148 thoughts on “Jon Stewart Show Takes on Biotech Patents”
148
I am not a farmer. The Daily Show had a chance to tell me about those tactics, but chose to present a one sided view of patents instead.
147
Hmm, even my poor English skills note that as a substantive change Leopold – especially as the reference in the inital post was to NWPA being a farmer and not the poster AnotherExaminer.
You need to brush up a bit there.
Seriously.
And where are my answers?
146
If you are [a farmer], then you [, AnotherExaminer,] have picked an odd pseudonym.
Seriously.
145
“If you are, then you’ve picked an odd pseudonym.”
Because examiners must be for Monsanto…?
Seriously?
144
NWPA is also clearly not a farmer who has seen first hand the tactics that Monsanto uses against farmers that try to grow non-Monsanto and non-GMO seed.
If you are, then you’ve picked an odd pseudonym.
Seriously, could you provide some examples of these tactics?
143
NWPA is clearly someone who has never watched the daily show in his life and doesn’t realize it’s a comedy show.
NWPA is also clearly not a farmer who has seen first hand the tactics that Monsanto uses against farmers that try to grow non-Monsanto and non-GMO seed.
142
Leopold,
Where are my answers?
141
And how could I forget?
Eliminate the lame-@$$ accuse-others-of-that-which-you-do B$.
140
And by the way, did you notice that your head cheerleader actually proves my point with his attempted spin of my 12:18 post?
Yet another person eager to prove my point for me.
139
“ After all, all that you are asking for is “better examination” …”
Wrong yet again Malcolm.
I am asking for better examination – that much is true. But I am also asking for something far simpler (at least in theory) and far more universal: intellectual honesty in posting.
Eliminate the strawmen.
Eliminate the canards.
Eliminate the mischaracterizations of law.
Eliminate the mischaracterizations of fact.
Eliminate the mischaracterizations of what others post.
In short: eliminate the spin that is merely philosophically driven.
I have no trouble with ‘insults’ per se – I am a big boy and can dish those right back. It’s the vacuous and mindless posts that continue to ignore the valid points raised that I find contemptible.
Ans yes, since you indicate, your posting style does earn you my contempt and insults.
But you already know that. And you also know how to change that: post with intellectual honesty.
Now actually doing that – that seems to be impossible for you.
138
Malcolm’s conduct is far more egregious than mine
Of course it is, Tr0 llb0y. After all, my “egregious conduct” is what “excuses” your own relatively minor transgressions. Isn’t that right?
Why, but for me and my jokes about Ronald Reagan, you’d just be the most reasonable guy on the planet, perfectly happy to explain all your weird insults and innuendo to everbody, all day long. After all, all that you are asking for is “better examination” …
137
If Monsanto cannot sue and win against the farmer who does not use Roundup
You’re way out in left field, Ned. There’s a farmer who doesn’t use the herbicide but decides to grow a giant crop of genetically engineered beans anyway? Why? When? Where? And you’re suggesting that if this alleged famer tries to sell those patented beans to other farmers he “can’t be sued by Monsanto”? Huh?
are they instead protecting the expired patent on Roundup
If so, Monsanto is not doing a very good job of that. There’s lots of competing products on the market already. Go to Home Depot or some other store that sells gardening supplies and see for yourself.
136
“You on board with that?”
A full and hearty yes.
But while we have that examination in our sights – let’s re-engineer it and avoid the fallacy of simply “more is better,” as I am sure that you will agree, more of bad examination is most definitely not better.
“hurts my client’s fee-fees””
Maybe you should quit your sm@rt-@$$ comments while you were ahead. There is plenty of (mindless) QQ over any patent claim that finds its way on to these boards. There is no need for me to add to that. Or perhaps you simply don’t understand the plain English I used above (funny, you almost made it through a mature conversation without spin and being an @$$h@t).
Little steps I guess.
135
yes, Malcolm, I want smarter examiners.
So do I. And more of them.
Let’s join forces and encourage Congress to expand the PTO budget to improve training and hire more Examiners. We may have to increase the salaries, too, to ensure that the highest quality candidates are hired and retained.
You on board with that?
The problem is CRP rejections that when I discuss with my client what the rejection is, my client (rightfully) is apt to pursue their rights.
Since you’ve never complained about any granted patent claim as one that should not have issued, it’s difficult to know where a “CRP rejection” ends and a “good rejection that hurts my client’s fee-fees” beings. Maybe you should work on that.
134
“Neither situation is at issue in the Monsanto case.”
