Comments on: “Expertise” Is Not Always a Good Thing http://techliberation.com/2007/02/14/expertise-is-not-always-a-good-thing/ Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Tue, 16 Mar 2010 23:46:58 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Noel Le http://techliberation.com/2007/02/14/expertise-is-not-always-a-good-thing/comment-page-1/#comment-37150 Noel Le Thu, 15 Feb 2007 22:47:11 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/02/14/expertise-is-not-always-a-good-thing/#comment-37150 Masnick, if more patent lawyers find themselves out of work, they might switch career paths and become politicians. In such a scenario, would society be better off? Yes Masnick, I'm afraid your argument only creates more questions than answers...:) Masnick, if more patent lawyers find themselves out of work, they might switch career paths and become politicians. In such a scenario, would society be better off? Yes Masnick, I’m afraid your argument only creates more questions than answers…:)

]]> By: Noel Le http://techliberation.com/2007/02/14/expertise-is-not-always-a-good-thing/comment-page-1/#comment-48888 Noel Le Thu, 15 Feb 2007 22:47:11 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/02/14/expertise-is-not-always-a-good-thing/#comment-48888 Masnick, if more patent lawyers find themselves out of work, they might switch career paths and become politicians. In such a scenario, would society be better off? Yes Masnick, I'm afraid your argument only creates more questions than answers...:) Masnick, if more patent lawyers find themselves out of work, they might switch career paths and become politicians. In such a scenario, would society be better off? Yes Masnick, I’m afraid your argument only creates more questions than answers…:)

]]> By: Mike Masnick http://techliberation.com/2007/02/14/expertise-is-not-always-a-good-thing/comment-page-1/#comment-37149 Mike Masnick Thu, 15 Feb 2007 05:37:13 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/02/14/expertise-is-not-always-a-good-thing/#comment-37149 Always nice to hear from Richard -- the man who was just saying how he wished people would stop insulting each other in these online debates (in a post where he flat out insulted me for no clear reason). Apparently that rule doesn't apply to himself, hence "Crazy Mike." Yes, that's very mature of you, Richard. It makes me take you *that* much more seriously. Anyway, I'm not sure what point Richard is arguing here. Is he suggesting that any expert is a good expert? We have a clear history here of what happened the last time this was tried, and it was bad. It's half the reason we're in the mess we're in today. "Engineers" aren't the solution. Especially not patent examiners. Almost every patent examiner I've met is just as bad as a patent attorney in their bias towards the system (and many go on to become patent attorneys). They made their living off the patent system too, so again, they are inherently biased on the issue. The point is pretty simple: we should be evaluating the patent system from a big picture view, rather than focusing so narrowly on each little piece. Each time we focus on a little piece, we seem to make the system worse by handing more control to those who benefit from more patents. That's all I was saying. Always nice to hear from Richard — the man who was just saying how he wished people would stop insulting each other in these online debates (in a post where he flat out insulted me for no clear reason). Apparently that rule doesn’t apply to himself, hence “Crazy Mike.” Yes, that’s very mature of you, Richard. It makes me take you *that* much more seriously.

Anyway, I’m not sure what point Richard is arguing here. Is he suggesting that any expert is a good expert? We have a clear history here of what happened the last time this was tried, and it was bad. It’s half the reason we’re in the mess we’re in today.

“Engineers” aren’t the solution. Especially not patent examiners. Almost every patent examiner I’ve met is just as bad as a patent attorney in their bias towards the system (and many go on to become patent attorneys). They made their living off the patent system too, so again, they are inherently biased on the issue.

The point is pretty simple: we should be evaluating the patent system from a big picture view, rather than focusing so narrowly on each little piece. Each time we focus on a little piece, we seem to make the system worse by handing more control to those who benefit from more patents.

That’s all I was saying.

]]> By: Mike Masnick http://techliberation.com/2007/02/14/expertise-is-not-always-a-good-thing/comment-page-1/#comment-48887 Mike Masnick Thu, 15 Feb 2007 05:37:13 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/02/14/expertise-is-not-always-a-good-thing/#comment-48887 Always nice to hear from Richard -- the man who was just saying how he wished people would stop insulting each other in these online debates (in a post where he flat out insulted me for no clear reason). Apparently that rule doesn't apply to himself, hence "Crazy Mike." Yes, that's very mature of you, Richard. It makes me take you *that* much more seriously.<br><br>Anyway, I'm not sure what point Richard is arguing here. Is he suggesting that any expert is a good expert? We have a clear history here of what happened the last time this was tried, and it was bad. It's half the reason we're in the mess we're in today.<br><br>"Engineers" aren't the solution. Especially not patent examiners. Almost every patent examiner I've met is just as bad as a patent attorney in their bias towards the system (and many go on to become patent attorneys). They made their living off the patent system too, so again, they are inherently biased on the issue.<br><br>The point is pretty simple: we should be evaluating the patent system from a big picture view, rather than focusing so narrowly on each little piece. Each time we focus on a little piece, we seem to make the system worse by handing more control to those who benefit from more patents.<br><br>That's all I was saying. Always nice to hear from Richard — the man who was just saying how he wished people would stop insulting each other in these online debates (in a post where he flat out insulted me for no clear reason). Apparently that rule doesn’t apply to himself, hence “Crazy Mike.” Yes, that’s very mature of you, Richard. It makes me take you *that* much more seriously.

Anyway, I’m not sure what point Richard is arguing here. Is he suggesting that any expert is a good expert? We have a clear history here of what happened the last time this was tried, and it was bad. It’s half the reason we’re in the mess we’re in today.

“Engineers” aren’t the solution. Especially not patent examiners. Almost every patent examiner I’ve met is just as bad as a patent attorney in their bias towards the system (and many go on to become patent attorneys). They made their living off the patent system too, so again, they are inherently biased on the issue.

