The Roberts Supreme Court: Pro-Business and Anti-Patent?

By Gene Quinn
January 12, 2011

John Roberts, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court

The latest edition of Fortune magazine has John Roberts, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, on the cover. The Fortune cover proclaims that it will be taking “an unflinching look at the man who is presiding over the most pro-business court we have ever seen.” As I read that I couldn’t help but chuckle. Really!?!? The Roberts Court is the most pro-business court we have ever seen? I knew right away that this article couldn’t be about patents, or even mention patents, and I wondered how the article would treat the failure to get involved in the Chrysler bankruptcy, which fundamentally altered investors expectations in public companies beholden to unions. So how can it be that the Roberts Court, which has shown hostility toward innovators and contempt for patents that is unusual, is considered pro-business? On top of that, the Roberts Court seems poised to strike at the very heart of the patent right granted by the United States federal government; namely the presumption of validity. That sure doesn’t sound very pro-business to me.

Truthfully, the Fortune cover over-hypes the article. Yes, the article does opine that the Roberts Court is perhaps the most pro-business court ever, but the analysis on that front is weak at best. The article overwhelmingly focuses on John Roberts the man, and is really a good read, but the evidence that the Roberts Court is extremely pro-business is scant, at least if you ask me. The article says:

The Roberts Court is also widely seen as pro-business —“Supreme Court Inc.,” the New York Times Magazine called it in 2008. Since 2006, according to the liberal Constitutional Accountability Center, the Roberts Court has ruled for business interests in 68% of the cases in which the U.S. Chamber of Commerce submitted friend-of-the-court briefs. During a comparable span (1981-1986) drawn from the Berger Court years, the Chamber’s win ratio was just 43%. Close to 80% of the Chamber’s wins before the Roberts Court have been by votes of 7-2 or better.

The rest of the defense of the thesis that the Roberts Court is pro-business centers almost exclusively around the Supreme Court’s First Amendment ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission. Despite what President Obama may think about the ruling, the Citizens United ruling is not as far reaching as most on the left would have you believe. The ruling basically says that corporations have First Amendment rights and limits on their spending to air their messages during campaigns is an unconstitutional Act of Congress. Say what you will, but this ruling is hardly revolutionary. It has been a view of conservatives for a long time, and any fair reading of the text of the First Amendment does not exempt out corporations. The First Amendment doesn’t say that Congress shall not abridge the right to freedom of expression unless you are a corporation.  Rather, the First Amendment is written as an absolute prohibition. Do you really believe that business owning Framers of the Constitution would have said that Congress could tell corporations what to say and disseminate? Of course not, and there is no good justification for limiting corporate freedom to speak to those that are “press.” This is particularly true given the rise of the Internet.

So the Roberts Court sides with the Chamber of Commerce frequently, and they say corporations have First Amendment rights. I don’t see that being exceptionally pro-business. Excuse me for noticing that it is quite a weak argument to say the Roberts Court is pro-business because corporations now have the same First Amendment as unions.  Corporations are treated under the laws of the United States and the various States as “persons,” and it seems hardly pro-business to say they enjoy First Amendment rights that cannot be abridged by Congress.

Let’s assume, however, that the Roberts Court is pro-business, which I suspect is an appropriate characterization of the Court at least to some extent on certain issues, although I have a lot of difficulty characterizing the Court’s refusal to apply well established bankruptcy laws to prohibit the haircut of creditors in the Chrysler bankruptcy matter as being pro-business.  As you will see I also have difficulty understanding how infusing uncertainty into the law is pro-business.  But for now allow me to simply ask — how is it that a pro-business Court can be hostile to patents? That is the $64,000 question no doubt.  Before answering that question it is worth taking a look at the Supreme Court patent cases heard by the Roberts Court so we can appreciate the depth of the Court’s lack of understanding of patents and patent law.

In March of 2006, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, a decision relating to the issuance of injunctions to victorious patent owners upon successful completion of patent litigation. Being as diplomatic as possible, this Supreme Court decision has left the entire patent world scratching its head and wondering how the Court could have, with such a short decision, infused such uncertainty into an otherwise completely certain area of law, while at the same time terribly compromising the value of an issued and litigated patent.

