Blue Bird commented on 'Incentivizing Discovery (rather than invention)'
I guess this is simply not true. Patent law does protect discoveries. They are prevalent in experimental fields like chemistry. Why are you misleading your students on this point?
View ArticleDavid Cohen commented on 'Incentivizing Discovery (rather than invention)'
invents or discovers-and-asexually reproduces ...: isn't that the way to read this? in this story (doesn't matter where he found the trees) the would-be inventor didn't actually DO anything inventive...
View ArticleMaxDrei commented on 'Incentivizing Discovery (rather than invention)'
As I understand it, the word "invent" comes from the Latin "invenire" meaning "to discover". Did the good professor have to do anything at all (even a spot of observation and thinking) to "discover"...
View ArticleReady Yet To Look At The Bigger Picture? commented on 'Incentivizing...
Then there the bit about another past discussion that Ned has chosen to oops not see or want to talk about - Trade Secrets. (but why do people keep bringing up trade secrets...? Oh wait, that is Ned...
View ArticlemaxDrei commented on 'Incentivizing Discovery (rather than invention)'
Not sure about that Reinier, but I do think I should have first read the Decision. Then I would not have been holding the wrong end of the white oak stick, when I wrote the comments above.
View ArticleCommon Patent Parlance commented on 'Incentivizing Discovery (rather than...
"But in common parance the two words are used interchangeably." corrected. The concepts remain vastly different.
View ArticlePatent Purpose commented on 'Incentivizing Discovery (rather than invention)'
"I guess the purpose of patents is to "protect" *actions* people can perform - eventually to make money." You would have guessed wrong. It is not just action alone (there is no sweat of the brow reward...
View ArticleMoocow commented on 'Incentivizing Discovery (rather than invention)'
White oak needs about 60 - 100 years to grow to an optimal harvesting age. So, the patent would have been granted on something that wouldn't even start to generate revenue until decades after its...
View ArticleWay to Drive Blog Activity commented on 'Incentivizing Discovery (rather than...
Nice juxtaposition of articles. This one actually biased to extending patent coverage where it should not go (covering Products of Nature), and the guest professor thread wanting to deny patent...
View ArticleAAA JJ commented on 'Incentivizing Discovery (rather than invention)'
Another stellar performance for the PTO's best and brightest. They love to tout those wins at the Fed. Cir. Keep up the great lawyering. You're an inspiration to us all.
View ArticleMM commented on 'Incentivizing Discovery (rather than invention)'
The court will award a patent to the discoverer of a plant seedling hitheto unknown regardless of its utility It won't award a utility patent.
View ArticleThings That Make You Go Hmmm commented on 'Incentivizing Discovery (rather...
Congress apperantly does not agree with Ned Heller's view on Trade Secrets. The House passed by voice vote the Foreign and Economic Espionage Penalty Enhancement Act of 2012, aiming to INCREASE maximum...
View ArticleNed Heller commented on 'Incentivizing Discovery (rather than invention)'
Where on earth do you clowns get the idea that I advocate banning trade secret protection?
View ArticleNed Heller commented on 'Incentivizing Discovery (rather than invention)'
Moo, excellent point here. I am no expert on plant patents, but wouldn't the patentee's revenue would be from the selling the acorns or very small plants? But, assuming selling acorns in competition...
View ArticleRingling Brothers commented on 'Incentivizing Discovery (rather than invention)'
"get the idea that I advocate banning trade secret protection" ...from you. You advocated a "constitutional question" that you refused to limit to patents only (something to the effect of "I don't see...
View ArticleNed Heller commented on 'Incentivizing Discovery (rather than invention)'
Let's discuss "property of all mankind" or "available to all mankind" concepts looking behind this phony product of nature exception. Let's add to the facts the following, that the patent applicant...
View ArticleConfused a little commented on 'Incentivizing Discovery (rather than invention)'
I get what the decision was trying to do, but didn't it butcher the plain language of the statute?
View ArticleSARAH commented on 'Incentivizing Discovery (rather than invention)'
Ned, Even I know that if you take the Acorns from very small or immature trees, what you'll get is a small tree. Are you trying to Patent because you are claimng you have Dwarf Oak trees?
View Articleanon commented on 'Incentivizing Discovery (rather than invention)'
Ned, Your status is closing in on Michael R. Thomas and Sarah levels.
View ArticleNed Heller commented on 'Incentivizing Discovery (rather than invention)'
Mr. Ringling, you still clearly do not get Pennodk v. Dialogue.
View ArticleNed Heller commented on 'Incentivizing Discovery (rather than invention)'
If that is what you want, I will not longer read your posts.
View ArticleNed the Baby commented on 'Incentivizing Discovery (rather than invention)'
Anon, Don't listen to the second biggest baby on the blog. Let Ned QQ - Quit. He never answers your points anyway.
View ArticleDruid commented on 'Incentivizing Discovery (rather than invention)'
I've never had more than the most casual understanding of plant patents, and thank heavens the subject is glazed over on the Patent Bar exam. But I have wondered, and still wonder, how one can...
View ArticleMM commented on 'Incentivizing Discovery (rather than invention)'
Is the intent of this poorly worded statute actually to refer to the act of cultivating a batch of plants and the putative inventor then discovering, contrary to expectations, that one of them turned...
View ArticleRinging Brothers commented on 'Incentivizing Discovery (rather than invention)'
And neither do you Mr. Heller, as can be seen on the more recent threads wherein you violate the very source on holding/dicta differentiation that you introduced with your refusal to address the direct...
