Steve Stites

I don't understand what you mean by "remove them". Linus Torvalds occasionally bans people from making any more contributions to the kernel because their contributions break more than they fix. Is that what you mean?

You emphasis "noisy". Does that mean that the people who annoy you talk a lot and produce nothing useful thus wasting other people's time?

---------------------------
Steve Stites

Congress created the U.S.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in 1982 as a
specialized court to deal with patent, copyright and trademark appeals. The
thinking was that a specialized appeal court was needed so that the judges on
the court could develop the technical expertise to be able to understand the
descriptions of the new technology in patents and copyrights.

I think that creating this court was counter productive. Over the years lawyers
have convinced the court that various nonsense is physical reality. The appeals
court has greatly expanded the scope of what is patentable based on axioms that
are fantasy. The worst hit areas are pharmaceutical and software patents.

The situation is analogous to "Alice in Wonderland". Charles Dodgson wrote a
series of scenes where he would abolish a law of physics or abolish a rule of
social behavior. Then he would write a fantasy scene using the altered
rules.

The appeals court has created pockets of sheer fantasy within the patent law
framework based on their scientific misconceptions. Because the appeals court
was set up to be a specialist court the appeals court has consistently believed
that they knew more about patents than the Supreme Court and therefore often
overode Supreme Court decisions in contravention of the way that the judicial
sytem works. This behavior was sharply curtailed when Judge Roberts of the
Supreme Court forced the worst offender, Judge Randell Rader, to resign from the
appeals court on the basis of an improper endorsement that Judge Rader made for
a lawyer who had appeared in a case before Judge Rader. But the
fantasy attitude is still there in the appeals court and it forebodes more
"Alice in Wonderland" rulings from the appeals court in the future.

I suggest that patent reform include abolishing the U.S.Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit. Then bad case law created by bad judicial decisions can be
resolved in the normal way by the Supreme Court resolving different decisions
issued by different regional appeals courts.

--------------------------------------
Steve Stites