I’ve linked to a new whitepaper on Patents, Knowhow, and Vaccine Diplomacy. The whitepaper authored:
- Gary Locke (former Secretary of Commerce, Governor of Washington, and Ambassador to China)
- Andrei Iancu (former USPTO Director)
- David Kappos (former USPTO Director).
Something is really wrong with this website. And what is up with Dennis? He puts my innocuous post in “awaiting moderation” purgatory, but he allows all weird posts from Sarah McP that have nothing to do with the topic, as well as pure politics posts that should not be on this forum.
POL,
As it is not a volume thing for you (there is a Count Filter), it is most likely a “George Carlin” filter, as many common words have been deemed “too harsh” — including, get this, certain acronyms.
Further, as I have demonstrated in the past (with direct copy and paste from ‘near-live’ commenting back-and -forth — so it was NOT an issue of “oh, that one only showed up after clearing a moderation period), Filters are NOT objectively applied, and certain posters have different ‘rules” (or lack thereof).
I hear you, Anon, but looking at my “awaiting moderation” posts just now, there is nothing in them that would remotely be a “George Carlin Seven Words” taboo word. I am perplexed (maybe that word will cause this post to be under moderation?).
The Professor’s “George Carlin” list is far more extensive than seven words (and in no small part also caters to the same people who are not placed in the same objective application of the various filters.
For example, just checking: link to patentlyo.com
Yep, still there.
What a joke. The person’s name is an expletive, and Dennis’ software cannot figure that out and delete it? Even many months afterwards it is still there. Ridiculous to say the least.
POL, I think that a big plus for this blog is that contributions to a thread appear instantaneously, unlike other blogs (where we must wait hours, even days, before our contributions appear). The small minus is that sometimes the filter blocks an innocuous post.
Another poster unrelentingly castigates me for being over-polite, even deferential. Nevertheless, it happens from time to time that my postings get caught by the filter. I’m still baffled, what it is that triggers the filter. But I keep on posting nevertheless, mainly because for the most part the dialogue is so instant, unlike in other blogs.
Maybe so, but I like IPWatchdog better. Smarter posters on that forum, and no MM!
Well ipwatchdog’s editorial bias allows anon and his ilk free reign on making ad hominem attacks on others and refusing to remove them. Gene Quinn’s political leanings bias the blog as opposed to this blog’s more academic approach.
“anon and his ilk”
LOL.
The sharp words (think John Maynard Keynes) has been explained to you.
As to “more academic approach,” you likely do not even recognize that THAT is an even worse bias, eh?
POL,
That particular poster is our friend Malcolm Mooney.
His ‘style’ was sniffed out the moment he returned from his just-over-a-year hiatus.
link to youtube.com
Also shout out to NWPA from the last thread, as he mentions why he isn’t afraid of Ritten. And his explanation is 100% correct. I give him a chad meme from above also on that one. However, I will also note that it is likely a feeling somewhat tied in with whiteness, as it is obviously quite a lot of ethnics of various backgrounds that are wanting to control the streets out of desperation of not having other means of power/paths to power. Not excusing that mechanism being used, but it is likely so.
Huh?
(Sometimes your over the top attempts at effect are themselves the joke)
Rittenhouse not guilty bros:
link to yahoo.com
lol -yeah, so? Tell me something that I have not already posted as to that effect…
Rittenhouse is as Not Guilty as OJ Simpson. American Justice System is the finest in the world.
It’s certainly not a perfect system but it is a system firmly entrenched in the ideal that it is better for 10 guilty persons to go free rather than one innocent person be convicted.
As opposed to the USPTO’s belief that it is better for the novel and non-obvious claims of 10 applications be rejected rather than allow one application that might have subject-matter ineligible claims no matter how extensively tied to machine and/or transformation.
The presumption of innocence is of course a precious artefact of the Rule of Law. One doesn’t find a Defendant guilty when there is serious doubt. But I’m not sure how firm the entrenchment is, of which you speak, when it comes to reducing the number of innocent persons imprisoned.
