The AIPLA has now offered its legislative proposal for rewriting 35 U.S.C. § 101 that is quite close to that offered by the IPO:
Inventions Patentable
(a) Eligible Subject Matter.—Whoever invents or discovers any
new anduseful process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or any useful improvement thereof,may obtainshall be entitled to a patent therefor, subject only to the conditions and requirementsofset forth in this title.(b) Sole Exceptions to Subject Matter Eligibility.—A claimed invention is ineligible under subsection (a) only if the claimed invention as a whole exists in nature independent of and prior to any human activity, or can be performed solely in the human mind.
(c) Sole Eligibility Standard.—The eligibility of a claimed invention under subsections (a) and (b) shall be determined without regard to the requirements or conditions of sections 102, 103, and 112 of this title, the manner in which the claimed invention was made or discovered, or whether the claimed invention includes an inventive concept.
AIPLA statement. The AIPLA proposal is strikingly similar to that of the IPO’s (although not acknowledged by the AIPLA statement).
[DOCX File of Table: Comparing101Proposals]
In order to be taken seriously, both the AIPLA and IPO proposals also need something along the lines of the following:
(d) a claimed invention shall not be eligible if it abridges any rights under the First Amendment of the Constitution.
(e) a claimed invention shall not be eligible if the claimed invention as a whole is an attempt to protect any one or more of the following: (i) physical actions by humans; (ii) strategies on how to play a game or contest; (iii) artistic and literary works; (iv) legal relationships; (v) principles of social sciences; (vi) schemes of solving mathematical and/or physical problems.
Obviously, the exclusions in (e) could use some discussion, but you get the idea. I also do not think such a bill would get passed by Congress without adding “(vii) methods of doing business” although personally I would prefer to leave it out.
This would avoid all of the laughs on floor regarding the original IPO proposal when an opponent of the bill testifies about how the proposed amendment would allow for patents on “golf swings” etc. This also avoid the problems I point out below regarding “infringement by thought.”
Am I selling out? No. Better to save some patents than have the Federal Circuit continue to chew them up. I’m not going to lose any sleep over Joe Golfer not being able to patent his new and improved golf swing.
This is the only realistic way to move forward. I hope the AIPLA and IPO are paying attention.
What’s a scheme for solving a mathematical problem? Let’s say you use a new encryption scheme where both sides need to have the scheme in order to communicate. Is this a “scheme for solving a mathematical problem” if you direct the claims to a device that uses the encryption scheme to communicate with another device?
Bob, that’s a valid point (I did say these need further discussion). My intent was to exclude pure mathematical calculations. For example, computing e/(c^2) to get m. There should be some exclusion of physical/mathematical formulas so academic use of equations would not be affected. But I agree, the language in (vi) needs to be wordsmithed. I’ll think about it a little more and come up with an improved version.
pl,
There are two additional points that you should consider.
1) Please note that there are fundamental differences between math, applied math and Math(s).
You seem to not recognize that applied math has ALWAYS been a staple of patent eligibility.
2) Further, the so-called “academic use” ALREADY is deemed non-infringing (along the experimental use exception).
You may not be “selling out,” but your views are clearly outside of what is eligible per Congress today.
By the way, “schemes of solving mathematical and/or physical problems.” rules out ALL engineering.
Or do you think otherwise?
Also, by the way, you have not provided a cogent position on any claim – taken as a whole and that exists MORE THAN just “totally in the mind” that would also “abridges any rights under the First Amendment.” Your example did not cut it, as you included positive actions that clearly were not “totally in the mind.”
“anon” you have not provided a cogent position on any claim – taken as a whole and that exists MORE THAN just “totally in the mind” that would also “abridges any rights under the First Amendment.”
Because everybody know that your First Amendment rights vanish as soon as you do something that’s not “totally in the mind”. Sure, you have a First Amendment right to think and speak freely. But you don’t have a First Amendment right to think and speak freely while you’re legally drinking a cup of coffee.
Deep deep stuff here.
Ah yes, the poker tell of “deep stuff” combined with the lack of Malcolm actually making a point because he is not addressing the necessary claim as a whole aspect of the actual law.
Still trying to move the goal post of claims NOT totally in the mind and base your “position” on only parts of a claim, are you Malcolm?
