Your illogical inferences are breathtaking. By espousing the position that “to say we should not look for harmonization is taking a pure stand from the US point of view,” it is apparent that you still do not get it. This is not a “US point of view”. I was highlighting facts unrelated to the “U.S. point of view.” This view dates as far back as 1883 when the Paris Convention was finally signed. Due to differences in national laws, the Paris Convention relinquished the idea of a substantive uniform patent law and took a more realistic view, adopting only the principle of putting foreign patent applicants on an equal footing with domestic applicants. Later in the 1970’s and 1890’s, the Europeans – not the Americans, have attempted and shown that there are real barriers for harmonizing patent laws across nations having different legal systems. [For more on the European community's failed attempts to fully harmonize its patent laws, see Kara M. Bonitatibus, “The Community Patent System Proposal and Patent Infringement Proceedings: An Eye Towards Greater Harmonization in European Intellectual Property Law,” 22 Pace L. Rev. 201, (2001); Christopher Heath, “Harmonizing Scope and Allocation of Patent Rights In Europe - Towards A New European Patent Law,” 6 Marq. Intell. Prop. L. Rev. 11 (2002)].

None of these accounts are accounts of a “US point of view”. Let me help you in the logical path you should follow: Do not focus on the fact that U.S. patent law is harmonized across 50 states in America. Focus on the fact that elsewhere, it is harmonized across none. Those who attempted to fully unify patent law in Europe did not fail because they adopted the “US Point of view”. You are more than welcome to “look for harmonization” – try doing it within the European Union first. If you succeed, come talk to us about global harmonization and “the US point of view”.

I quote:
“For example, it is not rare to find that a patent found valid in a British court is found invalid in a German court. It is ironic that Americans are asked to align such aspects of U.S. patent law, which are fully harmonized across 50 states, with those which are harmonized across none.”

If I did not understand you in my above post:

“So, to use 50 US states side by side with European states (countries ) with all those people, ideas arguments and to say we should not look for harmonization is taking a pure stand from the US point of view in my opinion.”

please correct me I just want to end this !.
No more, I have to stop on this one. I have spent too much time here over this already.

I was not making any reference to the argument you made only the use of the 50 US states making the point about harmonization at the end of your post. I will make a reference to your argument soon. Iam not sorry to say, my comments as illogical as you feel they are do not have to agree with or follow your argument(s). I have made an effort to understand the harmonization argument as talked about believe that or not. I saw using the 50 US states as some reference in the harmonization argument making the point European states do not have the harmonization of their laws, as 50 US sates. I see the European states Mr.Katznelson as a collection of countries as they are not a union as the United States, being two different worlds without question in that respect. I said this was poor about your use of the 50 US states, I stand by it. Let me now reference your argument, it is in my opinion your argument. centered around one person’s view of harmonization is not clear nor is the case. Because the European states are different countries within a larger union and as such the European states are to have differences from one state to the other on laws and the harmonization of them. This in my opinion is a larger picture Mr.Katznelson, the harmonization the European states don’t have, is because people there have different ideas and arguments about this harmonization as the USA and its people do Mr.Katznelson. So, to use 50 US states side by side with European states (countries ) with all those people, ideas arguments and to say we should not look for harmonization is taking a pure stand from the US point of view in my opinion.

I hope Gene will delete all of this from here, I find it only to trash space here with that having nothing to do with the subject of the topic. Let me point out this to you, you give me the idea that you are looking down upon people that seem less next to the view you have of yourself that seems to be your big problem. How you make a living must have nothing to do with people I would hope. If anyone cares what you think is my question, oh !, is that the problem ?, you don’t get the attention you think you should get ?. Maybe a long look at yourself would offer an answer that just maybe that its you that is not understood and those around you understand not saying anything about it to you, and you take it as respect you really don’t have !. Make a big point about an attack and you do the very same thing because you feel what ?. Say all of your nasty things about me I have been open here !; so whatever point you are making if anyone understands it other then you, go for it !. I have respect for Gene, this will be the last of the trash I add here …how about you ?.

I will read you here in the future, I don’t want the problem, bye !.

My object is not to ban or otherwise discourage you from the site. It is to point out to you that you are speaking gibberish more often than not. You may have some intersting things to say, and I always appreceate a different viewpoint (one that can be backed with coherent, logical thought). HOWEVER, most times I really can’t tell what your message is other than some general negative view about patents and patent attorneys. It is not that you are a nuisance per se, it’s just that it appears that you don’t care enough to think about what you are posting. If you don’t care that your thoughts are clear, why should I care about trying to decipher them?

I have also often lambasted MaxDrei for similar reasons. You may find it hard to believe, but I want you (and Maxdrei) to be taken seriously when you post. You are speaking largely to a very articulate, and yes argumentitive group, but that’s the makeup of your audiance. Ignoring just whom you are addressing is a very quick and surefire way to NOT make sense. You do care that you make sense and get your point across, do you not?