View ArticleNed Heller commented on 'Incentivizing Discovery (rather than invention)'
I have addressed the ratio decedendi any number of times. It is you who refuses to accept it. Allowing one to commercially exploit while holding secret how to make the invention from the public and...
View ArticleRingling Brothers commented on 'Incentivizing Discovery (rather than invention)'
Poetic. But still evasive. Still not an answer or an explanation of what the Court directly stated in the quote you dare not mention. You over-read and under-read all at once, choosing what you like,...
View ArticleNed Heller commented on 'Incentivizing Discovery (rather than invention)'
Mr. Ringling, yes it does.
View ArticleRingling Brothers commented on 'Incentivizing Discovery (rather than invention)'
Mr. Heller, no it does not. It, of course, being the truth that you do not dare broach. You continue to evade. You have not addressed nor explained the actual words in and of themselves. Of course the...
View ArticleNed Heller commented on 'Incentivizing Discovery (rather than invention)'
No, Ringling. It is you how refuses to accept the plain and simple words and rationale of the SC.
View ArticleRingling Brothers commented on 'Incentivizing Discovery (rather than invention)'
No, Ned, it is you that hides from the actual words chosen. You have not even acknowledged those words yet. Why not? Your car keeps on disgorging clowns. It's funny but everyone knows it's a joke. You...
View ArticleNed Heller commented on 'Incentivizing Discovery (rather than invention)'
You dare. Not me. Sent from iPhone
View ArticleNed Heller commented on 'Incentivizing Discovery (rather than invention)'
You do not address the ratio decedendi. Sent from iPhone
View ArticleLacks Substance commented on 'Incentivizing Discovery (rather than invention)'
Ned, The actual words of the Court were presented to you FIRST. Not only was your "ratio decedendi" addressed (ALL law descends from or can be traced back to the constitution), you continue to simply...
View ArticleSarah commented on 'Incentivizing Discovery (rather than invention)'
That's not true. Because a Car can't go without the wheels. A Scanner can not scan into a Computer without the connection to the computer. Just because they are machines, doesn't mean they don't...
View ArticleNed Heller commented on 'Incentivizing Discovery (rather than invention)'
Mr. Lacks, the problem you have here is that you are trying to ingore why the court ultimatedly held that the statutory prohibition on claiming prior use included an on-sale bar.
View ArticleLacks Substance commented on 'Incentivizing Discovery (rather than invention)'
Ned, There is no such problem as the quote you fear to mention lays all the necessary authority that the Court said it needed. Not only are you violating your own offered citation on the danger of...
View ArticleHolding, Dicta, and Just Making Things Up commented on 'Incentivizing...
From Ned's case of choice Pennock: "In the case at bar, it is unnecessary to consider whether the facts stated in the charge of the court would, upon general principles, warrant the conclusion drawn by...
View ArticleNed Heller commented on 'Incentivizing Discovery (rather than invention)'
Mr. Lacking, you remain in left field, unwilling to budge.
View ArticleNed Heller commented on 'Incentivizing Discovery (rather than invention)'
Mr. dicta, since you repeatedly quote passages that support my point without understanding that they do support my point, I can only wonder at your reasoning ability.
View Articlesimple questions commented on 'Incentivizing Discovery (rather than invention)'
Ned, Why do you think the quoted passage supports your point when it clearly does not? Do you really not see that the Court is depending solely on the authority of the act as written by Congress?
View ArticleNed Heller commented on 'Incentivizing Discovery (rather than invention)'
Mr. Simple, Court says it is construing the statute ...to be consistent with the Constitutional mandate. Again, what was that? To allow one to commercially exploit the patented invention, withholding...
View ArticleLearn To Read commented on 'Incentivizing Discovery (rather than invention)'
No Heller, it is NOT saying to be consistent with the Constitutioanl mandate. That's called over-reading. What it DOES say is that the statute is enough. THAT is ALL the authority that the Court needs....
View ArticleNed Heller commented on 'Incentivizing Discovery (rather than invention)'
Mr. Read, You really think that Story was making it all up, and talking for no purpose whatsoever? They were construing the statute just as they said they were.
View ArticleLearn To Read commented on 'Incentivizing Discovery (rather than invention)'
"construing the statute" "construing the statute" AND THAT"S ALL THEY WERE DOING. There was no "constitutional question" involved. They were EXPLICITLY only going so far as the statute. Learn to read....
View ArticleNed Heller commented on 'Incentivizing Discovery (rather than invention)'
Mr. Read, and the references to the constitution?
View ArticleLearn To Read commented on 'Incentivizing Discovery (rather than invention)'
Heller, is every question of federal law to you a constitutional question? Why not? As you seem h3ll-bound to over-read a trace of authority to a statute all the way back to the constitution, and we...
View ArticleNed Heller commented on 'Incentivizing Discovery (rather than invention)'
No, Mr. Read, you are h*ll bent on ignoring what the SC actually said. And, for pities sake, I am not the only own who believes Pennock is a constitutional case. What happened, it is clear, is that...
View ArticleLearn To Read commented on 'Incentivizing Discovery (rather than invention)'
Read what the H you yourself type: To not interpret the statutes. THE STATUTES.
View ArticleNed Heller commented on 'Incentivizing Discovery (rather than invention)'
Mr. Learn, If the SC is interpreting a statute to be consistent with the constitution, what is it doing? Here the SC say "use" included the activities of the patent owner in this case. They described...
View Article
![Personal Investments • Re: 401k investments [which to choose?]](http://i.imgur.com/wA51OIw.png)
