Where's the beef, Mike?
Mike has posted four comments in about two days, but not one of them offers any evidence to back up the remark he made on TechDirt: With the USPTO approving tons of bad patents ... Mike writes It's funny (laughably funny) that you assume that a lack of studies showing something means that bad patents aren't getting through. illustrating the obvious, that Mike never mastered "Logic 101." One can't prove a negative. If Mike makes an assertion, Mike has to present evidence "for" his assertion. So far, in the last two days, Mike is 0 for 4. Mike, if you can't think at a college level, at least read what Abraham Lincoln said in the Lincoln-Douglas debates about proving a negative.
In his remark to JD, Mike is still sticking by Jaffe and Lerner:
I merely used L&J's book to point out that they correctly spotted that there has been a huge increase in questionable patent applications, in part due to some changes to the way the patent system has operated.
Yet, Mike has no evidence that Jaffe and Lerner are correct. Mike does not want to talk about the screw-up of Jaffe and Lerner on page 144 of Innovation and Its Discontents, which proves Jaffe and Lerner don't understand the concept of prior art, and therefore are unable to know what a "questionable patent application" is.
IPBiz notes how appropriate it is that the most thorough example of an (alleged) missed piece of prior art by the USPTO in the whole Jaffe and Lerner book was copied by Jaffe and Lerner from Greg Aharorian. Jaffe and Lerner could not even think up an example on their own. And, similarly, Mike can't produce any evidence on his own to support his conclusory statement about the USPTO approving tons of bad patents. Copyists citing copyists citing copyists, with no original thought in view. Mike should take up residence in Patna; at least he might get some basmati rice to eat.
***
Jaffe and Lerner alleged on page 144 that the USPTO did not consider prior art in granting U.S. Patent No. 6,049,811 which is directed to a "Machine for Drafting a Patent Application and Process for Doing So." Jaffe and Lerner alleged that the disclosure in the '811 patent was anticipated by a paper by workers from Hitachi published in 74 JPTOS 315.
J. Steven Rutt had written in NANOTECH AND THE PATENT SYSTEM: A REVIEW OF INNOVATION AND ITS DISCONTENTS, 2 Nanotechnology L. & Bus. 111, 113 (2005), a book review of "Innovation and Its Discontents" available in both LEXIS and Westlaw which appeared before the review of Professor Dreyfuss:
The Innovation authors, however, utterly fail to discuss the seminal point of whether the Hitachi prior art teaches this required feature of the invention.
***
See
Dudas unbundled, by Mike [?]
http://www.ipfrontline.com/depts/article.asp?id=15505&deptid=4
**UPDATE. April 25.
Mike Masnick still hasn't mastered the basic concept: one cannot prove a negative. Better go back to college, Mike. Perhaps we can get a scholarship for you at RVCC.
Jon Dudas was using the application rejection rates in first quarter 2008 to infer a tremendous drop in application quality. IPBiz rejects that logic. Mike fails to mention that the same Jon Dudas defended the quality of ISSUED patents. Mike mixes modes, confusing Dudas on application quality with Jaffe/Lerner on issued patent quality. Duh, Mike, can you get any dumber?
The major challenge to applications is "prior art." If Jaffe/Lerner don't understand prior art, then they don't understand patent quality.
**UPDATE. April 25.
There are some people that like TechDirt:
Erik J. Heels Apr 21
Greetings Adam,
I like TechDirt (and Mike Masnick’s writing in particular):
http://www.techdirt.com
I find TechDirt much better than Slashdot (which I stopped reading years ago, for the same reasons you cite).
Regards, Erik
In his remark to JD, Mike is still sticking by Jaffe and Lerner:
I merely used L&J's book to point out that they correctly spotted that there has been a huge increase in questionable patent applications, in part due to some changes to the way the patent system has operated.
Yet, Mike has no evidence that Jaffe and Lerner are correct. Mike does not want to talk about the screw-up of Jaffe and Lerner on page 144 of Innovation and Its Discontents, which proves Jaffe and Lerner don't understand the concept of prior art, and therefore are unable to know what a "questionable patent application" is.
IPBiz notes how appropriate it is that the most thorough example of an (alleged) missed piece of prior art by the USPTO in the whole Jaffe and Lerner book was copied by Jaffe and Lerner from Greg Aharorian. Jaffe and Lerner could not even think up an example on their own. And, similarly, Mike can't produce any evidence on his own to support his conclusory statement about the USPTO approving tons of bad patents. Copyists citing copyists citing copyists, with no original thought in view. Mike should take up residence in Patna; at least he might get some basmati rice to eat.
***
Jaffe and Lerner alleged on page 144 that the USPTO did not consider prior art in granting U.S. Patent No. 6,049,811 which is directed to a "Machine for Drafting a Patent Application and Process for Doing So." Jaffe and Lerner alleged that the disclosure in the '811 patent was anticipated by a paper by workers from Hitachi published in 74 JPTOS 315.
J. Steven Rutt had written in NANOTECH AND THE PATENT SYSTEM: A REVIEW OF INNOVATION AND ITS DISCONTENTS, 2 Nanotechnology L. & Bus. 111, 113 (2005), a book review of "Innovation and Its Discontents" available in both LEXIS and Westlaw which appeared before the review of Professor Dreyfuss:
The Innovation authors, however, utterly fail to discuss the seminal point of whether the Hitachi prior art teaches this required feature of the invention.
***
See
Dudas unbundled, by Mike [?]
http://www.ipfrontline.com/depts/article.asp?id=15505&deptid=4
**UPDATE. April 25.
Mike Masnick still hasn't mastered the basic concept: one cannot prove a negative. Better go back to college, Mike. Perhaps we can get a scholarship for you at RVCC.
Jon Dudas was using the application rejection rates in first quarter 2008 to infer a tremendous drop in application quality. IPBiz rejects that logic. Mike fails to mention that the same Jon Dudas defended the quality of ISSUED patents. Mike mixes modes, confusing Dudas on application quality with Jaffe/Lerner on issued patent quality. Duh, Mike, can you get any dumber?
The major challenge to applications is "prior art." If Jaffe/Lerner don't understand prior art, then they don't understand patent quality.
**UPDATE. April 25.
There are some people that like TechDirt:
Erik J. Heels Apr 21
Greetings Adam,
I like TechDirt (and Mike Masnick’s writing in particular):
http://www.techdirt.com
I find TechDirt much better than Slashdot (which I stopped reading years ago, for the same reasons you cite).
Regards, Erik
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 8:23 PM
1 Comments:
Just noticed this attack. Missed it in all the others. Once again, it amazes me that you accuse me of not having logic skills, when you are the one who has repeatedly ascribed comments to me I did not make, insisted that a lack of proof is evidence enough that something hasn't happened and who continually refuses to answer direct questions, preferring to answer different questions while tossing insults my way.
Three questions:
* Jon Dudas, the head of the USPTO, admits that the quality of patent apps has decreased. Do you disagree?
* Let's give a hypothetical. Let's say that, for whatever reason, companies were suddenly better able to both get patents and enforce patents in a way that rewards them handsomely. Do you think that it's entirely logical to then assume an increase in poor patent applications will occur (not by %, just in general)?
* On the question of page 144 that you're so in love with, I don't see how that has anything to do with anything. I am not avoiding it, as you claim. I find the point of question irrelevant to the discussion. Whether or not someone looks at the prior art isn't the determination of patent quality. Do you honestly believe the only question of whether or not a patent is of poor quality is based on the prior art?
Post a Comment
<< Home