The View from the Court’s 2 Live Crew: Examining the Thomas/Alito Dissent in Google v. Oracle

By Darius Gambino
April 13, 2021

“What progress have we made on the concept of fair use in 25 years? It seems maybe not very much. The Court arguably failed to appreciate the nuances of the Java API in Google v. Oracle similar to the way the Court glossed over the concept of sampling in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music.”

https://depositphotos.com/131825256/stock-photo-dissenting-opinion-legal-concept.htmlMost commentators agree that Google v. Oracle is the most important copyright decision of the last 25 years (since Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music). But what if the Court got it wrong?  The Court has not always done well with issues of technology (the Sony v. Universal “Betamax” case being an exception), and the majority decision in Google v. Oracle appears to be more of the same. For many reasons, the powerful dissent from Justices Thomas and Alito may be the better opinion.

The 2 Live Crew Comparison

To provide the appropriate backdrop, let us first consider the Court’s last foray into copyright fair use. In 1994, music sampling was the topic du jour, and the Court was faced with deciding whether 2 Live Crew’s alleged parody of Roy Orbison’s “Oh, Pretty Woman” was a fair use. The Court found that it most likely was, even though 2 Live Crew’s “Pretty Woman” sampled the original song’s main guitar riff, and also used the opening lyrics and vocal hook. Prior to the song’s release, the band’s record label sought a license from Orbison’s publisher, Acuff-Rose Music, who declined. 2 Live Crew released the song anyway. Justice Souter, writing for a unanimous Court, found that the 2 Live Crew song was almost definitely a fair use parody (and thus did not infringe Orbison’s copyright in the original work), and remanded to the district court for a final determination. Justice Kennedy filed a concurring opinion. Thereafter, the case settled, with Acuff-Rose agreeing to license 2 Live Crew.

However, 2 Live Crew’s “Pretty Woman” was not really a parody in the same way that Weird Al Yankovic’s “Eat It” is a parody of Michael Jackson’s “Beat It.” Weird Al did not sample from Jackson’s hit at all and did not use any of Jackson’s lyrics. Today, there is general agreement that sampling a song, as opposed to creating a “cover” version of it, creates a derivative work and requires approval of the publisher and/or record label. The Court missed this subtle distinction in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music at the time, but there was always hope that the Court would provide clarification the next time it took up a fair use dispute.

Fast forward to 2005 – Google is developing a new software platform for mobile phones called “Android.” Google wants software (i.e., Apps) for the platform so that it can compete with Apple’s iPhone. It decides to ground the platform in a language called “Java”, which many programmers of the day already knew how to use. Google approaches Oracle’s predecessor-in-interest (Sun Microsystems) several times about licensing the Java Application Programming Interface (API) for Android, but ultimately decide to build its own platform. In doing so, Google copies about 11,500 lines of code from the Java API. The copied code is known as the “declaring code.”  The rest of the story you already know, Google releases the Android operating system in 2008 to huge success. Oracle eventually brings suit for copyright infringement, and the Supreme Court finds in Google’s favor. Sound familiar yet?

If you want to better understand “declaring code,” I would suggest that you go listen to the opening guitar riff in Orbison’s “Oh, Pretty Woman”; think of that as the “declaring code” for the song – it is the structure that gives the rest of the song meaning. Others might suggest that the “declaring code” is more like a musical chord (an “A” chord, or a “G” chord), to which no one person can claim exclusive rights; herein lies the crux of the dispute in Google v. Oracle.

The majority in Google v. Oracle assumed – without opining – that the “declaring code” was protected by copyright. The Court then went on to find that Google’s use of the “declaring code” in the Android operating system was a “fair use”, examining each of the factors below.

1. The Purpose and Character of the Use

The ‘purpose and character’ factor looks to whether the defendant’s use “is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.” The majority sidestepped the commercial inquiry to a degree, choosing instead to focus on whether Google’s use of the “declaring code” was “transformative.” The Court found that it was, noting that “Google’s use of the Sun Java API seeks to create new products.”

The dissent argued that Google’s use of the code was entirely commercial; it made $18 billion from the Android operating system in 2015 alone. The dissent also pointed to the majority’s comment that “Google used the copied declaring code ‘for the same reason’ Oracle did.” This begs the question: if Oracle’s use was not transformative, why was Google’s? On this point, Justice Thomas noted that the Android operating system was a derivative work, not a transformative one (much like the guitar riff sample of “Oh, Pretty Woman” in 2 Live Crew’s “Pretty Woman”). Because Google’s use of the “declaring code” was clearly commercial in nature, the dissent argued, this factor should have favored Oracle.

2. The Nature of the Copyrighted Work

In a somewhat strange turn, the majority found that the “declaring code” was more functional in nature than other types of software code, and therefore should be given lesser protection. With this backdrop, the majority held that Google should be given more leeway in copying.

The dissent made two excellent points in response. First, Justice Thomas noted that Congress rejected “categorical distinction[s]” regarding software in the Copyright Act, and the majority’s classification of “declaring code” as being inferior to other types of code was improper. Second, the dissent remarked that the “declaring code” is inextricably bound with corresponding “implementing code” in the Java API, a point which the majority conceded. Justice Thomas argued that since one cannot exist without the other, the “implementing code” and “declaring code” should be treated exactly the same. The dissent contended that the majority should have treated the “declaring code” the same as any other piece of software, and if it had, this factor would have favored Oracle.

3. The Amount Used

The majority went for simple arithmetic here – the Court found that the entire Java API was 2.86 million lines of code, and that Google only used 11,500 lines, or less than one percent (1%).

Justice Thomas criticized the majority’s math, positing that the “the proper denominator is declaring code, not all code.” On this point he is arguably correct – Google sought the functionality provided by the “declaring code,” not the entire Java API. So, it would have been more appropriate to compare only the declaring code. The majority conceded that Google copied “virtually all the declaring code…” from the Java API. Hence, the Court should have held that this factor favored Oracle.

4. The Market Effects

The majority was quick to dismiss the effect that Google’s use of the “declaring code” in the Android operating system had on the smartphone market.

The dissent pointed out that Google’s use of the code damaged Oracle in at least two significant ways. First, it devalued Oracle’s existing Java licenses with third party smartphone and tablet manufacturers like Amazon and Samsung. For example, after the release of Android, Oracle’s license agreement with Samsung “dropped from $40 million to about $1 million.”  Second, Google eliminated Oracle’s ability to further license the Java API for use in the smartphone market. In short, no one wanted the Java API after Android became available. Justice Thomas concluded his comments with the observation that “Google decimated Oracle’s market” in copying the code, and that if this factor indeed favored Google “something is very wrong with our fair-use analysis.”

Have We Learned Anything?

So, at the end of the day, what progress have we made on the concept of fair use in 25 years? It seems maybe not very much. The Court arguably failed to appreciate the nuances of the Java API in Google v. Oracle similar to the way the Court glossed over the concept of sampling in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music. The decisions share many parallels, most notably, a defendant that sought to license the plaintiff’s work was denied and proceeded with copying anyway. 2 Live Crew copied the main guitar riff (and other elements) from “Oh, Pretty Woman” much the same as Google copied the “declaring code” from the Java API. In both cases, however, the Court found in favor of the copier. If the Court in Google v. Oracle had found that the “declaring code” was not protectable by copyright (because it is entirely functional), that might have been easier to swallow, but that is not what happened.

