Friday, October 15, 2010

Can one in a single instance plagiarize AND misrepresent an author?

One of the more interesting aspects of the Philippine Supreme Court decision on the Del Castillo plagiarism business was the response to the charge that Del Castillo had twisted the meaning of the copied law review articles. That is, although copying text from the law review articles, the decision reached a conclusion opposite to that of the law review articles.

The Supreme Court noted:

"Considering how it was impossible for Justice Del Castillo to have twisted the meaning of the passages he lifted from the works of Tams, Criddle-Descent, and Ellis, the charge of 'twisting' or misrepresentation against him is to say the least, unkind. To be more accurate, however, the charge is reckless and obtuse."

But note the discussion of the Bradley charge against Wegman in the IPBiz post
Surreal moment: criticizing the work while copying it?

A worse problem was present in footnote 22 of Ending Abuse of Patent Continuations, 84 B. U. L. Rev. 63
(2004) wherein the authors (falsely) stated: See Robert A. Clarke, U.S. Continuity Law and Its Impact on
the Comparative Patenting Rates of the U.S., Japan and the European Patent Office, 85 J. Pat. & Trademark
Off. Soc'y 335, 338 (2003) (erroneously assuming that every continuation resulted in a patent and
concluding that the grant rate was 75%).

In footnote 22, one has attribution but the cited author never stated the asserted text. Merely part of hysteria and FUD of intellectual property professors trying to whip up an issue.

**See also

Justice absolved in Supreme Court plagiarism case; MS Word blamed!

Plagiarized AND wrong!

Law School Condemns Supreme Court



Post a Comment

<< Home