tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post5429968573757305958..comments2024-03-19T13:13:18.609+00:00Comments on The IPKat: From IP to NP, Day Two: Part 1Verónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-42556611533888161952013-11-11T12:11:23.271+00:002013-11-11T12:11:23.271+00:00The Rader comments strike me the most.
1) At leas...The Rader comments strike me the most.<br /><br />1) At least in the US, <b>making</b> patent law has been designated in our constitution as belonging to the legislative branch and not the judicial branch.<br /><br />2) Patent law - at its heart - is geared internal to a country. Sovereignty <i>must</i> reign supreme. Conformity to a global view when the law first has not been changed to that global view is judicial activism at its worst. Until we have an actual one-world government, the drive to internalize patent law must be looked at with a skeptical eye.<br /><br />3) The call to stop Balkanization should be realized as a call for the U.S. Supreme Court to stop messing with the CAFC when it comes to interpreting patent law. The Congress set up the CAFC in order to un-Balkanize the district court mess that had developed over thirty years after the 1952 Act (and which some US pundits are inexplicably calling for a return to). The U.S. Supreme Court has taken to undoing <i>any</i> brightline coherence, and has aggressively sought to preserve its views of patent law instead - and not on constitutional issues, for which its Supremacy over the CAFC would be rightfully maintained.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com