LOL – open your eyes and try again.
133
That would seem to be one reason to go off-brand, Ned.
132
Since using Roundup or an equivalent is the only way Monsanto can tell whether the patented seed is being used, we just might see a lot of moonshine Roundup on the farm in the future.
131
Ned, if your question is whether Monsanto can make the purchase of Roundup a condition of a license agreement to the seeds, or whether Monsanto can condition the sale of Roundup on the purchase of licensed seeds, then the answer is no. Neither situation is at issue in the Monsanto case.
130
LB, you think that Monsato could lawfully tie purchases of Roundup to a license under any relevant seed/plant patent?
129
Ned, I think you are on the wrong track. There are now other glyphosate herbicides – Is there anything in the Supreme Court’s decision to suggest that they would have come to a different conclusion if Bowman had been using one of these other products, instead of Roundup? Does the decision in the Bowman case have any effect on anyone’s right to continue producing glyphosate herbicides that formerly would have been covered by the Roundup patent? I think the answer to both questions is “no.”
128
anon, Monsanto admits it determines infringement by purchases and use of Roundup. So, if the farmer purchases nothing, he probably is home free.
127
The expired patent on RoundUp pesticide means that (theoretically) the farmer himself could be making the (expired patent formulation open to the world) pesticide in his shed. Where does that leave you?
126
Filburn, oh Filburn, where are you?
125
Malcolm, there was no way to remove the patented seed from the unpatented seed once they are mixed together.
As to his lawyer, I think he was advising his client to destroy the seeds because I think his lawyer believed that the Supreme Court of Canada let him off easy because the farmer did not violate any contract with Monsanto, the seeds having been blown onto his farm from passing trucks. But once having been sued, if the farmer continued to replant, his lawyer probably believe that Monsanto and the courts would come down heavily on him because he would be willfully infringing.
Regarding the “special variety,” you might be right there was pure “BS.” But one never knows for sure.
124
Malcolm, but the Supreme Court seems to agree with me in that they found infringement in the case of the American farmer who was using Roundup to create, after several years, a highly “pure” batch of seeds that he was replanting, year-in and year-out, while selling the excess. The Supreme Court placed heavy emphasis on the fact that the farmer was using Roundup. The Supreme Court seemed to be concerned with the fact that the purchasers of the pure seed could use the purchased seed for their own planting, essentially placing the farmer in competition with Monsanto in the sale of patented seeds.
The Supreme Court also reserved the question of whether innocent infringement was infringement at all.
So the bottom line appeared to be that the Supreme Court was protecting Monsanto only to the extent that the farmer actually used Roundup with knowledge that the seeds were a Roundup ready variety. If Monsanto cannot sue and win against the farmer who does not use Roundup, is the Supreme Court actually protecting the patent on the seeds, or are they instead protecting the expired patent on Roundup?
123
(and Leopold should take note that I am asking for the individual to post information)
122
No, Malcolm, er, um, Leopold, (by redirecting the emphasis, you engaged in spin. Do you really think that parsing is not a form of spin here?)
Try again.
In fact – I am the one asking for you to post answers.
Where are they? You keep on disappearing when I ask you for answers. Why is that? You keep on disappearing when I point out that Malcolm’s conduct is far more egregious than mine. Why is that?
Your silence is deafening.
121
LOL
Irony meter pegged as IANAE is the voice of a redshirt.
Take another Calvinball fac sp1ke for the team, IANAE.
120
Lovely maturity there Leopold of spinning what I say.
Actually, what I did is called “parsing.” You’re the one who said that you want to remove what others post.
119
“weird obsession”
LOL – Hey, I’m just trying to be helpful and have you direct your vapid insults to the right party.
118
The not so subtle return of the fake patent lawyer who openly admits his greed…
Y A W N
Hey, didn’t I send you out to find just one modern advanced country that has seen your ‘light’ and abandoned all IP protection?
Still haven’t seen that single example.
117
“You’ve almost caught on”
LOL – come 6 – pay attention. I have been leading the conversation on this topic.
Wake up.
116
My sarcasm meter is working just fine. But thanks for the concern.
Captain, this is Ensign Redshirt from the away team. Sensors aren’t picking up anything. I’m sure they’re working just fine…
115
“Keep digging.”
Said as Malcolm is the one busy with the shovel…
Accuse-others-of-that-which-he-does: Malcolm’s very special specialty.
114
Nice Leopold – where are my answers?
