Ned 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 Article
