Please feel free to delete this post and posts 6-9, as posts 10-15 cover the content in the ealier posts in better, bite-sized portions.

And thank you for the offer of an article – At this time, I prefer to maintain my pseudonymity.

Thanks! I put the word “a$$” on the spam list. Now I know it is a string search. I was wondering what was going on. I will see what I can do.

Sorry for the inconvenience. Your contributions are appreciated. If you ever want to come out into the open publicly and contribute an article, let me know.

-Gene

My specific sticking point was the word “a$$ault” with “s” rather than “$”, which unfortunately was in the second to last paragraph.

I was able to isolate this with multiple string submissions.

I agree that there has been a change, but it hardly seems to be a cause for concern. To answer your question, if patent terms have effectively increased by ~1 year since 1861, we’re on track to see 25-year patent terms sometime in 2749.

I don’t know why some of your stuff is getting caught in the comment spam filter. Some of David’s stuff is also getting caught, while other stuff gets through. I will try and figure it out, but is seems random. Further proof that Chuck Connell is right about software always having a human element, thus making it more about engineering and less about hard science, much to the dislike of mathematicians and computer scientists… more to come on that next week.

-Gene

I can understand why you think this is becoming personal, but I don’t think that is the case. You have to realize that you are a bit unique. We hear from so many who have your point of view who are simply not interested in a true debate. I have enjoyed our exchanges, and invited you to post, because I feel you really are in it for the debate.

I don’t think we are afraid of public policy debates. What we are afraid of is tactics like the ACLU is employing. They are attempting to use the courts in a dishonest way. There is simply no legal support for their theory, and they openly lied about what the patents say and what they cover. This matters, as Noise has pointed out, because we live in a sound bite world. If we are going to make fundamental changes to something as important to our economy and which has Constitutional importance the debate must be open and honest. I feel you are open and honest, but so many with your point of view are unfortunately not. They do not want to be informed, they want to preach and make statements that are wrong simply to further their own agenda.

Public policy has its place, but that place is Congress, and even then should not be based on misconceptions and erroneous beliefs and agendas of the popular press.

I am actually happy you don’t know more about patent law, because if you did you could be dangerous! I personally believe you are on to something and don’t begrudge your point of view. I think you should be making your arguments not on the law, but on the science. If you were asking “should this be the case” your reception might be very different. Regardless, at the end of the day the biggest argument against you is that scientific advances bring about great and advantageous change and outcomes. Either we need to fully fund the trillions of dollars in research and development that go on every year, or we need to allow private enterprise to take on that risk, which they will only do if there is a reward available, and a hefty one.

-Gene

Perhaps the law hasn’t changed, but the interpretations of the law have become, I think, more lax, especially in respect to unmodified gene patents, but that’s old territory now and I don;t wish to till ploughed earth.

hope your travels were safe and speedy Gene, I gotta get back to the academic crap for now. Perhaps in a week or two I’ll offer another post to rile up the readers.

peace.

What has changed is science and technology. With ever advancing innovations some are uncomfortable with anything and everything being patented. That does not mean patentable subject matter has changed. It means technology has advanced, which by the way is exactly what the patent laws are intended to foster.

If we want to have a robust debate on what should be patentable subject matter, fine. But it is historically and factually inaccurate to say that the law is changing and allowing more and more to be patentable subject matter.

-Gene

We no doubt live in a sound bite driven world. I agree with you completely. Sound bites work because most people choose to only be casually informed and gravitate to what they hear. When they hear it multiple times from multiple sources a lot of folks take that as proof. Far too many people refuse to even acknowledge that we live in a world without journalistic ethics, where journalism is becoming an echo chamber, there is no investigative reporting and openly cheering for a predetermined outcome. That is why the ACLU complaint and major news outlets carelessly getting simple facts wrong matters so much.

-Gene

but anyway, I need to attend to conference planning. I had some defenses of my positions, which included my belief that lawyers shouldn’t be afraid to be involved in public policy debates, shouldn’t treat the law as fixed in stone, and should be willing to consider the public’s perceptions in crafting and applying law. I had some more about the changing nature of the Patent Act and its interpretation over time. I had a bit about your cheap swipe at my expertise about Patent law (I’m not a patent lawyer, though I did teach IP law for a while). I ended with something about how if each of us is only defending some sort of turf, then we won;t get anywhere, but if we are willing to consider the implications, both theoretical and practical, of what the PTO does, then maybe through debates like this we can come up with solutions to what occasionally are problems or errors in the ways that the PTO and courts, as well as legislators all act. I had an admission of error in my simplistic explanation of some of the science, but I mentioned it didn’t affect my arguments directly. I had other stuff that I forget now, and have no time to reconstruct. Oh, and I had a bit defending my title, and suggesting that it is up to individuals to educate themselves, to look past the superficial marketing, and to understand issues before forming opinions.

Mostly, I feel disheartened by the frequent attempts to make all this personal. I don’t want you to lose clients, I don’t want your work to suffer, but as in any human endeavor, and especially in the law, not everything that is currently accepted is efficient, fair, or just. We ought to be able to challenge the status quo without people impugning us personally, professionally, or otherwise. But I’m an idealist, and It’s why I no longer bill hours but instead choose to write about these issues from the outside looking in. I think things could work better, but often I am confronted with the reality that first people must act better.

It all seemed so much better before Safari crashed, so forgive this slapdash attempt to send a comment before it crashes again.

peace