Neither am I (based in western Europe) sure how “innocent” a teenager is, who shows up to a public protest touting a machine gun. Is that what the ordinary citizen is inclined to do, in the USA?
Max Drei,
Clearly you want to wade in without understanding the laws involved.
To your question then, of was he innocent, the answer is unequivocally yes.
“To your question then, of was he innocent, the answer is unequivocally yes.”
That is incorrect. Mr. Rittenhouse was found “Not Guilty” of the crimes he was accused of. Civil actions to come will determine whether he will be accountable in a financial sense for his actions.
I was using innocent in the colloquial sense (given the context that we have only seen the criminal trial).
After the blowback from that criminal trial, do you REALLY think that there will be a civil case?
I don’t see why there would not be a civil case brought for wrongful death. This isn’t my area of law, but my understanding is that even if Mr. Rittenhouse currently has no assets, he might in the future and a judgment against him can be enforced for a good deal of time (20 years in some jurisdictions is my understanding). It’s also my understanding that since Mr. Rittenhouse was a minor at the time, the families of the people he killed can also go after Mr. Rittenhouse’s parents for negligence, and they may have assets (e.g., a house) that can be collected against in the here and now.
There was a comparison with OJ Simpson above. Every now and then I see the news stories about the Goldman Family pursuing him to collect on the judgment they got against him. Remember, OJ Simpson avoided conviction on the criminal charges, but was found to be responsible for the deaths of his ex-wife and Ron Goldman in a civil action brought against him. Different burden of proof involved.
“Can go after” and “can succeed in going after” are two very different things, and the LACK of success (probable) is the point that I am presenting to you.
Certainly, there are differences between the criminal and civil spheres, but (as it should be more than clear FROM the criminal side), the provocations TO Rittenhouse very clearly distinguish from any OJ Simpson comparison.
by the way, that poster making that comparison has a ‘stellar’ track record for being very very very off in his comments.
““Can go after” and “can succeed in going after” are two very different things,”
So are the burdens of proof in criminal and civil proceedings, as OJ Simpson himself found out when the civil jury found him liable for the deaths of his ex-wife and Mr. Goldman.
It is up to the families of the victims to decide whether this is something they wish to pursue. Certainly not for you or I.
Whatever happens, Mr. Rittenhouse is not walking away from this with a clean slate. Undoubtedly, his purported plans for a career in the military or law enforcement now face hurdles unimagined prior to the events which led to his criminal trial, and he may well be unemployable in those fields of endeavor.
“Civil actions to come will determine whether he will be accountable in a financial sense for his actions.”
Lets be honest. Gaige, huber and Rosen should be wiped out financially to make Kyle whole for their dastardly attacks.
“So are the burdens of proof in criminal and civil proceedings, as OJ Simpson himself found out when the civil jury found him liable for the deaths of his ex-wife and Mr. Goldman.”
All true, but OJ pretty blatantly nigh certainly either murdered em, or his son did (close call, tough to tell). Ritten murdered nobody.
“Whatever happens, Mr. Rittenhouse is not walking away from this with a clean slate. Undoubtedly, his purported plans for a career in the military or law enforcement now face hurdles unimagined prior to the events which led to his criminal trial, and he may well be unemployable in those fields of endeavor.”
Technically true, all the repubs are wanting him for a staffer, prob pays better.
“So are the burdens of proof in criminal and civil proceedings”
I never argued otherwise, and that has nothing to do with the point presented to you.
“It is up to the families of the victims to decide whether this is something they wish to pursue. Certainly not for you or I.”
Again, I never said otherwise, and again, this has nothing to do with the point put towards you.
“Whatever happens, Mr. Rittenhouse is not walking away from this with a clean slate. Undoubtedly, his purported plans for a career in the military or law enforcement now face hurdles unimagined prior…”
Third strike: again, I never suggested otherwise, and again, this has nothing to do with the point put towards you.
Are you done deflecting?
Third strike? deflecting?
What the heck are you talking about? This isn’t a zero-sum game or contest of wills. Can’t someone simply state their own opinion without you viewing it as an attack? I was under the impression we were having a discussion, not a debate about who is right and wrong. I was giving my opinion, and not stating I was an omnipotent being declaring the unwaivering truth for all to read and adhere to!