113
No, bja, I just used your post to point out some of the Supreme Court decisions rendered in English that our resident ‘expert’ in English as a first language still has trouble with.
My sarcasm meter is working just fine. But thanks for the concern.
112
LOL – still trying to spin this, eh Malcolm?
(and still omitting critical portions, I see)
111
Lovely maturity there Leopold of spinning what I say.
Where are my answers?
110
Yes and my beef is that Monsanto won’t even talk to the serious documentaries. So I asked NWPA what makes him think that they’d talk to the daily show when they won’t even say their piece for serious docs.
Congratulations, you’ve almost caught on to the beginning of the conversation!
109
We need people who will protect my job and expand opportunities for me to make money!
108
Your sarcasm meter is busted.
107
that’s exactly what I suggested so long ago.
Was that before or after you suggesting using mailroom staff to screen registered letters addressed to patent attorneys and throw away the letters that were deemed by the mailroom staff to contain references to relevant prior art?
Just curious.
106
What if we remove [(1)] all the spin, [(2)] the misrepresentations of fact, [(3)] law, and [(4)] what others post? Oh wait – that’s exactly what I suggested so long ago.
Ah, so anon finally admits his true agenda. I think I like NWPA’s suggestion better.
C’est la vie.
105
I would pay big time to see you try.
You cannot even get out of your own way here.
104
What if to cut down on all this noise, we all agree to be intellectually honest and acknowledge and incorporate valid points made?
What if we remove all the spin, the misrepresentations of fact, law, and what others post?
Oh wait – that’s exactly what I suggested so long ago.
C’est La Vie
103
LOL right back at you – still have not heard amongst your 30,000 mewling QQ words why I was right.
English skills seem to fail you here.
102
Nice purposeful feigned ignorance Malcolm
If you think that’s something, you should see his non-purposeful feigned ignorance. Or his calculated willful intentional acts. Or even his obfuscatory unilluminating non-explications.
101
What if to cut down on all this noise, we all agree to post only twice for each post of Dennis’s.
100
Sorry Malcolm, but your continual misperception that enforcing patent rights as the ‘Worst Thing Ever” screams so loud that I cannot hear what you are attempting to spin.
btw, Jane says hello.
99
the decision that tracked perfectly
LOL.
98
“The serious documentaries try to explain the facts as best they can make them out.“
Yes 6, that is true. They also take facts into account that oppose any theory being advanced.
But wait, that is exactly NWPA’s beef with certain people.
97
Seeing as you have yet to post anything today that does not fit the description of a “Bl0gTr0ll”, it is clear that you are merely using your stale script of accuse-others-of-that-which-you-do.
That is your ultimate specialty.
96
He brings it up in the context to which it applies
LOL. Keep digging.
95
I’ve seen plenty of the daily show where for serious people were successful at getting their tots serious point across while the daily show rep was trying to make fun of them. It can be done.
94
Wherein Tr0 llb0y’s weird obsession with “Steve Moore” (and other alleged “myth debunkers”) is addressed:
it’s not a secret that the small-ish inventor in this country can have trouble monetizing their patent, especially in larger technological sectors. Patent licensing companies do serve an unfilled need in the economy and no one I don’t think would argue that they don’t so yeah, we get that. Likewise, we get that you don’t have to make a product to be considered a valid owner of a patent. Over on IP Watchdog, Steve Moore makes a big “to do” about this. Again, we get it. And in fact, that’s one reason that the term NPE is not the same as the term Patent Troll. All patent trolls are NPE’s, but not all NPE’s are patent trolls.
What articles like this do though, is negate that there really is a problem with companies going after business for the sole purpose of extracting licensing fees over patents that are either old and worthless or that the targets are not infringing on. Those are the trolls we’re after, and they make up a significant portion of the increase in patent litigation in recent years. If you believe there’s been an increase, I mean.
It’s fair to question statistics and the motives of those behind them. It’s fair to criticize people who only want legislative relief of the problem in the form of more laws from Congress because they (incorrectly, in my view) believe that that is the only way out of the problem, or even a good way out.
But you can’t just throw the baby out with the bathwater and say that because a few statistics are misquoted or unfounded or skewed by the companies putting them out that there isn’t really a problem.
Starting to understand, Tr0 llb0y? The issue of patent tr0lling isn’t going away until patent tr0lling goes away. And it’s not going to go away until it’s legislated out of existence (because, after all, what else will stop those tiny Texas cowboys from wrangling cash out of people by whatever means exist for doing so? Ethics? LOL — tell us about “ethics,” Tr0 llb0y).
