Recent Headlines in the IP World:
- Steven Scheer and Julie Steenhuysen: Israel Approves Generic HIV Drug to Treat COVID-19 Despite Doubts (Source: Financial Post)
- Joel Hruska: Patent Troll Sues to Pull Covid-19 Tests Off Market Over Alleged Infringement (Source: Extreme Tech)
- Ian Lopez: Tesla Challenge to Door Patent Shot Down by Appeals Board (Source: Bloomberg Law)
- Jerome Santos: Foldable iPhone Release Date Drawing Near As Apple Secures Another Patent (Source: International Business Times)
Commentary and Journal Articles:
- Prof. Ana Santos Rutschman: The Mosaic of Coronavirus Vaccine Development: Systemic Failures in Vaccine Innovation (Source: SSRN)
- Prof. David L. Schwartz and Atty. Xaviere Giroud: The Secret World of Design Patents (Source: SSRN)
- Prof. Mark A. Lemley and Dr. Samantha Zyontz: Does Alice Target Patent Trolls? (Source: SSRN)
New Job Postings on Patently-O:
Well, some disappointing news for my friend with the shifty historical pseudonyms.
I had an assignment completed, and in the snapshot of crawling all active posts (ones in which comments could still be made), Shifty’s obsess10n factor — his posts purely directly to yours truly, with nothing at all on legal points under consideration — stands at a paltry 94%.
That was 209 out of 222 posts on the active threads that reflect pure obsess10n.
Of course, no one poster has ever had another poster devote such a percentage.
So thanks Shifty, but you have a lot of work still to do to reach that 98+% level.
On the good news side:
your S. Morse moniker is running at a pure 100% (107 out of 107)
your A. Lincoln moniker is running at a 97.9% (95 out of 97)
It is your Thomas Pain moniker that is dragging you down.
There, you are running at a measly 38.9% (only 7 out of 18).
But at least you now know where to aim any ‘improvements’ that you may want to contemplate.
Interesting. Are you the person who said “Yes, you ‘quoted’ me at the same time attempted a game of ignoring the meaning of the quote and tried to duck around the fact that YOU made up the notion that somehow MY ‘direct quote” was an attempt to directly quote you — which was never the case.”
Shifty – try to include the rest of the story.
… that last line of yours (was never the case) is an outright
L
I
E
You got busted trying to play a game of accusing me of being agist, which I dismantled with a calm, accurate and detailed explication.
Which of course set you off the rails, prompting several misrepresenting posts (including on totally unrelated threads).
“… that last line of yours (was never the case) is an outright
L
I
E”
I will defer to your judgment. Moreover, I agree with your assessment of an outright lie. But you are the one who said it, Snowflake. It is a direct quote, of your words, of what you typed, April 4, 2020 at 7:49 pm, under Patently O, “Sarnoff on After-Arising Technologies and the Doctrine of Equivalents.” Hence, the quotation marks. You need help. And that’s the rest of the story.
You are still missing the point of the attempted misrepresentation.
Here’s a phrase you may remember: ‘the phrase need not be ipsis verbis.”
“You are still missing the point of the attempted misrepresentation.”
No one was fooled by your attempted misrepresentation, Snowflake. That’s the point.
You are trying that projection thing again.
It’s not working.
Projection, Snowflake? Look at your second previous comment. In this sub-thread. You said that what you said is an outright lie. You need help.
Not at all, Shifty.
You are confused (most likely deliberately so).
Try and reinsert context (and NOT play your silly game).
Ding Ding Ding! “game” !!!
Once again, the Queen of Denial shows his colors. Too bad about that written record, 3 comments above.
Yay! The Ding Dance meme along with Shifty’s self-flagellation.
His limited rhetorical capacity on display.
I suppose that while his obsess10n is nigh limitless, his tricks are very limited.
As for “Queen of Denial,” I can give you two million reasons why it’s not a good idea to merely latch onto someone else’s baseless insult (you should revisit that thread and see the 3300% difference).
Ding Ding Ding! “self-flagellation” !!!
Normally, Your Majesty, we would reproduce the written record to show how wrong you are. But one only needs to scroll up a bit. Comment 5.1.1.2, to be exact. You said that what you said is an outright lie and now you’re trying to run and hide from the truth. You need help.
“You said that what you said is an outright lie”
Still wrong spin.
This is gotten well beyond boooooring.
But hey, I recognize that you hare just don’t have the chops for other than these types of silly games, so we continue.
“that you hare just don’t have ”
=>
“that you just don’t have”
A magical bunny jumped into the picture
Ding Ding Ding! Vague Smiley Face !!!
Yay Ding Dance – your obsess10n is noted (even as it comes 6 days later).
Ding Ding Ding! “Ding Dance” !!!
LOL – self-recursive Dinging the Ding Dance…
Your adoration of me doubles upon itself.