Do you actually wonder why some people confuse you with Night Writer? To be clear, I do not believe that you and Night Writer are the same but it seems that every time I reply to something he says he takes it like a declaration of war!
“What the heck are you talking about? This isn’t a zero-sum game or contest of wills. Can’t someone simply state their own opinion without you viewing it as an attack? I was under the impression we were having a discussion, not a debate about who is right and wrong.”
Anon almost certainly has OCPD bro (or thereabouts). If you’re going to talk to him, you’ve just got to accept that up front. He’ll drag you into JADEing (look it up) all the time if you’re not super careful and it becomes a whole cycle (which to him is liek supar normal, obviously normal people disagree).
“This isn’t a zero-sum game or contest of wills. Can’t someone simply state their own opinion without you viewing it as an attack? ”
This is a dialogue – in which one’s statements – said in that dialogue — are certainly open to counterpoint.
You did more than merely “state your opinion” there ipguy.
Your follow-on diverged as I noted — three times in rapid succession while ‘pretending’ to be an answer to me.
Had you wanted to actually voice a different and mere opinion, you could have done so.
This is not as you now want to paint it (and I see that 6 is only too happy to jump into those weeds).
MCI,
I do love the triple irony of your chosen moniker — it’s like a triple negative.
Your comments live up to your name: unremarkable
Sure, let’s go with that (as my comments have the very opposite effect).
Gee, we are twinsies!!!
Only to you and your fellow alters from Bizzaro World.
alters….?
Are you still persisting in thinking that “B” (who has used his real name) and I are somehow still the same person…?
You brought B up, not me, so that is your guilty mind at work, and why you won’t acknowledge that Rittenhouse is as Not Guilty as OJ Simpson.
I brought “B” up directly because of YOUR comment, and was seeking to make some sense of what had said immediately above. If you are not making that suggestion, then you would be an ENTIRELY off the wall with YOUR statement.
So, your choice is that I was correct in connecting the dots that YOU put out there, or that you are completely off the wall.
There is no ‘guilty mind’ effect present here.
As to Rittenhouse and OJ comparisons, have you bothered — at all — to gather any of the facts on the matter in order to even start with such a comparison?
That was rhetorical – we both know that you have not.
Anon, You are dizzy and confused from all your spinning.
I am neither dizzy nor confused.
Maybe instead it is you that are being busted for attempting to spin, and just don’t like it.
That’s your confusion from your spin talking.
Funny how you need my position to BE ‘confused” when it clearly is not, isn’t it.
You are exhibiting signs of that obsess10n with me again (even THIS choice of your moniker was a reaction to my posting).
I have a palatial estate rent-free in that noggin of yours, and I have to say, the landscape is desolate.
You just can’t help yourself from going off the rails, anon
The very first sentence of this paper is mistaken, and it keeps going in that vein.
The U.S. did not have a COVID-19 vaccine. Pfizer and ModeRNA had vaccines, but neither Pfizer nor ModeRNA is the U.S. Even if one wants to describe these two as “American” companies (what does that mean?), Russia’s Sputnik vaccine was in the clinic before either Pfizer’s or ModeRNA’s.
link to en.m.wikipedia.org
This is so tendentious a characterization as to be simply untrue. There is no motion on the table that “countries agree to strip vaccine makers of their… intellectual property… .” Rather, the motion is that WTO members should be able to waive IP each within its own sovereign borders. India cannot—and is not asking to be able to—suspend U.S. patent rights. Meanwhile, India cannot acquire secret information that is not located within India’s borders—even if Indian trade secret laws were suspended.
Well, at least the authors got this much correct.
“Meanwhile, India cannot acquire secret information that is not located within India’s borders—even if Indian trade secret laws were suspended.”
Talk about a “tendentious characterization”….
Poor, poor Greg – in a state of hyper cognitive dissonance given his Liberal Left tendencies and THIS particular conflict with those tendencies.
