Patently-O Bits and Bytes by Juvan Bonni

Recent Headlines in the IP World:

Commentary and Journal Articles:

New Job Postings on Patently-O:

140 thoughts on “Patently-O Bits and Bytes by Juvan Bonni

  1. 5

    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.

    1. 5.1

      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.

      1. 5.1.1

        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.”

        1. 5.1.1.2

          … 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).

          1. 5.1.1.2.1

            “… 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.

            1. 5.1.1.2.1.1

              You are still missing the point of the attempted misrepresentation.

              Here’s a phrase you may remember: ‘the phrase need not be ipsis verbis.”

              1. 5.1.1.2.1.1.1

                “You are still missing the point of the attempted misrepresentation.”

                No one was fooled by your attempted misrepresentation, Snowflake. That’s the point.

                1. 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.

                2. Not at all, Shifty.

                  You are confused (most likely deliberately so).

                  Try and reinsert context (and NOT play your silly game).

                3. Ding Ding Ding! “game” !!!

                  Once again, the Queen of Denial shows his colors. Too bad about that written record, 3 comments above.

                4. 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.

                5. 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).

                6. 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.

                7. 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.

                8. “that you hare just don’t have ”

                  =>

                  “that you just don’t have”

                  A magical bunny jumped into the picture

                9. 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.

    2. 5.2

      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 . . .]

      1. 5.2.1

        Lol – you absolutely miss the point.

        And your meme about “last word” has already been addressed (you have forgotten about last and best word).

        1. 5.2.1.1

          So Snowflake says he has no mental-illness/bad lawyer obsession with having the “last word.” So now he will prove it by . . .

          1. 5.2.1.1.1

            You have not paid attention as I have already destroyed this game of yours.

            Are you still beating your wife twice a day?

  2. 4

    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).”

    1. 4.1

      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.

      1. 4.1.1

        “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.

        1. 4.1.1.1

          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.

          1. 4.1.1.1.1

            Maybe you should take a siesta or we might reproduce some of your other gems for the general entertainment.

            1. 4.1.1.1.1.1

              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.

            2. 4.1.1.1.1.2

              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!

              1. 4.1.1.1.1.2.1

                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?

              2. 4.1.1.1.1.2.2

                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?

                1. “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]

                2. 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.

                3. I do not know that reference.

                  But that is quite besides the immediate point, now isn’t it, Shifty?

                4. “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?

                5. 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….

                6. “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?

                7. … you do know that this is going to end up exactly like every other time you tried this game, eh Shifty?

  3. 3

    >>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?

    1. 3.1

      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.

      1. 3.2.1

        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…

    2. 3.3

      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.

    3. 3.4

      “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.

      1. 3.4.1

        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.

  4. 2

    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?

    1. 2.1

      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.

      1. 2.1.1

        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.

        1. 2.1.1.1

          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.

        2. 2.1.1.2

          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)

          1. 2.1.1.2.1

            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.

            1. 2.1.1.2.1.1

              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?

              1. 2.1.1.2.1.1.1

                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.

                1. 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…

                2. By the way, Shifty, let me be the first to wish you a happy honorary birthday on this, the first day of April.

                3. 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!

                4. Keep shoveling with that Ding Dance…

                  (Nothing new here, please feel free to move along)

                5. “Nothing new here”

                  Exactly. Except that “shoveling” might be, could be, just might be, a new tell. Presently, we’ll know for sure. Thus,

                6. You’ve already shown that you do not understand what a tell is.

                  Maybe you are confusing meme with tell….?

                7. Is “shoveling” a new tell? Inconclusive; we will wait and see.

                  but Ding Ding Ding! Vague Smiley Face !!!

                8. Your Ding dance is a meme.

                  It’s a silly one, as at most it celebrates your obsess10n with me.

                  I am not sure whether your “vague” rises to being a meme.

                  Of course, it’s more a sign of your proclivity for self-flagellation, as there is nothing vague in the laughing emoticon in and of itself (and per your own provided definition of the word ‘vague’ – hinging on ‘lack of understanding’ – the only lack of understanding resides in you).

