Molly Metz is a competitive jump-roper (5-time world champ) and also an inventor of an innovative jump rope handle that allows super speed jumping loved by both competitors and cross-fit freaks. U.S. Patent Nos. 7,789,809 and 8,136,208. There has been massive infringement since her patents issued 10-12 years ago. Financing an infringement lawsuit is a bit tricky, especially for a total-startup (micro entity) in a fairly small market. After failed licensing discussions, her company Jump Rope Systems eventually sued Coulter Ventures (owners of Rogue Fitness) in 2018 for patent infringement. Jump Rope Systems, LLC v. Coulter Ventures, LLC, 18-cv-731 (S.D. Ohio). Coulter turned around and petitioned for inter partes review (IPR). IPR2019-00586, IPR2019-00587. The PTAB granted the petitions and eventually concluded that the claims were obvious compared against the prior art. The PTAB decision here is fairly questionable as applying hindsight bias in justifying the combination of prior references. Still, the Federal Circuit affirmed without opinion.
The Federal Circuit precedent is clear that all enforcement litigation should end as soon as the PTAB finds a claim unpatentable in an IPR/PRG and the determination is affirmed on appeal. “That affirmance … has an immediate issue-preclusive effect on any pending or co-pending actions involving the patent.” XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics, 890 F.3d 1282, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2018). As I write below, the Federal Circuit’s approach has some doctrinal holes. Still, it is precedent and the district court followed that precedent–dismissing the case and siding with the accused infringer. Jump Rope appealed, but made clear to the Federal Circuit that the purpose of its appeal was to change the law and moved for summary affirmance of the district court’s judgment.
The IPR Certificate eventually issued in August 2022 stating that the claims have been cancelled, but that time the district and appellate courts had already been treating them as cancelled for months.
= = =
Jump Rope Systems’ case is now pending before the US Supreme Court on petition for writ of cetiorari and it argues that the Federal Circuit’s approach is in direct conflict with our law of issue preclusion. Question presented:
Whether, as a matter of federal patent law, a determination of unpatentability by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding, affirmed by the Federal Circuit, has a collateral estoppel effect on patent validity in a patent infringement lawsuit in federal district court.
Although the Second Restatement of Judgments is not “law” as such, the Supreme Court (and other courts) have repeatedly concluded that its statements do reflect the law. One theory for immediately applying the PTAB judgment is the doctrine of collateral estoppel (aka “issue preclusion”). In XY, the Federal Circuit particularly concluded that collateral estoppel applies to immediately bar a patent infringement lawsuit once the PTAB finds the claims unpatentable and that determination is affirmed on appeal. Judge Chen’s XY decision has numerous problems. The basic concern is that the opinion fails to consider standard limitations on the application of collateral estoppel, such as differing standards of review. One key example: the PTAB decided obviousness based upon the low standard of preponderance of the evidence; and the IPR Appeal was decided on an even lower substantial evidence standard. But, decisions on those low standards do not tell us whether the issue would be decided the same way under a higher standard of clear and convincing evidence. Standard issue preclusion rules prohibits this sort of application. See Grogan v. Garner, 498 U.S. 279 (1991). But, the Federal Circuit majority simply concluded that the patentee “had its day in court” and now is bound by the outcome. As I noted above, in my view the PTAB obviousness decision here is quite weak in the way that it combines disparate references and identifies the problem to be solved. I mention this because it seems like a case where the standard of review might make a difference.
To be clear, in my mind all of this might be a different situation once the USPTO issues its IPR certificate that actually cancels the claims. At that point, the patent has been cancelled, but the parties here appear to be fighting about the pre-cancellation interim period. One additional complication to this case is the reality that obviousness is a question of law, albeit one based upon substantial subsidiary facts. Legal decisions by the courts also become binding precedent (apart from their preclusive impact on the parties), but this area becomes complicated when the legal determinations are based upon unique underlying factual conclusions.