It is possible we will have to wait another 25 years for additional enlightenment from the Court on the concept of fair use, which would be unfortunate given the important role that computer software plays in all of our everyday lives. Hopefully, the decision does not discourage software developers from continuing to innovate APIs, Software Development Kits (SDKs), and similar platforms. For the time being at least, Google v. Oracle is the law of land, despite some pretty convincing arguments from Justices Thomas and Alito.

Image Source: Deposit Photos
Author: Premium_shots
Image ID: 131825256 

This article was edited on April 15 to correct the author of the Court’s opinion in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music.

The Author

Darius Gambino

Darius Gambino is a partner with Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP. He has over 20 years of experience helping clients protect their intellectual property under the patent, trademark and copyright laws in the United States and abroad. Clients in industries ranging from technology and manufacturing to consumer goods and professional services rely on Darius to represent them in high stakes patent and trademark litigation. In addition to litigation, Darius also assists clients with managing global patent and trademark portfolios, while at the same time counseling on enforcement strategies. He also represents clients in connection with intellectual property licensing, trade secret and copyright disputes, and corporate diligence investigations.

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 42 Comments comments. Join the discussion.

  1. Anon April 13, 2021 5:35 pm

    Excellent and detailed (actual) Factor analysis that removes the MUCH TOO depended on (even as what it actually means remains a bit murky) ‘transformative’ element, and instead treats the Factors on their own merits.

    Those that actually DO understand copyright law – and a Factors analysis that is done NOT so blindly with a desired Ends as a de facto conclusion – can understand the legal sense of this post.

    If the legal sense troubles you, then you might want to see if you are of the mind that the desired Ends had to be reached by any Means possible – or that if you think that there could NOT possibly be a (justifiable) Means to reach any other Ends. If so – then you are likely not engaging in the Rule of Law.

  2. George April 13, 2021 6:22 pm

    What we need are laws against ‘plagiarism’ in addition to copyright infringement! That could also cover ‘ideas’ that can’t be patented or haven’t yet been patented, but have been published. Some other countries have these laws. It’s high time the Congress passed a plagiarism law too. That would supersede just extremely limited and restrictive copyright law. That’s what those affected by the copying or ‘borrowing’ of their work (without permission or attribution) really need. Copyright alone just doesn’t work well enough at punishing those who like to steal IP and patents can’t protect everything. Don’t know why the U.S. is so far behind on making this a legal issue and not just one of ‘ethics’ that the courts and many in the public, just don’t give a damn about.

    In particular, lawyers should push for such laws (since they don’t get very far asserting copyright law)!

  3. Pro Say April 13, 2021 7:58 pm

    Google’s was an unfair use . . . of “fair use.”

    Plain. And. Simple.

  4. Anon April 13, 2021 8:07 pm

    George,

    Let’s hear more of your suggestion.

    But how is something both more limited and more restrictive?
    What do you mean by “supersede?” Do you mean replace?

    How would you establish who did what? How would you handle parallel development that is NOT plagiarism? How would you “prove” plagiarism, who would carry what burden, and on whose dime would these contests occur on?

    Why would you think that lawyers should be pushing these (in contrast to EVERYONE to their respective congressional representative?

  5. BP April 14, 2021 12:26 pm

    Maybe a clarification: “Justice Breyer, writing for a unanimous Court, found that the 2 Live Crew song was almost definitely a fair use parody (and thus did not infringe Orbison’s copyright in the original work), and remanded to the district court for a final determination.”

    SOUTER, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. KENNEDY, J., filed a concurring opinion, p. 596.

  6. George April 14, 2021 5:26 pm

    “If you want to better understand “declaring code,” I would suggest that you go listen to the opening guitar riff in Orbison’s “Oh, Pretty Woman”; think of that as the “declaring code” for the song – it is the structure that gives the rest of the song meaning. ” – Darius

    LOL! Terrible analogy! Instead, actually learn something about computers and how they’re programmed and how the ‘opening lines’ don’t really mean anything and could even ‘sound’ boring and very similar or even identical to other ‘songs’ (until you hear the entire song)!

  7. George April 14, 2021 5:41 pm

    @Anon,

    “What do you mean by “supersede?” Do you mean replace?”

    I mean to ‘go above and beyond’ (copyright) and have a greater reach and ‘breadth’ (than copyright). Basically would expand what it means to STEAL ‘ideas’ with the aim of profiting from someone else’s ‘original’ thoughts and contributions to discourse and/or future usage (without at least providing attribution and/or compensation in exchange for those original thoughts and ideas). For instance movie plots should be protected against being ‘plagiarized’, even though many of them can be very similar (which means almost nothing under current copyright law). What we need is a ‘I’ll know it when I see it (or saw it)’ law against doing that!

  8. Anon April 14, 2021 7:22 pm

    Well George, your answer to one question is a start.

    This might sound like an odd question, but under what Constitutional authority would you trace your new set of laws back to?

    But the start does not get us very far.

    The reason why I put another question to you is that last sentence of yours sounds like something that is untethered to any proper basis of law. Sure, if you have a dictatorship and give supreme power to the government, you might be able to obtain what it appears that you seek (but the host of other problems that you incur makes it not likely you would be any happier).

  9. George April 14, 2021 11:05 pm

    @Anon

    Obscenity and Pornography aren’t covered by ‘subjective’ laws???? Those aren’t ‘I know it when I see it’ laws???! None of that is not governed by laws in the US? What law school did you attend and what country was that in? LOL! How about child pornography? Can’t go to jail for that, Anon? Yikes!!!

    https://www.mass.gov/info-details/massachusetts-law-about-obscenity-and-pornography

    https://endsexualexploitation.org/wp-content/uploads/Kentucky-Obscenity-Laws.pdf

    https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-profane-broadcasts

  10. George April 14, 2021 11:28 pm

    “How would you establish who did what? How would you handle parallel development that is NOT plagiarism? How would you “prove” plagiarism, who would carry what burden, and on whose dime would these contests occur on?”

    See what other countries are doing about it, as a start, even if they may not have specific laws against it – yet. In India and some other countries including Indonesia, plagiarism has become a huge problem!

    There’s actually a journal about plagiarism and of course there’s ‘retractionwatch.org’ that also covers cases of plagiarism in academia and science. The damages that plagiarism can cause are just as significant as those stemming from copyright infringement.

    https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2006/06/12/us-vs-europe-moral-rights/

  11. George April 14, 2021 11:52 pm

    “Why would you think that lawyers should be pushing these (in contrast to EVERYONE to their respective congressional representative?” – Anon

    Because they almost never win copyright cases – that’s why!!! copyright is just to hard to win! It’s in their best interest to try to broaden the ‘limited’ protections offered by copyright law! Don’t have to be a genius to see that and to also see that plagiarism is a huge problem in all countries now, since it’s so easy to now find material (and ideas) to plagiarize. And forget about ‘old’ patents, they’re easy pick’ens, since almost no one ever checks those out! We had that happen to us! I guess what’s ‘old’ can become ‘new’ again, if someone just wants to claim it as such! Even the news media won’t find out! LOL!