Ding Ding Ding! “Ding Dance” !!!
And you were doing so well!
You were
B
O
R
I
N
G
on threads ‘above the fold’ with these banal antics.
Do you think that somehow you are less
B
O
R
I
G
when the threads slip into Page 2?
We’ve been through this before, racking up some 230 comments on a string that slipped well beneath the fold.
That did not turn out well for you either.
Cite? So all the other posters combined need help only 6 per cent of the time? Even giving an Escalade-sized benefit of the doubt to your “analysis” and what in your mind constitutes a “legal point,” what percentage of those supposed posts are followed by your mental-illness/bad lawyer obsession with having the “last word?” One hundred per cent. [wait for it . . . Here it comes . . . His Last Word . . . He can’t help it . . .]
Lol – you absolutely miss the point.
And your meme about “last word” has already been addressed (you have forgotten about last and best word).
So Snowflake says he has no mental-illness/bad lawyer obsession with having the “last word.” So now he will prove it by . . .
You have not paid attention as I have already destroyed this game of yours.
Are you still beating your wife twice a day?
Down below, our friend Snowflake says:
“Yes, you quoted me directly — as opposed to taking the meaning of the word or the slightly different word that you used (as opposed to that directly quoted word of mine — exactly as I busted your little game).”
Slipping into referring to yourself in the plural…
That’s a tell (as opposed to being a meme).
On top of that, that you are completely miffed that I busted you on your little game of my not using your exact word (but nailing the meaning of what you had earlier stated) is quite evident. You repeat my comment in three places (two of which are on an entirely different thread with NO tie to this thread, and the third place here on top without the context of the conversation).
As they say, it
S
U
C
K
S
to be you.
“Context,” Snowflake? The statement speaks for itself. I don’t usually try to parse your longer sentences but that’s the wackiest and most telling thing I’ve seen in years.
So yet again, you project your own lack of understanding and attempt to insult the other person….
“most telling” indeed – just not how you would have it.
As usual.
Maybe you should take a siesta or we might reproduce some of your other gems for the general entertainment.
My gems would be entertaining — at your expense.
They would also be decidedly informative — at my benefit.
You likely did not understand (or intend) your most excellent advice.
Anon said: “Yes, you ‘quoted’ me at the same time attempted a game of ignoring the meaning of the quote and tried to duck around the fact that YOU made up the notion that somehow MY ‘direct quote” was an attempt to directly quote you — which was never the case.”
We may have a new winner!
Not sure why you think that your attempted prevarication is something that you think that you can obscure with your noise here.
Did that clear explication of how I was not exhibiting ageISM upset you that much?
I am a little surprised though that you would return to play more games on this thread, seeing as how the explication of how misaimed your accusation of me being ageist is on this thread.
Is your proclivity for self-flagellation getting the better of you?
We may have a new winner. But the night is still young.
Who is this ‘we?’
“Who is this ‘we?'” Are the voices in your head talking again, Snowflake? [just be patient; when he is perturbed he can unknowingly come out with some really funny stuff]
It’s not voices in my head that appears to generate a person to be talking in the plural, my shifting historical pseudonym’ed friend.
You are doing that projecting thing again.
Uh, huh. Well, first of all, Princess Ardala. May we call you Princess Ardala?
I do not know that reference.
But that is quite besides the immediate point, now isn’t it, Shifty?
“I do not know that reference. But that is quite besides the immediate point, now isn’t it, Shifty?”
[sigh]
Ok, we shall attempt to parse one of your brief, simple, ostensibly direct declarative statements that appear to make sense to you.
Your second “that” depends entirely on what your indefinite reference of “that” means in your troubled mind, Snowflake.
If “that” means your ignorance of the reference, in what universe could one say the reference is “besides the immediate point” if one does not know the reference?
If “that” means your statement that “I do not know that reference” is “besides the immediate point,” in what universe would one bother to point out the irrelevance of one’s own statement?
Cornered; no way out. Time to pound the table and make stuff up.
Aside from that, Princess Ardala. May we call you Princess Ardala?
Wow aren’t you the (plural) arse?
You end up repeating yourself, as if anyone gives a rats behind about your reference (which I simply don’t care enough to even bother googling)…
But you start out with your “we” and I have already asked – and you have not yet answered who that may be…
And you want to parse what you yourself call brief, simple and ostensibly direct – in order to think that there is some mystery that only I know of….?
“Your second “that” depends entirely on what your indefinite reference of “that” means in your troubled mind, Snowflake.”
No. No, I does not. take it as it comes, my shifty friend – no need to try to confuse yourself.
“If “that” means your ignorance of the reference, in what universe could one say the reference is “besides the immediate point” if one does not know the reference?”
You are too caught up in projecting, thinking that I have to be absorbed in what I am saying (when it SHOULD be clear to you that I am responding to a comment OF YOURS).
