Patently-O post "professors on the move" Sikahema'd?
It might appear that the Patently-O post is gone. [UPDATE: the post seems to be back.]
As one bit of irony, the (linking) IPBiz post had noted:
Note LBE's article Internet Publishing: Online Today, But What About Tomorrow Or Where Have You Gone, 406,302? which stated: In fact, the "error" of Van Gilder and Kukkonen would have been referring to a link to a site that was capable of changing the numbers. Those authors who cite to internet websites for numerical data should be aware that such citation may be perilous in the sense that it is not permanent.
Separately, note the frequent discussion of the Sikahema effect on IPBiz
Text on blogs can be present one moment, and missing the next, or, as the ezine noted: "online today, but what about tomorrow?"
The last vestige of "Law professors on the Move..." may be on Google-->
Patent Law Blog (Patently-O): Patent Law Professors on the Move
Mar 9, 2009 ... Academics like Lemley and Strandburg too often profess a view on the patent ... Contrary to EG's suggestion above, Strandburg is a patent ...
www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/03/patent-law-professors-on-the-move.html - 11 hours ago -
**Further update. Attempted response
Of Joe Miller's text --It seems bizarre, for example, to suppose that only someone with patent prosecution experience could make valuable contributions to patent system policy formulation. (...)
Why so much negative feeling for, e.g., Prof. Lemley, who - among other things - remains actively engaged in patent litlgation and other i.p. litigation. Is it simply because he has proposed policy options that would, e.g., make it harder for some patent prosecution lawyers to make as much money in the same manner as they have in the past?-- my post (above Joe's) raised issues APART from lack of prosecution experience and I did not say that lack of prosecution experience precluded insight. As to Lemley, my repeated criticism as to "Ending Abuse..." (BULR) was his FALSE statement about Robert Clarke, which has never been retracted. Further, Lemley sub silentio as to that comment adopted Clarke's position in "rubberstamp." Lemley has completely garbled the stories of the integrated circuit and transistor to serve his policy positions. [Of the transistor, see 8 JMRIPL 80].
So Joe, say it ain't so, or explain your silence on these points. And, separately, I will make the same amount of money whether Lemley's positions are adopted or not. What's your reason for not commenting on the fake citations?
to Joe Miller post following LBE's earlier post ("the above post")-->
Given the above post, I'm wondering if you could share some thoughts on some of the reasons for the virulently anti-professor bias of so many of the comments I see here at Patently-O.
It seems bizarre, for example, to suppose that only someone with patent prosecution experience could make valuable contributions to patent system policy formulation. Patent litigation, in which I have some experience, gave me a reasonable basis for policy engagement. Patent law also implicates administrative law, technology policy, the psychology of creativity, and much else besides. Open exchange on substance with others, who know things I don't, helps me greatly. Bile-filled invective doesn't.
Why so much negative feeling for, e.g., Prof. Lemley, who - among other things - remains actively engaged in patent litlgation and other i.p. litigation. Is it simply because he has proposed policy options that would, e.g., make it harder for some patent prosecution lawyers to make as much money in the same manner as they have in the past?
Again, I'm interested to know your thoughts on this ferocious disdain some of your commenters have for lawprofs.