    Indeed I was just in contact with someone overseas today, about their not knowing that someone else here in the U.S. was claiming to be the originator of their ‘now patented’ technology! They had no idea that was happening, even in our internet age!

    But since the other party just got a large award for that ‘idea’ and wasn’t trying to make it , or sell it, under our current and ‘limited’ IP-theft laws that would just be a case of plagiarism, and there are no legal consequences for doing that here and the contest administrators did even bother checking on that and also didn’t really care. There was no statement required of contestants ‘swearing’ that all submitted ideas were original! LOL!

    You can lie all you want in the U.S., and it almost never matters or gets in trouble (or Trump would have been impeached the first time around)! Company executives (like the Sacklers) get away with it all the time too.

    So, how much was that contest prize worth, that the actual patent holders didn’t know about??? Would you believe $1.5M? Who awarded that very nice prize? Our government of course (i.e. taxpayers). Guess they didn’t learn anything from the Solyndra debacle!

    Also, the public doesn’t care about copyright or plagiarism, so why would they pressure Congress to do anything about either?

  12. Anon April 15, 2021 7:55 am

    George,

    You are not answering my questions – and instead, what you are writing is in conflict with your assertions.

    To wit: “ But since the other party just got a large award for that ‘idea’ and wasn’t trying to make it , or sell it, under our current and ‘limited’ IP-theft laws that would just be a case of plagiarism

    Why would this just be a case of plagiarism? You stipulated that the “offender” did not even know of the other source, so on that point alone, plagiarism could not stick.

    You seem to be throwing words about, but have not done the groundwork on the legal framework that would provide a working system.

    Your posts lack structure and are coming across as bare rants. You may have some concepts worth exploring, but when you end a post with a proclamation like, “Also, the public doesn’t care about copyright or plagiarism, so why would they pressure Congress to do anything about either?” you paint a “no path forward” nihilist view. If as you profess, “the people” AND the current government just don’t care, what is your path forward? A new and different government not built on the premise of “We the People”? It appears that you want a totalitarian system built on your ideals.

    You might want to study history, as it is replete with totalitarian systems built on the ideals of the leaders of those systems.

  13. Anon April 15, 2021 8:03 am

    George,

    I do thank you for the “moral rights” link.

    In particular, this caught my eye:

    Moral rights include the rights to:…

    Publish a work anonymously or pseudononymously

    I am curious though – does this mean that your ad hominem attacks on me (instead of my message) make you immoral? Are you impugning my moral rights with such attacks?

    Or are you just picking and choosing bits and pieces that you want to assemble for your totalitarian regime?

    It appears that some may be more equal in your “moral” regime.

  14. Eileen McDermott April 15, 2021 8:36 am

    Thanks BP, I’ve corrected that.

  15. Anon April 15, 2021 8:47 am

    George,

    Further in your article that you linked to:

    Fortunately, the cases in which moral rights would be the critical or even useful are very rare. Even in countries that honor moral rights, such suits usually are usually filed alongside copyright infringement torts, not in lieu of them.

    So much for “superseding”…

    By the way, there is nothing currently (other than the nature itself of the free market) to prevent anyone that is in the business of selling their creative work to write their own contract provisions sounding in “moral rights.” Of course, buyers – especially in the US – retain their right to buy from someone else who does not attempt to include such ‘soundings in moral rights’ and chances are very high that competition alone will defeat such “equity” efforts.

    Maybe you want to control that too… remove ‘freedom to contract.’

    What could go wrong with that?

  16. Anon April 15, 2021 1:00 pm

    George,

    Your post with three links was delayed, and I did not see it when I posted my earlier replies.

    That being said, you open and appear to challenge a statement that I never made.

    That’s called strawmanning. Please actually stick to the points as I have provided.

    (In particular, your statement, “Obscenity and Pornography aren’t covered by ‘subjective’ laws????“ appears at random and is not connected to any points that I have put to you.

    It is quite vapid to assert a position that I have not made and then engage in ad hominem over this ghost position. I am more than sure that such tactics would not fly for you were you to ever attend any law school (leastwise, an accredited one).

    As this comment of yours was released late, I would also include it in my comment tied to your “moral rights” link. Do you think that by engaging in such false accusations that I would have an action against you (under moral rights or any other related law)?

  17. George April 15, 2021 1:29 pm

    Anon!!!

    What kind of lawyer are you?! I never said that! I said the company I contacted was aware of the contest winner and what they were claiming (which wasn’t true)! I said the contest organizers didn’t know about the plagiarism (or likely plagiarism) and they DIDN’T REALLY CARE!

    If you lie about who had an idea first and never acknowledge that ‘fact’ – it’s plagiarism – period.

    I don’t see much point about debating things with you since you don’t even try to understand the issues at hand. I also have ‘real work’ to do, so don’t really have the time for some of your nonsense. Yes, plagiarism isn’t again the law in the U.S. and most countries, but it’s still a big problem! We have lots of problems for which we don’t have laws to deal with them yet. That’s why new laws are created all the time. I try to answer ALL your questions, but what’s the point – you don’t care anyway! You just ask more questions and then don’t care about the answers – just like lawyers at trial who ask what they think are very clever questions but then don’t anticipate the answers they get. Makes you look bad (before a jury)!

  18. George April 15, 2021 2:38 pm

    Anon-

    False accusations??? LOL! What ‘accusations’ that weren’t clearly facetious??? You know what ‘lol’ means, right? You know what ‘opinions’ are, right? You know how to tell the difference right? Sure hope so!

    It is YOU, from the start, who have engaged in clear (unfunny) insults, put-downs and statements ‘presented as fact’ (that weren’t true), about not just my character, but my background, profession and company (even though you actually know nothing about ANY of these things).

    For instance I have never said you WEREN’T a ‘lawyer’, I merely questioned how good a lawyer you were and stated that you would never be my lawyer (which is just a statement of fact). Because why would I want a lawyer who doesn’t even know what plagiarism is (something that bothers me a lot), how serious a problem it is around the world and how it’s ‘currently’ treated in other countries and what ‘new’ laws some of those countries are now considering to ‘combat it’? Why should I or anyone want to listen to someone who doesn’t seem to know much about the technologies he is sometimes talking about (especially computers, software, AI, and ‘logical thinking’ needed to program them) and who is unlikely to be an expert in computer coding, because as a lawyer that’s not what you would be doing all day long.

    Also, why should I trust someone who ‘probably’ doesn’t have any patents at all, to tell me about patents and how to best get them and what the difference between a ‘good’ and ‘enforceable’ patent is, and what is merely (legally) worthless verbiage?

    And just to set the record straight and out of curiously – you have any inventions in your name, Anon? Have you ever invented anything? Just answer Yes, or No, here to that question. No patent numbers required (to protect your identity), we’ll just take your word for it, since as a lawyer you’re bound by ‘ethical rules’ as well. In any case, I can easily answer YES to that question! I can also ‘truthfully’ say I have gotten more than one BROAD patent that I have prosecuted myself and have several more pending (and pending, and pending, and . . . pending), Which is OK, in accordance with my (post AIA) ‘system’ for getting strong IP protections! I also know how to effectively deal with plagiarism (even without the laws we may need to do that better)!