Professor Crouch- I was hoping that you could provide some input. Does the ruling from the PTAB regarding motivation make sense? If the swiveling and pivot actions already exists in the Terper patent, why would the PHOSITA be motivated in adding the pivot action to the Wolf patent.
I also thought that the secondary argument of “eliminating the mass of the second arm” of the Wolf handle (exhibit 1024 @103) was a bit misplaced. If the expert was that concerned about mass, he would eliminate both of the arms in the Wolf patent and just go with the Terper patent.
If you have any input I would appreciate it.
Thanks
John
OT, but a lot more relevant, with pending patent legislation, than social media and stock market comments below:
In another attack on 112(b)(6) unpatentable subject matter motions since Alice over on Gene’s blog, I noted in that post by former Judge Paul Michele on Oct 26 the statement that:
“Patent infringers now routinely raise Section 101 as a defense, often merely as a strategy to complicate and prolong the litigation, rather than as a good-faith defense with a likelihood of success. For example, one analysis found that … by 2019, accused infringers were filing over 100 such motions each year.”
How is only 100 of the roughly 4000+ patent suits per year – only 2.5% – a “routine raising”? If anything, that number seems to detract from the extent of the [real] problem? Also, re whether those pre-trial motions are so often being brought in bad faith [some may well be], the indicated 38% percentage of such motions being rejected could be compared to the rejection rates of other pre-trial dispositive summary judgment motions, which I would suspect are even higher. [Many dispositive pre-trial motions never get decided at all in the large majority of suits that are settled before trial.]
Judge Michele is a paid hack for patent trolls. He’s a disgrace and his dishonesty and cluelessness with respect to the topic of subject matter eligibility is legendary at this late date.
Chief Judge Michel can still be assigned to hear cases under 28 U.S.C. §294. Given your accusations, the DOJ should contact you and see what evidence you have to back up your statements/libel so as to ensure an honest judiciary.
TrickiWoo, it appears the person was merely sharing an opinion. By definition, opinions are neither right nor wrong – they’re merely opinions.
I have come torealize this is a difficult concept for most un-American types of folk, and I don’t need evidence to say that. Just look around and see how few can discern an opinion. There ya go. 🙂
…. Clearly, that is Chrissy’s opinion.
While not unlawful, I wouldn’t consider it a legal opinion 🙂
Strong facts are always nice to have, say, in a sec. 103 obv. determination. If the facts are strong enuf, there will be no or only little polydispersity of opinion. unfortunately, many patterns are low-fact. 🙂 What gets me is “PHOSITA” Its too long and any Spanish-speaker sees the ” -ita” suffix as meaning “little”. So, it is a little PHOS. A tiny phosphate ?
We need a better word for the little PO3. I tried POS for “person of ordinary skill” but POS has bad connotation obviously. The pos in the art, haha. “person of ordinary skill” can also be POOS, but, nobody wants to be called that.
Literally too, PHOSITA is “little person of ordinary skill”. It’s bellittling !
PHOSITA is just too long. How about “Man of Skill” MOS ?
hh, no way.
How about “Inventor of Ordinary Skill” IOS
Yeah. IOS
Just my opinion 🙂
“Inventors, as a class, according to the concepts underlying the Constitution and the statutes that have created the patent system, possess something—call it what you will—which sets them apart from the workers of ordinary skill…,” (emphasis in original). Bausch & Lomb v. Hydrocurve Inc., 796 F.2d 443, 448 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
good thought. Yeah, its problematic to use IOS too. All I have is this:
The bar for inventor-ship itself is low. Mom invented a device and method to remove chicken fat from soup without need to chill and solidify it and a search turned up nothing like it. but she’s not at the same standard as in arts where skill level is high, such as pharma arts, even though she’s an”inventor.” Since the bar for mere classification of one being an “inventor” is so very very low, there is little significant difference btw a person of ordinary skill in an art, and an inventor of ordinary skill.
