The White House has announced the nomination of Edward (Ed) DuMont to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to replace Chief Judge Paul Michel who will be retiring May 31, 2010. The Senate must confirm the nomination along with the still-pending nomination of Judge O’Malley.
DuMont is a partner at WilmerHale and is an appellate specialist. He previously spent close to ten years at the Department of Justice primarily in the office of the Solicitor General and also worked in corporate transactions at Sullivan & Cromwell.
DuMont clerked for Judge Richard Posner on the Seventh Circuit in Chicago in the mid-1980’s and also spent a year in working as a lawyer at a firm in Thailand. DuMont holds a BA (history) from Yale and a JD from Stanford. He is originally from Northern California, but has worked on the East Coast for the past twenty years.
DuMont has worked on several patent appeals, often alongside former US Solicitor General Seth Waxman. Recent patent appeals including Tivo v. Echostar, Princo v. ITC (pending en banc rehearing), Airgo IP v. ArvinMeritor, Agfa Corp. v. Creo Prods., Purdue v. Endo, US Philips v. ITC.
The Federal Circuit courthouse at 717 Madison Place is less than a half-mile walk from DuMont’s current office on Pennsylvania Avenue. Like President Obama, DuMont is just shy of 50-years-old.
Although filling Chief Judge Michel’s spot, Mr. DuMont would not automatically become the next Chief Judge. Rather, that position will move to Judge Rader who is the next most-senior active judge who has not yet reached the age of 65.
you go girl…
sarah,
I know that nature abhors such a thing.
RWA there is one thing about very old people. They seem to be stuck in a vacuum of ignorance.
Oook indeed. A suitable response from you Mooney.
it would be to see the admissions applications as a foreign student…
… which would change where he was born … how, exactly?
Oook.
“!, too, would like to see all the birth certificates Obama got in college.”
No Mooney, er I mean INANE, it would be to see the admissions applications as a foreign student…
like the obviously forged “Certificate of Live Birth” from Hawaii… printed in 1961 on a laser printer.
LOL
“I think what “IANACCE(BIPOOTV)” is trying to say by “Dinchamean firriner” is that “if its not Scottish its crap””
You Betcha!
Open all those sealed documents from the college days.
I, too, would like to see all the birth certificates Obama got in college.
Frankly, I considered the issue settled once the people so heck-bent on discovering the “truth” published such an obviously forged Kenyan birth certificate and declared victory.
I think what “IANACCE(BIPOOTV)” is trying to say by “Dinchamean firriner” is that “if its not Scottish its crap”
“That raises questions”
Yep, just like the refusal of Mr. O to actually settle the birth certificate issue once and for all raises questions.
Open all those sealed documents from the college days.
“Nope.
Like I said: show me a couple hundred peer-reviewed papers from different labs around the world demonstrating that that average global temp has “peaked” and we’re entering a “cooling period” and then I’ll think about your script.”
See? The brainwashing has taken a strong hold in this one…
Just an observation: with CO2 increasing at a steady rate, year in an year out, we should expect a continuous increase in earth’s temperatures, on average, i.e., wiggling about a norm that is increasing.
But nothing like that is in the actual data. In fact, there seems to be no correlation between CO2 and temperature.
This raises questions.
Dinchamean, “furriner”?
I don’t know, do you Canadians still have an economy based entirely on beaver pelts?
Apparently you don’t have a clew who Dr. Jones is,
Older gentleman, jaunty hat, dog named Indiana?
mm, “Like I said: show me a couple hundred peer-reviewed papers from different labs around the world demonstrating that that average global temp has “peaked” and we’re entering a “cooling period” and then I’ll think about your script.”
Apparently you don’t have a clew who Dr. Jones is, or you’d realise how silly some of your comments are.
IANAE, “Anyway, why am I paying attention to behavioUr analysis from some foreigner?”
Dinchamean, “furriner“?
Haven’t you read the recent BBC interviews with Dr. Jones?
Nope.
Like I said: show me a couple hundred peer-reviewed papers from different labs around the world demonstrating that that average global temp has “peaked” and we’re entering a “cooling period” and then I’ll think about your script.