    By the way, if anyone has to worry about legal challenges regarding ‘insults’ (either perceived or real) it is you – since by impugning my credentials and ‘expertise’ on multiple occasions (in one or more technical areas in which I do have expertise – including AI) and in so doing also insulted and perhaps harmed the reputation of my company (of 40 YEARS), it is YOU and not me, who may have engaged in willful ‘business disparagement’. While I don’t know why in the US it’s far worse to lie and/or insult a ‘company’ (like Dominion) than it is a person, I guess it may be because in a capitalist system companies are considered to be much more important and valuable than people are!

    In any case, it’s OK for you to insult me (and I don’t even mind), just don’t let that ‘spill over’ to my company or any of the people I work with, OK (moral rights, or not, it’s not a good idea)! LOL!

    Also, I don’t ‘think’ I’ll be responding to any of your further posts (and insults) unless they directly involve me or say things of a technical nature which are just incorrect or ‘ill-informed’.

    In summary, Anon, as John Bainer (and maybe Gerry Spence) would say, ‘Go F yourself’! LOL!

  19. Anon April 15, 2021 3:10 pm

    You really think that by appending “LOL” you are cleared from any of the aspects that may arise under moral rights?

    Come now George, even you are not that much of a moron ([lol]).

    By the way, NONE of what you posted in your last post address or moves our conversation forward, as you seem too enamored with your own background, and don’t seem to have any clue as to how to engage in a discussion on law, and the fact that you are not willing to provide support to your views, or clear the very apparent contradictions actually says more about you than you probably realize.

    From your own assertion (because as [NOT] a lawyer that’s not what you would be doing all day long) – should I project this to you? add an ‘lol?’

    Do you really think that I need to be worried about legal challenges regarding insults? In the ‘hypothetical’ world in which your version of law would be set forth (which is the CONTEXT of the post above) – or is “context” another thing that you simply do not bother with?

    What “credentials” of yours have I actually impugned? How? With what words and in what context? And how in the world have you been “impugned,” as your identity is NOT known? I do not ‘quake’ that you are so brave as to use your first name – do you quake when you disregard Moral Rights in attacking me for using a pseudonym?

    Of course, as always, you can chose to respond or not respond. I have never said or indicated otherwise. I HAVE hoped though that you would actually respond with some thought and provide some cognitive support for what appears to be rants (since I do see some specks of thoughts that could be interesting to have a legitimate discussion about). For example, I provided an honest “thank you” for the link to Moral Rights. That you appear to not abide by the tenets of that article is interesting, and I thought it worth exploring as you have not been shy about having some (very) different system of law.

    Again – if (and how) you may choose to respond is up to you.

  20. George April 16, 2021 12:28 pm

    @Anon – No response since pointless!

  21. Anon April 16, 2021 1:08 pm

    No response since your items have been pointless, and you simply don’t care enough to make them cogent.

    (I fixed that for you)

  22. George April 17, 2021 5:38 pm

    To wit: “ But since the other party just got a large award for that ‘idea’ and wasn’t trying to make it , or sell it, under our current and ‘limited’ IP-theft laws that would just be a case of plagiarism” – George

    “Why would this just be a case of plagiarism? You stipulated that the “offender” did not even know of the other source, so on that point alone, plagiarism could not stick.” – Anon

    Well to ‘half-wit’, don’t know how to read (correctly), eh, Anon?! I don’t have time to teach you right now! I said the ‘victim’ of the plagiarism didn’t know it – NOT the perpetrator of it!

    And, plagiarism doesn’t really matter whether you ‘admit to doing it’, or not! A plaintiff would only have to prove that to beyond any reasonable doubt, it’s plagiarism! And in the 21st century it’s REALLY hard to come up with the identical same ‘original idea’ independently, without knowing or quickly finding out that someone else has already come up with it (though in the past that was not entirely impossible, given much more limited and much slower communication capabilities), especially in the internet age and especially if ‘experts’ are involved in reviewing entries to a contest, and especially if the entries are claiming to represent a brilliant ‘new idea’. In fact, it’s almost impossible to do that in the 21st century unless maybe you live in a cave. Do you live in a cave , Anon? You have heard about the ‘Interweb’ and Google, right?

    If I can find ‘anything’ on my computer in a few minutes, so can a judge and jury, and certainly contest ‘administrators’ could (if they actually cared and wanted to)! Most people would know plagiarism when they see it (just as a court would when it comes to obscenity)!

    And, since plagiarism will probably never be made a criminal offense (except maybe in certain countries) – a plaintiff would be able to introduce circumstantial evidence too (as to what’s generally known and not yet known) and wouldn’t need to get a unanimous jury decision to win at trial, unlike they’d need to get in criminal court!

    Don’t you KNOW all this, Anon (if you’re really a lawyer)?! Maybe it’s time for a refresher course (or first one), eh? By the way ARE you a lawyer???! Remember I wasn’t afraid to answer that question, like you appear to be! LOL!!!

    I’m NOT a lawyer! Just an avid student of it (and the history of science and invention). See, unlike maybe you and others, I like to know what’s really ‘new’ and what’s not, so I don’t just re-invent the wheel (and fool myself and others)! I have too much respect for people like Nikola Tesla to do that!

  23. Anon April 17, 2021 6:19 pm

    Post hoc similarity check is not proof of the copying aspect.

    Cave or no cave.

    You are again using legal terms without foundation.

    Take some time to establish a cogent position first. Do the legwork. You are not there yet.

    As to “I’m NOT a lawyer! Just an avid student of it (and the history of science and invention)” – well we do have some things in common then. I have a minor in the history of science and technology. I also have three degrees — and as noted on another thread – have in fact already answered the question as to my being in fact an attorney.

    I have no idea what slight you may mean to intend with “ See, unlike maybe you and others, I like to know what’s really ‘new’ and what’s not” – is it at all pertinent to any point that I have provided to you, or is it like many other or your rambling thoughts, a free-flow of insult?

  24. George April 19, 2021 10:53 am

    @Anon #23

    Unlike me (who actually IS an inventor of ‘new’ and ‘significant’ things and also an entrepreneur who puts those invention to work) I don’t have a long (and easily proven) track record of being a JERK!!! Were your parents really that mean to you? LOL!

    I now feel better knowing that you seem to insult almost everyone, especially if you know nothing about them – EXCEPT of course ‘attorneys’, who use their real names! LOL! Apparently you don’t have the balls to do THAT, do you Anon?! Maybe that’s because you’ve also never had the guts (or experience) necessary to walk into a courtroom and actually defend any of your Much-Better-Than-SCOTUS legal opinions (LOL!!!) before an actual judge (much less a jury)!