                  No matter how many exclamation points you want to use.

                9. Anon said, in response to the education that the words “complement” and “compliment” have different meanings:

                  “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”

                  You’ve been pseudo-cagey about where it is you anonymously type from, but Kaiser F.F. reported that about 45% in the US (The United States of America) say that the pandemic has affected their mental health. Just curious, does that explain your rant about the virus in response to your gentle schooling?

                10. Your view of what was said, and more importantly why it was said, stands in clear error.

                  All we have here is more of your silly games.

                11. Ding Ding Ding! Vague Smiley Face !!!

                  Double Ding Ding Ding! “games” !!!

                  [he thinks nobody notices the pseudo-cagey diversion from where he types from]

                  But anon, The Queen of Denial, types from somewhere: “Your view of what was said, and more importantly why it was said, stands in clear error.”

                  But see Patently O, “Patent Abandonment,” March 26, 2020, under comment 1.1.2.1.1.2.3.

                  Written records are pesky things. Makes you want to pound the table and make stuff up about people, no?

                12. Actually no, as the written record supports my views.

                  Your gamery is as evident on that thread as it is on this thread.

                13. Ding Ding Ding! “gamery” !!!

                  Of course, you did not bother to look at the record. What, exactly, does that written record say? Then we can all decide. [what a maroon] Written records are pesky things. Makes you want to pound the table and make stuff up about people, no?

                  [he thinks nobody notices the pseudo-cagey diversion from where he types from]

                14. Of course, you did not bother to look at the record.

                  Wrong again.

                  There is this thing called context – I suggest that you figure out what that is.

                  No making me want any of your projected ‘feelings.’
                  No cagey.
                  No diversion.

                  It’s beyond clear that you wanted to jump into the middle of a conversation, and then got busted for your typical game playing.

                  You really are not good at this blog exchange thing.

                15. [did not reproduce the written record]

                  [and still thinks nobody notices the pseudo-cagey diversion from where he types from]

                16. You moved the goalposts from “you did not bother to look at” to “did not reproduce

                  More self flagellation from you and that ‘written record’ thing.

                  And why in the world would I need to reproduce the record? It’s just a few posts earlier in Prof. Crouch’s queue.

                  As I said:
                  no diversion (from me – from you, well, that’s rather the game that you like to play, now isn’t it?)


                17. btw, your Ding Dance only (and I do mean only) draws attention to your obses10n with me.

                  You kind of like that don’t you? You had momentarily strayed with some of your shifted historical pseudonyms to posting replies to others, but true to your nature, your focus has swung back to me.

                  Does that have something to do with your current line of work?

                18. Ding Ding Ding! Vague Smiley Face !!!

                  [and yet, STILL, STILL thinks nobody notices the pseudo-cagey diversion from where he types from]

                19. You keep on projecting, and you keep on being wrong.

                  No cagey.
                  No diversion.

                  But you keep digging…

                20. You’ve gone into that place where we have no idea what it is that you think you are saying, Snowflake. But seriously, you STILL think nobody notices the pseudo-cagey diversion from where you type from?

                21. I have gone into no such place.

                  You have merely slipped into your projecting game.

                  (It’s a rather b00ring game)

                22. Ding Ding Ding! “game” !!!

                  [he just can’t avoid the tells, can he?]

                  [and he STILL thinks nobody notices the pseudo-cagey diversion from what country he types his BOTH substantive and insightful comments !!!]

                23. Again, you are confusing tell and meme.

                  And again, you post with nothing — and I do mean nothing.

                  So yet again, we end up with just you and I paying attention. Please do something that shows at least some small iota of creativity or flair.

                  If you are going to spend the time to comment, try to put just a little into the comment.

                24. “If you are going to spend the time to comment, try to put just a little into the comment.”

                  Sure. What is your obsession about getting the last shot no matter how empty or repetitive, just like a really, really bad lawyer?

                  [and he STILL thinks nobody notices the pseudo-cagey diversion from what country he types his BOTH substantive AND insightful comments !!!]