Your reliance on some interview with “Dr. Jones” suggests that you still don’t get it. Reminds me of how the creotards occasionally go off on Darwin’s alleged “deathbed renunciation”, as if that somehow changes the actual evidence. Science doesn’t work this way. Politics is another matter, and occasionally the two become intertwined. But it’s usually not terribly difficult to get a handle on the probable veracity of the testable (or tested) claims. The first step is to ask : how extraordinary is this claim? The answer to that question determines how extraordinary the evidence needs to be.
The politics usually comes in where the scientific claim is not extraordinary (“cigarette smoking is not addictive”) but a powerful interest group is concerned about the implications of the claim.
IDK why educated people tend to remain so ignorant on the issue of “global warming.” The gelogically recorded evidence of temperature change since the times of the dinosaurs unmistakably establishes that the temperature goes up in an exponential fashion and then suddenly plummets into an iceage. There is a 10 thousand year window of warmth, and a 60-70 thousand yeard window of ice-age. It is thought that the ocean currents, whcih are basically a slat water pump, wdistribute heat from the equater to other parts of the globe. Thus, once the ice caps melt, the salt in the ocens dilutes to the point that the pump shuts down, and the iceage occurs very quickly, resulting in warm, habitable equater with the rest of the earth frozen.
We are nearing the end of our window of warmth. The sudden plummet in temperature could occur any day now, or maybe not for another 1000 years. The concern with hydrocarbons is that we might actually speed up the increase in temperature, causing the ice caps to melt sooner and the iceage to occur prematurely. If that has happened, it was nice knowing you.
But the degree to which the temperature has increased has not mirrored the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It is a bit of a mystery. Perhaps we’ll find out the answer tomorrow, or the next day, or the day after that. Meanwhile, I hear Venezuela is nice.
Here, re AGW, if in fact we are seeing a reversal of the heating trend (nothing proven, just something to consider given comments by Dr. Jones and others), there’s the little problem that people have not yet changed their behaviours overall.
Generally when the market crashes, people haven’t changed their behavior overall. The same mob mentality and delicate balance between fear and greed is always there, and that same behavior is what causes the market to start going up again. If you take a step back, the market crash is but a blip in the constant march upward. The climate has its blips too, just like the stock market (and just like the weather), due to various factors that act on different timescales, and moderate randomness superimposing itself on our blatant destruction of the planet’s ecosystem. The temperature can’t keep going up forever, but it can keep trending up forever.
Anyway, why am I paying attention to behavioUr analysis from some foreigner?
IANAE, “The stock market is actually a pretty good analogy for the whole weather/climate thing. ”
Except when you get to the heart of the matter. The stock market crashes big, for example, when too many people freak out and start short selling their securities. So the market goes down down down.
Here, re AGW, if in fact we are seeing a reversal of the heating trend (nothing proven, just something to consider given comments by Dr. Jones and others), there’s the little problem that people have not yet changed their behaviours overall.
If anything, we’re polluting at a higher rate than we were 20 years ago and dumping yet more and more CO2 into our atmosphere.
That’s why I thought your analogy was cute and clever from the surface, but otherwise inapposite.
I would have preferred a nominee with some patent prosecution background so he/she can better understand the effect that FedCir decisions have on patent practice.
I.e., non-sequitur of the day award.
The stock market is actually a pretty good analogy for the whole weather/climate thing. It has essentially random fluctuations every day, and you can’t really predict where it’s going a few days ahead or use the individual days to predict the long-term trend. Despite all that, the long-term trend is known to be up, and that trend is crystal clear once you study it on the appropriate timescale. And yet, every time we see any sharp or sustained movement against the long-term trend, crazy people go on TV and proclaim that it will never go up again.
And then it goes up again.
IANAE, “Because remember when the stock market’s long-term upward trend peaked and reversed a couple years ago? Remember how that completely and irreversibly stopped the upward trend, and refuted any possible claim that the upward trend had been caused by man?”
Oh yez, because I, too, really wonder what exactly is the current price of black pekoe in the Forbidden City.
I.e., non-sequitur of the day award.
Congrats!
MM, my comments were based on comments from the horse’s mouth, not from “ridiculous talking points and propoganda disseminated by Republicans on behalf of giant corporations”.
Haven’t you read the recent BBC interviews with Dr. Jones? (Aside, speaking of demonization, what the “climate-gate” folks have tried to do to this guy is horrible. He seems like a really nice guy who maybe let irritability get the best of him a few times over a decade).