    Like I said, I’m pretty sure that ‘EVEN I’ could kick your butt when it really counts, with both ‘my superior logic’ and more extensive knowledge of history (going back 1000’s of years)! Do you have a collection of the most ‘important’ and ‘significant’ inventions of all time, or do you just consider all ideas to be ‘equal’ in their significance and value? Do you lump the ‘junk’ together with the ‘gold’, Anon? Do you consider every piece of software to be ‘deserving’ of a patent? Would the Founders have?

    If ‘everything’s valuable’ – then NOTHING is! Most inventions have little or no value, Anon, and you must know that! If you don’t, then you need help (and a course in economics too)!

  25. Anon April 19, 2021 7:58 pm

    don’t have a long (and easily proven) track record of being a JERK!!!

    Wrong. You have quite established a rather long (as measured by volume) and easily proven record on this blog.

    Were your parents really that mean to you? LOL!

    The “lol” does not save this reply from being inane. Try to stay on point and avoid inane things like mindless ad hominem.

    I now feel better knowing that you seem to insult almost everyone, especially if you know nothing about them

    Another inane miss – my “insults” are NEVER “if I know nothing about them” as they are based on the items they have provided – and which IS known.

    Unlike you, I am NOT in the habit of drawing in complete non-sequiturs only to knock them down. On the other hand, this ‘tactic’ of yours has been explicitly noted many times now. No amount of “lol’s” and “IMO’s” excuse such tactics.

    who use their real names

    Yet again more of THAT inanity from you? Why are you so intent to assail my Moral Rights (from a link even that YOU provided)?

    And “Like I said, I’m pretty sure that ‘EVEN I’ could kick your butt when it really counts,” – you are nowhere close in showing ANY inclination of that ability. Let’s see you try to start doing so in our exchanges here. For someone with supposedly ‘superior logic’ you seem to have an incredibly difficult time getting even the basics of discourse to fall in your favor in our exchanges. Your “legend in your own mind” notwithstanding, you simply operate without a clue of your own limitations and shortcomings. In an immediate instance, if you had ANY sense of the history of innovation, you would recognize that many items of critical innovation stem from extremely minor cross-field events that bubble across many different areas and coalesce into those “important and significant” inventions.

    I have posted this before, but I recommend to you that you watch some of the Connections shows hosted by James Burke – or is the 1970’s too old for your “100’s of years” to go back to?

    Whether or not “Most inventions have little or no value” is rather besides the point – as it is the promotion (in multiple senses of the word) and standing on shoulders of those who went before – even in only adding that ‘little bit more’ that IS important.

    Your own self-aggrandizing and frankly overly self-grandiose views are — in fact — quite silly.

  26. George April 26, 2021 6:22 pm

    “Whether or not “Most inventions have little or no value” is rather besides the point – as it is the promotion (in multiple senses of the word) and standing on shoulders of those who went before – even in only adding that ‘little bit more’ that IS important.”

    Nope – unless you do something SIGNIFICANT with your life – no one will care!!! Doing a ‘little bit’, or what you’re just ‘expected to do’ – on the job – for a big company, ‘literally’ gets you almost nothing extra! Not even your own descendants will care what you did after a couple generations (if it wasn’t significant)! Just accept it, YOU won’t be remembered by anyone, Anon! Especially if you stay . . . ‘Anon’! I don’t intend to.

    And people whose shoulders are stood on by others do a LOT more than ‘a little’, Anon! Great people don’t stand on the shoulders of ‘little people’ (like you), they stand on the shoulders of other ‘great people’! Why would they need any help from ‘little people’ only able to do a ‘little bit’! I never have, but on the other hand if you are ANYONE with a good idea that could help me in any way, I’ll always give credit where it’s due (or at least never deny someone credit). I only wish others would do the same but they don’t anymore! And even patents aren’t enough when it comes to ‘getting credit’. Just ask Hedy Lamarr. That’s why I am in favor of plagiarism laws too!

  27. Anon April 27, 2021 7:25 am

    You really show that you understand little about innovation there George.

    Let me guess, you are “self-studied,” right?

    Your hubris is amazing, and make this bear repeating:

    Your own self-aggrandizing and frankly overly self-grandiose views are — in fact — quite silly.

  28. George April 27, 2021 11:38 am

    @Anon

    “Whether or not “Most inventions have little or no value” is rather besides the point”

    LOL!!!! WHAT??!!! It’s the WHOLE point! . . . It’s called ‘Intellectual PROPERTY’, Anon, not ‘Intellectual Challenge’.

    Would you ‘buy’ property that costs 10’s of thousands of dollars to get (and millions to ‘try’ to defend) if it had no real value?! Obviously it doesn’t matter to people whose career is based entirely on just GENERATING official-looking documents that are ‘mostly worthless’, but it’d better matter to actual inventors (especially independent ones), since otherwise they just end up broke and won’t be able to invent anything anymore. Worst of all, it will lead to the eventual extinction of all (non-corporate) inventors – at least if they have any common sense! Inventors can’t exist just to make others rich! They can’t just be ‘easy prey’ or easy ‘marks’!

    And, what young person already trying to pay off a $100K student debt would ever consider spending even more money trying to invent something and get a patent on it, especially of they might have to borrow another $100K (from someone) just to actually DO anything with it? They know companies never really license outside inventions, unless they are maybe owned by another large and powerful company. I’d tell any young person even thinking about it – DON’T – if you value your happiness and financial well-being! I’d tell them go into medicine or do ANYTHING else with their education instead!

    Fortunately, most young people are smart enough to already know all this and have no desire to become inventors. They know a scam when they see it (on late night TV and reading about Theranos). Inventions and especially patents don’t pay (they haven’t for over 80 years)! But ANY other ‘profession’ does pay, including ‘preparing patents’ for naive, stupid and greedy would-be ‘inventors’! The only other way to make money from inventions and patents is to become an actual ‘entrepreneur’ and become successful at selling something based on those patents!

  29. George April 27, 2021 11:53 am

    “Let me guess, you are “self-studied,” right?”

    Boy, you just can’t seem to get ANYTHING right, can you, Anon?! Even your ‘guesses’ are really bad! LOL!!! You sure like to go off half-cocked don’t you? You like to come to conclusions without even any ‘evidence’, don’t you?! That won’t work in any courtroom I’ve ever been in!

    I can’t believe how ‘dumb’ you seem to be! You actually made it through a law school? Where? Trump University? Did you ever have a course in ‘evidence’ or logic . . . like what it is and isn’t?

    “Your own self-aggrandizing and frankly overly self-grandiose views are — in fact — quite silly.”

    Please be sure to tell that to Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and Richard Branson too, I’m sure you already told it to that most amazing of all guys, Donald Trump, too! Must have worked the last time around! We don’t hear much from him anymore! LOL!!!

  30. Anon April 27, 2021 3:45 pm

    That you think yourself to be in the class of Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Richard Branson (given your provision of evidence in your writings here) is all the proof I — or anyone — needs of your silliness.

  31. George May 9, 2021 5:21 pm

    “That you think yourself to be in the class of Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Richard Branson ”

    Never said that or even implied that! What I implied was that YOU certainly are not in their league and are ‘clueless’ about what it really takes to succeed in the 21st century! At least I listen to them (rather than you)! I think that’s a wise decision (even though I don’t even agree with them on many things).

