[cryptography] patents and stuff (Re: NSA's position in the dominance stakes)

James A. Donald jamesd at echeque.com
Sun Nov 21 05:26:44 EST 2010


On 2010-11-21 9:59 AM, James S. Tyre wrote:
> At 02:26 PM 11/20/2010 -0800, Chris Palmer wrote:
>> James A. Donald writes:
>>
>> > No one gets appointed to the CAFC for having any knowledge or relevant
>> > expertise in the subject matter of patents. None of them, not a one,
>> > understand what is being patented,
>>
>> How many CAFC people have you talked to?
>
>
> Hey Chris,
>
> To be more blunt, does he even know what the CAFC is? A sentence you
> snipped from his post ("Supposedly expert witnesses tell them these
> things, but they have no way of knowing if an expert witness is expert,
> or if the expert witness is telling the truth.") suggests rather
> strongly that he doesn't.

CAFC is the court of appeals for the federal circuit - whose expertise 
is entirely in matters of law, not the matters that the expert witnesses 
are supposedly experts in.  The BPAI is the board of appeals and 
interferences.

If these guys could tell shit from beans, why does the one click patent 
stand despite prior art?

Presumably an "expert" testified that everything before the one click 
patent was not the same thing as the one click patent but everything 
after the one click patent was the same thing - and they believed him.




More information about the cryptography mailing list