Deep you say? Just like you clutching the shovel and remarking how someone else is digging, the stench of your number one meme of Accuse Others is heavy in the air with your poker tell.
But you already knew that, eh?
…and my reply to you below never made it out of the controlled narrative land…
Let’s see if I can salvage it…
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
May 19, 2017 at 5:37 pm
Your assumptions beg too much, pl.
They do not bring clarity.
Further, there is NO actual “just thinking” because you also include an actual action along with that “just thinking,” thereby negating the very point that you are trying to arrive at.
By the way, per your example, the action may very well be infringement of one (or the other or possibly both) patents with ZERO thinking.
That too shows your hypothetical is too flawed to be of any use.
“(programming on a computer is not thinking by a human).”
Absolutely correct – but look again at what Malcolm is actually saying.
Anon, I thought my post in 22.2.1.1 clarified the issue (it got stuck in the spam filter for a while so you may not have seen it). But let me try to explain again.
Look at the two claims in my 22.2 post (reproduced below):
1. A method comprising: a) rolling a die by an operator; b) if the operator sees that the result of the die roll = 3, then the operator pulls a lever to activate a [particular mechanical process].
2. A method comprising: a) rolling a die by an operator; b) if the operator sees that the result of the die roll divided by 3 = 1, then the operator pulls a lever to activate a [particular mechanical process].
The mechanical process in both claims is exactly the same (and can be a prior art process, pretend it is opening a trap door). If you observed two people and were told one person was performing claim 1 and the other person was performing claim 2, would you be able to discern who was who? Of course not!
Or look at it this way. Patent #1 has only claim 1 above. Patent #2 has only claim 2 above. Operator owns patent #1. Operator performs the method in patent #1 on a daily basis. One day, he thinks differently and performs the method from patent #2. It has the SAME physical result, but the difference in him thinking is what now causes him to infringe patent #2.
Are my example claims above extreme? Admittedly, yes they are. But the fact that I can even draft such claims (which would be statutory under the proposals) shows that the original proposed 101 is unworkable. Under the current framework, if the process is a prior art process then the above claims would be considered “abstract ideas.” Congress isn’t going to pass anything like the IPO proposal once this flaw is brought to their attention.
Anon, I’m not wrong about the “infringement by thought” example. But I’m not sure I understand your aversion to my proposed amendment (d) above. Since patent law is inferior to the constitution, technically section (d) shouldn’t be necessary. But the entire amended 101 should ideally be entirely encapsulated so as to avoid any further “judicial activism.”
pl,
I saw and answered your hypothetical – it is fundamentally flawed for the reasons that I have already given, and simply does not – and cannot – address the point that you think that it does.
“anon”, you truly are a disgrace to the legal profession.
I wish I could say “one of a kind” but, sadly, it’s not the case.
Your feelings are noted.
You really should get into a profession in which you can believe in the work product produced. Align yourself with doing something that does not produce those feelings that you habitually project onto others.
patent leather: Under the current framework, if the process is a prior art process then the above claims would be considered “abstract ideas.” Congress isn’t going to pass anything like the IPO proposal once this flaw is brought to their attention.
Undoubtedly true. And everyone knows this because (1) true and (2) written all over the Internets now.
Kinda odd that the cl 0wns who proposed this dreck can’t be bothered to step up and defend it themselves. Then again, that’s pretty much how they roll. If you can’t defend the indefensible, just stick your head in the sand and scream about how China or whatever other distraction is listed next on the script.
It’s a weird day when MM and I agree on something regarding 101. But at least Malcolm can see the flaw in the IPO, AIPLA proposals.
Of course, Malcolm loves the proposals as they are because he knows they have very little chance of being passed. I, on the other hand, am hoping the folks at IPO, AIPLA will revisit these issues and come up with a revised proposal that can be taken seriously. Which leaves me wondering, if these proposals are the best IPO, AIPLA can come up with, what is all of our dues money going to??
“anon” there is NO actual “just thinking” because you also include an actual action along with that “just thinking,” thereby negating the very point that you are trying to arrive at.
Ah yes: let’s all pretend we’re five years old and can’t solve a very simple logic problem.
