Saturday, November 28, 2015

Further on the Chien/Risch WSJ op-ed on small entities dealing with patent trolls

A comment to the PatentlyO post titled Follow-Up: Professor Chien’s More Nuanced Arguments on the Chien/Risch op-ed in the Wall Street Journal [WSJ] notes:

This group is close to saying, yes I trashed the patent system, but it was good for my career. Once I get the full-professorship and the millions in the stock fund, I’ll reevaluate everything.

Unbelievable that people like this are hired by universities.

In his post, Dennis Crouch had stated:

The Chien article particularly addresses the concerns that I had with WSJ essay, which is why I was surprised to see the completely different focus of that WSJ essay. I thought she had also changed course. According to Chien, the emphasis and framing in the WSJ essay were the result of heavy WSJ editing rather than any backtracking from her prior work.

In fact, the abstract of the Chien law review article, discussed in PatentlyO, is not about patent hold-out by small entities attacked by patent trolls, but rather about patent hold-out by large entities attacked by small entities. Whether these are "more nuanced" thoughts remains to be seen.

**Returning to the above-noted comment at PatentlyO (7.1.1), as to opportunistic professors, one notes recent developments
in South Korea:

South Korea is set to indict 200 professors from several of the country’s universities for alleged copyright violations after they republished books by other authors under their own names, the Korea Herald newspaper reported Wednesday.

Professors from 50 universities, as well as four employees of a publishing company, are implicated in the scandal, Korean prosecutors said, with most of them having already confessing their involvement.


The professors’ actions were reportedly done in a bid to boost their academic standing before rehiring-related assessments. The Herald also reported that many of the original authors were also complicit in the scheme for fear of invoking the publishers’ displeasure over future book deals.

link 200 South Korean Professors Charged in Massive Plagiarism Scam

***Separately, as to op-ed policy at the New York Times, from the IPBiz post

New York Times on self-plagiarism

The New York Times does not ordinarily reprint material that has been previously published; Op-Ed contributors are asked to affirm that their work is original, and exclusive to The Times. Had The Times known that portions of the essay were copied from an earlier work, it would not have accepted the essay for publication.

***As to the Chien/Risch matter:

***UPDATE on 30 Nov 2015. Comment 16.3 on the PatentlyO thread:

November 30, 2015 at 10:25 am

In those few cases where a paper sought an opinion piece from me on anything, I insisted on seeing all edits before it was published. If the edits rendered the article no longer my opinion, I told the paper to remove my name.

Chien’s behavior strikes me as bizarre to say the least and possibly even risky to her as well as to those she represents.


Post a Comment

<< Home