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
Juristat #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

« Court Report | Main | Webinar on Combating Patent Trolls »

December 18, 2014

Comments

Careful there Michael and Andrew, lest you invite the scourge of being labeled an "invested interest" and have your correction of misapplied facts and the use of real facts spun so that it appears that you are doing that which the accused are doing: being biased to fit a particular agenda and spreading misinformation and confusion.

Michael,

A very nice article. The factual support for any position taken by Bessen and his cohort Meurer has been repeatedly shown to be suspect. Unfortunately, the media choose to overlook factually flawed basis for these disingenuous positions taken by Bessen/Meurer.

I'm glad to see that Patent Docs is finally giving up the pretense of trying to be a thoughtful blog and instead diving straight to the bottom of the barrel where it seems most comfortable:

"Samuels was formerly of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a group with an anti-patent agenda."

Here's the EFF's statement on their website which is orders of magnitute more accurate than this lame "anti-patent" smear:

"The system of patents as it currently stands, especially in the world of software, is unsustainable. We need a patent system that actually fosters innovation—or at least, one that gets out of the way. That's why EFF has launched Defend Innovation. This campaign suggests 7 proposals to address the most egregious problems with the software patent system and solicits the opinions of Interenet users for their thoughts about software patents and ideas for addressing the problem."

This blog isn't helping itself lately. You all should try to keep your shirts on because you're not going to "win" this way.

"As we have come to expect, both articles present only one side of the story, and do not consider the negative consequences that ... the Alice decision has already produced."

What "negative consequences" has Alice produced? Ineligible claims that should never have been granted are not being granted; those that were granted are being invalidated.

What's "negative" about that? Are you suggesting that there aren't enough ineligible or invalid claims out there already? Last time I checked the PTO was still granting patents in historically unprecedented numbers, something they've been doing annually every year for the past twenty years.

Kaptain, re-read the last six paragraphs of the post for a discussion of the negative consequences.

Mike, with all due respect, those paragraphs appear to have been written by someone completely clueless about subject matter eligibility, why it exists, and how it must be dealt with.

You're correct that people have been whining that "obviousness can do the job." But those people were always wrong, they were told why they were wrong, they were unable to respond to the criticisms of their position ... and yet they keep making it.

Guess what? Didn't work then. Won't work now. Won't work ever.

Let me know if you need me to hold your hand and walk you through it.

One thing that is routinely ignored is that there hasn't been a patent litigation explosion - except for the additional suits filed as a result of the AIA requiring separate suits for different alleged infringers. If you look back enough years (yes, hard to do, but possible, as shown by the work of Dr. Ron Katznelson), there was much more patent litigation, as a percentage of patents issued, etc., in the 1920s and 1930s, all the way up to the U.S. entry into WW II.

Perhaps Kaptain Korwood (aka KK, aka MM, aka Malcolm Mooney, aka sockpuppets-are-the-worst-thing-ever-unless-I'm-the-one-using-them) would care to explicate why the paragraphs appear to be "written by someone completely clueless about subject matter eligibility" - and do so without trying to over-expand a theory based on mere aggregation (which applies with or without any claim elements that may sound in any type of "totally in the mind" character).

Can he do so in a straight forward, intellectually honest and competent manner?

Me, I am....

The comments to this entry are closed.

December 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