"Charlie Brown" falls for IPT football, again
The March 2007 issue of Intellectual Property Today contained a rather provocative article at page 7 by Charles Gholz titled "Who You Gonna Call?", the last sentence of which article said: So, I challenge any such person [who differs with the contents of the article] to submit to this journal an article in rebuttal to this article."
LBE promptly did submit to Intellectual Property Today a rebuttal to the Gholz article, which was supposed to be published in the May 2007 issue of IPT. Inspection of the Table of Contents of the May 2007 issue of IPT suggests it was not published. This does remind one of Charlie Brown and the football. Of course, Gholz never said that IPT would PUBLISH a rebuttal to his article. But, on the other hand, the ABSENCE of published responses, in view of the challenge of Gholz, might lead an outside observer to believe that there was agreement with what Gholz wrote in "Who You Gonna Call?" One could say the same thing about the San Diego Union Tribune which wrote an article suggesting Thomson / WARF had ignored the prior work of Ariff Bongso, when in fact Thomson discussed the work of Bongso in Thomson's '780 patent.
The last sentence of my submission to IPT, made final on April 4, 2007, was
Finally, this letter should be considered an invitation to Mr. Gholz to identify any elements of a "desire to preserve vested interests" of the authors that he might find in the above-referenced prior art to his March 2007 article.
***
Of course, LBE should have known better; see Edison as a Patent Troll, or Where is California Going in Stem Cell Research?, viewed 927 times since June 16, 2006.
***
See Post-grant oppositions: job opportunities for patent lawyers?
LBE promptly did submit to Intellectual Property Today a rebuttal to the Gholz article, which was supposed to be published in the May 2007 issue of IPT. Inspection of the Table of Contents of the May 2007 issue of IPT suggests it was not published. This does remind one of Charlie Brown and the football. Of course, Gholz never said that IPT would PUBLISH a rebuttal to his article. But, on the other hand, the ABSENCE of published responses, in view of the challenge of Gholz, might lead an outside observer to believe that there was agreement with what Gholz wrote in "Who You Gonna Call?" One could say the same thing about the San Diego Union Tribune which wrote an article suggesting Thomson / WARF had ignored the prior work of Ariff Bongso, when in fact Thomson discussed the work of Bongso in Thomson's '780 patent.
The last sentence of my submission to IPT, made final on April 4, 2007, was
Finally, this letter should be considered an invitation to Mr. Gholz to identify any elements of a "desire to preserve vested interests" of the authors that he might find in the above-referenced prior art to his March 2007 article.
***
Of course, LBE should have known better; see Edison as a Patent Troll, or Where is California Going in Stem Cell Research?, viewed 927 times since June 16, 2006.
***
See Post-grant oppositions: job opportunities for patent lawyers?
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 5:11 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home