Remember, folks: “anon” likes to pretend he’s the smartest guy in the room. Yet somehow he can’t figure this one out even though the issues been explained to him 5,000 times and pretty much everybody else gets it.
But it couldn’t be that he’s just a dis h0n est h@ck tr0llin’ everybody. Nope. Not “anon”! He’s a very very serious person.
“anon” controlled narrative land…
Oh, looks like our little snowflake is struggling again. The oppression is merciless.
patent leather, question:
If 112 were adequate to prevent the issuance of patents on math or on business method or patents that claim results, i.e., principles in the abstract, why is it that that so many of the patents that have issued in the last 20 years are directed to math, business method or that claim results?
Ned, I”m not following your question. Is 112 supposed to be used to prevent issuance of patents on math, business methods, etc.?
The argument was and still is made by many that Benson through Alice were all unnecessary because the patents at issue would all be invalidated under 102/103/112 anyway. But demonstrably, they were not so invalidated; and they were issued without the PTO in compliance with Federal Circuit law.
Something had to be done — and the relief valve are the so-called exceptions. We would never have gotten to this place had the Federal Circuit and the PTO developed doctrines under the traditional statutes to deal with claims to mathematics, claims that business methods, claims to abstract ideas. Rather, by simply approving any claim that recited a computer without even looking into the issue is whether the invention was directed to the computer and computer system, or to something else, the PTO and the Federal Circuit simply abandoned its responsibility to the nation as a whole to do their jobs properly. The printing press is not improved by the content of what is printed. Even though this proposition seems totally obvious, it seemed lost on the C.C.P.A. and the Federal Circuit.
The problem is not the Supreme Court as many suggest. The problem is the Federal Circuit in the PTO.
Now the PTO for years fought the C.C.P.A. and the Federal Circuit on patentable subject matter only to give up in the mid-90s and to begin issuing patents on anything that recited a computer. That is why I include the PTO as a source of the problem. I do note that in the mid-2000’s, the PTO did change his views and begin to advocate the MOT as a solution. They have also begin the recognize Halliburton and its policies.
Regardless, attempting to cripple the recent Supreme Court jurisprudence in this area, which is the major objective of both the IPO and AIPLA initiatives, without making corresponding reforms in 102/103/112 adequate to deal with business methods, mathematics and other abstract ideas, has to be resisted by any prudent person.
What appears to be happening is that the patent bar is being led by IBM into proposing a fundamental mistake. We will live to regret the day any such proposal is passed, just as we are now regretting reexaminations and all forms of postgrant reviews – both of which were advanced initially by IBM.
What is good for IBM is not necessarily good for the USA.
Ned,
Something had to be done?
Who made that (policy) decision?
Then tell me which branch of the government actually has authority to create any such (policy) “safety valves.”
Hint: it is not the judicial branch.
The problem is not the Supreme Court as many suggest. The problem is the Federal Circuit in the PTO.
Yup.
Ned the Ed is at it again. Giving us a false narrative. Benson was done to prevent software patents. It has been pretty much admitted it was judicial activism. Benson was done when hardware was the money maker and IBM wanted Benson.
The software industry has grown-up with patents. It is ten times the size it was when State Street was decided. Patents have made the software industry what it is —the best in the world by far.
Just think if you add up all the software awards in federal court they make up less than one year of profit to Google.
Please stop with the false narrative Ed the Ned.
Ned, your initial question only mentioned “112” (but not 102/103) so I did not fully comprehend your original question.
I don’t see State Street as the big problem that you do. State Street merely adopted the USPTO’s position as the “business method exception” had been written out of the MPEP at that point in time. If anything, the issue of “bad patents” was created by the USPTO and not training examiners to apply 103 properly.
I’ve been around a long time and I’ve seen tons of cease and desist letters on obvious patents. I’ve been able to make them all go away by digging up art and threatening an IPR (no troll wants to risk losing his patents). Now of course the Alice case makes it even easier for trolls to go away (threatening an Alice 12(b)(6) motion on any software patent makes any troll run for the hills). I think the “problem” of “bad patents” has been vastly overstated. I still say the best way to attack the Alice patents would have been 102/103 (in which they clearly would have been held invalid).
