to supposedly get around 101 for a stem cell taken and then merely "isolated" or whatever you want to call it, from a person or other animal/plant. It is the same nonsense as in Myriad. Stop patenting natural phenomena already. My not having had much bio isn't exactly a determining factor here. What is a determining factor is the spirit o the lawl, and you guys steadfastly refusing to abide by it.

You guys are giving us a bad name.

Much worse, I note, than I could ever give us.

"His sophomoric positions are well known if you read the Patently-O blog. In fact, I understand that another blog (IP Watchdog) has actually banned 6 from posting due to 6's insistence on clearly errant postings. "

Nah I was banned because Eugene got mad at me one night for stealing his family's food straight off of their dinner table. Which I denied and he offered to let me post again. I haven't tried. He comes around to my positions more and more with every passing day even without my presence.

O and yea, be glad I'm seperated usually from the more controversial areas, they wouldn't be controversial anymore once I got through with them.

6:

There is very little chance that biotech practitioners will ever come around to your positions on genes or stem cells. But it is almost always entertaining to read about them.

Don

Examiner 6k, drunk with power!

Seriously, 6, I agree with Don - you are entertaining. And if you think we are giving "you" a bad name now, wait until (if) the powers of darkness prevail - and we can counsel our clients on how to avoid disclosing all their profitable ideas. Patents are like democracy that way - maybe the worst system, until you compare them to all the others.

"wait until (if) the powers of darkness prevail - and we can counsel our clients on how to avoid disclosing all their profitable ideas."

I'll be 100% honest with you, I have no problem with someone, or a company, keeping a trade secret or just a plain ol' secret. Like I said, we live in a society awash in disclosure. If that person wants to stay relevant though, he might find his secret getting out.

I'm a little concerned about the tone of your last post though Kev. For a minute there I thought I might be making progress on giving you a heart-attack to prove one of my previous points, and to help persuade you, but now you're back to being calm. :(

"There is very little chance that biotech practitioners will ever come around to your positions on genes or stem cells."

No, you're right Don. But that is quite irrelevant.

Oh and Kev, I have a good article about a Doc doing research in the field of brain meds that is starting to raise the ethical alarm on what he does. It won't be too much longer before more people wise up to your pro-death positions and see them for what they really are, as he puts it "shooting people in the face".

I'll get the link when I'm home.

Can't wait for the link, 6. Tell me, does that doc treat people for free? If not, isn't he murdering anyone who needs his help but can't pay? This murder stuff is sure tough to sort out, isn't it?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_sci_haunted_scientist

"You can't control what people do with what you publish"

This typifies ANY advance in science and in no way is limited to the bio arts.

6,

If you are crusading against this, then you are crusading against all advances and the patent system itself in principle.

The patent system does have checks prior to publication by government bodies, but what people do with the information that passes that screen and goes on to be published is, as the subject of your link states, not controlled.

When others make novel uses of the published material, the patent system has completed its mission. There is no controls available to limit that inventive behavior to constructive ends.

Your attempt at linking the prior inventive activities and the use of the patent system to secondary inventions as some sort of "pro-death" stance is just plain silly.

"If you are crusading against this, then you are crusading against all advances and the patent system itself in principle."

Idk about that. Nobody is using anything we make in my art to kill themselves voluntarily in their homes. Also, nobody is using anything we make in my art to blackmail people for huge sums of money holding their life/body for ransom. In fact, I would go so far as to say that in no Useful Art does anything of that sort take place. It is only in shoehorned useful artslol that such regularly takes place. In and of itself it wouldn't probably be such a bad thing if not for the pro-death positions taken sometimes in the ever greedy pursuit o a dolla.

I am in fact only "crusading" against people taking pro-death positions in the patent policy debate. Also, pro-death positions (lets do whatever drug research we wanna and publish it so that your avg college dropout druggie can make deadly addictive, and maybe legal, drugs in his spare time lol, hur) in the drug research field are also distasteful to me, and I'm glad that at least one researcher feels the same way.

I wonder where the MADD mothers are on these issues? They seem very concerned about drunk driving and the accompanying senseless deaths. But I wonder how they feel about corruption in their patent lawlyers viewpoints leading to similarly senseless deaths?

"When others make novel uses of the published material, the patent system has completed its mission."

Indeed, killing yourself in a novel way is certainly a sign that the Useful Arts were promoted.

"Your attempt at linking the prior inventive activities and the use of the patent system to secondary inventions as some sort of "pro-death" stance is just plain silly."

I did not attempt any such tomfoolery, stop your jesting.

6:

We're at a little disadvantage here because while we may have some thoughts about what your art is, it's still just a guess. So maybe you can narrow your art down to a Tech Center for us (or perhaps even an Art Unit).

Thanks,

Don

Yikes! 6, if you want your position to be taken seriously, you have to dial back the coffee or up your other meds.

If you want to be a Luddite, that's your right - just take it somewhere else. Or be ignored here - but try to keep a tentative hold on reality.

Whatever gives you the impression that I'm against new technology Kev?

I'm sure that unfounded conclusory assessment of what I'm saying sure makes for a nice diversion from your pro-death positions and the ridiculousness of these people being able to publish enabling disclosures of dangerous drugs. We have gun control laws but can't be bothered to implement something as simple as laws controlling dangerous publications like this? Seriously?

That said, I am against unhindered access to "how to make yourself some totally rad killer drugs" instruction manuals. I was thinking about it the other day a little more, and why on earth are publications like the ones this guy produces not strictly controlled in some form or fashion? I mean heck, we take people to jail for making, using or selling common drugs on the streets, but we give them free reign to make all these other dangerous drugs and for others to teach them how?

Seems rather ridiculous to me.

"We're at a little disadvantage here because while we may have some thoughts about what your art is, it's still just a guess. "

Come come Don, you guys are pretty good at guessing. If you wanna meet me you can come to the upcoming USSC case. I'll probably be the only one there not wearing a suit.

The comments to this entry are closed.

March 2019

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