And by “reading” the interviews, I mean actually reading them in their entireties, not merely reading the gloss-job the interviews were given by either the AGW or non-AGW camps.
Until then: why would I be “disturbed” by ridiculous talking points and propoganda disseminated by Republicans on behalf of giant corporations?
Because remember when the stock market’s long-term upward trend peaked and reversed a couple years ago? Remember how that completely and irreversibly stopped the upward trend, and refuted any possible claim that the upward trend had been caused by man?
This is just like that.
All the above said, it’s got to be at least a little disturbing to your average AGW proponent to find that the global climate (as measured in long-term global average temperatures) over the last 15-20 years appears to have peaked and possibly reversed
When the consensus of the world’s climate experts is that global temperatures have “peaked” and we are entering a cooling period, I’ll believe it. Until then: why would I be “disturbed” by ridiculous talking points and propoganda disseminated by Republicans on behalf of giant corporations?
IANAACCE(BIPOOTV),
That’s why I have to keep on my toes and make sure that the AGW proponent has been properly indoctri…, um, taught that the pc acronym is ACC.
Our Dear Dear Leader writes, “3. Call anyone who has serious doubt regarding climate change based on analysis of objective scientific data (heck, we have “climate change” every day) a “climate change denyer” to try to conjure up and co-opt the negative images associated with the Holocaust. ”
While I don’t like the Holocaust-association-attempt either, I don’t think you can say you have climate change every day.
Climate by definition is what you have over long periods of time. It’s fine to talk about the climate in So.Cal being generally warm and sunny. But on any given day, there may be weather in So.Cal which differs significantly from warm and sunny.
All the above said, it’s got to be at least a little disturbing to your average AGW proponent to find that the global climate (as measured in long-term global average temperatures) over the last 15-20 years appears to have peaked and possibly reversed.
Action points for brainwashed liberals:
5. Call anyone who points out how crazy your discredited ideas are a “brainwashed liberal”.
Oook.
Action points for brainwashed liberals:
1. Find a way to incorporate “teabagger” into a dialog with someone who disagrees with your radical agenda
2. Call anyone questioning Obama’s qualifications to hold office under the “natural born citizen” clause a “looney” or a “birther”
3. Call anyone who has serious doubt regarding climate change based on analysis of objective scientific data (heck, we have “climate change” every day) a “climate change denyer” to try to conjure up and co-opt the negative images associated with the Holocaust. For those in the climate change fear mongering business, don’t forget to delete any inconvenient data including emails showing culpability in the massive fraud
4. Please look to Malcolm Mooney as a perfect example of what brainwashing can accomplish.
thank you
“I’m with Malcolm.”
INANE you ARE Malcolm… one hand washes the other, remember?
“objective critical thought…”
Are you telling me that questioning the propaganda regarding Obama’s natural born citizen qualification is not an excellent example of independent critical thinking and objectivity? Quite the contrary.
Go back to watching CNN “news” Mooney. Sorry to interrupt your mind meld session.
Tom Brody: This blogging device does not provide for an italics feature.
If a poster on a blog is not capable of understanding html terms, then it is likely that his opinion will in part be somewhat garbled, and that people who suffer will have need for patented pharmaceuticals or patented methods for diagnostics.
I suggest that the owner of this blog delete the entire paper trail.
Instead of calling this the blogging neutron bomb, we should call it the blogging wank bomb.
Although I think the damage to the playground may be more excessive with the wanking.
This blogging device does not provide for an italics feature. This accounts for the caps.
LaMotte graduated from high school in 1979. At that time, there is NO WAY that high school textbooks in biology mentioned anything about INTRONS or about REVERSE TRANSCRIPTION. No way, Jose.
First of all, nice job of moving the goalpost. Very childish, but perhaps consistent with your excessive reliance on capitalization to make your non-points.
Second of all: why would the terms have to have been in a textbook for a high school graduate — especially an intelligent high school graduate — to have been exposed to the terms in 1979?
LaMotte graduated from high school in 1979. At that time, there is NO WAY that high school textbooks in biology mentioned anything about INTRONS or about REVERSE TRANSCRIPTION. No way, Jose.