In order to understand the Supreme Court’s decision in eBay v. MercExchange we will need to take several steps backward and set the table so to speak. As we rewind the clock in pursuit of greater understanding, let’s begin with the well established law that was in place up until the early morning hours of May 15, 2006, the day the Supreme Court issued the decision in question.

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C.  283, courts may grant an injunction in a patent case “to prevent the violation of any right secured by patent, on such terms as the court deems reasonable.” Prior to May 15, 2006, when a patent owner prevailed on the merits in a patent infringement lawsuit, this statute had been interpreted as setting forth a general rule that an injunction should issue when infringement has been found, absent the presence of a sound reason for denying it. Furthermore, it was universally accepted that irreparable harm should be presumed once invalidity arguments failed and infringement of the patent was established. Notwithstanding, district courts still retained broad discretionary powers under the patent statute to determine whether the facts of any particular case warrant the entry of an injunction, although injunctions were, in fact, routinely granted as a matter of right. The discretion of the district courts with respect to the issuance of injunctions once validity and infringement were determined in favor of the patent owner related mostly to the proper scope of such an injunction.

While some circles criticized this approach to injunctions, it did have the benefit of being a bright-line rule, providing certainty and predictability, which is of the utmost importance for businesses and investors. As is ever more clear with each new case, the Roberts Court abhors bright line rules and favors more flexible approaches that are less predictable and far more difficult to arrive at. That in and of itself leads to greater, and unnecessary, uncertainty and hardly establishes a business friendly environment.

While the issuance of a permanent injunction to the victorious patent owner may seem eminently reasonable, particularly given the fact that the patent grant itself provides the patent owner the right to exclude others from making, using, selling and importing goods that infringe, such a bright-line rule was believed by some to be inconsistent with well established equitable principles that apply to all areas of law. Specifically, minus the aforementioned patent specific rules, a plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction, regardless of the area of law, must satisfy a four-factor test before a court may grant such relief. In order to receive a permanent injunction a victorious plaintiff is required to demonstrate: (1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction. Furthermore, the decision to grant or deny permanent injunctive relief is an act of equitable discretion by the district court, reviewable on appeal only for abuse of discretion, which as any lawyer will tell you means that it is quite difficult to prevail on appeal if you are suggesting the district court was wrong.

To the lay observer the choice between these two competing approaches to permanent injunctions may seem insignificant, as if the patent world is making a mountain out of a mole hill. After all, why aren’t the rules that apply for all other cases appropriate for patent cases?  The simple truth is that the patent itself provides the right to exclude, so an injunction should absolutely be granted as a matter of right to a victorious patent owner in a patent litigation.  Without a permanent injunction it is as if the victorious patent owner has lost a part of what the law promises; namely the exclusivity promised by the right granted.

The truth is that the United States Supreme Court has drove a dagger through the well established patent specific approach in favor of the amorphous approach used in all other areas of law. To make matters worse, the Supreme Court did not elaborate upon the meaning of the test as it applies to the patent context, nor did the Supreme Court offer any opinion or insight with respect to whether the district court should have entered a permanent injunction against the infringer, eBay. In typical Supreme Court fashion they answered less than half the question and threw the issue back to the lower courts without any guidance. Someone is going to need to explain to me how the intentional infusion of uncertainty is indicative of a pro-business approach to resolving a matter.

While law school professors, judges and scholars will explain that it is the role of the Supreme Court to exercise restraint and make rulings no broader than necessary, the truth is that the Supreme Court has dodged critical issues time and time again. eBay v. MercExchange is but one example, KSR v. Teleflex, which will be discussed later on in this series, is another. Dodging critical issues in eBay and in other patent cases only brings tremendous and needless uncertainty to patent enforcement, and must force innovators to question the eroding value of a patent.

Patents still offer a competitive advantage, but it would be naïve not to recognize that the Roberts Court has made all issued patents less valuable. It is hardly pro-business to change well established laws that govern property rights; laws that were in place and well understood by innovators and corporations when they made financial decisions to pursue the protection of assets. We would never be so cavalier about changes to real property law, unless of course it pertained to eminent domain, which is another story for another day.

Part 2 of this series will look at KSR v. Teleflex.  Part 3 will look at Microsoft v. i4i.