93
He brings it up in the context to which it applies.
Not so difficult Malcolm.
92
LOL – please do in relation to the herbicide, Malcolm.
Please.
oh, please, please, please, please, please.
91
Open your eyes Malcolm.
You.
F001.
No one.
90
Or maybe you need some help in understanding the plain English used in the Myriad decision – you know, the decision that tracked perfectly my posts on the subject that you never seemed to ‘understand’?
89
LOL, your post at 11:47 made zero sense, Malcolm.
Try again – this time in English.
88
“Incidentally, how many Roundup Ready infringement suits has Monsanto lost?”
How many have they declined to bring after leveling baseless accusations?
87
You are misrepresenting NWPA’s view on this area of law by seeking to inject his view on the Church-Turing thesis, implying that he thinks that that thesis is the answer to every single patent question
Or am I merely poking some fun at NWPA because he does, in fact, reflexively bring up the Church-Turing thesis (and the “failure” to discuss it) when he wishes to accuse critics of software patenting of being ignorant and/or baised?
Gosh, it’s so difficult to sort this stuff out, isn’t it, Tr0 llb0y? If only we could all impute the conflation of the anthoromporification as easily as you can. But we simply can’t. It’s something you were born with. A real gift.
86
He had a special variety he had developed for 50 years. Gone.
I don’t understand why he would have to destroy any seeds that were not covered by Monsanto’s patents.
Monsanto did that to him.
Seems more likely that his lawyer let him down.
Seems even more likely that he saved some of his “special variety” and the story you are relating is a b.s. sob story.
85
You can still patent genes bja,
Just not those that are merely effectively what is in the warehouse of nature.
Right. And someday Tr0 llb0y will explain how you can tell when a claimed composition of matter is “merely effectively in the warehouse” and when that composition is not “merely effectively in the warehouse”. And then monkeys will fly out of our butts.
84
MM, you might want to add that even though no money was awarded, the Canadian had to destroy his seeds that he had been replanting. He had a special variety he had developed for 50 years. Gone. Gone with the Wind.
Monsanto did that to him. And, for what purpose. Malice?
83
end italics
82
Round-Up herbicide was patented and that patent has lapsed and now cannot be the basis of patent infringement.
Define “basis” in this context.
81
if all they ever do is sue people who use RR, are they not illegally extending the RR patent?
Uh … no. Do you need me to explain to you how infringement of a patent claim works, Ned?
80
Bingo – score one for Ned.
Ned, how goes our voracious patented fish project?
79
LOL – Round-Up herbicide was patented and that patent has lapsed and now cannot be the basis of patent infringement.
Unless of course, you hoodwink the judiciary…
That too is an important distinction.
78
MM, if all they ever do is sue people who use RR, are they not illegally extending the RR patent?
77
You can still patent genes bja,
Just not those that are merely effectively what is in the warehouse of nature.
You make a new gene, different in kind, and you can have your patent.
76
The better person would have been Stephen Moore.
Pay attention Malcolm.
75
You are misrepresenting NWPA’s view on this area of law by seeking to inject his view on the Church-Turing thesis, implying that he thinks that that thesis is the answer to every single patent question (and thus should not be held in any esteem whatsoever – even in the art area where it does apply).
As I said, Malcolm,
You.
F001.
No one.
74
if we want examiners with some minimum level of intelligence
You want smarter Examiners, Tr0 llb0y?
Be careful what you wish for.
73
like the ‘English” you used to attempt to save your buring ‘theory’ after tossing it into a bonfire of your own making on the Myriad thread?
Here’s a serious question: when the aliens brought you here from Planet Bl0gTr0ll, did they say when they were coming back to pick you up?
72
You are misrepresenting by conflating.
What am I “misrepresenting”?
71
Unless you are saying that I am “admitting” that you are making an unethical twist of the quote with a baseless accusation against Chief Judge Rader…
Is that what you are saying?
LOL – either that or you are engaging again in attempting to twist what other people post.
Just [shrug] and stand-by your decrepit ways, Malcolm.
You.
F001.
No one.
70
goes to the Daily Show quip about what farmers have been doing for millennia – spraying the crops with Round-Up, saving their own seed from the Round-Up resistant plants, and replanting that Round-up Resistant seed in the next year while continuing to spray the crops with Round-Up.
Fixed for accuracy. Except for the “millenia” part, of course. Should be more like “couple decades”. LOL.
69
Your post at 11:05 has no meaning, Malcolm.