                25. just like a really, really bad lawyer

                  You have shown no inclination of understanding what a lawyer does (really bad or otherwise).

                  Your question of ‘last word’ can be equally applied to you. One major difference though — I have the last best word.

                  Now THAT is what a really a GOOD attorney does.

                  You still haven’t been able to figure that out, eh Shifty?

                26. Uh, sure.

                  [and he STILL thinks nobody notices the pseudo-cagey diversion from what country he types his BOTH substantive AND insightful comments !!!] [what. a. maroon.]

                27. Sure. From what country do you type BOTH your substantive AND insightful comments?

                  [and he STILL thinks nobody notices the pseudo-cagey diversion from what country he types his BOTH substantive AND insightful comments !!!] [what. a. maroon.]

                28. There’s no answer to the question there, father. Perhaps you should “directly” quote your own words and enlighten us as to how those words definitively answer the question.

                  [and he STILL thinks nobody notices the pseudo-cagey diversion from what country he types his BOTH substantive AND insightful comments !!!] [hard to believe; what. a. maroon.]

                29. There’s no answer to the question there, father. Perhaps you should “directly” quote your words from there and enlighten us as to how those words answer the question.

                  [and he STILL thinks nobody notices the pseudo-cagey diversion from what country he types his BOTH substantive AND insightful comments !!!] [omg; what. a. maroon.]

                30. The answer IS there, and putting the words here won’t likely help you if you can’t understand them as is.

                  (this is a you thing, by the way)

        3. 2.1.1.3

          Some of us are just tired of blogging here when there are so many tr olls on this blog.

          1. 2.1.1.3.1

            You are absolutely correct Night Writer, and one reason why I absolutely refuse to let those like my pal Shifty tr011 me into silence. Sure, at times it may appear a little vicious for me to repeatedly take Shifty to the woodshed, but it would be a false kindness to let the old man ‘have one.’

            Regular readers can take heart that I provide BOTH substantive and insightful comments AND take no slack from those who would rather play distracting games. When one sees the shifting historical pseudonym set in, they can easily skip the banter that follows (or enjoy the tr011 beat down). My substantive comments will still be there.

            1. 2.1.1.3.1.1

              “Regular readers can take heart that I provide BOTH substantive and insightful comments”

              1. 2.1.1.3.1.1.1

                You do realize that the second ‘and’ is capitalized for a reason, eh?

                What is your current line of work? Does it have anything to do with your obsess10n over me?

                1. “You do realize that the second ‘and’ is capitalized for a reason, eh?”

                  Of course it is. And that reason is . . .

                2. You say “of course it is” but you are the one that omitted in your post at 2.1.1.3.1.1.

                  Why was that?

                3. ?

                  Did you have a point (for this sub-thread), or are you just shotgu nning your turd-throwing?

                4. There’s no need to curse, Snowflake. Just pound the table and make some more stuff up.

                5. Ageist?

                  Not at all. Just picking up on your past posts of being acquainted with examiners in the late ‘70s. If that was your first position after college (giving you the benefit of the doubt) that would place you to be about mid-60 years old.

                  Given also as you refuse to say what your current line of work is, one may deduce that you in fact do not have a current line of work and may be retired.

                  This would confirm the first suspicion, if not push you closer to (or into) the 70 year old mark.

                  I think it says more about you than about me that you want to jump to an ISM instead of using any type of reasoning (or simply asking).

                6. That’s a remarkable number of words to explain why you think you are not ageist in addition to everything else. Did old men do something to you? Did an old man do something to you?

                  I never said I was “acquainted with examiners in the late ‘70s.” You pounded the table and made that up.

                  I did not “refuse to say” what my current line of work is. You pounded the table and made that up.

                  English is obviously not your native language and you are not familiar with many US idioms. Per your instruction, I simply ask. What country are you currently typing from?

                7. That’s a remarkable number of words to explain…

                  Maybe instead of focusing on word count, you focus on content.

                  I never said I was “acquainted with examiners in the late ‘70s.”

                  I noticed you put the word ‘acquainted’ in quotation marks, indicating that you may have not used that exact word.