Clearly it is YOUR comment that deviates from the point at hand.
This is, after all, one of your primary games.
“Cornered; no way out. Time to pound the table and make stuff up.”
Not at all.
You are FAR too eager to award yourself a “gotcha” win when no such thing exists.
As is typical for you.
Maybe try something on point….
“thinking that I have to be absorbed in what I am saying”
Not bad but a bit more sad than funny. Got any more of those, Princess Ardala? We may call you Princess Ardala?
Ding Ding Ding! there’s the tell. Vague Smiley Face !!!
Memes, tells, merry-go-rounds,
And away we go – weeeeeeee!
… you do know that this is going to end up exactly like every other time you tried this game, eh Shifty?
Ding Ding Ding! game !!! And yet another tell! He cannot help it !!
Yay! The Ding Dance (more obsess10n from Shifty)
>>Prof. Mark A. Lemley and Dr. Samantha Zyontz: Does Alice Target Patent Trolls? (Source: SSRN)
So I guess Lemley has enough money and now he is going to stop with the unethical conduct?
The reformed wh ore?
Hard to image how a person that has committed so many acts of unethical conduct that he should have been dismissed from Stanford can be of help now.
What a sad world we live in.
With all that said this is a must read paper.
Meh, I started, got through page one (noting as I have done, the thank you in the footnote on page 1), and put it aside.
I might pick it back up this weekend. Might.
Maybe you can point out a few items that might spark more interest in doing so…
The old wh ore, aka Lemley, may want to look into other areas. He will find that the patent system that he burnt to the ground had built the technology and innovation engine that became the USA and now is sputtering.
“Does Alice Target Patent Trolls?” I thought that was a feature, not a bug. Lemley? Oh, please. Everything he writes drips with spin and the serial infringer policy positions. IMHO, he publishes: Analytic data collection type papers for the purpose of future SCOTUS brief footnote citation.
It is only a ‘feature’ insofar as the bogus “0h N0es Tr011s” propaganda emphasizes it to be a feature.
It should be remembered that ever since Day 1, the US Sovereign wanted the property known as patents to be FULLY alienable. It that regard, ANY targeting based on ownership should be anathema to anyone involved in innovation protection.
+1
In what way is this article less unethical than his previous work?
Ben,
Have you read the article? (no snark)
What are your take-away highlights?
What, none of the usual commentator diatribes and bribery accusations here against Prof. Mark A. Lemley for “Does Alice Target Patent Trolls”? Perhaps because this is his second recent pro-patent paper, pro small inventor and anti-Alice in addition?
If you haven’t noticed, Paul, the comment volume has been rather lax (and NOT just any anti-Lemley comments).
Your attempted spin is noted.
If I counted correctly, Dennis has posted 6 blogs in the last 3 business days and one weekend to helpfully keep us entertained and informed while we are under “house arrest.” That may have contributed to less comments per blog. Also, those with small children constantly at home rather than in school may by now have locked themselves in padded cells or fled to the attic or garage.
Meh, not buying the “less comments per blog” explanation as the sum total of all comments has seen a drastic drop.
Although I do chuckle at your provided reason.
It would be interesting to see stats on number of visits, and contrast that with stats on number of comments.
My intuition is that visits have dropped enormously.
The pandemic has a way of realigning priorities, and for most, kibitzing on (or even visiting) a patent law blog is dropped W A Y down on the priority list (despite any such ‘house arrest’ conditions). At that’s at an 70-90% clip of Americans under such an order (per such sources as USA Today, Business Insider and The Hill)
Ahh, finally we understand your rant that “Real people are getting really hurt and FUD and explosion of numbers (doubling a worst case ‘just because’) is not something that you should be so eager to play your ‘gotcha’ games with”
— in response to your schooling that “complement” and “compliment” are two different words.
But to paraphrase S. Freud, sometimes a typo is just a typo.
You really do have a problem with your obsess10n of me, my shifting historical pseudonym named friend.
And of course, as is typical of your gamery, you are absolutely wrong here.
You kind of have to try really hard to be this bad at blog exchanges.
What is your current line of work?
Ding Ding Ding! “gamery”
You have never had small pox, polio, Big Red Measles, chicken pox, mumps, or German Measles. I’ve been lucky to have only four of those. Relax.
Your Ding game is afoot, and your ‘advice’ of relax does nothing to diminish the role of f001 that you have been playing with your obsess10n of me and your attempted (but never successful) ‘gotchas.’
Maybe focus on substantive issues…
By the way, Shifty, let me be the first to wish you a happy honorary birthday on this, the first day of April.
Ding Ding Ding! “game” !!!
It’s as if you’re not aware of your tells, even when pointed out. But happy April 1 to you, Snowflake. The day you’re free to make stuff up without pounding the table!