Try again.
This time with that English as a first language skill of yours.
68
LOL – like the ‘English” you used to attempt to save your buring ‘theory’ after tossing it into a bonfire of your own making on the Myriad thread?
I am not a farmer. The Daily Show had a chance to tell me about those tactics, but chose to present a one sided view of patents instead.
Hmm, even my poor English skills note that as a substantive change Leopold – especially as the reference in the inital post was to NWPA being a farmer and not the poster AnotherExaminer.
You need to brush up a bit there.
Seriously.
And where are my answers?
If you are [a farmer], then you [, AnotherExaminer,] have picked an odd pseudonym.
Seriously.
“If you are, then you’ve picked an odd pseudonym.”
Because examiners must be for Monsanto…?
Seriously?
NWPA is also clearly not a farmer who has seen first hand the tactics that Monsanto uses against farmers that try to grow non-Monsanto and non-GMO seed.
If you are, then you’ve picked an odd pseudonym.
Seriously, could you provide some examples of these tactics?
NWPA is clearly someone who has never watched the daily show in his life and doesn’t realize it’s a comedy show.
NWPA is also clearly not a farmer who has seen first hand the tactics that Monsanto uses against farmers that try to grow non-Monsanto and non-GMO seed.
Leopold,
Where are my answers?
And how could I forget?
Eliminate the lame-@$$ accuse-others-of-that-which-you-do B$.
And by the way, did you notice that your head cheerleader actually proves my point with his attempted spin of my 12:18 post?
Yet another person eager to prove my point for me.
“ After all, all that you are asking for is “better examination” …”
Wrong yet again Malcolm.
I am asking for better examination – that much is true. But I am also asking for something far simpler (at least in theory) and far more universal: intellectual honesty in posting.
Eliminate the strawmen.
Eliminate the canards.
Eliminate the mischaracterizations of law.
Eliminate the mischaracterizations of fact.
Eliminate the mischaracterizations of what others post.
In short: eliminate the spin that is merely philosophically driven.
I have no trouble with ‘insults’ per se – I am a big boy and can dish those right back. It’s the vacuous and mindless posts that continue to ignore the valid points raised that I find contemptible.
Ans yes, since you indicate, your posting style does earn you my contempt and insults.
But you already know that. And you also know how to change that: post with intellectual honesty.
Now actually doing that – that seems to be impossible for you.
Malcolm’s conduct is far more egregious than mine
Of course it is, Tr0 llb0y. After all, my “egregious conduct” is what “excuses” your own relatively minor transgressions. Isn’t that right?
Why, but for me and my jokes about Ronald Reagan, you’d just be the most reasonable guy on the planet, perfectly happy to explain all your weird insults and innuendo to everbody, all day long. After all, all that you are asking for is “better examination” …
If Monsanto cannot sue and win against the farmer who does not use Roundup
You’re way out in left field, Ned. There’s a farmer who doesn’t use the herbicide but decides to grow a giant crop of genetically engineered beans anyway? Why? When? Where? And you’re suggesting that if this alleged famer tries to sell those patented beans to other farmers he “can’t be sued by Monsanto”? Huh?
are they instead protecting the expired patent on Roundup
If so, Monsanto is not doing a very good job of that. There’s lots of competing products on the market already. Go to Home Depot or some other store that sells gardening supplies and see for yourself.
“You on board with that?”
A full and hearty yes.
But while we have that examination in our sights – let’s re-engineer it and avoid the fallacy of simply “more is better,” as I am sure that you will agree, more of bad examination is most definitely not better.
“hurts my client’s fee-fees””
Maybe you should quit your sm@rt-@$$ comments while you were ahead. There is plenty of (mindless) QQ over any patent claim that finds its way on to these boards. There is no need for me to add to that. Or perhaps you simply don’t understand the plain English I used above (funny, you almost made it through a mature conversation without spin and being an @$$h@t).
Little steps I guess.
yes, Malcolm, I want smarter examiners.
So do I. And more of them.
Let’s join forces and encourage Congress to expand the PTO budget to improve training and hire more Examiners. We may have to increase the salaries, too, to ensure that the highest quality candidates are hired and retained.
You on board with that?
The problem is CRP rejections that when I discuss with my client what the rejection is, my client (rightfully) is apt to pursue their rights.
Since you’ve never complained about any granted patent claim as one that should not have issued, it’s difficult to know where a “CRP rejection” ends and a “good rejection that hurts my client’s fee-fees” beings. Maybe you should work on that.
