|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 10 2013 @ 05:37 PM EDT |
His existence disproves Samuels' claim of unanimity.
The rest of his argument is equally shaky.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Wol on Sunday, March 10 2013 @ 05:49 PM EDT |
In which case, they are a fraud on the public.
"and you will be left scratching your head and asking yourself… what in the
name of all that is holy did that mean?"
Well, if that's the POSITA's response, then the patent is prima facie invalid
for failing to honour the quid pro quo of teaching the technique!
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: albert on Sunday, March 10 2013 @ 07:10 PM EDT |
I now have a better understanding GQ, the propagandist, and the man. There's
nothing to be gained by reading his stuff.
Nothing to see here, folks, just move along...[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 11 2013 @ 10:02 AM EDT |
After scanning the article, I reviewed the comments. I found it interesting that
young Eugene tried to correct various people about "ad hominem" and
what it meant. Then he proceeded to attack the character of those who disagreed
with him, including the large IT segment that is against software patents.
Essentially using the old joke of "Yesterday I couldn't even spell
Enguneer. Today I is one."
Even though Eugene appears to have a technical background, he appears to believe
(from his original article) that patents should be obfuscated so that technical
people must employ lawyers to decode the documents, i.e. they are the solution
to all matters patent. If my interpretation of his position is incorrect, is
anyone able to clarify in standard comprehensible English as to what he is
actually trying to say.
There is an old Wizard of Id cartoon in which the lawyer is asked why he charges
so much. The response runs along the lines of each word used has a specific
charge and lots of words are needed to be used in legal documents.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: albert on Monday, March 11 2013 @ 02:16 PM EDT |
Furthermore, Quinn refuses to admit his statement is an ad hominem attack.
Amazing! Imagine him calling a plaintiff or witness an idiot, in court.
He could use some lessons from FM, a man who really knows how to write
propaganda.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 11 2013 @ 11:23 PM EDT |
I noticed he approved my comment, but did not respond to it.
I wonder if that is because the last time he responded to a comment I left on
his blog, he proved that all patents are what he defines as "bad
patents" that should never be issued.
Gene Quinn is the person that convinced me that there is no such thing as a good
patent, because it is impossible to issue a patent that is in accordance with
current law in the United States.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