    Also, why don’t you stick to the topic being discussed instead of always going off on the ‘insult tangent’?! I’m sure people blogging here don’t appreciate it!

  32. George May 9, 2021 5:30 pm

    Justices Thomas and Alito are at the extreme right end of the court. Hopefully at least Thomas may soon move on and be replaced by someone more centrist. The SCOTUS should basically be a centrist court, leaning neither too much to the right, nor the left. But the majority of the public should be pleased with (or at least accept) a majority of their decisions. Something is wrong if most of the public doesn’t.

  33. Anon May 12, 2021 6:15 am

    Never said that or even implied that!

    You are careless with your words and you certainly implied that (with you having drawn the distinction between you and I as you being the inventor).

    Thank you again for yet another example of inanity.

    But the majority of the public should be pleased with (or at least accept) a majority of their decisions. Something is wrong if most of the public doesn’t.

    Something is wrong…. where? Please be specific.

    Are you talking about their IP jurisprudence? Something else? I noticed you identified Thomas as non-centrist. Do you really think that Thomas is the prime example of a Justice furthest away from the centrist position? Are you only looking “right of center?” Why? There are several that are easily further from a centrist position that are Left of center. Is your skew due to your own position on that Left-Right continuum?

  34. George May 12, 2021 12:28 pm

    This is just getting STUPID, Anon, and you always seem to steer everything that way. Like I said – get some help for that.

    As to the SCOTUS it is now a MAJORITY ‘very conservative’ court, so it doesn’t matter who’s on the other side (it could be Karl Marx himself)! It is NOT a ‘centrist court’! Learn some LOGIC for Pete’s sake! To make it more ‘centrist’ at least 2 justices on the Right have to go (or we need to add more justices to balance things out)! There are now AT MOST two ‘liberal’ justices on the SCOTUS. Do you know how a ‘scale’ works, Anon??? And, do you know the importance of a ‘popular vote’, as opposed to say a ‘Trump dictatorship’ that can’t even tolerate a Liz Cheney TELLING THE TRUTH? We need to get back to Democracy in America before it’s too late!

  35. Anon May 12, 2021 2:28 pm

    George,

    The “getting stupid” is NOT by my steering, but rather by your own choices.

    The rest of your rant is out of place, does not answer my questions to you, and ignores the fact that Justices are supposed to be impartial (even as they may lean Left or Right).

    You do know that with an odd number of Justices (your odd reference to “scale” notwithstanding), that typically one will not ever have a true “centrist” Court?

    Do you have any clue — historically — as to “centralist” tendencies of the Court?

    Do you even understand that this country explicitly choose NOT to have the type of ‘democracy’ that you seem to be pining for with your “majority” notion? This country was well aware of this thing called Tyranny of the Majority, and was explicitly built as a democratic republic.

    Granted, you may not understand these terms — but you DAMM better try to if you are going to want to lecture an attorney on them.

  36. George May 13, 2021 1:18 pm

    . . . Oh boy!!! Sorry, Mr. Gambino, there’s no judge to step in here to end this ongoing tangent with Anon. Appreciate your article.

  37. George May 13, 2021 1:32 pm

    “Justices are supposed to be impartial (even as they may lean Left or Right)”

    LOL! If they are HUMAN, they can’t be! That’s why juries are so important too. Most of what we think and do is instinctive, learned, and/or subconscious! We are not really in control of most of it or are aware of how it comes about. Only computers can be totally unbiased (if programmed correctly), because they have no emotions! Emotions are the root of all evil! You can’t be ‘evil’ if you don’t get some enjoyment or satisfaction from it (the same is true for doing ‘good’). No one walks around being ‘unbiased’ in life. That’s why we need checks on our biases. That’s why we need more than just one person deciding things. And that’s why Trump and others who follow him are so ‘vile’! Those people don’t want to hear second or third opinions. They don’t want to hear ANY other opinions. How about you? Are you open to them? I am as long as they are rational, logical and fact based. What happened to ‘facts’ anyway?! Fortunately they are still important in the courtroom, including at the SCOTUS.

  38. Anon May 13, 2021 1:40 pm

    You say “sorry” – and then continue the tangent with me (while blaming me).

    Do you wonder why you have no credibility, George?

    As to your (obvious) ploy to remove all HUMAN judges from, well, judging, sorry, but we are both a LONG way away from your Artificial Intelligence utopia, AND you quite miss the fact that a person CAN employ critical thinking and be objective — even if that person is [gasp] a human.

    We have depended on this for the ENTIRETY of the legal system.

    As to your continued attempts to inject “Trump” into our discussions, you (yet again) employ strawmen of positions that I have never espoused and then seek to knock them down. In the first instance, this is illogical. In the second instance, it is a fallacy. In the third instance, it is simply not at point.

    Your last rant about “facts” is extremely funny – given as my last post is making the point that it is YOU that lacks ‘the facts’ and a basic understanding of the system that you want to lecture an attorney about.

    ALL of this is merely you providing more evidence of your inanity.

  39. George May 17, 2021 5:50 pm

    Hey, Anon, America was built first and foremost on TELLING THE TRUTH to the American people – not on LYING to them every day! That’s not a democracy of ANY KIND – that’s an ‘autocracy’ and you seem to favor that over majority rule and the judicial oversight of that majority (so it doesn’t do ‘bad’ things).

    No one who believes in democratic rule, storms the Capital when they don’t get what they want (especially if they are in the minority). Did those supporting Hilary Clinton do that? Did those supporting Al Gore do that? For people trying to argue that it’s perfectly OK and ‘normal’ to do that and insisting that people just ignore their own eyes, we need to throw the book a them (however many there are)!

    P.S. Also, would be happy to go Mano-A-Mano with you in a courtroom any day, buddy! You’d lose there (just like Trump does ALL THE TIME)! But then you probably haven’t seen much of courtrooms, since you’re probably just a ‘transactional lawyer’, and not a ‘Gerry Spence’ type, right?! Now if I had to go up against the latter, I’d be really scared (so I’m glad he’s retired now).

  40. George May 19, 2021 6:22 pm

    “We have depended on this for the ENTIRETY of the legal system.”

    We have depended on IC engines for 150 years too! Look where that has gotten us! We ‘depended’ on slavery for 100’s of years – even 1000’s of years! Does that mean it was a great idea?! MRI and CAT scans would be entirely IMPOSSIBLE without computers and they can now be read by computers too (with better than 95% accuracy – BETTER than human radiologist who train for years)! Want to go back to regular 2D X-Rays and humans reading of them (which wasn’t great)?!

    There are 1000’s of things that humans CAN’T do as well as computers or can’t do at all without them – 1000’s of things, including doing bar scans and super-fast ‘inventory systems’ that are free to run and don’t require a single person ANYMORE. How many people used to be needed to do inventory?! 100,000’s ?

    The handling of legal matters has now clearly become one of those things that WILL BE a target for computers and will help the affordability problem for the 99% (which I am sure you worry about every day). What ‘ordinary person’ can afford to spend $150K – $10M to settle a fairly simple IP dispute (which a computer could ‘figure out’ in MINUTES – FOR FREE)?