While I obviously quibble with the authors’ characterization of the WTO debates, I vigorously agree with their main point—that the U.S. should use its financial wherewithal to buy some diplomatic goodwill through the vaccine distribution channel. I think that we should also have bought ourselves some diplomatic goodwill by wrangling our peer nations into supporting the TRIPS waiver. We probably did ourselves some limited good by being seen to support the waiver, even though we were never able to bring it off. The window to get the waiver passed has probably shut by now, however, as the global vaccination rate has proceeded past the point at which IN or ZA could usefully bring new capacity online in time to be of actual use.
“I think that we should also have bought ourselves some diplomatic goodwill by wrangling our peer nations into supporting the TRIPS waiver. ”
Talk about your mendacious virtue signaling…
>that the U.S. should use its financial wherewithal to buy some diplomatic goodwill…
>supporting the TRIPS waiver.
Technically, that wouldn’t be U.S. using “its” financial wherewithal. Instead, it would be the U.S. using the IP holders’ financial wherewithal to achieve those ends.
Or are you expecting the U.S. to compensate the rights holders?
The authors of the linked piece urge the U.S. to buy vaccine doses and give them to poorer nations. When I speak of “us[ing our] financial wherewithal,” I am referring to that recommendation, with which I agree. It is in our enlightened self-interest to assist poorer nations in crushing COVID, because we are not really out of the woods until humanity as a whole has the pandemic under control everywhere.
… in other words, so long as Greg’s (Royal, not necessarily personal) financial interests are secured, he is fine with some other entity paying Him for our Nation’s largess….
That, of course, doesn’t require “wrangling our peer nations into supporting the TRIPS waiver.”
Right. My apologies for any confusion if I left the impression that these are the same thing. I think that the U.S. should buy vaccine doses and donate them where they can do the most good for our own enlightened self-interest. I also believe that the world would be a better place if the WTO had approved the proposed waiver. These are two analytically separate beliefs, so I apologize if I left the impression that there is any necessary connection between these two.
Not only is there NOT a connection, there is the obvious takeaway that YOU are merely virtue signaling in an obvious empty manner.
But hey, that’s just Greg being Greg.
>buy vaccine doses and give them to poorer nations.
Which, for the time being, conflicts with our universal booster program. And our vaccinate every child program.
OTOH, there was an interesting moment where the U.S. had several million doses of the not-FDA-approved-but-still-used-elsewhere AstraZeneca(?) vaccine in a warehouse. I guess we could have distributed those.
We mostly did distribute those A/Z doses overseas. It was a good use of the product.
“We”…?
I though that you were being particular between the US government and private corporations…
(or was that only when it suited your narrative?)
I think it’s fair to say that the US was the first to develop a decent vaccine. Certainly not an assertion worth getting bent out of shape over.
What happened after the US made a safe, free and effective vaccine available is what is embarrassing and shameful and most of us know very well that the blame for that lies with rightwing nertcases.
Your TDS is showing with your nebulous “it must have been THEM” style rant.
I think that you have been hanging out with Sarah for too long. Was that the reason for your year-plus sabbatical? Did you and Sarah get married? That might rival the office view that you were serving time.
The Prophet is correct. Especially the shameful part.
Nope Perry — not the least problem of which is that Malcolm’s rant lacks any particulars.
This type of “one bucket vague hand waving” helps no one.
As to “shame” with COVID, maybe you should examine Fauci’s role rather than lump all “R’s” into a ‘blame bucket.’
Fauci is a superstar who stood up to Trump and his acolytes. It is shameful that the vaccine companies assert IP rights to keep prices high – and unavailable to poorer countries – for a life-saving drug. What if they developed a cure for cancer and priced it at $5,000/dose? Rioting in the streets… Sometimes the greater public good should trump (excuse the expression) private property rights.
Hard pass on your views of this “greater good” over the individual.
As to Fauci, being a superstar, stop drinking the Kool-aid.
Why on Earth do you (meaning the blog owner) keep allowing these types of comments and conversations?
They have nothing to do patent law and make people like me less likely to come here. I occasionally find a snippet of true patent law wisdom, but that’s far outweighed by politically divisive comments like this one.