The Author

Gene Quinn

Gene Quinn is a Patent Attorney and Editor and President & CEO ofIPWatchdog, Inc.. Gene founded IPWatchdog.com in 1999. Gene is also a principal lecturer in the PLI Patent Bar Review Course and Of Counsel to the law firm of Berenato & White, LLC. Gene’s specialty is in the area of strategic patent consulting, patent application drafting and patent prosecution. He consults with attorneys facing peculiar procedural issues at the Patent Office, advises investors and executives on patent law changes and pending litigation matters, and works with start-up businesses throughout the United States and around the world, primarily dealing with software and computer related innovations. is admitted to practice law in New Hampshire, is a Registered Patent Attorney and is also admitted to practice before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. CLICK HERE to send Gene a message.

Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on IPWatchdog.com do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author as of the time of publication and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of IPWatchdog.com. Read more.

Discuss this

There are currently 37 Comments comments.

  1. Bemused January 12, 2011 6:44 pm

    Gene,

    The Roberts Court IS pro business as regards patent law. Its simply that they are pro only towards established, large software companies (the same ones that have been pushing a patent deform agenda for the past 5 or so years). Clearly, the Roberts Court does not have a “pro” bent towards pharma, early-stage technology companies and other entities that need (and rely upon) strong patent rights. Unfortuneately, the far-reaching (detrimental) consequences to this country’ competitive edge as a result of these awful patent law decisions by the Roberts Court won’t be felt for many years when it will likely be too late to reverse the effects.

    Bemused

  2. Gene Quinn January 12, 2011 6:49 pm

    Bemused-

    Stay tuned. That will be my ultimate conclusion in Part 3. They are pro established business, which translates to anti-innovator.

    -Gene

  3. Jon Shields January 12, 2011 8:06 pm

    Gene, while this isn’t the focus of your blog, the Citizens United case is much more complicated than you make it out to be. The First Amendment wasn’t at all construed to apply equally to corporations until over a hundred years after the founding. (I’m not even sure most self-proclaimed originalists believe the founders intended this result.)

    However, even if we ignore the original intent of the founders, first amendment restrictions that satisfy strict scrutiny are still valid. Buckley v. Valeo identified a compelling interest in preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption, and Congress built an overwhelming record of evidence that these independent expenditures of potentially unlimited amounts of money do exert a corrupting influence. The court completely ignored this evidence, in contravention of traditional deference to Congress on matters of factfinding.

    And even on top of that, there is a question as to whether as a matter of first principles, “free speech” implies the right of corporations to translate potentially boundless inequity in economic power to boundless inequity in political power.

    The point is, the Court’s decision was certainly not obvious. Corporations have been banned from contributing to candidates for 100 years, and when they tried to get around that ban 60 years ago by airing ads directly, that was banned immediately. The Supreme Court went out of its way to avoid ruling these laws unconstitutional for decades, and then in 1986 expressly ruled these laws constitutional. So Citizens United disposed of nearly a century of law and over two decades of on-point precedent, in favor of an unlimited right of a corporation to exploit domination in a market to increase their political power. Whether one agrees or disagrees with this decision, I find it very hard to characterize it as anything but pro-business.

  4. Gene Quinn January 12, 2011 8:25 pm

    Jon-

    We may have to agree to disagree in some respects. The Citizens United ruling is pro business because now corporations have the same ability as unions. It strikes me as rather odd that Citizens United is viewed as objectively horrible because of the potentially boundless amounts of money that corporations could spend, but the boundless amounts of money that unions could and always have spend are not problematic.

    In any event, claiming based on one case that the Roberts Court is the most pro-business court ever is rather overblown in my opinion. Is Citizens United pro-business, yes. Is the Roberts Court hostility toward patents pro-business? Absolutely not. Similarly, the failure to enforce the clear mandates of the bankruptcy laws and choose to favor unions over secured creditors is really anti-business if you ask me.

    Finally, the Roberts Court despises bright line rules and instead loves flexible tests. That leads to far less predictability, which is the enemy of business.

    -Gene

  5. Jon Shields January 12, 2011 8:35 pm

    Gene, what you are saying about unions is not accurate. McCain-Feingold applied to unions just as much as it did to corporations. The title of the section ruled unconstitutional was:

    “PROHIBITION OF CORPORATE AND LABOR DISBURSEMENTS FOR ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATIONS.”