Judge Rich in State Street realized that by drawing a distinction between the invention therein would open “Pandoras box.” Unfortunately, Alice now has opened Pandora’s box and now we face the opposite type of problem. Why should claims like those in Recognicorp be axed as “abstract ideas”? Destroying property owned by parties who have done no wrong is really an extreme measure. What if the U.S. gov’t took your house away saying it was improperly built on Native American land?
As indicated by my other posts on this thread, I do realize there has to be some limit on statutory subject matter. I’m not going to think highly of patents on movie plots or golf swings. I think Judge Rich had it right with the “useful, concrete, tangible result” approach. His opinion could have been written better with more clarity and with more references to Flook, Diehr, and Benson to avoid its ultimate fate. The “useful, concrete, tangible result” approach just needed to be further developed at the Federal Circuit, for example to more clearly define what “concrete” meant and it could have done the dirty work to weed out the “bad” patents without the Alice mess that we have now.
In any case, as my posts herein state, I think the IPO, AIPLA proposals have virtually no chance of being passed unless they are modified to exclude certain categories of claims.
Thanks for the reply, patent leather.
Let me give you quote Curtis then ask you a question.
“Langdon v. DeGroot, 1 Paine’s C. C. R. 203. The learned judge said: ” The invention is for folding the thread and floss cotton in a manner a little different
from the ordinary mode, in which form the cotton will sell quicker and higher by twenty-five per cent than the same cotton put up in the common way. The cotton thus folded is imported from the factory of Holt, in England. The article itself undergoes no change; and the whole of the improvement- for it is a patent for an improvement-consists in putting up skeins of it, perhaps of the same size in which they are imported, decorated with a label and wrapper; thus rendering their appearance somewhat more attractive, and inducing the unwary, not only to give it a preference to other cotton of the same fabric, quality, and texture, but to pay an extravagant premium for it. When stripped of these appendages, which must be done before it is used, the cotton is no better in anyone respect than that of Holt’s retailed in the way put up by him. All this came out on the plaintiff’s own testimony.
“Now, that much a contrivance – for with what propriety can it be termed a useful art, within the meaning of the Constitution? – may be beneficial to a patentee, if he can exclude from the market all other retailers of the very same article, will not be denied; and if to protect the’ interest of a patentee, however frivolous, useless, or deceptive his invention may be, were the sole object of the law, it must be admitted that the plaintiff has made out a satisfactory title to his patent.
“But if the utility of an invention is also to be tested by the advantages which the ‘Public arc to derive from it, it is not perceived how this part of his title is in any way whatever established. Is the cotton manufactured by himself, which is put up in this way? The very label declares it to be that of another man. Is anything done to alter its texture or to render it more portable, or more convenient for use? Nothing of this kind is pretended. Does the consumer get it for less than in its imported condition? The only ground on which the expectation of a recovery is built is, that he pays an enormous additional price, for which he
literally receives no consideration.
“It is said that many.ornamental things are bought of no intrinsic value, to gratify the whim, taste, or extravagance of a purchaser, and that for man)’ of these articles patents are obtained. This may be so; but in such cases there is no deception, no false appearances; and the article is bought to be used with all its decorations and ornaments, which may have been the principal inducements to the purchase, and which will last as long as the article il8elf. In this the sight or pride of the party is gratified. But here it is tbe cotton alone which it is intended to buy, and the little label and wrapper appended to it, and which constitute the whole of the improvement, however showy, are stripped off and thrown away before it can be used. And when that is done, which may be at the very moment of its purchase, the cotton is no better, whatever the buyer at the time may think, than when it first left the factory.
” ‘When Congress shall pass a law, if they have a right so to do, to encourage discoveries, by which an article, without any amelioration of it, may be put off for a great deal more than it is worth and is actually selling for, it will be time enough for courts to extend their protection to such inventions, among which this may be very fairly classed.”
Curtis (67ed) at 32.
Do you think that the essential holding of the Langdon case, quoted by Curtis, is that purported inventions that actually do not improve a product (or process) are not within 101 and perhaps not even within the Constitution?
Is not that the essential holding of Alice?
“Is not that the essential holding of Alice?”
Absolutely not.
In Alice, there was no question of the utility improvement, as both sides stipulated to as much.
How deep into the weeds are you going to go, Ned?