“Neither situation is at issue in the Monsanto case.”
LOL – open your eyes and try again.
That would seem to be one reason to go off-brand, Ned.
Since using Roundup or an equivalent is the only way Monsanto can tell whether the patented seed is being used, we just might see a lot of moonshine Roundup on the farm in the future.
Ned, if your question is whether Monsanto can make the purchase of Roundup a condition of a license agreement to the seeds, or whether Monsanto can condition the sale of Roundup on the purchase of licensed seeds, then the answer is no. Neither situation is at issue in the Monsanto case.
LB, you think that Monsato could lawfully tie purchases of Roundup to a license under any relevant seed/plant patent?
Ned, I think you are on the wrong track. There are now other glyphosate herbicides – Is there anything in the Supreme Court’s decision to suggest that they would have come to a different conclusion if Bowman had been using one of these other products, instead of Roundup? Does the decision in the Bowman case have any effect on anyone’s right to continue producing glyphosate herbicides that formerly would have been covered by the Roundup patent? I think the answer to both questions is “no.”
anon, Monsanto admits it determines infringement by purchases and use of Roundup. So, if the farmer purchases nothing, he probably is home free.
The expired patent on RoundUp pesticide means that (theoretically) the farmer himself could be making the (expired patent formulation open to the world) pesticide in his shed. Where does that leave you?
Filburn, oh Filburn, where are you?
Malcolm, there was no way to remove the patented seed from the unpatented seed once they are mixed together.
As to his lawyer, I think he was advising his client to destroy the seeds because I think his lawyer believed that the Supreme Court of Canada let him off easy because the farmer did not violate any contract with Monsanto, the seeds having been blown onto his farm from passing trucks. But once having been sued, if the farmer continued to replant, his lawyer probably believe that Monsanto and the courts would come down heavily on him because he would be willfully infringing.
Regarding the “special variety,” you might be right there was pure “BS.” But one never knows for sure.
Malcolm, but the Supreme Court seems to agree with me in that they found infringement in the case of the American farmer who was using Roundup to create, after several years, a highly “pure” batch of seeds that he was replanting, year-in and year-out, while selling the excess. The Supreme Court placed heavy emphasis on the fact that the farmer was using Roundup. The Supreme Court seemed to be concerned with the fact that the purchasers of the pure seed could use the purchased seed for their own planting, essentially placing the farmer in competition with Monsanto in the sale of patented seeds.
The Supreme Court also reserved the question of whether innocent infringement was infringement at all.
So the bottom line appeared to be that the Supreme Court was protecting Monsanto only to the extent that the farmer actually used Roundup with knowledge that the seeds were a Roundup ready variety. If Monsanto cannot sue and win against the farmer who does not use Roundup, is the Supreme Court actually protecting the patent on the seeds, or are they instead protecting the expired patent on Roundup?
(and Leopold should take note that I am asking for the individual to post information)
No, Malcolm, er, um, Leopold, (by redirecting the emphasis, you engaged in spin. Do you really think that parsing is not a form of spin here?)
Try again.
In fact – I am the one asking for you to post answers.
Where are they? You keep on disappearing when I ask you for answers. Why is that? You keep on disappearing when I point out that Malcolm’s conduct is far more egregious than mine. Why is that?
Your silence is deafening.
LOL
Irony meter pegged as IANAE is the voice of a redshirt.
Take another Calvinball fac sp1ke for the team, IANAE.
Lovely maturity there Leopold of spinning what I say.
Actually, what I did is called “parsing.” You’re the one who said that you want to remove what others post.
“weird obsession”
LOL – Hey, I’m just trying to be helpful and have you direct your vapid insults to the right party.
The not so subtle return of the fake patent lawyer who openly admits his greed…
Y A W N
Hey, didn’t I send you out to find just one modern advanced country that has seen your ‘light’ and abandoned all IP protection?
Still haven’t seen that single example.
“You’ve almost caught on”
LOL – come 6 – pay attention. I have been leading the conversation on this topic.
Wake up.
My sarcasm meter is working just fine. But thanks for the concern.
Captain, this is Ensign Redshirt from the away team. Sensors aren’t picking up anything. I’m sure they’re working just fine…
“Keep digging.”
Said as Malcolm is the one busy with the shovel…
Accuse-others-of-that-which-he-does: Malcolm’s very special specialty.
Nice Leopold – where are my answers?
No, bja, I just used your post to point out some of the Supreme Court decisions rendered in English that our resident ‘expert’ in English as a first language still has trouble with.