    All the justices on the Supreme Court, and all the attorneys arguing before the Supreme Court, understood the law to apply equally. Likewise, when the law was thrown out, both corporate and union power was greatly expanded, as both can now spend directly out of their treasury funds (as opposed to before, where both were restricted to spending out of political action committees). If the law before and after didn’t apply equally, it likely would have been struck down long ago as violating equal protection.

  6. Gene Quinn January 12, 2011 8:58 pm

    Jon-

    Unions have always sought to influence elections, frequently through corrupt means. They come into districts and towns, bused in to work for democrats. So we can pretend that unions and corporations shared equal footing, but that isn’t true. Corporations never bused people into districts to work for candidates and to drive people to the polls.

    -Gene

  7. American Cowboy January 13, 2011 10:10 am

    Since most patent cases are business vs business, showing a bias for either the patentee or infringer can be said to be “pro-business.” My view of the Roberts Court is like yours, Gene, in that they favor the big, established businesses over smaller innovators. In other words, it may be more accurate to say they are “pro big business.”

  8. Gene Quinn January 13, 2011 11:40 am

    AC-

    Agreed. That is where my conclusions will head, particularly in Part 3 of the series, which will take up Microsoft v. i4i.

    -Gene

  9. New Here January 13, 2011 1:10 pm

    @Gene

    Just something I’m thinking about …not to take anything out of context.
    “To make matters worse, the Supreme Court did not elaborate upon the meaning of the test as it applies to the patent context”

    Gene, would a well defined meaning address the issue that seems, was the reason for that case going before the Supreme Court ?
    I mean, to replace one questionable test with another in a given ‘same contex’, is meaningless to me. Because, if some change as a test isn’t making
    a difference with an issue, but just offers different answers as results to it; does this have any meaning ?

    I, have to the best of my understanding, agree with the Supreme Court and that they did not elaborate upon the meaning of the test. This
    has nothing to do with my opinion of patents, but, rather what seems to be a question of Law. Question because most all matters of Law
    are not subject to a test for a result, rather, results are found in Courts of Law …where they should be imho.

    The Supreme Court without meaning of the test has made the shift of responsibility from a test, to the hands of those that the responsibility
    was all along. To have those question their own works, no map to follow, with full responsibility is placing patents in a larger light then before
    and mostly by their own creators.

  10. Gene Quinn January 13, 2011 1:28 pm

    New-

    I’m not 100% sure I follow you, but I think you are basically questioning why the Supreme Court would remove one test and supplant it with another. That is a good point, and not exactly what I was getting at though.

    In the context of injunctions it is exceptionally rare that you are dealing with a vindicated right that even prior to vindication carried with it the absolute right to exclude. Unlike in copyright cases where fair use can swallow the right at times, there is no such right to use patents fairly. So the exclusive nature of the patent right really is rather absolute when validity and infringement have been established. So if the Supreme Court were going to throw out the default leaning toward a permanent injunction then thy really should have explained what it means to have an exclusive right and what import that plays. For the life of me I cannot think of a situation where a patent has been vindicated through litigation as being valid and infringed and a permanent injunction not being appropriate given the very nature of the patent grant. So I guess what I am saying is the Supreme Court threw away a test that made perfect sense and attempted to pound a round peg into a square hole without noticing it was a round peg and a square hole.

    -Gene

  11. American Cowboy January 13, 2011 2:06 pm

    The Supremes looked at the statute

    35 U.S.C. 283 Injunction.
    The several courts having jurisdiction of cases under this title may grant injunctions in accordance with the principles of equity to prevent the violation of any right secured by patent, on such terms as the court deems reasonable.

    and got consumed by the phrase “in accordance with the principles of equity” to indicate that the general rules of injunctions apply. Perhaps the Patent Reform statute should include an appropriate amendment to restore the grant of injunctions as correct in all but the most egregious cases.

  12. Blind Dogma January 13, 2011 2:47 pm

    Many have gotten lost in that phrase. What they should remember is the idea of what drives equity – making the transgressed “whole”. There is also in the general law pool the understanding that “injunction” as a tool of remedy is a very severe tool. Simply overlooked is the actual nature of the right provided by a patent.