Ned, it’s hard for me to seriously read a case from 200 years ago, although such old patent cases are indeed very interesting. I also don’t know what the statutes looked like back then or what the claims said in this patent (if it even had claims) so it is difficult to interpret this without the context. But yes, it seems the judge is skeptical the “invention” therein is in a “useful art.” However, I don’t read this as holding that such a valid patent would be unconstitutional since the last paragraph proposes that Congress can authorize such patents if they want to. But to answer the first question you posed: yes, it seems the judge in Langdon did not find a patent that did not improve a product to be in a “useful art.”
Moving to Alice, I’m not seeing the same issue. In Langdon it appears that ornamentality was questionable as a “useful art.” If this patent application were filed today (presumably one to an ornamental label) it would be void for 101 (or under 103 based on the printed matter doctrine). Alice was a set of concrete steps/actions which manipulated data to achieve results. There was no such manipulation in Langdon. I would say that Alice did indeed improve the prior art (this point seemed lost on the Supreme Court justices as I don’t really think they understood the invention). The Alice invention was being used by CLS Bank so clearly it was an improvement over the prior methods of processing such transactions.
I see what you are getting at. However, in my opinion the holding of Alice was quite different than Langdon. If the holding of Alice was the same as in Langdon (which seems to be what you are implying) then this would mean that all claims that have no art rejections against should then be statutory. But we all know this is not how the current system is working (at the USPTO and the courts). In any case, thanks for the case cite.
“However, I don’t read this as holding that such a valid patent would be unconstitutional since the last paragraph proposes that Congress can authorize such patents if they want to.”
This has L O N G been pointed out to Ned (in the Pennock case, for example.
Actually patent leather, the patent statutes were substantially the same in 1793 as as they were in 1952. 101 read the same, and there were exclusions for known and used, and for prior invention.
The issue before the court essentially was whether dressing that made the old and an improved product sell for higher price was patentable subject matter. The court did not think it was for the reason stated primarily because it did not improved product. The dressing itself is not appear to be a useful improvement to the product.
Regarding Alice, the case itself is not that important. The point of Alice is that simply adding routine and generic computer equipment, and conventional methods, to subject matter that is otherwise unpatentable subject matter is not “enough.” In Alice, the unpatentable subject matter was the financial method. In Langdon, it was a trade dress. In Alice the unimproved but otherwise patentable subject matter were computers and routine computer methods. In Langdon, it was the cotton.
Regarding the Alice facts themselves, everything the claim that was new, was unpatentable subject matter. Trying to say that the claim should be patentable simply because the the business method disclosed was new is somewhat akin to missing the point.
Ned, I see your point and it is food for thought. However, I would say there is a clear distinction between the two situations. Old cotton + label = something not useful. But, new accounting method + computer = something useful. The computer “activates” the accounting method and springs it to life in a manner that doesn’t happen between the cotton and label. Another distinction I see is that “trade dress” is not eligible subject matter (and never was). Generic computers are eligible subject matter (although an oddity is if you filed an application on a generic computer you would get a 102 but if you filed a non-obvious business method with a generic computer you would get a 101).
In any case, in my opinion, the invention in Langdon should be invalid under 102/103 not 101.
The Langdon holding would be in tension with cases that held step II of Alice is satisfied with generic computers, such as Bascom. But after 200 years, I’d say it isn’t a problem.
Well the accounting method itself is useful.
So, I do see your point, and it is a good one.
…it has the proper utility…
You see his point (for now), but your Windmill siren will rise again and obscure that view.
I think you are basically right that any proposal to amend 101 has to take into account some of the reasons that allowed the tightening of 101. And, it would have to make it clear what the statute did to each of the cases you mention.
Similarly, any hope to change IPRs has to take into account that the federal courts don’t want the work.
Sorry PL – Those additions would make the proposal far less serious.
Methods and processes are patentable subject matter. They all cover physical actions by humans. Making a new medicine, for example, requires, mixing, stirring, likely heating or cooling, all of which are actions of humans. Most methods have decisions points and those can be gamed out and therefore characterized as playing a game…etc, etc..
I really don’t think chemical reactions could reasonably be considered as “playing a game.”