An attorney graduating Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law School, but lacking any classes in elementary chemistry, or any classes in elementary biochemistry, would not be capable of understanding any of the terms that I recited.
Doofus, I knew what an intron and reverse transcription was in high school. Stop wanking.
I would suggest more thoughts on the first comment in this paper trail, namely: “Edward DuMont? I thought he was the 4th Musketeer.”
Tom, that statutory quote does give one pause. Ordinarily, I would suggest that obviousness is primarily a question of fact, but in bio, it does appear that one needs to understand something of biology even to understand the statute.
I would comment, the people who put all that technology into the statute were deluded.
It is sometimes said that the law is not technology specific. But this is not the case. Please read 35 USC 103. A judge from the Federal Circuit can be trained to understand these terms with, perhaps, an 80-hour crash course in biology. However, where a judge lacking an 80-hour crash course in biology who listends to arguments, and who contributes to an opinion before the Federal Circuit, the result can be expected to be garbled and wrong. The ultimate victims would be sick people in need of patented diagnostic methods, and patented pharmaceuticals.
This statute contains the following language:
(“3) For purposes of paragraph (1), the term “biotechnological process” means- (A) a process of genetically altering or otherwise inducing a single- or multi-celled organism to-(i) express an exogenous nucleotide sequence,(ii) inhibit, eliminate, augment, or alter expression of an endogenous nucleotide sequence, or (iii) express a specific physiological characteristic not naturally associated with said organism; (B) cell fusion procedures yielding a cell line that expresses a specific protein, such as a monoclonal antibody . . .”
The magic word is CONTEXT. Understanding a term occurs when a person is able to answer questions about the CONTEXT of the word, that is, the environment of use of the word. Above, I provided the example of “introns.” An “intron” is a segment of DNA that is one type of DNA that is often put in the category of “junk DNA.” A person cannot be said to understand this vocabulary word (intron), where he or she is merely capable of stating this: “Intron means intervening sequence. Intron is junk DNA that occurs inside a gen.” No, no, no. Understanding a vocabulary word means more than this. Understanding the vocabulary word “intron” means that a person can describe how introns influence gene regulation, how introns influence gene processing, how introns make life difficult for molecular biologist. I have worked directly with a VICE PRESIDENT OF MARKETING having no science background. I have worked directly with a CORPORATE ATTORNEY VICE PRESIDENT. Therefore, I have concrete examples of non-scientists who are willing to talk “science talk.” In the case of one of these persons, the person understood what he was talking about, and, in fact, I recommended that his name be included in the list of INVENTORS on my patent application. But in the other case, the person’s attempt to “talk science” really made no sense.
But Tom, this is where respect for the lower court findings of fact come in. The real issue for the circuit court should be getting the law right. Typically, this would have nothing at all to do with understanding particular technology.
If you disagree, please explain.
An attorney graduating Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law School, but lacking any classes in elementary chemistry, or any classes in elementary biochemistry, would not be capable of understanding any of the terms that I recited. Now, the definition of “understanding” is a field unto itself. The writer most associated with trying to put a finger on what “understanding” is, is Ludwig Wittgenstein. In fact, the next issue of JPTOS will contain an article by me, on Ludwig Wittgenstein and patent law. At any rate, a working definition to “understanding” is as follows. A person who understands the term “intron” will be able to provide comments on how introns are related to various things, for example, how introns are related to GENE REGULATION, how introns are related to DNA REPAIR, how introns are related to the KINETICS OF MESSAGE PROCESSING. This is what I mean when I state that the candidate would be incapable of understanding these vocabulary words. I would estimate that there are around one hundred words in electronics, that any humanities trained judge can learn over the course of a couple of years. I would estimate that there are around one hundred words in biotechnology, that any humanities trained judge can learn over the course of a couple of years. But a judge coming in cold (to repeat, coming in cold without any prior exposure to INTRONS, and to the various contexts of what is an INTRON), to an appeals case that concerns INTRONS, would be an incompetant.
Seems clear to me Ned.
Tom, perhaps you need to drive ina few more cirlces in order for Ned to understand.
“Not capable of understanding?”
Not capable?
Tom, think on what you said just a bit more.