    The generalist nature and view of “injunction” must be calibrated to what a patent right actually is.

    Once understanding is in place, it is an easy stroll down the path to see that an effective way of making the transgressed whole is with the injunction remedy.

  13. New Here January 13, 2011 2:49 pm

    @Gene

    Thanks, sorry not being real clear, I wasn’t sure how I should word it, the infromation you give is a help me though..

  14. Gene Quinn January 13, 2011 8:06 pm

    AC and BD-

    Well put. I agree with you both, and am already formulating for future articles. Thanks.

    -Gene

  15. msmumr January 14, 2011 3:56 pm

    Gene:
    Of course, you’re right. The Magazine is trying to hype an issue for sale. It’s likely customers (subscribers) are business/investment folks. People like to read what they already believe, even if it’s not true. The Court’s anti-business tilt toward patents and injunctions per se where IP is the property right may have something to do with it’s eye cocked toward the international law in a global economy. We are no longer the sovereign USA. Our institutions are run by socialists who believe in a world court, with the U.S. Sup. Ct becoming only a minor tribunal, like a district court in a circuit, where the circuit court is the world court. We can stop calling ourselves a nation pretty soon. I’m sure you’ve noticed how all property rights have been eroded in favor of civil rights of every color, moreover in foreign countries injunctions have long been abhorrent where property rights are involved so the Court is just looking ahead in denying per se injunctions to patents. Thanks for letting me into your blog.

  16. New Here January 14, 2011 7:48 pm

    @msmumr
    A point on the United States being part of a global economy.

    Much can be said about change that is taking place, and for more people then patent holders. Small and large U.S. business have larger markets when U.S. Law changes, that business relationships beyond one’s own town is something they can do well within U.S. Law. For one example of such success is Apple’s iPhone that is made by Foxconn in China ! As many other products throughout Asia, the point is again that a global economy means relationships that respect both U.S. and other’s Laws that the exchange means people are going to have choices of services and goods.

    Why is the question, why more folks shop where the difference if U.S. jobs are made or lost, a blur ? Point, tell someone that a TV cost $200 more then the very same TV made overseas, the answer clears the blur, the lower price wins regardless imho. Today when people are shopping for the lowest price, how does anyone get an idea of what part of the U.S. employment problem they get ?

    A global economy and the global business relationships are not the problem, it is that too many even when the economy is “good”, want choices and that includes the price they pay, even when it may result in the loss of their own jobs. the answer if you ask me, is the U.S. must be able to offer the same as that found overseas, and I feel begs the question what is wrong that we aren’t, when so much is NOW overseas that we buy here ?

    People think because I have some opinions about patents that I’ve never lost a thing, well I will tell you they are wrong ! I’ve had to pull myself along BECAUSE of the change I mention above …that has nothing to do with patents because, its about when people will NOT do business with you ? Why ?, because overseas can make it at a price I can’t match regardless of what it is. Well I’ve got the picture, it is being part of the larger economy, going beyond by building those relationships in the U.S. and beyond. The change continues and I find myself at times re-thinking what I was just thinking the day before.

  17. American Cowboy January 15, 2011 10:47 am

    Free trade means trade between enterprises in separate countries unfettered by government regulations.

    We don’ t have that situation. Manufacturers in the US face fovernmental regulations in the fields of environmental protection, minimum wage and wage and hour rules, occupational safety and health protections, consumer product safety protections, and others. Competitors to US manufacturers in other countries don’ t have these same governmental regulations. With the exception of European countries, any regulations that other countries put on manufacturers in those countries are much less onerous to the manufacturer, making those manufacturers more competitive than US manufacturers as a result of governmental regulations.

  18. Anon January 15, 2011 1:42 pm

    “Free Trade” does not mean unregulated trade.

    There is no such thing as unregulated trade.

  19. msmumr January 15, 2011 3:12 pm

    There is “pain” in a global economy that’s for sure, especially for those who find themselves on the high price end of a foreign low priced product or service. But price is not a “choice” in either a good or bad economy. It is the only reliable mechanism that has been found by which limited resources are allocated where there is unlimited demand. A patent that brings value to the economy increases the wealth and resources, so the owner is allowed to artifically inflate the price for the protected good or service, but only for a limited time. Patents distort the market otherwise. The same principle operates eveywhere there is a free price mechanism at work. Price fixing by government has always misallocated the resources creating scarcity and panic. Invent something that people want and go to Gene for a patent. You can then charge a higher price and keep out foreign competition. Good luck!