It’s disconcerting.
A word of advice that is worth no more than you are paying for it—you do not have to read all the comments. I bet you already know by now which participants are
likely to write something worthwhile and which are not. Just scroll past the unlikelies and ignore them. That is what I do, and it improves the experience enormously.
He is talking about topic, Greg, NOT individual writers.
Fauci is a superstar…
Agreed.
It is shameful that the vaccine companies assert IP rights to keep prices high
You will no doubt be gratified to learn that neither Pfizer nor ModeRNA has any IP related to the COVID19 vaccine in either India or South Africa. There are no IP obstacles to either of those countries producing vaccine.
You will also, no doubt, be gratified to know that both ModeRNA & Pfizer have put their COVID19 IP in a patent pool, so that IP cannot be an obstacle to increasing production (URLs below).
In other words, nothing shameful is actually happening on this front. Human beings are behaving in a humane and socially responsible manner. Be happy for that.
link to healthpolicy-watch.news
link to pfizer.com
Greg I know you were somewhat interested in the whole gifted thing, I saw this program and thought you might like it.
link to youtube.com
I would have to say there is a lot of truth to what that guy has to say. “Segregating off”, so to speak, “the gifted” is often, and probably should be even moreso than today (as he goes into detail), giving them a literal “special needs” education.
“[A]t the World Trade Organization (WTO), a group of nations is proposing that countries agree to strip vaccine makers of their patents, copyrights, and trade secrets—the intellectual property (IP) underlying the products and processes they invented, including the vaccines themselves and the technology that produces them.”
Should be “agree to buy out” at way above reasonable rates.
Held over from the other thread:
“My apologies.”
“A true victory is to make your enemy see they were wrong to oppose you in the first place.”
link to youtube.com
Yes I get what you’re talking about, but thats only true if you are scared at .5 inflation. I am not.
How dare you use my image without my permission….
““A true victory is to make your enemy see they were wrong to oppose you in the first place.””
I am certain that you
f
a
i
l
to grasp the irony of this statement vis a vis my dealings with you over the years.
Greg from other thread:
“I cannot imagine describing any of them as “want[ing] to control the streets with mobs of people” or “feel[ing] it is OK to attack people not in agreement with them.” Indeed, given that the pro-Rittenhouse partisans celebrate him precisely for his vigilantism, it is passing strange to suppose that the anti-Rittenhouse “want… mobs… .””
Like did you even look at the video of the night of Ritten? There’s obviously a mob out, several people are setting fires to cars or dumpsters and what have you, and otherwise behaving badly. A girl was shot in the foot and Ritten himself was trying to med her up prior to his altercation. What exactly explains her being shot and cars on fire if it isn’t mobs wanting to control the streets (sometimes literally shouting “whose streets? Our streets!!!)?
“The reality seems quite the opposite. We have all seen DJT Jr. and Alex Jones wrangling up mobs and inciting them to violence”
When did this actually happen, if you can just give me a citation. I keep up with this, and I hear the strangest things coming from leftists that they never actually cite to.
“Has anyone seen Chris Hayes or Ezra Klein doing so? ”
Lets be very clear that Klein, (not sure about Hayes) supports many many many positions that stir sht up irl, though he does not directly provoke violence himself. I’m actually working my way down his podcast list right now in another tab from last week. He supports all manner of leftism, which itself is inciteful by way of fueling the delusion that “the fash” is liek just around the corner and is liek gonna oppress everyone tomorrow n sheet n is gonna genocide the blacks, latins, jews, muslims etc. etc. the day after. Obviously if you can get people to be this deluded they’ll be willing to perform violence, either antifa style, ritten incident style, etc. etc. as they think they or their bros are under attack. He’s already stoking the beginnings of what can easily become a hysteria over research into genetics, and his podcast is as we speak demanding that all of media “take sides” either pro “democracy” (aka leftism), or else pro “neutrality” (note there is no option for the media to go right wing tee hee). And many other us vs. them population control mechanisms. While he directly calls for no violence, he sets the stage for others, just the same as fox n friends do.