    What we have now is just a legal ‘scam’ that is very lucractive for lawyers on BOTH SIDES of any dispute – WIN OR LOSE. Not exactly the best system we could devise, is it! Not the most efficient and economical system we could devise to settle disputes (using just humans) is it?!

    What ‘ordinary person’ with an innovative idea (which they’re not sure will ever give them a payback) can afford to shell out $20K (+ ‘exponentially increasing’ maintenance fees) just to find out? How can they afford to multiply that by 10 in order to have even a ‘remote chance’ of profiting from one of those 10 inventions?! Who can afford to throw away $200K (+ additional expenses)? Not even well-paid lawyers would ever do that (and so you never see them doing it)!

    It’s ludicrous to just keep IGNORING this simple fact and truth! Our IP system just doesn’t pay anymore (except for lawyers and ‘trolls’ who exploit it)! Like I said, it’s a big scam that’s perpetrated on naive and hopeful and sometimes desperate inventors.

    The odds that something great will result from inventing something in America have now diminish to the point where they are all but nonexistent. Things weren’t that bad 100- years ago and inventors were valued much more back then. Inventors need to understand those (terrible) odds, which I don’t think most ever think about but have a right to know! When they realize that no matter how great they think their idea may be and how much money it might be able to make them and how much they are willing to spend to try to protect it, the odds of that actually happening (unless maybe they’re already rich) is less then 1%, they would be better off taking their ‘life’s savings’ and just head to Vegas or, better yet, just use it for online gambling, which will offer them much better odds (even with a ‘large rake’)! At least that’s what I would do if I had a spare $20K and no guaranteed market! In addition that would be a LOT more fun than arguing with examiners and the courts too! Who needs THAT?! IP should be pretty much ‘hassle free’ once issued! Just like real estate is!

    So, what INVENTORS need are ‘real’ ‘easily verified’ and ‘enforceable’ IP, that computers could provide them with because computers are 100% consistent and almost never ‘screw up’ or have biases (that can’t be fixed). Humans will never be able to provide ‘guarantees’ about their decisions and certainly will never accept liability if they make mistakes. Computers COULD do all that, by including insurance policies against mistakes – meaning that if someone is denied a patent when they shouldn’t have been, they could compensated millions of dollars for that mistake, if necessary! Think that would ever be possible now??? LOL! It would become possible because computers might ‘screw up’ less than 1/1000 times (until they’re made even better and then screw up only 1/10,000 times)! That insurance could cost as little as $100 per application (especially if the government also pitches in).

    Computers have proven themselves over and over again. Humans can’t pilot a rocket anymore, can they?! Humans can’t drive a car while sleeping or multitasking, can they?! Humans can’t decode a genome by themselves (no matter how smart they are), can they?! Humans can’t translate billions of sentences in dozens of of languages every day, can they?

    You are still living in the 20th century (or maybe 19th century), Anon and you’re obviously SCARED of what computers could and will do your profession in the coming years! Indeed, they may even ‘decimate it’ in less than 20 years and maybe even in less than 10 years. We could end up needing just 5% the number of lawyers we now have (and they will all have to be ‘brilliant’ to keep their jobs). So, if lawyers can’t beat what’s definitely coming, they’d better just start investing in it, right?! We’ve just started doing that, but we plan on greatly increasing our investments soon (and hope to get very rich by doing that very EARLY)! We also have some ideas of our own and may develop our own automated ‘tools’ (some requiring AI, some not).

    Also, we’ll probably try out the below product (for FREE), as we prepare our upcoming lawsuit! It may be just a preview of the many great things to come! One month of use costs less than just one hour of legal consultation (which won’t get you much if anything)! LOL! Wait . . . meant to say ROFL!

    https://compose.law/

    P.S.

    “Your last rant about “facts” is extremely funny – given as my last post is making the point that it is YOU that lacks ‘the facts’ and a basic understanding of the system that you want to lecture an attorney about.”

    What FACTS and STATISTICS do you have, Anon?! Haven’t seen any! Is China about to kick our ass or not?! Do we have many more independent inventors now, or far fewer of them? What’s the reason we don’t have more inventors in this country? Could have to have something to do with the odds of success as an inventor and the number that go broke trying? Could it have something to do with that ‘reality’?! Are you using Trump ‘facts’ or ACTUAL FACTS?! we have to get that straight first. When it comes to ‘facts’ those on the right have a TERRIBLE tack record! Of course, I’m not sure which ‘team’ you are on, but my track record (which can be confirmed over at least a decade) is pretty good! Nothing much to take back! Believed in man-made climate change since the early 1980’s! When did you believe it? LOL!

  41. George May 20, 2021 12:26 am

    @Anon

    Re: “Tyranny of the Majority”???

    Talk about a tangent! What is that? It doesn’t really exist! It’s mostly a myth! Tyrannies are always ‘created’ by just one or a handful of TYRANTS, not by a ‘majority of people’ who think independently! Q-Anon and Trump are perfect examples of how the opposite happens! Hitler is another. There would never have been a ‘Nazi Germany’ had there not been a Hitler to create it (regardless of people’s bigotry and antisemitism). All credit for that has to go to him – not the German society. If there are no people who want to start a ‘cult’, then there can never be cults that somehow just ‘form themselves’, and so there can never be the ‘spontaneous creation of tyranny’ – since people don’t ever agree on anything (at least not initially)! People follow other people they believe to be leaders or that they think have some kind of supernatural abilities, because they don’t have the qualities necessary to become leaders and/or tyrants themselves. So most CAN’T BE tyrants! Basically only very pathological and hate-filled people can be tyrannical. Average people can’t be, as is now clearly being seen in the defenses being mounted by those who attacked the Capital (they are all trying to blame Trump now in the hopes they might avoid going to jail for a long time)! Almost none of these people are taking responsibility for their own actions! They all claim to have been ‘under a trace put on them by Trump’! Good luck with THAT defense, if that’s all they got!

    People don’t ‘naturally’ become ‘tyrannical’, since most people basically want the same things in life and also because most people are ‘cowards’ when it comes down to having to fight alone. Cowards always seek the protection of others and always seek consensus opinion. You know a coward when they are unable to come up with any ‘independent ideas’ (like using computers to help solve the many problems with our patent system) or are afraid to express their own opinions (like so many on the Right). Liz Chaney is an example of someone with real courage, while McConnell and McCarthy are examples of ‘sniveling cowards’, who value their jobs over the truth!

    And . . . a majority ‘opinion’ doesn’t constitute a ‘tyranny’ . . . just what a majority of people ‘desire’ and would like their government to pursue. They can never force the government or the courts to do anything (at least not immediately). Roe v Wade is just the latest example of that! The courts could overrule that now (after 40 years). That would STILL not be ‘tyranny’! That would still be consistent with democracy. What people like Trump and his sycophant followers wanted was NOT democracy at all! They wanted a true ‘tyranny’ – with no ability to object.

  42. Anon May 20, 2021 4:04 pm

    Wow, your inanity goes off the deep end. To my about 199 word post, you have responded with an almost 10 to 1 diarrhea of 1,865 words – and in so doing, you repeat many of the past inanities that seem to be your forte, including making assertions that “my position” is some ultra-right-wing position that I have NEVER indicated as my position.