But, if the 103 bar for obv-ness were based on the inventor of ordinary skill, that would maybe make it a lot tougher to be awarded a patent, since the higher standard supposedly possessed by pers. of ord. sk. in that art.
But isn’t that how 103 cases are judged anyway in a defacto sense ?
Must a person themselves possess at least some glimmer of inventive skill, before they have the ability to determine whether or not the invention of another is obvious ?
I think sometimes, its really inventors who judge other inventors. I’ve seen many 103’s put together by some Examiners, which demonstrated inventive skill on the part of the Examiner in assembling the thing !
I will use that next time an Ex. gets inventive in their rejection, and argue that they are not merely a person but have become inventor and accordingly demand an inventor who is not possessed of anything which sets them apart from other persons. ha 🙂
Chrissy,
You veer into the weeds here.
Do you really think that “In The Art” is (or should be) the same across different arts?
It also appears that you almost want some type of “flash of genius” (but we both know what Congress thought of that idea, eh?)
I agree that those numbers do not really fit with a “bad faith” frame.
Here’s something else former Judge Michele said recently on that subject that one can well agree with: “.. the Federal Circuit could do much to fix a lot of the uncertainty surrounding Section 101 and other areas of U.S. patent law if the appellate court would make an effort to render more en banc decisions to speak as one voice..”
Except that a lot of 101 has in fact become more clear over the years but the same people (like Michele) continue to shriek about it because they still arent getting what they want (a wide open gate where subject matter eligibility is just a formal exercise in choosing one of three correct descriptive words in your claim preamble).
Dennis himself was able to find clarity on two basic issues that once were very confusing and controversial to the maximalists (they weren’t confusing or controversial to normal people:
Collecting and organizing data (these are the invalid claims in Weisner);
Collecting; organizing; and displaying data (these are the invalid claims in IBM);
are both ineligible subject matter. It doesn’t matter what the content of the data is or whether the data saves 10 million kids or is worth ten trillion dollars. Note that this does NOT mean that every claim that includes such subject matter is ineligible. It does mean that if your claim includes this and nothing more except old tech or functionally claimed “new” tech, then your claim is ineligible.
This isn’t complicated. Judge Michele should be able to understand all this but he can’t and he won’t because he’s a hack who gets paid to NOT understand.
“Note that this does NOT mean that every claim that includes such subject matter is ineligible.”
Malcolm’s incredible moving goalposts…
Tell me Malcolm, a claim — objectively to one of the recognized statutory categories AND (in your words) “containing” — what then is determinative of eligibility?
That you “feel” (or sniff) otherwise,
That you (or the courts) “Gist” otherwise?
Someone has forgotten their history and what led up to Congress finally having had enough and writing the Act of 1952.
Putting in a magic word isn’t sufficient.
“A machine that obeys E=mc2.”
(drafted by Einstein shortly after he made his discovery: not eligible even if novel, not obvious, and described by an enabling and detailed specification).
“A composition of matter comprising DNA Sequence XYZ.”
(with DNA Sequence XYZ occurring in nature, drafted by a genius that was the first to sequence this DNA and determine its trillion dollar anti-cancer properties: not eligible even if novel, not obvious, and described by an enabling and detailed specification).
“A method for banking transactions comprising a processor that searches a database for past indications of fraud associated with the participants in said banking transaction, wherein said processor generates a warning message if past indications of fraud are identified.”
(drafted by a troll that did not invent banking or any improvement to computer technology: not eligible even if novel, not obvious, and described by an enabling and detailed specification).
If you disagree, please explain. We can debate Section 101 all day but you really need to look at claims, rather than debating the issue “in the abstract.” (Pun intended).
It appears a public policy decision re
“A method for banking transactions comprising a processor that searches a database for past indications of fraud associated with the participants in said banking transaction, wherein said processor generates a warning message if past indications of fraud are identified.”
because, if permitted to be enforceably patented, it would interfere with legitimate IRS and other agencies fraud investigation activities.