This is about the comment about the Federal Circuit respecting the findings of fact, regarding the lower courts and the PTO. This is one of the few intelligent comments on this particular discussions. But regarding the fact that Learned Hand was great at patent law, but was no patent attorney, please note that in Learned Hand’s time, the state of the art of chemistry, physics, biology, computer science, was relatively primitive, and did NOT contain very many vocabulary words. Remember, patent law more than any other profession known to mankind, depends on the proper interpretation of words. If a judge on the Federal Circuit is not capable of understanding the term “intron” or “reverse transcription” or “phosphorylation” or “hysteresis plot” or “epitope,” then it is likely that the opinion will in part be somewhat garbled, and that people with needs for patented pharmaceuticals or patented methods for diagnostics, will suffer.
This a comment on the notion that a judge may or may not be a scientific expert. Pauline Newman and Judge Lourie are genuine scientific experts because they have a Ph.D., and because of post-graduate scientific work. However, other judges having an undergraduate background in science are careful to refrain from asserting that they are “experts.” I liked the following quote from Judge Mayer, and I agree with it (the following writing is from one of my articles in Virginia Journal of Law and Technology):
Conversely, in a concurring opinion in Fromson v. Anitec Printing Plates, Inc.,149 Judge Mayer stated that the court should refrain from applying its own background in interpreting technical terms and should defer to the specification: “I ‘know’ what
anodization means from my own undergraduate studies and experiments . . . [b]ut, I am
neither an expert in the field nor one of ordinary skill in the art despite how much I think I ‘know’ about a process I once studied. Nor do my colleagues on this court . . . possess
such expertise, and even if they did, they would have to defer to the record in the
case.”
Personally, it is better that patent attorneys and others skilled in technology not be appointed to the court. This way, they will more likely respect the findings of fact by the lower courts and the PTO.
What matters most are good legal minds. Learned Hand was no patent attorney, but he was great in patent law.
“Tom, for what it’s worth, the more “scientific experts” there are on the Federal Circuit, the less patents will be upheld.”
That’s why I recommend either of these two guys. Every patent would be upheld as divine intervention!
link to youtube.com
RWA Heck, making someone look like a looney has worked against you Mooney right here on this board (of course it didn’t take much – and you helped a lot).
Keep smoking, CaveMan.
On her radio show, Dr. Laura Schlesinger said that, as an observant
Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus
18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance.
The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, penned by a
US resident, which was posted on the Internet. It’s funny, as well
as informative:
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law.
I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that
knowledge with as many people as I can.
When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example,
I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an
abomination … End of debate. Its in the Bible – end of argument!
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other
elements of God’s Laws and how best to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A
friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not
Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair
price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in
her period of menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15: 19-24. The problem
is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates
a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev. 1:9. The problem is, my
neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I
smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus
35:2. Clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally
obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there
‘degrees’ of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I
have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading
glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wriggle
room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the
hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden
by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig
makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two
different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing
garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester
blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really
necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town
together to stone them? Lev. 24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them
to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who
sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy
considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan.
James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus,
Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education
University of Virginia
My bad…i’m informed the Goracle was a divinity school dropout before he re-invented himself as a climate specialist and critical thinker worthy of the CAFC.
IANAE,
“i don’t want greed-motivated reason, because reason would be forever at the mercy of greed-motivated ignorance. It’s not really reason unless you’ve reasoned your way there.”
Didn’t Adam Smith say something about this? Or was that Gordon Gecko?
aww, RWA
“Try to make anyone with a valid question … look like a looney.”
This is such a well liked tactic that your pal NAL created a nickname for it – the Neutron Bomb of blogging. Leaves the playground all nice and neat.
And as I corrected Malcolm, you need to stay current with the PC – it’s “climate change” emergency, not “global warming” emergency.
“I’m with Malcolm. If you can’t show some evidence of objective critical thought, you shouldn’t be anywhere near science, particularly not with decision-making power.”
Didn’t the Goracle get a Masters degree in Theology from Vanderbilt? Is he a double-heretic?
Try to make anyone with a valid question about Obama’s agenda and qualifications look like a looney.
And what would that “valid question” be, exactly? Whether Hawaii is part of Kenya? Whether measures should be taken against the possible election of non-Christian presidents?