I am curious if Schrödinger’s cat would agree with that (or maybe Schrödinger, since the cat herself may not want to be playing that game).
😉
Assume one can find an advertisement today offering kittens from a direct descendent of Schrödinger’s cat, what would that imply about the state of the cat in the box?
Why assume?
What if the kittens were to be harvested from frozen cells of said cat taken prior to the cat being placed in the box? What if a pair of photons were caused to be emitted from the opening of the box (AND no observation was made), and the said adoption were to occur with the stipulation that one of the two intertwined photons (somehow having been captured – but not observed itself – in a closed fiber optic loop) would be evaluated only after said adoption…?
My, the level of games seems endless – quite opposite the point at 29.6.1….
That it got out of the box…or had company.
Not the reactions themselves, those aren’t decisions. But, how long to stir, how big a flame, to what temperature….picking those can be a game…. like Russian Roulette.
Statutory reform…
Won’t change a thing if the Supreme Court is still in the loop.
There is a viable answer to that…
I wonder what would happen if Malcolm could not use ad hominem….
Another one of the great contradictions of the patent maximalist “worldview”: someone we’re all supposed to accept that, no matter what the context, handing out private rights to sue people for doing this or thinking that is inevitably going to result in positive results because it forces non-owners to adjust and “innovate.” Progress!
But when the maximalists are deprived of some “right”, their response isn’t to adjust and innovate but simply to throw a big tantrum and threaten everybody with the end of civilization. Go figure. And remember: these are the people who invariably already have a lot of money. But boo hoo they’ll have to sell some of that “investment property.” So sad.
You really do need to get into a profession in which you can believe in the work product produced.
I think the Docx file provided above is a clear example of adaptation and innovation and the discussion herewith represents percolation associated with further adaptation and innovation.
You are a hack, a shill for infringers, and a paid slattern. What you say means less than absolute zero.
God, what a wasted life.
Get to church and try for absolution.
With the current editorial controls, the perception being created is that the desired narrative carries with it the perception that the Monologueists are “winning.”
Ironic then that even rebuttals concerning First Amendment comments fall victim to the (arbitrary?) editorial controls of what gets through and what does not….
Get to church
“A method for praying, wherein said method comprises a computer and an electronic display, wherein said display includes at least one field or button for user input …etc etc”
In s00per d00per shiny patent land, church comes to you. Don’t forget to bring your lawyer.
Not sure what point you are trying to make (other than showing just how much cognitive dissonance affects you by your so called being in this profession).
More evidence of the “born yesterday” mentality:
“anon”: Pay or invent around. People too easily forget that this type of ultimatum is a benefit of the system
A benefit for whom? Computer programmers? Poor people trying to learn how to bowl, or pitch, or swing a baseball bat? Grad students trying to discuss the implications of their experiments? Doctors trying to advise patients about the results of public domain medical tests?
Nobody is “forgetting” the theory of the patent system, “anon”. Nice try, though!
We’re also not “forgetting” how people like you think. That’s because you keep reminding everyone. Hint: try not to let the truth about your extremist beliefs leak out so much. Not everyone has consumed as much patent k00l-aid as you. Hardly anyone has.
You act like my beliefs are a bad thing – when they are truly and merely reflective of having the clients interests in mind (as well as being ground in solid innovation theory).
Your disdain though comes from a very different “philosophical” place, and it is a wonder how you can serve clients at all with such animosity towards the patent system.
my beliefs … merely reflective of having the clients interests in mind
You just gotta love it when the truth leaks out.
Yes, we all know this about “your clients’ interests”. That’s been clear from the beginning. Your clients. Your wallet. Nothing else matters. Why should it? That cabin on the lake isn’t going to buy itself, after all.
Potential double post…
Nice strawman about “my wallet,” and the other part is something that you should be aware of (if you really are an attorney, given that I know of no attorney oath that does not include the particular duty to clients that you seem to want to portray as “leaky”)….
You keep on posting as if you think that you are being clever.
You are not clever.
Nice strawman about “my wallet,”
Oh, so you work pro bono for these clients of yours that you brought up for some reason? Because their patents on “new” web page layouts are so important? I’m very impressed by your compassion for the most deserving. It all makes so much sense now.
Your insinuation that because I charge for my services that my actions somehow must be tainted is in direct conflict with the rules of ethics for attorneys.
NO ONE has ever postulated that patent attorneys need to work for free, or else their work must be suspect.
Such a view is untenable.
So, yes, your comment about “my wallet” is AT BEST a strawman.
Perhaps more correctly, this is just another sign that you are seriously in the wrong profession, and that the cognitive dissonance that wracks your psyche has already done irreversible damage.
I’m not ‘insinuating’ anything. I’m just highlighting your admission that your bizarre and horrifically unconvincing “arguments” in defense of this worthless proposed revision to 101 are being made because they “reflect your clients interests.”
I’m highlighting that fact because it explains pretty much everything about the maximalist crowd that is otherwise inexplicable. And it always has. It’s all about you and your tiny tiny tiny class of well-heeled entitled cohorts. Nothing else matters. And that’s why you have so little to offer other than your foot-stamping and relentless insistence on turning the clock back to the glory days of State Street when the firm chair’s wife and her attorney boyfriend could sit around at happy hour and “get rich off the Internet” by scribbling some g@rbage on a napkin and filing it at the PTO. Those days are over. Good riddance. They aren’t coming back.
And once the remaining vestiges of the silliest idea ever (patenting logic and information) are expunged from the system) the patent system can begin healing itself and progress in the useful arts can proceed without the endless farcical nonsense gumming everything up.
Your feelings are noted.
I do wonder though if you actually share these feelings with your clients as you attempt to procure for them the very things that cause you such consternation.
I also wonder if you share with them your disdain for serving their needs that our ethical code actually compels you to do (and quite apart from your attempted personification of this ethical requirement of ALL attorneys as some type of flaw of me personally).
You seem to want to highlight some odd takeaway of what really is a virtue – and a requirement – of our profession. Of course, this does call into question whether you really do have any clients at all. Perhaps though, your clients do not engage you in obtaining patent rights at all. Perhaps your clients engage you for something else, entirely. Something like merely spreading propaganda.
Now now anon, don’t get so upset. MM is obviously concerned about money’s corrupting influence, which is well known everywhere it goes. It is okay to decry money’s corruption in one’s gubmit, and in gubmit agents like officers of courts/lawlyers.
“MM is obviously concerned about money’s corrupting influence, which is well known everywhere it goes.”
His “answer” is not in accord with the laws, the ethics guiding those involved with the laws, nor anything else for that matter outside of his own precious feelings/politico-philosophical views.
While it is certainly “OK” to decry actual corruption, it is also certainly NOT “OK” to besmirch anyone operating in that system that does draw a paycheck.
You should understand that difference and where in that difference Malcolm actually is.
Pardon Post (re)Peat…
“MM is obviously concerned about money’s corrupting influence, which is well known everywhere it goes.”
His “answer” is not in accord with the laws, the ethics guiding those involved with the laws, nor anything else for that matter outside of his own precious feelings/politico-philosophical views.
While it is certainly “OK” to decry actual corruption, it is also certainly NOT “OK” to besmirch anyone operating in that system that does draw a paycheck.
You should understand that difference and where in that difference Malcolm actually is.
“His “answer” is not in accord with the laws, the ethics guiding those involved with the laws, nor anything else for that matter outside of his own precious feelings/politico-philosophical views.”
That’s ok though. He obviously doesn’t think “ethics” have kept up with the times and does not sufficiently prevent new school what he sees as corruption.
“While it is certainly “OK” to decry actual corruption, it is also certainly NOT “OK” to besmirch anyone operating in that system that does draw a paycheck.”
Sure it is. #Merica If you don’t want to be offended or whatever go to Britain or become and Aussie.
That’s a bit pedantic of you 6.
I am not saying that Malcolm is somehow “forbidden” to have and express any (wayward) “feelings” and opinion – you seem to think that my issue is with his mere expression.
I assure you that it is not.
I am merely drawing the factual distinction between what the definition of corruption covers and what it does not cover.
If you want to play the game of “Malcolm defines corruption differently,” then you also play the game that there is no chance for an inte11ectually honest dialogue because any such chance does not imbibe in the “make up definitions to mean whatever” that goes with your pedanticism.
Anyone can have an opinion.