This idea is maybe extensible to other IT inventions and discoveries – if the smaller entities were permitted enforceable patents in some of these areas, the costs for compensating all of them would be immense. It is more expedient to disallow certain categories of subject matter to smaller entities, in the interests of advancement from less interference by the private sector.
Sorry Chriss, but no — any such policy would ONLY come from Congress.
(Further, chew on encryption)
Judicially-created doctrines in the presence of the absence of Congress on the matter, after enough time of it doing nothing, become defacto pp. CONgress doesn’t need to positively act in order to make pp, it can be effected by silence too. Unless somebody gets loud about the matter. Things have just been, pretty quiet. Make some noise! There’s ears everywhere. I think that people like it when they can do the right thing !
Your “not in the abstract” claims
F
A
I
L
For other than eligibility.
Maybe try one that only
F
A
I
L
S
For the Gordian Knot of misapplied eligibility.
How is the claim written by Einstein “failing” for other than eligibility? How about the trillion dollar DNA discovery? Those “fail” only because you cannot patent such things. And with the banking hypo, the instruction was to assume that the claim was novel, not obvious, and described.
Litig8or,
Have you bothered with the earlier post (what I actually stated) at 13.3.2.1?
(hint: no, you have not – and this is the second time you have done this on this thread…)
Your attempt then is nothing but goal-post oving and wanting to instead talk about a situation of ONLY “magic word.”
But your examples are p00r ones, and to which my direct rebuttal to you was that they hardly get to a “magic words” scenario.
Let’s take each in turn.
1) Machine that obeys.
First and foremost, you do realize that “the map is not the land” eh?
Second, IF Einstein IS correct, than his discovery – as applied – CN NOT be novel as to ANY machine, as his discovery in and of itself was an observation of the existing universe and not in fact anything novel.
ALL prior machines would “obey” as claimed.
Thus, your ‘example’ is a fallacy.
2) Composition comprising
This example claim is not enough on its face, given that ‘comprising’ is an open ended item, and that – without more – one can NOT arrive at your asserted “even if novel.”
You are attempting to assume your own conclusion, which is a logical fallacy.
Just as a claim to: A composition of matter comprising H2O would not succeed (and that based not on eligibility of 101 ALONE, as clearly such would be barred by 102).
3) Method of banking
As bad as the first two examples are, this is the worst example from you – given that you insert your bias with the Tr011 comment, and is such a stilted example that is easily rejected under either 102 or 103 (and thus simply not on point to my post at 13.3.2.1). Your attempt to ‘inoculate’ by asserting “instruction was to assume” is a no-go and you need to actually provide a claim that fits how you want to apply your logic. Giving a claim example that cannot conflates your assumed conclusion with a false sense of logic (casual reading of something that on its face won’t fly).
Try again – this time in view of what I actually stated.
It is a nice thought that more en banc consideration could add clarity to subject matter eligibility, but I am not sure that this is true. The CAFC—even sitting en banc—cannot overrule the SCOTUS. Diehr pretended that it was not overruling Flook, but Justice Stevens (the Flook author) was not fooled, and noted in his Diehr dissent that the Diehr holding was effectively overruling Flook without owning as much. Justice Breyer decided to play the same trick in Mayo, saying that the Court was not overruling Diehr, while effectively overruling Diehr.
So, now we have a situation in which the published opinions in the U.S. Reporter say that all of Flook, Diehr, Mayo, and Alice are good law, despite the fact that these opinions are mutually irreconcilable at points. No matter what an en banc CAFC says, any given panel can always reach for whichever SCOTUS precedent (all of which are “good law”) they want when deciding a case in front of them, regardless of their most recent en banc holdings.