Remember when you couldn’t question the president’s agenda or qualifications at all, because if you did the terrorists would win? Good thing that particular president was eminently qualified and had the country’s best interests at heart.
I’m with Malcolm. If you can’t show some evidence of objective critical thought, you shouldn’t be anywhere near science, particularly not with decision-making power.
“Obama is a Kenyan-born Muslim trying to destroy America yuk, yuk” (emphasis added)
Right out of the DNC handbook. Try to make anyone with a valid question about Obama’s agenda and qualifications look like a looney.
Heck, making someone look like a looney has worked against you Mooney right here on this board (of course it didn’t take much – and you helped a lot). Unfortunately, it isn’t working in connection with people who are at least are open to considering the possibility of the above perfectly plausible scenario. After all, stranger things have happened – like three feet of snow in DC during the so called “global warming” emergency.
Even the most apparently gullible people can sometimes be shaken out of their stupor,
Only by appealing to their greed, it seems. Like the various Congresspersons who were vocally against responding to the census until it was pointed out that such conduct might cost them the very existence of their seat.
I don’t want greed-motivated reason, because reason would be forever at the mercy of greed-motivated ignorance. It’s not really reason unless you’ve reasoned your way there.
EG Again, let’s agree to disagree and stick to the what this thread is supposed to be about, the nomination of DuMont to fill Michel’s soon to be vacant seat.
Well, we got onto the subject because of the alleged lack of scientific expertise of Mr. DuMont and its alleged ramifications for the Federal Circuit, should he be appointed. Let’s put it this way: if you “believe” that the earth is 6,000 years old and the evolution of life on earth is “just a theory” then you aren’t qualified to sit on the Federal Circuit (nor are you qualified for any job where the ability to weigh evidence and evaluate credibility is a necessary skill). This would be a perfectly fair question to ask Mr. DuMont or any judicial nominee, just as it would be perfectly fair to ask them if they believe that humans landed on the moon or that Obama is a Kenyan-born Muslim trying to destroy America. Of course, our “liberal” media would have a field day documenting the “outrage” over the 6,000 year old earth question because, we would be informed, the question “can be perceived” as an “attack” on the “moral foundation of the country”.
Nevertheless, it would be an opportunity for our country to grow up and perhaps educate itself. Even the most apparently gullible people can sometimes be shaken out of their stupor, as this recent article revealed:
But in follow-up interviews, Tea Party supporters said they did not want to cut Medicare or Social Security — the biggest domestic programs, suggesting instead a focus on “waste.”
Some defended being on Social Security while fighting big government by saying that since they had paid into the system, they deserved the benefits.
Others could not explain the contradiction.
“That’s a conundrum, isn’t it?” asked Jodine White, 62, of Rocklin, Calif. “I don’t know what to say. Maybe I don’t want smaller government. I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security.” She added, “I didn’t look at it from the perspective of losing things I need. I think I’ve changed my mind.”
link to nytimes.com
secular progressive dogma
You misspelled “facts” there.
Not that your needlessly wordy and polarizing term for it comes off as “demonizing” or anything, just FYI.
Peace.
“with respect to the Bible at least, you are not exercising critical thought, no matter how capable you are of critical thinking.”
Lionel,
Let’s just say I disagree with your view (which you certainly have the right to express) and leave it at that. Neither of us is going to convince the other on this point.
As far as “demonization” that’s how it comes across to me. Basically, if you don’t accept secular progressive dogma as absolutely correct, your opinion doesn’t matter and is trivialized. Again, let’s agree to disagree and stick to the what this thread is supposed to be about, the nomination of DuMont to fill Michel’s soon to be vacant seat.
Since we do not have specialized patent courts in this country anyway, why not open up the appeals process to include additional circuits, and leave it to the Supreme Court to sort things out? The current system places too many burdens on too few judges with too little background in the sciences to make for good (patent) case law.
” Malcolm,
you might have to switch to one of your sock puppets, no one (else) pays attention to the Malcolm one (heck even RWA follows me around now like a little puppy – you want him back?)
Posted by: ping | Apr 15, 2010 at 09:36 PM
(heck even RWA follows me around now like a little puppy – you want him back?)
Enjoy. 😉
Posted by: Malcolm Mooney | Apr 16, 2010 at 12:39 AM”
One snarky little hand washes the other. Here endeth the lesson.