                  Such changes NOTHING logically. ALL this is IS a rather lame attempt by you to sidetrack the direct writing that I have provided.

                  Again, you should focus on content.

                  I did not “refuse to say” what my current line of work is.

                  Yes, you have. You once gave what was clearly a false snarky answer. Once. You have NEVER given a straight forward answer. Maybe you should recognize that if you ever DO give such a straight forward answer, then my asking you this question would cease.

                  You should try giving straight forward answers.

                  English is obviously not your native language and you are not familiar with many US idioms.

                  Wrong on both accounts. Did you have a particular US idiom in mind that you have used and that you think that I do not understand?

                  Speak plainly, my shifting historical pseudonym’ed friend.

                  If you can.

                8. I got down to “I noticed you put the word ‘acquainted’ in quotation marks, indicating that you may have not used that exact word.”

                  I put the word “acquainted” in quotation marks because I was quoting you, verbatim. That is all I will read of your hot mess.

                9. Your characterization of “hot mess” cannot be reasonably reached.

                  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).

                  I see that you cannot speak plainly.

                  I wish that I could say that I am surprised by that.

                  I am not.

                10. [sigh] [and he STILL thinks nobody notices the pseudo-cagey diversion from what country he types his BOTH substantive AND insightful comments !!!] [what a maroon]

                11. How nice, an empty reply.

                  Maybe actually address any one of the counter points put to you in this thread.

                  The ONLY way that you continue is by continuing in absolutely vacuous and inane banter.

                  And by the way, I am really loving your choice to do so.

                  It’s delicious.

                12. …and I do oh so LOVE the fact that you choose to continue your shenanigans in this very thread, as this is the spot of your game in trying to apply ipsis verbis when you SHOULD have taken the meaning of my words in the explication of how your accusation of me being ageist fall flat on its face.

                  You face plant, and then do so again in your attempted cover-up and THEN you keep on emphasizing your game playing over that mistake of yours.

                  This is on par with your botched attempts to denigrate the use of Wikipedia for talking about Alfred Nobel (for which I then defeated your game by providing a quote from a direct Nobel source that said the same thing).

                  You just do not have the mental t001s to compete here, Shifty.

                  It’s not even close.

                13. You waited eight days to reply to this sub-thread…?

                  and THAT is what you could come up with?

                  (and that’s a meme rather than a tell — try at least to remember that)

                14. [sigh] [and he STILL thinks nobody notices the pseudo-cagey diversion from what country he types his BOTH substantive AND insightful comments !!!] [what. a. maroon.]

        4. 2.1.1.4

          Paul,

          I have given very specific examples of Lemley’s unethical conduct which has included intentionally misrepresenting data to make it look like utility patents were continuing to rise in the USA and claiming that software had no structure with no counter papers when a simple search would find that everyone at Stanford in the science and engineering department would disagree with him as well as many attorneys with many published papers.

          Make no mistake that Lemley has become very rich burning down the patent system as was admitted by him in NY Times article.

          1. 2.1.1.4.1

            But Night Writer, Paul thinks that any time Lemley is noted, that the vitriol must be forthcoming, or ALL comments throughout history must have been incorrect.

            (but consider that Paul has been the number one cheerleader of IPRs and long ago abandoned his registration number — and apparently his desire to protect innovators — just consider the source)

    2. 2.2

      As far as the article itself, it is a 57 page item, but right away at footnote 3 one is forewarned as to the spin the article will be presenting:

      We thank the Charles Koch Foundation for financial support, Lex Machina, RPX, and the Stanford NPE Litigation Database for access to information. We also are grateful for comments at the NPE Symposium at Stanford Law School,…

      Sage words to remember: Consider the source.

      Also consider as you start into the article: does this look like a gift of a larger wooden horse that has suddenly presented itself outside the city gates?

      1. 2.2.1

        You may be right anon. Lemley has lots of time and money on his hands (as well as b lood).

        He may be trying to get in front of this issue to sabotage it like he did with Oil States and his outrageous paper on whether the privy counsel invalidated claims or patents.

        In any case, you can’t reform a old w h o r e.