  20. New Here January 15, 2011 5:31 pm

    @msmumr

    “But price is not a “choice” in either a good or bad economy. ”

    Odd answer to a non-question; it is the good or bad economy that choice, shares the responsibility for. An end user of services, or just a consumer of goods, are not the sole players as it seems you think they are.

    “A patent that brings value to the economy increases the wealth and resources”

    How so, when patents share such wealth and resources with many others, with, and without patents ? The share I’m talking about, is that we all live in this world and only have a share of it, patents cannot give a greater share without taking from others, that is going by your logic as I understand it.

    “A patent that brings value to the economy increases the wealth and resources, so the owner is allowed to artifically inflate the price for the protected good or service, but only for a limited time. ”

    Not true, patents fail too, because markets change as do products and services that patents provide through the innovation they claim to hold. Such innovation is always taken to task in the real world, and a patent owner has little control of such events as change that such claims, have value of some power to artifically inflate the price. Please.

    I believe, if you have replied to me ? that I must have given some misunderstanding, as yours. If Government isn’t needed, then the patent system has what basis ? What meaning to economy do you get without a Government ? What Government does can change, the history of the United States is one example of that and the whole of change, is made by people wherever they live in the world.

  21. msmumr January 15, 2011 6:46 pm

    “Odd answer to a non-question; it is the good or bad economy that choice, shares the responsibility fo…”

    The convoluted paragraph ends with a question mark. If you care to untangle it and place one thought in one sentence and put the punctuation in where you think it belongs, I’ll be glad to try a response to specific questions. Keep trying, maybe we’ll communicate at some level that way. But otherwise, I’m afraid it’s futile with the compound paragraphs you like to write. They are not comprehensible.

    Anyway, when we talk about “price” we are saying that there are limited resources faced with unlimited demands in any economy, good or bad and price is a mechanism for allocating the scarce resources. No one chooses a price. It’s set by the tension in the market between the available supply and the aggregate demand. Take oil, it will never be extinguished by consumption or run out. Why? Because the price will get too high. The last barrel will just set there. Likely there will be no one willing to pay the steep price, and certainly not to burn it in an engine.

    Good luck!

  22. New Here January 15, 2011 9:00 pm

    @msmumr
    Lets start over ?

    The science economics is a model, and is not set in stone.

    With the number of goods made outside the United States today, and if economics has anything to do with it, then US business and US consumers can take the responsibility for it ! Back to the choice !

    As I said before, re#20, that the lowest price sells first, and has nothing to do with jobs in the US. Shame, that well paid US labor cannot produce products at prices that are what consumers would want to pay for them here in the US. But, goods are made and shipped here and sold at lower cost to consumers that buy it without regard to the economics of it all.

    US Corps set-up shop overseas, spend many millions of dollars to do so, have been doing more setups, as I can remember now well over the past 30 years. So, today many on the market well known SmartPhones Laptops pads and tablets are non-US made by non-US labor. US consumers are more aware of these products today.

    What rule of economics exist can account for this, economics able to look into consumers minds and know what they want, whom they will buy it from. It doesn’t exist ! The overseas operations by US and non-US makers is making the economics of consumers thinking very clear, price rules ! So, US jobs hit the street because of choices, consumers choices to buy more made outside the US, then in. The cookie cutter science of economics in the US isn’t answering the questions anymore. That is sad, I love the US and see the problem that has nothing to do with some textbook take on resources, when it seems that more resources are taking jobs and US consumers are buying to pay for it !

  23. msmumr January 16, 2011 5:09 pm

    “The science [of] economics is a model, and is not set in stone”

    Okay, let’s start here.

    Economics is not a science to start with, so this sentence is incomprehensible.

    What does this mean to you? If I am supposed to guess, I’ll have to politely decline to respond to the rest until you’ve clarified what the term “science [of] economics” means to you.

    You seem to be arguing that you think economics is merely book learning and has no place in the real world? If that’s it, just say so….and stop. Keep it simple.
    I’ll know how to respond.