I don’t think anything I said was demonizing.
It’s another one of those irregular verbs.
I debate
You demonize
They violate my First Amendment rights by expressing their opinions about my opinion
By the way, I don’t think anything I said was demonizing.
Isaac Newton was living in a period of relative ignorance. The Earth may have been 6000 years old as far as he was concerned. Now we have a better (far from complete) understanding of the universe that precludes the Earth being 6000 years old.
However, to be more precise, I should have said with respect to the Bible at least, you are not exercising critical thought, no matter how capable you are of critical thinking.
“I’m sorry, but if you believe the events in the Old Testament actually happened then your critical thinking skills are lacking.”
Lionel,
Let’s not go down that path, please. My “critical thinking skills” are just fine and I still believe the Bible is the Holy Word of God (just like many, many other scientists or those got degrees in science). That’s my “belief,” but I’m certainly not going to impose that “belief” on you or anyone else.
Also, I think everyone would agree that Sir Isaac Newton was one of the greatest physicists of all time, yet he had a profound belief in the truth of the Bible. Are you going to say Newton’s “critical thinking skills” are “lacking”? Again, let’s debate, not “demonize.”
With regard to DuMont I would prefer a person with more patent experience, scientific background or not. If anyone has information on the cases he was apparently “involved” with, please post.
What I don not understand is Creationism is not a science. It doesn’t even necessarily conflict with Evolutionary theory, which is science. You want to believe there is a creator fine. However, the best explanation for the world around us, and the only explanation for the diversity and complexity we see currently, is Evolution.
Unless you truly believe the Earth is 6000 years old, in which case I feel sorry for you.
“A comment about on par with those who treat what the Bible says as a myth (which it isn’t).”
I’m sorry, but if you believe the events in the Old Testament actually happened then your critical thinking skills are lacking.
(heck even RWA follows me around now like a little puppy – you want him back?)
Enjoy. 😉
Malcolm,
you might have to switch to one of your sock puppets, no one (else) pays attention to the Malcolm one (heck even RWA follows me around now like a little puppy – you want him back?)
But regarding the present candidate, I one might hesitate to expect an optimal or even reasonable level of competence in any area of patent law, except for simple mechanical devices and simple medical devices.
I think you said that already. Like ten times. In this thread alone.
An ideal candidate for the Federal Circuit would be a candidate with a Ph.D. in CHEMICAL ENGINEERING. A woman or man with a Ph.D. in CHEMICAL ENGINEERING, plus some years of hands-on experience, will know enough chemistry to make reasonable decisions relating to patents in chemistry and biotechnology. Also, a person with a Ph.D. in CHEMICAL ENGINEERING will likely have enough background in ELECTRONICS to make reasonable decisions in matters relating to computers, software, and electronic devices. But regarding the present candidate, I one might hesitate to expect an optimal or even reasonable level of competence in any area of patent law, except for simple mechanical devices and simple medical devices. The issue here is vocabulary words. How can a person whose English vocabulary lacks words such as, transcription factor, isoelectric point, ionic bond, doping, germanium, calcium flux, and “pi orbital” be expected to represent the needs of countless inventors, mostly from the U.S. and from Japan?
Tom, for what it’s worth, the more “scientific experts” there are on the Federal Circuit, the less patents will be upheld. Not sure if this matters to you. Doesn’t really matter to me, but I know it means the world to some people.
That’s a good one. It is like that illusion where you’re looking a drawing, and the drawing keeps switching between a DUCK and a RABBIT. Is it an “Intelligent Design Patent,” which is a utility patent that claims a machine that stimulates or controls evolution. Or is it an ordinary Design Patent that is intelligent, in contrast to a Design Patent that was drafted or drawn in a careless manner, e.g., without an adequate prior art search?
aw, we didn’t even get to “intelligent design patents” yet.
“Can we please stop talking about CREATIONISM and about “intelligent design.”
Tom,
Point well taken. I’ve spoken my piece, it’s time to move on.
“Do you really want to trust the availability to these drugs to a judge on the Federal Circuit who does not know the difference between a diode and a capacitor?”
How would Mr. DuMont’s knowing the difference between a diode and a capacitor help him to make decisions about the availability of drugs?