The only way that the “en banc” panel can resolve the contradictions is if the CAFC judges are individually of the same mind on these issues. If that were so, however, then an en banc reconsideration would hardly be necessary.
or, alternately, repeal the AIA. That might be slightly statistically more probable than getting all the judges’ minds aligned. Your writings are appreciated.
Repealing the AIA would only make things worse. All of Mayo/Alice could have been avoided had the AIA been enacted a decade earlier.
Your writings are appreciated.
Likewise.
“ All of Mayo/Alice could have been avoided had the AIA been enacted a decade earlier.”
This is flat out incorrect, given the express purposes of why the AIA was passed (hint: with other minor things NOT eligibility related, the AIA’s main emphasis was on recalibrating 102/103.)
To think that an earlier passage of the AIA would have altered or forestalled the Judicial Branch rewriting of Congress’s eligibility law [further given, as Greg admits, that THAT rewriting is in self-conflict — damm Justice scriviners] would be to show a lack of understanding of BOTH the AIA and the mess of eligibility jurisprudence that we have.
Otherwise known as the Gordian Knot.
Sorry Greg, but you are most definitely not the first one to note this.
And Chrissy, elsewhere you err in stating that “things have been quiet.”
High ranking members of EACH of the three branches have been vocal about the Gordian Knot created by the Supreme Court.
That “quiet” must be in that other dimension that you go to. It’s not here in this reality.
Referring to cases by name as if they stand for one single absolutist position is pretty simplistic and doesn’t reflect how the “the law” works.
Aspects of the Diehr decision are still sensible and are still relevant. The illogical nonsensical parts were NEVER good law which is why they were never actually applied and also why every subsequent case repudiated those aspects and affirmed what Stevens wrote in his dissent.
Again: the extremist position regarding the holding in Diehr (that reference to any eligible subject matter in a claim rendered the entire claim eligible) was NEVER defensible. Nobody hear has ever been able to defend it. It was always nonsense.
Grow. Up.
“Grow. Up.”
Says the least grown-up of all posters (with no sense of the irony).
As for Stevens, as an attorney, I would expect you to know how Dissents work (hint: that’s the part that is NOT the law).
Amazon stock down a full 20% in after hours trading bros, can get in if you have thinkorswim and some dollars floating around. Best deal in 3 years time for amzn if you want a piece.
Lol — never mind why the stock is cratering….
6’s “buy now,” likely means “buy now so I can sell”
Anon bro I’m not shillin my bags, even if PO people buy even 100k it wouldn’t have practically any effect on the price derp. And I do not currently have a large position in amzn.
You “derp” in the wrong direction, bro, as you be selling does not have anything to do with Macro movements, and the slight is quite the opposite as you do appear to be hawking in order to personally exit.
To activate the hyperlinks, copy and remove the line returns (too many in one post activates a filter here).
Latest stock for 6
https:
//www.businessinsider.com/stock-market-crash-valuations-earnings-disappointments-bottom-fed-hawkish-hussman-2022-10?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=news_tab
Twitter and the Left:
link to redstate.com
Musk closed and sacks…
link to msn.com
Not even sure what you’re talking about, the first link is paywalled and I’m not going to bother going around it. I saw the news about twitter happenings, sink n all.
The big thing that is going to happen, in my opinion, is that Twitter is going to swallow the other social media applications.
Musk is a risk to Google, Facebook, Snap, Tiktoc, and others.
The far-left extremists (all Ds) don’t get that people want a level playing field. I know that google has hidden items from my searches and I have had FB delete or flag many posts. It is funny, though, the way the Maoist think that the current content moderation and the current level of fear from the DOJ and FBI that people who are not far-left extremists feel is OK.
Watch as Musk slowly swallows the internet. Companies like FB and Google just have no idea how much resentment they have built up against them. They are like CNN. And once your credibility is gone it is almost impossible to get it back.
This is relevant to patents as FB, Google, and the like that “curate” the content in accordance with what the White House tells them to do as very similar to the Lemleys of the world.