    Sorry!

  24. New Here January 16, 2011 7:36 pm

    Just two quick references !
    Try not to be thrown by wikipedia, it is the men mentioned, I would like you to pay attention !

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lionel_Robbins
    “Economics is a science which studies human behavior as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Samuelson
    “In 1996, when he was awarded the National Medal of Science, considered America’s top science honor, President Bill Clinton commended Samuelson for his “fundamental contributions to economic science” for over 60 years.”

    Any thing else ? Research it for yourself, before saying something as “Economics is not a science”…
    Good Luck !

  25. New Here January 17, 2011 10:06 am

    @msmumr

    Just want to add this, and I will let you take it form here.

    Note: http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/science

    What seems to be your precious economics, has failed to change or otherwise stop a thing ! Resources have shifted to overseas,
    a point you haven’t mentioned, and only have become a problem here in the US, where, we all run to buy at the best price — thats most of the time, made overseas.

    Jobs are created, but not just because someone holds a lock-box of patents, as this is made clear when patent holders as some large US based Corps, are moving many of their operations overseas. This, because of the “economics” in the US ?– that it seems profits are cut thin that part of those profits, is the money to create jobs here in the US ?

    The cost of labor in the US isn’t the problem, not if makers of goods can produce and sell at prices here in the US, as those prices of same goods made overseas, shipped back here and sold here in the US for.

    This too is part of “economics” …you talk about.

  26. Blind Dogma January 17, 2011 10:45 am

    New Here,

    As usual, any ideas that you are trying to express are lost in the jibberish. As English is obviously not your native tongue, I would suggest that you write your views in your native tongue and then have that statement translated by a professional translator into English for posting.

    Seriously – as I have skipped over anything that you posted the minute I run into a nonsensical statement (nonsensical based purely on language – not on the idea being expressed).

    If you want to be taken seriously, much less even merely understood, you need to change the way you post. Of course, I do not expect you to actually do this – as I have made the same suggestion many times in the past.

  27. New Here January 17, 2011 11:26 am

    @Blind Dogma

    Understand please, between #23 and #24 I posted, and that reply had two reference links, links to two people that are very important to the development of Economics. Mr. Paul A. Samuelson, and Mr. Lionel Robbins. That reply was in response to #23, msmumr’s “Economics is not a science to start with,” That post is not showing here, so it has created a gap between #23 and #24.

    As for my English ? well you are wrong about me !
    I have had it reviewed, and while they argee with you to a point, yes that it needs work. Fair ?

  28. Blind Dogma January 17, 2011 11:50 am

    As for my English ? well you are wrong about me !
    I have had it reviewed, and while they argee with you to a point, yes that it needs work. Fair ?

    A perfect example of your nonsense, New Here.

    You start by saying that my statement concerning your English is wrong and in the next sentence say that people agree with me and that I am right.

    It appears that not only your language skills are a bit off, but your logic circuits are not tuned either.

  29. New Here January 17, 2011 12:15 pm

    @BD

    1. No, “You start by saying that my statement concerning your English is wrong”

    2. No, “and in the next sentence say that people agree with me and that I am right.”

    @1, RE: “As for my English ? well you are wrong about me !”
    Fact is I would have said “it” and not “me”.
    It says nothing about I think you are wrong about my English. It is in response to your “I do not expect you to actually do this – as I have made the same suggestion many times in the past.” remark.

    @2, RE: ” I have had it reviewed, and while they argee with you to a point, yes that it needs work. Fair ?” well BD, that follows from 1, to mention what action I have taken that you have claimed I wouldn’t.

  30. msmumr January 17, 2011 12:18 pm

    “Just want to add this, and I will let you take it form here.
    Note: http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/science

    You’re correct to cite Robins, etc who like to be referred to as “scientists”, gives them more credibility when employing their theories of economics in the fields of “political science” or “social science” , neither of which, I think you’ll agree are fields of “science”, anymore than is “economic science”.

    The dictionary definition for economics as a “science” is for common usage, laymen refer to anything they don’t understand as “science”, indeed “social science”, an absurd term, is anything but scientific, but college professors like to refer to themselves this way, helps sell their books. Science is the field where abstract theories are submitted to experimentation and validated by results: E=MC (2) was a theory until Feynman and others proved it by building a bomb. Economics can’t be a science in this sense.