Tom: Patents to sports equipment, and patents to “One-click purchasing” do not require much more than $100,000 of investment, as far as engineering and research is concerned.
“Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.”
Tom: It is a fact that research, development, and clinical testing of drugs often costs well over $500 million dollars. It is a fact that this research, develpment, and clinical testing, hinges on having a valid patent.
It is also a fact that the bulk of that research has nothing to do with inventing the drug or obtaining the patent. It is done after the invention is completed and the application filed, and is for the most part done to ensure public safety and regulatory approval of the product.
Whether the drug companies only do it so they can profit from a patent is immaterial. It doesn’t make them any more deserving of the patent, and it doesn’t affect the Federal Circuit’s determination of whether they are entitled to their patent.
Tom: Do you really want to trust the availability to these drugs to a judge on the Federal Circuit who does not know the difference between a diode and a capacitor?
Do you think the guy who invented the drug knows the difference between a diode and a capacitor?
How about this: Whatever technology you’re pleading before him, you pretend he’s really really experienced in some completely unrelated technology. Just like most of the judges will be, most of the time, no matter what case is before them. Which is why there are experts to explain these technical details to the court, and why the facts are supposed to get sorted out long before the Federal Circuit even has jurisdiction.
Can we please stop talking about CREATIONISM and about “intelligent design.” This is a blog about a court nominee. In my opinion, an issue is this.
All patents cover one or another technology. Patents to sports equipment, and patents to “One-click purchasing” do not require much more than $100,000 of investment, as far as engineering and research is concerned. Also, patent to sports equipment, and patents to “One-click purchasing” have no relevance to your survival, when you wake up one morning to discover that you have multiple sclerosis, or when you find yourself crouching on the floor with severe chest pains.
It is a fact that research, development, and clinical testing of drugs often costs well over $500 million dollars. It is a fact that this research, develpment, and clinical testing, hinges on having a valid patent.
Do you really want to trust the availability to these drugs to a judge on the Federal Circuit who does not know the difference between a diode and a capacitor?
Do you really want to trust the availability of drugs for, e.g., multiple sclerosis, cancer, and atherosclerosis, to a judge who is only capable of “winging it” or of “playing it by ear,” when it comes time for him to review documents that contain words, such as: GLYCOSYLATION, DNA SEQUENCE MOTIFS, MEMBRANE RECEPTORS, METHYL GROUPS, or DENDRITIC CELLS?
EG That’s a pretty tall accusation to make. Where’s your proof/evidence for this statement? How do you know that “creationists” are spending “millions of dollars spreading lies about science and scientists?”
Which part are you confused about? The millions of dollars, or the spreading of lies about science and scientists? Hardly a “tall accusation” either way.
Perhaps you’ve heard of Dover v. Kitzmiller? The clowns at the Discovery Institute were all over the TV and newspaper a few years ago, predicting “the end of evolutionary biology,” promoting creationist textbooks, accusing the world’s biologists of engaging in gigantic fraud to promote a “secularist agenda,” etc. etc. And some of them still show up on Fox News to recite their drivel. You think all that is done without money? Think again. The Dominionists are pumping them with cash all the time.
The term “lies” implies the one making the statement knows its untrue. What if those allegedly “spreading lies” actually believe its true?
And what if it is shown that there is no rational basis for a person who is not mentally ill to maintain that belief? Or if evidence exists showing that the alleged “believer” is saying the opposite thing behind closed doors? What is that called? I think it’s called “lying” and that’s what I am talking about here.
Our media occasionally falls into its bad habit of pretending that there are two equally compelling sides to every dispute but there isn’t. One one hand you have virtually every credible scientist in the world looking at the evidence and reaching a consensus understanding of the only reasonable explanation, and on the other hand you have a handful of charlatans and legions of uninformed rubes whose sole purpose in life is to turn the United States (or at least their hometown) into a theocracy, by any means necessary.
Someone upthread said that Obama is “clueless about science.” Really? I’ll reserve judgment for now, maybe until one of Obama’s appointees starts telling NASA that they should only refer to the Big Bang as the “Big Bang theory” because “it’s not a proven fact, just an opinion.” Remember that? And you remember what happened to that Bush appointee? That’s right: fired because he lied on his resume about graduating from Texas A&M (he was a journalism school drop-out).