    For example, your assertion of, ““ and you seem to favor that over majority rule and the judicial oversight of that majority (so it doesn’t do ‘bad’ things).” has ZERO basis in fact, and you seem to not at all understand the actual structure of the US government (we are NOT a strict democracy of a “pure majority,” but instead we are a democratic republic – with a three branch system and EACH branch has checks and balances over the other two branches (the Judicial Branch is NOT a branch that sits above the other two branches).

    You insist on talking about things that you clearly do not grasp, and then want to lecture others who DO know what you clearly do not.

    The only possible result of this tactic of yours is how I have described your writing: inane.

    IF you want to talk about lying and autocracy, you should pay attention to the current Biden administration that has fully embraced BOTH lying and autocracy.

    It is simply NOT that I am – in any way – a “Right Wing” person. I am actually a fully centrist person with tendencies toward libertarianism. It is simply FALSE to ascribe the “R” party as the liars and the “D” party as the truth-tellers. BOTH parties are politicians, and as such, are liars.

    You insist on wanting to take a stand and base EVERYTHING on the January 6 event, and I simply have not taken any such stand that you would want to assert.

    As to the mindless bluster of yours of, “Also, would be happy to go Mano-A-Mano with you in a courtroom any day, buddy! You’d lose there – you cannot even handle a legal blog exchange – you would go nowhere (and quickly so) in a formal court of law. So even as I am “just a ‘transactional lawyer’, and not a ‘Gerry Spence’ type” my ability to actually understand – and express – legal points runs circles around your bombastic pontificating in the weeds, without regard to terms of art and what they actually mean, or how to draw a proper parallel.

    DO you know what is NOT a proper parallel?

    This is NOT: “ depended on IC engines for 150 years too! Look where that has gotten us! We ‘depended’ on slavery for 100’s of years – even 1000’s of years! Does that mean it was a great idea?! MRI and CAT scans would be entirely IMPOSSIBLE without computers and they can now be read by computers too (with better than 95% accuracy – BETTER than human radiologist who train for years)! Want to go back to regular 2D X-Rays and humans reading of them (which wasn’t great)?!

    That entire rant is nothing but a non sequitur. NONE of what you want to draw a parallel to is EITHER on point, or has any touchstone to any view of mine. The proper answer to your non sequitur is merely a blunt, “So what?.

    You then state (YET ANOTHER) position and want to ascribe it to me.

    Your next statement provides something AS IF I have disagreed with the statement – when I have not (“The handling of legal matters has now clearly become one of those things that WILL BE a target for computers and will help the affordability problem for the 99%”)

    And then you assert a FALSE position (strawman) that I have NEVER indicated such is a position of mine: “(which I am sure you worry about every day)

    Maybe try to actually pay attention to items that I have said and address actual points at hand.

    You only want to rant away at your pet peeve, and your rant is not even REALLY aimed at me. I understand your soapbox drill. That just happens to NOT BE AT POINT here.

    You go on and on with your rant and end up in a purely fantasy land of sometime in the future. Your view simply is not reflective of the present world. Your “desire” for “ So, what INVENTORS need are ‘real’ ‘easily verified’ and ‘enforceable’ IP, that computers could provide them with because computers are 100% consistent and almost never ‘screw up’ or have biases (that can’t be fixed).” simply is NOT real – as I provided several links from current real day items to rebut your dreamscape. Those were not things that I made up, but instead were merely things that happened to come up in my newsfeed, I did not even have to go out and search for those things. Your fantasy world is just that: a fantasy.

    By the way, if you think that real estate is hassle free, I would suggest that you inform yourself and actually speak to a few real estate attorneys.

    You return to inanity and throwing around phrases as if they were magic marshmallows. “real”, “easily verified” and “enforceable” – words that you merely mouth without any concept of what it would take to make it so. You are clueless – but worse, you really seem to think that you KNOW this stuff. It’s beyond comical.
    Mindless assertions – with no tie to reality keep flowing from you, “ You are still living in the 20th century (or maybe 19th century), Anon and you’re obviously SCARED of what computers could and will do your profession in the coming years!

    You have NO clue as to these assertions and no basis whatsoever in making them. You seem to want to pigeon hole me as a litigator (even as earlier you recognize that I am not one). You do this because such merely fits your ten-cent rant. It has no touchstone with reality.

    Your last ‘attempt” to engage on facts quite misses the point (gee, how come I am not surprised?). Clearly, I am talking about what is right in front of you and I here on this page. You seem to want to jump in the weeds and assert things (again) that I have not said, on topics NOT on point. For some reason, you think that this tactic of yours of non-sequitur/strawman/rant is actually a powerful argument. It is the opposite. You are just too dull to even grasp this.

    When it comes to ‘facts’ those on the right have a TERRIBLE tack record!

    As do those on the Left. Quite in fact, the political models of the Left can objectively be stated to be worse – far worse.

    Your bombastic rant betrays you. You insist on “ Believed in man-made climate change since the early 1980’s! When did you believe it? LOL!” but “climate change” was NOT the mantra back in the 1980’s. It was not even until the LATE 1980’s that “global warming” became “a thing,” and it was not until the 2000’s (when strict warming was NOT occurring according to the early models) that the political term was changed to “climate change.”

    And guess what? Climate changes – that is what it does. And this changes have occurred (and at far worse extremes) WELL before man had ANY impact. Does man have an impact? Sure. I really don’t know anyone who would disagree with that. The better question is, “What is the relative impact of man’s impact, and even better: what are the cost/benefit aspects OF the level of man’s impact versus various optional models of modern society?

    You are but an ego-driven mouth showing lack of touch on yet another topic that you only think that you understand, and have no clue as to the larger picture underneath your self-congratulatory soapboxing.

    As to “Tyranny of the Majority,” you need to scrap your entire mindset and start over. Start instead with the realization that the TERM is a term of art, a phrase that is not to be parsed into its pieces, and those pieces put back together in a common parlance. Your emotional OBSESSION with Trump and January 6 clearly affect your ability to employ critical thinking. Worse, this emotion feeds on your lack of understanding of how this country was actually formed and what type of government we actually have (again, we have a democratic republic, and NOT a strict democracy). Your rant dissolves into MORE projections of positions that I do not hold, more purely (and meaningless) assertions based on YOUR biased view of politicians (Liz Chaney is NO example of courage). Neither are McConnell and McCarthy – but as I keep on pointing out to you you insist on strawmanning and simply injecting non sequiturs and positions that I do not hold, as if I did hold those positions, and thus somehow this non-reality “must make you correct.”
    And if you want sycophantic followers, you need not limit your view of those on the Right. Those on the Left are equally sycophantic, if not more so.

    Authoritarianism has actually been MORE exemplified by those on the Left.

    Your rants have been truly inane – and they continue to be so.
    This post is about 1,564 words – so BOTH of two posts are still more than 100 words less than ALL of your last three run-on rants.

Post a Comment

Respectfully add to the discussion.

Name *
Email *
Website