    Here’s another difinition from Wikipedia:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics
    So where are we?

    You should find a text reference that supports your theory of wages in the golbal economy?

  31. Blind Dogma January 17, 2011 12:38 pm

    Well, New Here,

    The lesson here is that your writing lacks the clarity needed to intelligibly express your views. If, in fact, you are having your posts translated prior to them being posted, you need to fire those translators as they have failed in their job.

    That is, of course, assuming that you actually have intelligent thoughts to express. If the translators are accurately translating your views, then the FAIL completely belongs to you and you should really consider either simply ceasing your attempts or learning the basics of expressing yourself before commenting further.

    Either way – you need to realize that your current methods simply fail to express anything intelligent.

  32. New here January 17, 2011 2:04 pm

    @msmumr

    I see now, my looking at “Economics” from only one view of what it is. Note taken.

    Thanks.

  33. New here January 17, 2011 2:43 pm

    @Gene

    I place it on the table, this matter of my posting here on IPWatchdog. I would like you to know Gene, that I have been open, about my knowledge of Law from day one, I have posted here not do to any lack of respect for you, or IPWatchdog, just the opposite.

    While I couldn’t agree more that it is the responsibility of eveyone to be understood by others. I feel it has reached a personal level, when I am allowed here to post. On forums or blogs people from all over the world may post, nothing personal should ever come of anything. I just want to know where i stand here, if I am allowed here. I want to be honest here Gene. So asking, do you wish for me not to post on IPWatchdog,

    I will respect your decision Gene.
    Thank you, New Here.

  34. Blind Dogma January 17, 2011 3:32 pm

    New Here,

    I do not think that Gene will have any problem with you posting here. You are honest and straight forward, and do not actively try to subvert law. What you say you, you clearly label as your opinion.

    The issue sis not what you say (pe se) – the issue is an extreme lack of clarity. It is a matter that “what” you say simply is not recognizable. Please go back to my first posts calling this to your attention – I stated that I wanted to understand you, but could not.

    I still want to.

    It simply is a matter that you are not taking the time to compose your thoughts so that others can understand them. You may know what you want to say, and it may make perfect sense to you in your head, but that just isn’t coming across in your written word.

    Please be aware that this is not a personal attack – it is just that you personally are the only one who can correct this issue.

  35. msmumr January 17, 2011 3:48 pm

    “I see now, my looking at “Economics” from only one view of what it is. Note taken.
    Thanks.”

    Here’s the nub of your argument.

    Without such a mechnism, as price, what guarantee is there that”…we shall not lack trousers…while trouser buttons flood us in millions…”
    Guess who? Frederick Engels opined this in the introduction to Karl Marx’s book “The Poverty of Philosophy”, 1963. He may have been a communist, but he was not economically illiterate.Nor was Karl Marx.
    So the challenge is to overcome our myths. Marx and Engels find the “price mechanism” better at resolving market forces than central planning. They abandoned it for other reasons though, playing on the ignorance of the economically illiterate. They knew that most people find it hard to believe that negative economic effects such as you desribe are not the result of villany, but easily accept positive economic effects as excellent planning by central authority. So they exploit this myths for power, e.g., The declining price of computers, that are far better than the earlier ones, is explained as being the result of progress that just happens…”somehow” through government planners. When gas prices go up, the oil companies are blamed, when they go down, the planners take the credit. There have been dozens of investigations of oil prices rising, not one has shown a conspiracy by the oil companies to raise prices. Surprisingly, there are no investigation when prices fall.

    Keep trying and you’ll get there.

  36. New Here January 17, 2011 4:00 pm

    @Blind Dogma

    Thank you for the reply.

    @msmumr

    Yes, I see I can find some reading to do.
    Thanks.

  37. patent litigation January 17, 2011 6:41 pm

    I suspect that, in fact, the Roberts Court is pro-business, but simply doesn’t understand patent law well enough to fully appreciate the repercussions of its rulings in that area. Also, I would agree with Bemused that Roberts is pro-established-business, and particularly pro-large-software-corporations … makes sense, since from what I understand the Chief Justice is a Microsoft shareholder.
    http://www.generalpatent.com/media/videos/patent-suits