        1. 2.2.1.1

          yup – as I indicated, consider the source.

          (much like the ‘source’ of all those people wanting a piece of the 101 reform – ONLY really wanting to derail the effort)

          1. 2.2.1.1.1

            … speaking about Trojan Horse derailers, when was the last time that Greg “I Use My Real Name” DeLassus had a comment on these boards?

              1. 2.2.1.1.1.1.1

                IIRC, he was inhouse at a Pharma Co. No doubt he is swamped with other matters.

  5. 1

    Re: “Patent Troll Sues to Pull Covid-19 Tests Off Market Over Alleged Infringement (Source: Extreme Tech)”
    Typical media hype or sensationalism about patents without ever even bothering to talk to a patent attorney? The article admits these are patents asserted by a troll that were purchased from or with the discredited former Theranos company. As any competent patent attorney could have told them, true trolls [PAEs with no product or business other than buying up and suing on patents of others] do NOT GET injunctions. Not since the Sup. Ct. eBay decision. However, under the current circumstances the bad PR the suit filers and their financial backers may get seems deserved.

    1. 1.1

      Another report that this sensational and now widespread press release was untruthful as its most patent-owner-derogatory point:
      “On March 17, three days before Unified Patent’s [press] release, Labrador Diagnostics announced that it would “offer to grant royalty-free licenses to third parties to use its patented diagnostics technology for use in tests directed to COVID-19.” In full knowledge of this and despite it, Unified says in the press release that Labrador Diagnostics is “seeking to enjoin the company from making, using, or selling a wide array of diagnostics”. While the lawsuit filed seeks payment for ongoing infringement, it does not seek to enjoin any COVID-19 activities given that Labrador offered a royalty free license to anyone engaging in the development COVID-19 diagnostics.”

      1. 1.1.1

        I think you accurate identify ignorant sensationalism in the Hsruska article (linked in post #1), but I think you’re missing the deception in the Hoyle article (not linked, but referenced in Post #1.1).

        Hoyle: “On March 17, three days before Unified Patent’s release, Labrador Diagnostics announced that it would ‘offer to grant royalty-free licenses to third parties to use its patented diagnostics technology for use in tests directed to COVID-19.’ In full knowledge of this and despite it, Unified says in the press release that Labrador Diagnostics is ‘seeking to enjoin the company from making, using, or selling a wide array of diagnostics’.”

        First, Hoyle is implying that the Unified Patents (UP) press release is underhandedly ignoring the Labrador Dianostics (LD) announcement, but this is not the case. Their press release expressly references it.

        >>”Shortly after they filed suit, a defendant announced it was making COVID-19 diagnostics tests for the government based on the technology at issue. In response, Fortress announced they would offer royalty-free licenses for COVID-19 testing, but they refuse to drop the suit…”

        Second, Hoyle suggests that the UP announcement is deceptive for saying that “that Labrador Diagnostics is ‘seeking to enjoin the company from making, using, or selling a wide array of diagnostics'” when in fact “it does not seek to enjoin any COVID-19 activities”. This argument itself is deceptive. Obviously “COVID-19 activies” are not equivalent to the “wide array of diagnostics” at issue in the lawsuit. If it was, LD would not be suing UP after their license offer. So the license offer is irrelevant to the point of press release.

        UP’s use of the covid-19 situation in their PR war is gross. The Hsruska article is wrong and the author should know better. But the Hoyle article is deceptive, and the author does know better.

        1. 1.1.1.1

          I don’t think LD is suing UP.

          Plus (as is your long-standing want) you are missing the deceptions from UP and the other items from that link (like how UP’s business model is getting rich of these types of things).

          You — yet again — strike the tone that patents ‘must be’ bad.

          1. 1.1.1.1.1

            I think the really important issue is being missed [both here and the far more numerous comments on IPWatchdog] re these press releases on a patent suit re Covid-19 tests. The issue is not what is in the complaint. The issue is not what patent blog commentators say. The issue is that press releases like this are widely publicly read, and by effectively implying that patents are being used to stop people from dying they are prejudicing the public against patents in general.

Comments are closed.