It is the same political movement of a neo-Marxist state. Musk represents a counter to that by providing a fair playing field.
Watch. It will take some years but in five years the playing field is going to look a lot different. Musk will look at Google and realize that he could easily wipe them out. Just provide excellence with no finger on the scale.
FB, Google, and the like that “curate” the content in accordance with what the White House tells them to do as very similar to the Lemleys of the world… Musk represents a counter to that by providing a fair playing field.
Worth remembering that Musk says that “patents are for the weak.” He has a great deal more in common with Prof. Lemley than with you or I when it comes to the patent system.
? Why the attempt to make this some type of monolithic “agree//must agree with everything” type of thing?
Greg,
No. Musk supposedly does place great value patents. But he is open about it.
Lemley does not value patents and tries to get rid of them through backdoor methods and judicial activism.
“does not”
Lemley’s “judicial activism” is that lots of judges find his scholarship persuasive and cite it in their opinions. In other words, he publishes arguments that convince people. These are hardly “backdoor methods.” It is all quite out in the open.
I do not find Prof. Lemley’s subject matter eligibility arguments any more convincing than you do (although I appreciate his empirical work quantifying how many patent cases reach what stage of the enforcement process). I cannot see, however, that there is any material difference of transparency or openness between him and Mr. Musk. Neither of those two are particularly subtle or reserved.
The “back door” in his methods is his lack of ethics and self-serving writings (how HE wants the law to be).
“Convincing” anyone is most definitely NOT the point, as should be abundantly evident given the amounts of confirmation bias exhibited by Anti’s on this blog.
I predict this prediction of yours will be as accurate as your predictions about all the examiner layoffs at the PTO that are just about to start happening.
Hey look, P00py Diaper and Passing Gas on the same thread.
I share your expectations of the future, but I don’t approve of the tone here. NWPA’s willingness to make concrete predictions is a positive personality trait and shouldn’t be discouraged. You can notice his prior errors without mocking him for them.
Good point.
I think you misunderstood his comment. He wasn’t referring to NWPA. He was referring to Malcolm aka P00py Diaper who is now posting under the pseudonym “Breeze” and a clever twist on Breeze of “Passing Gas.”
I would hardly call making a prediction about his prediction to be “mocking” him. Calling him Night Wiper would be mocking him. Carry on.
Wiper is a well-documented lying t0 0l whose intelligence is sub-par even for a popular patent blog. On top of that, he’s an elderly rightwing crank. Such people exist to be mocked (actually all rightwing and glibertarian cranks exist to be mocked).
lol – as only Malcolm deigned to use the ‘Wiper’ term, we have here the s U ck1e replying to himself.
Way to go, Malcolm.
This is totally off topic and none of my business, so please feel free to ignore me if this is an unwanted question, but what motivated the name change from AAA JJ to Breeze?
Greg(“Dozens”) is off by a mile here.
First, AAA JJ has never been inclined to change his moniker.
Second, the writing has no parallels to what (or how) AAA JJ posts.
See instead 4.1.2.1.1 below for the link that lists five parallels to Malcolm (who HAS employed s U ckpu pputs many times over).
Had the chance to review a past link to Patently-O comments from earlier this year and I do have to walk back a step and permit the chance that Greg is correct in AAA JJ picking up a new pseudonym.
Two indicators:
1) replicating an avatar — while not impossible — is highly unlikely; and
2) when drawn into discussing non-patent law items, AAA-JJ does have a habit of losing his reasoning ability, slipping into a Hard Liberal Left mode, and closely emulates Malcolm’s posting content and “style.”
That being said, to be so close to Malcolm cannot be considered a good thing.
Ever.
Back when one of my daughters was wearing glitter, she told me about twitter. Since then, I’ve associated twtr with 8 graders. Am I alone on this bend ?
No, you are not alone cw. Millions feel the same way.
Never used it. Never will.
Never followed anyone. Never will.
