[justincpollard]

Posner's positions, and the frank and open manner with which he expresses them, are a much needed breath of fresh air from a legal system that is all too esoteric. Especially with regard to patents.

Though not directly related to the position Posner takes in his most recent blog post, it's ironic to consider the fact that patents are filed not by the inventors themselves, but lawyers who represent them. To me, that begs the question of whether or not "someone of ordinary skill in the art" could actually replicate the invention disclosed in any given patent. In reality, depending on the invention, it doesn't seem likely that the inventor could even replicate her own invention using solely her patent as a guide. This is a result of patents that are too vague, too general, and too far removed from the actual technology they purport to disclose.

In his recent writing, Posner has chosen to make the point that companies use either defunct or trivial technology to halt innovation through patent litigation. Recently, the culprit has been Apple, but Apple is, of course, not alone. In the fight against patent bullying, Posner's conclusions are, for the most part, right on target.

[rayiner]

> Posner's positions, and the frank and open manner with which he expresses them, are a much needed breath of fresh air from a legal system that is all too esoteric. Especially with regard to patents.

To be fair, Posner is also a poster-boy for judicial activism. Much of what seems "esoteric" in law is actually the attempt to give effect to fine distinctions made in statutes and in previous cases. If you ride roughshod over all that and decide cases according to sweeping principles, it's much easier to be open and succinct.

[rjsw]

From my experience of filing a patent, the lawyer wrote the document but we still spent a fair bit of time on the phone and went through a couple of drafts until I was happy with all the claims.