Not all opinions are in fact equal.
An informed opinion is different than an uninformed opinion, and an opinion that seeks to change (without stating so) the basic definitions of terms in a legal dialogue is even worse than an uninformed opinion.
Such is blight.
Idk anon, the definition of corruption is pretty broad. If he feels like you’re being dishonest, which I think he’s said about a thousand times, in your advocacy on this topic then it is “corruption” under the strict definition, though perhaps not the legal definition. Or if he thinks you’re inducing people to wrong, say perhaps congress critters, by improper means, say perhaps advocating for a position that will benefit you and yours, at the potential expense of others.
“a : dishonest or illegal behavior especially by powerful people (such as government officials or police officers) ”
“c : inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means (such as bribery)”
Seems like a legit use of the word. Even if it is not legally punishable corruption.
“the definition of corruption is pretty broad.”
It is not unlimited though – and definitely NOT so bendable to what Malcolm wants to apply it given the context that what he labels as corrupt is NOT corrupt and is perfectly in line with the standards of ethics for attorneys.
You simply do not get to mash that word like a nose of wax – as is being attempted.
What he feels does not – and cannot change the meaning of the word and his statement is NOT legitimate in that sense.
You seem to be thinking that all forms of corruption are barred by “muh ethics fer attorneys”. They’re not bro. Just because something doesn’t rise to the level of an ethical breach doesn’t mean it isn’t corrupt, in the ordinary use of that word.
“You seem to be thinking that all forms of corruption are barred”
Not at all.
Your “all” does not reflect my actual position here.
“Just because something doesn’t rise to the level of an ethical breach doesn’t mean it isn’t corrupt, in the ordinary use of that word.”
That is your problem – you are mixing “ordinary use” and legal use on a legal forum.
Further, even by “ordinary use,” Malcolm’s views simply go too far.
Earning a living in law is NOT cause to be accused of corruption – even in the “ordinary use” of the word.
“That is your problem – you are mixing “ordinary use” and legal use on a legal forum.”
That’s MM you’re talking about. But yes, and that’s perfectly fine. He’s not obliged to use “muh formal legal use” of terms on this blog Mr. social control.
“Further, even by “ordinary use,” Malcolm’s views simply go too far.
Earning a living in law is NOT cause to be accused of corruption – even in the “ordinary use” of the word.”
You do more than “earn a living in lawl” bro, and you know it. He isn’t criticizing you for “earning a living in lawl”. He’s criticizing you for your advocacy on several legal topics, and what he perceives to likely be your day in and day out actions taken.
Further, not even everyone in the legal community advocates for laws that would benefit their clients (and themselves). Not by a longshot.
LOL – you are trying (again) to control me through the accusation of me using proper terminology as some form of social control.
I wonder if you see the irony there…..
And bottom line – proper use of language – even at the non-legal level – remains critical for a proper dialogue. And that’s NOT “my” rule.
Anon does that “particular duty to clients” extend to actually advocating for changes in the lawl, as if you are a lobbyist? Because I think if that’s the case they all lawlyers should be registered as lobbyists for their clients. That way the public could know explicitly that their legal system is being governed/hugely influenced by a bunch of lawlyers on behalf of their clients, and not necessarily on behalf of just “do gooderism lobbying” so to speak.
Indeed. My clients want a million dollars for each blade of grass they grow.
You ask me why the deserve that? Why, because of the House fallacy, of course. And because the counterargument is really just inherency. So there.
6,
You actually have a somewhat decent question here.
IF a person’s actions – any person’s actions – fall into the designated controls that control actual lobbyist actions, then such things as “registering” which may be required would of course apply, whether or not that person is taking those actions on behalf of a client or not.
Your question is only merely decent, because as I read between the lines, you appear to want to impugn ALL attorney advocacy that would touch upon the mere act of “advocating for changes in the lawl” as if that single mere act was enough to classify the person doing the act as a lobbyist.
That would be a plain error on your part. I do grant that I may be over-reading your motives and that the implicit connection was not one that you had meant, in which case, my reply serves not to chastise you, but merely to clarify that the act itself of “advocating for changes in the lawl” just does not mean the person doing so IS a lobbyist, or should be held to the requirements put to lobbyists.
Does that help?