It definitely has utility, not so sure about the commercial success, iirc that company rarely had positive earnings.
The amount of money Mr. Musk was alleged by some news sources as paying for twtr, seems far more than it would require to just start up a new completing entity. If they could code it back in 2010 or so, it’d be easier these days to do so.
Perhaps the political nature of control of public disclosure is a factor in the lack of a more-viable competitor than F-book. I bet $5B would get a competitor rolling, then grow it from there.
“The amount of money Mr. Musk was alleged by some news sources as paying for twtr, seems far more than it would require to just start up a new completing entity.”
What he’s paying for, overpriced as it is, are network effects.
I agree with you Ben.
Also, there is more than just a little premium being (voluntarily) paid to de-Bot and stick it to the Liberal Left.
I definitely agree that Musk is paying a premium for the network effects (although even then, I agree with you that he appears to have overpaid). For my part, I see this transaction ending in one of three ways. I consider the first two to be more likely than the third, although the third is darkest.
1) Twitter has never been profitable, and Musk has no experience running a social network. His leadership turns and already unprofitable enterprise into an unsustainable failure and the whole things shuts down within two years.
2) Musk finds the business of running Twitter to be much less fun than participating on Twitter and divests (either to another private buyer or by re-IPO) within two years.
3) We really know nothing about the financing that Musk employed to make the purchase. Perhaps this deal is backed by nefarious actors (e.g., China, Saudi Arabia, etc) who are willing to keep it running at a loss because of the influence it permits to them. In that case, Musk remains the nominal owner off into the indefinite future. Because the secret owners wish for the platform to retain its current, influential reach, the moderation policies do not change all that much, except that they become noticeably more tolerant of MAGA self-expression and subtly less tolerant of criticism of CN, RU, SA, etc.
Those network effects are easily reproducible however. It seems spurious, that no other viable competition is permitted. It suggests that monopolistic control by sheer size without regards to puny patents (for little ppl) is the goal of that forum,, eventually. I saw predictions of what musk will do with twtr., my prediction is that it will become a tool of tear-anny.
Will become…?
Aren’t you the guy that likes the New World Order…?
link to open.spotify.com
Twitter is going to swallow the other social media applications… The far-left extremists (all Ds) don’t get that people want a level playing field…
Watch as Musk slowly swallows the internet. Companies like FB and Google just have no idea how much resentment they have built up against them.
I gather that you are predicting that (1) FB will decline and (2) Twitter will take off, and from this outcome you will infer that the broad mass of people are angry at Democrats. What inference will you draw if both FB and Twitter decline instead?
>>What inference will you draw if both FB and Twitter decline instead?
I don’t think it is going to happen. I think that people want a level playing field with transparency. Elon said the goal is a public algorithm for content curation.
I think Elon is going to fix Twitter and then expand Twitter into FB and Google’s spaces. Maybe even Microsoft and Amazon (web hosting) spaces. We’ll see.
Elon just expands where he can and I think FB is very vulnerable. Google less so but still quite so. Web services very vulnerable to a person like Elon.
But I think he will focus first on just getting Twitter righted. Probably fire 90 percent of the people in the next few years.
I don’t think it is going to happen.
Right. I understand that you do not expect this outcome. Nevertheless, what should one conclude about public opinion and market demand if it does happen?
Probably will mean a fracturing of the public into different groups that support curation that favors their views.
“The far-left extremists (all Ds) don’t get that people want a level playing field.”
I suspect that you’re wrong, but I eagerly await the results of the great Twitter experiment!
Here’s my predictions:
1. Twitter’s (inflation adjusted) value will not exceed what Musk paid for it in the next 5 years.
2. In the next 5 years, Twitter will “censor”/deprioritize content under pressure from China.
Ben, I don’t think so.
1. My bet is based on Elon expanding the services of Twitter.
2. Elon has said his goal is a public algorithm for content curation so it is a completely level playing field and transparent.