As far as Ron’s post and your comments to it, do you get why I posted the way I did? Your point was completely tangential to what Ron was saying and it was difficult to see if you grasped the point that Ron was making. In fact, Ron’s point can still stand AND he can agree completely with you that US patents are of very low quality when compared to other patents of the world (not that I know which way Ron believes -its just not material to his point). So you are quite incorrect when you think that you are posting to a basis of Ron’s post. More likely, since you don’t understand what Ron was saying, you were merely projecting your own views onto the situation. I call that Noise.

When it comes across that your reply has nothing to do with what you are replying to, on top of the rambling mostly incoherent structure of your writing style, why would anyone expend the effort to bother understanding you? As to this past post, don’t hurt yourself by patting yourself on the back – it was despite your writing that I understood (and frankly, guessed to a degree that I was less than comfortable with) what you were saying.

And I haven’t even begun to think about addressing THAT on the merits.

I will further disagree with your contention of what makes for a rich interaction. When you don’t show comprehension and you ramble and force people to guess what you saying, you are not enriching yourself or others. If the people you usually talk to understand what you are saying, chances are very high that they already think like you and hold the same thoughts and thought processes. From the looks of it – such shallow views are hardly “rich”.

I will make your day, I will return to just reading here and stop posting good enough ?, I know I will be happy for it !. There was no attack on Ron Katznelson. To say “attack”, thats personal, and that scope of what I said is too large because my challenge was specific to Katznelson’s basis of his last point of his post …please read Katznelson’s post. I enjoy when I can argue with people without the need for a set of agreed upon terms all the time, and what is not understood questions are asked that makes for a rich interaction. I make no requirements on people its just not real, and requirements limit the interaction that makes people, people.

My thanks to Gene, I do enjoy the time I read here and I will continue. It was never my intent to be a nuisance.

A “a difficult labor to read”, sure !, it seems you understood much as the long post of points made within seem to address my points on the money. I read you understand me very well and it seems to me the only problems are – have been my points of view on patents. On patents, all the law talk does not address that problem that most have being the poor quality of US patents does it ?, the answer is a matter of talking to other people in the world and not just inside the warm-fuzzy zone. I can only guess poor quality patents makes it hard to want to have other people in the world view them with a different point-of-view to point out the quality lacking or none at all, giving their objections with a result being the lost value of US patents in the world ?. On reference to my post above, again, to pick just the 50 US states is a sorry picture, no issue just I feel a better one could have been made when talking about something so imporant. So I ask you what was the reason for using only the 50 US states for the point made by Ron Katznelson seeing the point was about patent laws harmonized in the world.

It is still a difficult labor to read your posts and guess what you are trying to say. However, I think this post is better than your usual ramblings in that I can guess at something this time.

My gues is that you are taking issue with Ron’s stand on harmonization from the vantage point that an American view shouldn’t be the only view of patent law, that such a view offends the rest of the world and places US patents above every other country’s patents and at center stage. It seems that you want to make the point that the US patent is not the be-all and end-all of patents.

You miss the point of what Ron is saying. Completely.

Ron is NOT saying that there should only be US patents and the rest of the world MUST change to suit our needs. Ron is saying that the rest of the wold has varied law and those variations are being glossed over by the co-called “world patent” proclamation from Mr. Gutierrez. Mr. Gutierrez boldly speaks of something that simply does not exist, nor will exist unless some extremely drastic changes happen across the entire world, and to jurisprudence that extends far deeper than patents. What Ron is saying is that at least in the US we have a unified structure of law that reaches across the fifty states in contrast to the EPO where the unification only extends to a portion of the patenting process and remains divided in the final grant and possible litigation stages.

You also make the point that “No need to give up US patent laws to harmonize and sooner this is understood the better.”, yet you offer no rationale for this position. You are clearly clueless. As I have mentioned before, THINK before you write. Please forgive me if this seems like a harsh attack, but add some structure of logical legal thought to your proclamations – otherwise they are useless, quite unfounded and only speak to your desire to be heard, rather than any desire to advance your position. They are simply noise.

“For example, it is not rare to find that a patent found valid in a British court is found invalid in a German court. It is ironic that Americans are asked to align such aspects of U.S. patent law, which are fully harmonized across 50 states, with those which are harmonized across none.”

It would be ideal if the rest of everyone worldwide agreed along with 50 US states, but is a sorry picture to paint seeing 50 US states are only a spot on the map of the world!. The US in no special position to making the choice of US laws British courts – German courts to follow to fit US ideas of “harmonized”. This picture you give is the problem giving the world the idea we believe we are the center of it. Maybe others in the world would like to create innovation without US claims to it from poor quality US patents. No need to give up US patent laws to harmonize and sooner this is understood the better. No matter what market the US is to the world you can loose business having others go where they get respect and trust and not dictated to by one mindset. China is growing and look away if you want but China fast moving into a market place of it’s own in the world, just may have the US eat their patents if we are too big to see the big picture !.