decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Logging some related thoughts: | 179 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Logging some related thoughts:
Authored by: macliam on Saturday, March 16 2013 @ 05:07 AM EDT

People setting out to analyse particular issues in depth will approach the subject matter from different angles, with different biases and analytical frameworks, and with different background knowledge. Such is the nature of scholarship. The issues under discussion here with all their ramifications have a complexity that clearly has the capacity to baffle and confuse appelate judges. (Of course the patent bar considers that the Supreme Court justices are hopelessly "confused" about patent law, whereas many readers here might think that such confusion is more evident amongst some of the circuit judges on the Federal Circuit.)

Ideally, I suggest that it would be useful to foster regular discussion on Groklaw on general principles of patent-eligibility and patent-validity and other issues of patent law, over the coming years. And I suggest that it would help us to 'grok' patent law if some chosen cases involving patent litigation (e.g., the next round of Apple v. Samsung before Judge Koh) were followed in depth, so that members can address the issues from their own perspectives, so that, if the time comes when Groklaw thinks it appropriate to submit an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court or Federal Circuit, the groundwork would have been laid for a brief that might catch the attention of the Supreme Court justices who have developed views on patent law.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Can one criticize appelant or respondent briefs for not covering points made by amici? -n/t
Authored by: macliam on Saturday, March 16 2013 @ 06:55 AM EDT
.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )