tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post8802157662423621006..comments2024-03-28T11:16:43.146+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Kimble v Marvel Entertainment: when post-expiry patent royalties meet stare decisis Verónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-67619067466180208712015-08-03T12:01:36.302+01:002015-08-03T12:01:36.302+01:00...by the way, the thought of "let someone el......by the way, the thought of "let someone else do it" is EXACTLY what Peter thought as the robber ran passed him.<br /><br />That's the job of someone else.<br /><br />The irony is so think that you have to be <i>trying</i> not to see it.THE US anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-23882562670461832352015-08-03T11:57:28.373+01:002015-08-03T11:57:28.373+01:00Dear Anonymous @ 01:23,
I fail to see how you fai...Dear Anonymous @ 01:23,<br /><br />I fail to see how you fail to see the problem.<br /><br />The "Brulotte rule" was <b>created by the Court</b>.<br /><br /><br />"Clean up your own mess" carries with it a rather easy read of responsibility for one's own actions. This would have been a perfect play (the Court taking responsibility for its own actions), seeing the subject matter and the application of Uncle Ben's advise - but instead, we had the Court pass the buck and even admitting that the "Brulotte rule" was <b>wrong</b>, they want someone else to clean up their past actions. <br /><br />It is beyond parody to suggest that the Court's own writing cannot be something that the Court cannot change. If it has no authority to write the law, then the original ruling should be tossed on that line of thinking alone. One does note even need to reach a "constitutional" issue.<br /><br />As for the so-called "lack of ideology," the commentator is blind to the actual battle underway - the battle of which branch has been sanctioned to write patent law.<br /><br />Since Anonymous at 01:23 is familiar with several US cases, I can safely presume that he or she is also familiar with the direct allocation in our Constitution as to which branch has the authority, and is also familiar (since there is an apparent interest in patent law) with the notion that patent law is statutory law and not common law. I have to believe that the notion of "not much ideology involved" is rather disingenuous. That or amazingly off-point. Either way, the view is not supportable.THE US anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-54852926918127502242015-08-03T01:23:38.305+01:002015-08-03T01:23:38.305+01:00Kat readers are invited to read the opinion and re...<i>Kat readers are invited to read the opinion and reach their own conclusions—this Kat standing behind his impression that nothing could have changed the mind of the majority, despite the wide dissatisfaction with both the rationale and implementation of the Brulotte rule. And so the question is how do we account for this?</i><br /><br />I really fail to see the problem.<br />Yes, the majority opinion is pretty clear about there not being any "missed" arguments that could have changed their mind. Why would that be bad?<br /><br />The Court makes clear that one should complain to Congress.<br /><br />Just look at it this way: even though the Brulotte rule was not originally in the statute, now that 50 years have passed and Congress has passed up many opportunities to overturn it, it has effectively achieved the status of an explicit statutory provision. The Court has no authority to rewrite the statute. So Brulotte must stand. Whether the Court likes the rule or not is irrelevant (unless the dislike can be couched in constitutional language, not the case here).<br /><br />I do not believe much is ideology involved in this decision. Unlike in many other areas of law, patent law is not one where the current SCOTUS is almost by definition divided along ideological lines. KSR was 9-0, Bilski was 9-0, Alice was 9-0, Nautilus was 9-0, just to name a few.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-16527577403288747062015-07-28T12:51:29.598+01:002015-07-28T12:51:29.598+01:00An interesting read indeed, although the "gee...An interesting read indeed, although the "gee this is a surprise" angle is a bit over the top.<br /><br />Us patent folk in the states have known for a very long time that the Court has their own agenda when it comes to patent law matters.<br /><br />There is a very good reason why our Founding Fathers expressly made statutory law that is patent law the sole domain of the legislative branch. While other areas of law like torts and contracts are more open to common law development, patent law is expressly not so (at least for those of us in the US, that is).THE US anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-19321320981266412832015-07-28T08:32:34.309+01:002015-07-28T08:32:34.309+01:00Thanks, Anonymous. The name has been duly correcte...Thanks, Anonymous. The name has been duly corrected.Jeremyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01123244020588707776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-57154702608270636752015-07-28T07:41:07.909+01:002015-07-28T07:41:07.909+01:00The dissenting opinion was written by Justice Alit...The dissenting opinion was written by Justice Alito, not Alioto as mentioned in the post.<br />Great post. Very interesting to read how opinions evolve (or not) depending on the court composition.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com