Mike Masnick, unbundled
Mike Masnick took exception to some remarks in the IPBiz post, Dudas unbundled, by Mike [?]
Mike had posted at TechDirt:
With the USPTO approving tons of bad patents, and the courts all too often siding with the patent holder and expanding what's patentable, combined with people who have done nothing getting hundreds of millions just for holding a piece of paper, is it really any surprise that the incentive structure would push people to file for as many bogus patents as possible, in hopes of getting them through the obviously questionable process?
IPBiz notes that the National Academy of Sciences report on patents does NOT confirm what Mike says. The report of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS/STEP) did not actually find evidence of a decline in patent quality. Page 3 of the report states: "The claim that quality has deteriorated in a broad and systematic way could be, but has not been, empirically tested. Therefore, conclusions must remain tentative."
Thus, IPBiz asks Mike Masnick: where's your evidence? what do you know that the National Academy of Science doesn't know? What substance backs up your conclusory arguments?
Of Mike's I merely pointed out that they [Jaffe and Lerner] *ACCURATELY* pointed out that the USPTO was being overhwelmed [sic] with questionable patent apps. , IPBiz asks what evidence Jaffe and Lerner had that the "USPTO was being overwhelmed with questionable patent applications"?
On the subject of Jaffe and Lerner, the only case where Jaffe and Lerner worked through a prior art issue was on page 144, wherein they borrowed an example from Greg Aharonian. IPBiz asks Mike Masnick if he believes that example is accurate, or if Jaffe and Lerner merely demonstrated on page 144 that they don't know what prior art is, and thus don't know what a questionable application is at all?
IPBiz reminds readers that, about two years ago, Mike Masnick was raving about "new, peer-reviewed" work by Bessen which had been ignored in the patent community. When the Masnick foggy FUD had cleared, it became apparent that the work by
Bessen was not new, not peer-reviewed, and not ignored in the patent community. Hyperbole is a Masnick trademark (don't know if he goes after infringers; nobody really tops him, anyway). Curiously, his over-hyped, yet incrementalist, style is a microcosm of the IT positions he seeks to represent.
See also
Getting the Patent Reform Wars Back on Track
Patent Grant Rate Lower Than Many Academics Think
Do patents tend to harm inventors? Part 2.
Do patents tend to harm inventors?--part 3
of page 144 of Jaffe and Lerner
Inadvertent Argument Against Peer-to-Patent
Mike had posted at TechDirt:
With the USPTO approving tons of bad patents, and the courts all too often siding with the patent holder and expanding what's patentable, combined with people who have done nothing getting hundreds of millions just for holding a piece of paper, is it really any surprise that the incentive structure would push people to file for as many bogus patents as possible, in hopes of getting them through the obviously questionable process?
IPBiz notes that the National Academy of Sciences report on patents does NOT confirm what Mike says. The report of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS/STEP) did not actually find evidence of a decline in patent quality. Page 3 of the report states: "The claim that quality has deteriorated in a broad and systematic way could be, but has not been, empirically tested. Therefore, conclusions must remain tentative."
Thus, IPBiz asks Mike Masnick: where's your evidence? what do you know that the National Academy of Science doesn't know? What substance backs up your conclusory arguments?
Of Mike's I merely pointed out that they [Jaffe and Lerner] *ACCURATELY* pointed out that the USPTO was being overhwelmed [sic] with questionable patent apps. , IPBiz asks what evidence Jaffe and Lerner had that the "USPTO was being overwhelmed with questionable patent applications"?
On the subject of Jaffe and Lerner, the only case where Jaffe and Lerner worked through a prior art issue was on page 144, wherein they borrowed an example from Greg Aharonian. IPBiz asks Mike Masnick if he believes that example is accurate, or if Jaffe and Lerner merely demonstrated on page 144 that they don't know what prior art is, and thus don't know what a questionable application is at all?
IPBiz reminds readers that, about two years ago, Mike Masnick was raving about "new, peer-reviewed" work by Bessen which had been ignored in the patent community. When the Masnick foggy FUD had cleared, it became apparent that the work by
Bessen was not new, not peer-reviewed, and not ignored in the patent community. Hyperbole is a Masnick trademark (don't know if he goes after infringers; nobody really tops him, anyway). Curiously, his over-hyped, yet incrementalist, style is a microcosm of the IT positions he seeks to represent.
See also
Getting the Patent Reform Wars Back on Track
Patent Grant Rate Lower Than Many Academics Think
Do patents tend to harm inventors? Part 2.
Do patents tend to harm inventors?--part 3
of page 144 of Jaffe and Lerner
Inadvertent Argument Against Peer-to-Patent
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 9:34 PM
1 Comments:
Good trick, Lawrence. Ignore the substance of my comment and continue with the ad hominem attacks.
Do people actually pay you good money for your help? Scary.
So, let's focus in on the questions you refused to answer:
Why did you accuse me of making statements I did not make?
Why did you associate me with comments of Lerner and Jaffe that I never mentioned nor said one way or the other whether or not I agreed with?
In this latest post, why do you misrepresent what I said about Bessen's work? Do you have any evidence that Bessen's research is inaccurate? Do you have any evidence that all of the other research we've pointed to on the problems with the patent system is inaccurate?
You've been asked in the past, and you've turned up... oh right... nothing.
You like to crow about how my adjectives describing Bessen's work (which was both peer reviewed and new) were inaccurate under your definitions -- but that's a lame trick, because you never actually address the *substance*. It's something you're very good at. You switch the debate over some minor point, and ignore the actual heart of the issue.
Did you learn that at law school, or is something you picked up on your own?
As for your questions, I didn't say that there was a *decline* in patent quality. I said that a lot of bad patents were getting approved. Note the difference. One is directional, one is absolute. The NAS study was on the question of whether there was a directional change -- and the conclusion wasn't that there wasn't, but that it didn't test it. Besides, only someone making a living off of bad patents could honestly believe that bad patents aren't being applied for on a regular basis.
Let me ask you a pretty straightforward question, which I'm sure won't get a straightforward answer: do you think that with the massive increase in patent applications recently, that the quality of those applications has remained constantly good?
Besides, I REALLY like how you ignore that Dudas was stating the same thing.
Funny. I'm the clueless one, yet I'm merely repeating what Dudas knows is true as well.
As for Lerner and Jaffe, again, you pull a nice trick assuming that that one quote is the only area where they point to bad patents. But, again, we fall into the trap where you've misdefined bad patents as being related to the prior art. Tragically for you (and our economy) there's a lot more to it than that. But, rather than admitting that, you come up with your own incorrect definitions. Does this sort of thing work with your clients?
Lawrence, I've debated with you before. You resort to ad hominems and arguments based on your own warped definitions. You twist things to focus on minor points. You mistate my arguments, and take things out of context.
It's amusing, but it's hardly productive.
Again, I'm curious if the work you do on this blog is indicative of the work you do for clients?
Post a Comment
<< Home