Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

subego · May 6, 2008, 01:39 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/wa...=1&oref=slogin

No one is even disputing it, it's more a question of "oh ****, how do we fix this?"

lpkmckenna · May 6, 2008, 01:44 PM

Sounds like a good time for comprehensive reform.

MacosNerd · May 6, 2008, 01:52 PM

interesting, the question becomes what happens to people/companies that were on the losing end of these appeals. They seem to have some good ammo to have that ruling thrown out

Atheist · May 6, 2008, 02:13 PM

Will it matter if the the appointees where qualified for the job?
Will it matter if the decisions they rendered where legitimate?

In both cases probably not. That's the most unfortunate part of this mess.

subego · May 6, 2008, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by Atheist

Will it matter if the decisions they rendered where legitimate?

Wouldn't that be the point of appealing an appeal? To see if the previous decision was legitimate?

peeb · May 6, 2008, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by MacosNerd

interesting, the question becomes what happens to people/companies that were on the losing end of these appeals. They seem to have some good ammo to have that ruling thrown out

Somewhat. While IANAL, they will have to show that the issue here was material to the ruling.

Atheist · May 6, 2008, 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by subego

Wouldn't that be the point of appealing an appeal? To see if the previous decision was legitimate?

Agreed... I didn't explain myself very well. My point is that it will most likely come to pass that the patent judges appointed by the Secretary of Commerce were legitimate appointees and thus it can be presumed their decisions were just as legitimate as if they had been appointed by the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office (as had been the case until 2000).

I would be curious to see if there have been an unusual increase in the number of appeals since 2000. This might indicate that recent decisions have been unusually biased or unfair.

It will be interesting to see how this concludes.

Mastrap · May 6, 2008, 03:09 PM

Unrelated, but try double clicking on any word of that article. Only works in Firefox, but boy is it ever cool.

Jawbone54 · May 6, 2008, 03:26 PM

Wow, that was boring. I read the whole thing, and realized for the 10,000th time in my life that I could've never been a lawyer.

Dakar the Fourth · May 6, 2008, 03:36 PM

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

Wow, that was boring. I read the whole thing, and realized for the 10,000th time in my life that I could've never been a lawyer.

I think that's more the problem of having a soul than being bored.

peeb · May 6, 2008, 03:53 PM

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Unrelated, but try double clicking on any word of that article. Only works in Firefox, but boy is it ever cool.

In Safari you have to right click, then select 'dictionary' to do this.

Jawbone54 · May 6, 2008, 04:02 PM

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth

I think that's more the problem of having a soul than being bored.

Ever since I watched The Devil's Advocate when I was young, I've pictured every lawyer like the characters in that movie (when they're behind closed doors).

Dakar the Fourth · May 6, 2008, 04:13 PM

Having sex with Charlize Theron? Getting mugged by pseudo-demon homeless people while jogging? Married to demons with fake tits?

Jawbone54 · May 6, 2008, 04:21 PM

Seen it a few times, have we?

Dakar the Fourth · May 6, 2008, 04:21 PM

One of the best movies I have. Been a few years, though.

Edit: This isn't about me. Answer the question!

- - e r i k - - · May 6, 2008, 09:16 PM

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

Wow, that was boring. I read the whole thing, and realized for the 10,000th time in my life that I could've never been a lawyer.

Originally Posted by peeb

In Safari you have to right click, then select 'dictionary' to do this.

What the eff? When I double click a word I expect it to be selected, not open up a slow loading popup with a definition. Shame on NYT for this UI gaffe. I hope Safari never allows this.

Jawbone54 · May 7, 2008, 12:33 AM

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth

Edit: This isn't about me. Answer the question!

None of the above. They all remind me of John Milton, period.

MacosNerd · May 7, 2008, 06:59 AM

Originally Posted by peeb

Somewhat. While IANAL, they will have to show that the issue here was material to the ruling.

If judge was one of the ones seated unconstitutionaly then his ruling is void, he had no authority so showing was material is not the issue.

C.A.T.S. CEO · May 7, 2008, 07:30 AM

Every tech company must be sh*tting themselves now.

Dakar the Fourth · May 7, 2008, 10:42 AM

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

None of the above. They all remind me of John Milton, period.

Hoo-ah!

peeb · May 7, 2008, 11:06 AM

Originally Posted by MacosNerd

If judge was one of the ones seated unconstitutionaly then his ruling is void, he had no authority so showing was material is not the issue.

We'll see - I'm not sure that this is how it will play out - what leads you to conclude this?

nonhuman · May 7, 2008, 11:32 AM

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth

Having sex with Charlize Theron? Getting mugged by pseudo-demon homeless people while jogging? Married to demons with fake tits?

That's why I'm in law school!

Wait, you mean it's not real? Crap.