My sarcasm meter is working just fine. But thanks for the concern.
LOL – still trying to spin this, eh Malcolm?
(and still omitting critical portions, I see)
Lovely maturity there Leopold of spinning what I say.
Where are my answers?
Yes and my beef is that Monsanto won’t even talk to the serious documentaries. So I asked NWPA what makes him think that they’d talk to the daily show when they won’t even say their piece for serious docs.
Congratulations, you’ve almost caught on to the beginning of the conversation!
We need people who will protect my job and expand opportunities for me to make money!
Your sarcasm meter is busted.
that’s exactly what I suggested so long ago.
Was that before or after you suggesting using mailroom staff to screen registered letters addressed to patent attorneys and throw away the letters that were deemed by the mailroom staff to contain references to relevant prior art?
Just curious.
What if we remove [(1)] all the spin, [(2)] the misrepresentations of fact, [(3)] law, and [(4)] what others post? Oh wait – that’s exactly what I suggested so long ago.
Ah, so anon finally admits his true agenda. I think I like NWPA’s suggestion better.
C’est la vie.
I would pay big time to see you try.
You cannot even get out of your own way here.
What if to cut down on all this noise, we all agree to be intellectually honest and acknowledge and incorporate valid points made?
What if we remove all the spin, the misrepresentations of fact, law, and what others post?
Oh wait – that’s exactly what I suggested so long ago.
C’est La Vie
LOL right back at you – still have not heard amongst your 30,000 mewling QQ words why I was right.
English skills seem to fail you here.
Nice purposeful feigned ignorance Malcolm
If you think that’s something, you should see his non-purposeful feigned ignorance. Or his calculated willful intentional acts. Or even his obfuscatory unilluminating non-explications.
What if to cut down on all this noise, we all agree to post only twice for each post of Dennis’s.
Sorry Malcolm, but your continual misperception that enforcing patent rights as the ‘Worst Thing Ever” screams so loud that I cannot hear what you are attempting to spin.
btw, Jane says hello.
the decision that tracked perfectly
LOL.
“The serious documentaries try to explain the facts as best they can make them out.“
Yes 6, that is true. They also take facts into account that oppose any theory being advanced.
But wait, that is exactly NWPA’s beef with certain people.
Seeing as you have yet to post anything today that does not fit the description of a “Bl0gTr0ll”, it is clear that you are merely using your stale script of accuse-others-of-that-which-you-do.
That is your ultimate specialty.
He brings it up in the context to which it applies
LOL. Keep digging.
I’ve seen plenty of the daily show where for serious people were successful at getting their tots serious point across while the daily show rep was trying to make fun of them. It can be done.
Wherein Tr0 llb0y’s weird obsession with “Steve Moore” (and other alleged “myth debunkers”) is addressed:
link to iptrolltracker2.wordpress.com
it’s not a secret that the small-ish inventor in this country can have trouble monetizing their patent, especially in larger technological sectors. Patent licensing companies do serve an unfilled need in the economy and no one I don’t think would argue that they don’t so yeah, we get that. Likewise, we get that you don’t have to make a product to be considered a valid owner of a patent. Over on IP Watchdog, Steve Moore makes a big “to do” about this. Again, we get it. And in fact, that’s one reason that the term NPE is not the same as the term Patent Troll. All patent trolls are NPE’s, but not all NPE’s are patent trolls.
What articles like this do though, is negate that there really is a problem with companies going after business for the sole purpose of extracting licensing fees over patents that are either old and worthless or that the targets are not infringing on. Those are the trolls we’re after, and they make up a significant portion of the increase in patent litigation in recent years. If you believe there’s been an increase, I mean.
It’s fair to question statistics and the motives of those behind them. It’s fair to criticize people who only want legislative relief of the problem in the form of more laws from Congress because they (incorrectly, in my view) believe that that is the only way out of the problem, or even a good way out.
But you can’t just throw the baby out with the bathwater and say that because a few statistics are misquoted or unfounded or skewed by the companies putting them out that there isn’t really a problem.
Starting to understand, Tr0 llb0y? The issue of patent tr0lling isn’t going away until patent tr0lling goes away. And it’s not going to go away until it’s legislated out of existence (because, after all, what else will stop those tiny Texas cowboys from wrangling cash out of people by whatever means exist for doing so? Ethics? LOL — tell us about “ethics,” Tr0 llb0y).
He brings it up in the context to which it applies.
Not so difficult Malcolm.
LOL – please do in relation to the herbicide, Malcolm.
Please.
oh, please, please, please, please, please.
Open your eyes Malcolm.
You.
F001.
No one.
Or maybe you need some help in understanding the plain English used in the Myriad decision – you know, the decision that tracked perfectly my posts on the subject that you never seemed to ‘understand’?
LOL, your post at 11:47 made zero sense, Malcolm.
Try again – this time in English.
“Incidentally, how many Roundup Ready infringement suits has Monsanto lost?”
How many have they declined to bring after leveling baseless accusations?
You are misrepresenting NWPA’s view on this area of law by seeking to inject his view on the Church-Turing thesis, implying that he thinks that that thesis is the answer to every single patent question
Or am I merely poking some fun at NWPA because he does, in fact, reflexively bring up the Church-Turing thesis (and the “failure” to discuss it) when he wishes to accuse critics of software patenting of being ignorant and/or baised?
Gosh, it’s so difficult to sort this stuff out, isn’t it, Tr0 llb0y? If only we could all impute the conflation of the anthoromporification as easily as you can. But we simply can’t. It’s something you were born with. A real gift.
He had a special variety he had developed for 50 years. Gone.
I don’t understand why he would have to destroy any seeds that were not covered by Monsanto’s patents.
Monsanto did that to him.
Seems more likely that his lawyer let him down.
Seems even more likely that he saved some of his “special variety” and the story you are relating is a b.s. sob story.
You can still patent genes bja,
Just not those that are merely effectively what is in the warehouse of nature.
Right. And someday Tr0 llb0y will explain how you can tell when a claimed composition of matter is “merely effectively in the warehouse” and when that composition is not “merely effectively in the warehouse”. And then monkeys will fly out of our butts.
MM, you might want to add that even though no money was awarded, the Canadian had to destroy his seeds that he had been replanting. He had a special variety he had developed for 50 years. Gone. Gone with the Wind.
Monsanto did that to him. And, for what purpose. Malice?
end italics
Round-Up herbicide was patented and that patent has lapsed and now cannot be the basis of patent infringement.
Define “basis” in this context.
if all they ever do is sue people who use RR, are they not illegally extending the RR patent?
Uh … no. Do you need me to explain to you how infringement of a patent claim works, Ned?
Bingo – score one for Ned.
Ned, how goes our voracious patented fish project?
LOL – Round-Up herbicide was patented and that patent has lapsed and now cannot be the basis of patent infringement.
Unless of course, you hoodwink the judiciary…
That too is an important distinction.
MM, if all they ever do is sue people who use RR, are they not illegally extending the RR patent?
You can still patent genes bja,
Just not those that are merely effectively what is in the warehouse of nature.
You make a new gene, different in kind, and you can have your patent.
The better person would have been Stephen Moore.
Pay attention Malcolm.
You are misrepresenting NWPA’s view on this area of law by seeking to inject his view on the Church-Turing thesis, implying that he thinks that that thesis is the answer to every single patent question (and thus should not be held in any esteem whatsoever – even in the art area where it does apply).
As I said, Malcolm,
You.
F001.
No one.
if we want examiners with some minimum level of intelligence
You want smarter Examiners, Tr0 llb0y?
Be careful what you wish for.
like the ‘English” you used to attempt to save your buring ‘theory’ after tossing it into a bonfire of your own making on the Myriad thread?
Here’s a serious question: when the aliens brought you here from Planet Bl0gTr0ll, did they say when they were coming back to pick you up?
You are misrepresenting by conflating.
What am I “misrepresenting”?
Unless you are saying that I am “admitting” that you are making an unethical twist of the quote with a baseless accusation against Chief Judge Rader…
Is that what you are saying?
LOL – either that or you are engaging again in attempting to twist what other people post.
Just [shrug] and stand-by your decrepit ways, Malcolm.
You.
F001.
No one.
goes to the Daily Show quip about what farmers have been doing for millennia – spraying the crops with Round-Up, saving their own seed from the Round-Up resistant plants, and replanting that Round-up Resistant seed in the next year while continuing to spray the crops with Round-Up.
Fixed for accuracy. Except for the “millenia” part, of course. Should be more like “couple decades”. LOL.
Your post at 11:05 has no meaning, Malcolm.
Try again.
This time with that English as a first language skill of yours.
LOL – like the ‘English” you used to attempt to save your buring ‘theory’ after tossing it into a bonfire of your own making on the Myriad thread?
Like that?
LOL