Monday, April 12, 2010

Smackdown of a post on Patently-O?

Placing some clips of an interview of Judge Rader by Gene Quinn on Patently-O, Dennis Crouch observed at the end of his post on Patently-O:

[Aside: Gene Quinn asked me to take-down most of my excerpts of the interview and I have done so.]

Of what was on Patently-O, there was text about the purpose of dissenting opinions. Of dissent on the CAFC, LBE always thinks of Nelson v. Adams, wherein the Supreme Court voted 9-0 to reverse the CAFC (vindicating a dissent by Judge Newman). LBE had written in a footnote in an article in Intellectual Property Today:

Of Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150 (1999)
[which was a 6-3 vote], the author noted that the court's opinion reads like a
lecture to an unruly classroom. The author did not discuss Nelson v. Adams, 529
U.S. 460 (2000) [which was a 9-0 vote] wherein there was an oblique comparison
of the Federal Circuit's ruling to Alice in Wonderland

See LBE, The Man With No Eye Is King? , IPT, Feb. 2002.


Post a Comment

<< Home