The point is pretty simple: we should be evaluating the patent system from a big picture view, rather than focusing so narrowly on each little piece. Each time we focus on a little piece, we seem to make the system worse by handing more control to those who benefit from more patents.

That’s all I was saying.

]]> By: Richard Bennett http://techliberation.com/2007/02/14/expertise-is-not-always-a-good-thing/comment-page-1/#comment-37148 Richard Bennett Wed, 14 Feb 2007 22:46:24 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/02/14/expertise-is-not-always-a-good-thing/#comment-37148 Crazy Mike says: "The bill also pushes for "specially appointed clerks with patent expertise," which again probably means things like former patent examiners." Patent examiners are engineers, not lawyers. So you're in favor of the plan Crazy Mike is dissing. Most judges, as I'm sure you know, are former prosecutors, but we don't have a problem with them judging criminal cases. With expertise comes the possibility of some sort of bias, but ignorance is no less free of bias. Would you rather have former public interest lawyers judging patent cases? I damn sure wouldn't. Hire some judges with engineering degrees and the problem is solved, but they come from the patent world. Chairman Mao's people did a number on The Experts during the Cultural Revolution. That's not a good model to emulate. Crazy Mike says: “The bill also pushes for “specially appointed clerks with patent expertise,” which again probably means things like former patent examiners.”

Patent examiners are engineers, not lawyers. So you’re in favor of the plan Crazy Mike is dissing.

Most judges, as I’m sure you know, are former prosecutors, but we don’t have a problem with them judging criminal cases. With expertise comes the possibility of some sort of bias, but ignorance is no less free of bias. Would you rather have former public interest lawyers judging patent cases? I damn sure wouldn’t. Hire some judges with engineering degrees and the problem is solved, but they come from the patent world.

Chairman Mao’s people did a number on The Experts during the Cultural Revolution. That’s not a good model to emulate.

]]> By: Richard Bennett http://techliberation.com/2007/02/14/expertise-is-not-always-a-good-thing/comment-page-1/#comment-48886 Richard Bennett Wed, 14 Feb 2007 22:46:24 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/02/14/expertise-is-not-always-a-good-thing/#comment-48886 Crazy Mike says: "The bill also pushes for "specially appointed clerks with patent expertise," which again probably means things like former patent examiners."<br><br>Patent examiners are engineers, not lawyers. So you're in favor of the plan Crazy Mike is dissing.<br><br>Most judges, as I'm sure you know, are former prosecutors, but we don't have a problem with them judging criminal cases. With expertise comes the possibility of some sort of bias, but ignorance is no less free of bias. Would you rather have former public interest lawyers judging patent cases? I damn sure wouldn't. Hire some judges with engineering degrees and the problem is solved, but they come from the patent world.<br><br>Chairman Mao's people did a number on The Experts during the Cultural Revolution. That's not a good model to emulate. Crazy Mike says: “The bill also pushes for “specially appointed clerks with patent expertise,” which again probably means things like former patent examiners.”

Patent examiners are engineers, not lawyers. So you’re in favor of the plan Crazy Mike is dissing.

Most judges, as I’m sure you know, are former prosecutors, but we don’t have a problem with them judging criminal cases. With expertise comes the possibility of some sort of bias, but ignorance is no less free of bias. Would you rather have former public interest lawyers judging patent cases? I damn sure wouldn’t. Hire some judges with engineering degrees and the problem is solved, but they come from the patent world.

Chairman Mao’s people did a number on The Experts during the Cultural Revolution. That’s not a good model to emulate.

]]> By: Tim Lee http://techliberation.com/2007/02/14/expertise-is-not-always-a-good-thing/comment-page-1/#comment-37147 Tim Lee Wed, 14 Feb 2007 21:26:29 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/02/14/expertise-is-not-always-a-good-thing/#comment-37147 Richard, if the proposal were to hire some engineers to advice judges on the merits of patents, I think that would be a fantastic idea. But I think Mike is right that that's not what this "training" is likely to be. Rather, the training is likely to consist of instruction on the minutia of the Federal Circuit's patents jurisprudence, which will make them more likely to follow the Federal Circuit's lead and rule on the minutia of patent doctrine without looking at the big picture. I think having most of the judges who decide patent cases not be patent lawyers is an important check on abuse in the patent system. This "reform" seems likely to make it more likely that former patent lawyers will be hearing patent cases. Richard, if the proposal were to hire some engineers to advice judges on the merits of patents, I think that would be a fantastic idea. But I think Mike is right that that’s not what this “training” is likely to be. Rather, the training is likely to consist of instruction on the minutia of the Federal Circuit’s patents jurisprudence, which will make them more likely to follow the Federal Circuit’s lead and rule on the minutia of patent doctrine without looking at the big picture.

I think having most of the judges who decide patent cases not be patent lawyers is an important check on abuse in the patent system. This “reform” seems likely to make it more likely that former patent lawyers will be hearing patent cases.

]]> By: Tim Lee http://techliberation.com/2007/02/14/expertise-is-not-always-a-good-thing/comment-page-1/#comment-48885 Tim Lee Wed, 14 Feb 2007 21:26:29 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/02/14/expertise-is-not-always-a-good-thing/#comment-48885 Richard, if the proposal were to hire some engineers to advice judges on the merits of patents, I think that would be a fantastic idea. But I think Mike is right that that's not what this "training" is likely to be. Rather, the training is likely to consist of instruction on the minutia of the Federal Circuit's patents jurisprudence, which will make them more likely to follow the Federal Circuit's lead and rule on the minutia of patent doctrine without looking at the big picture.<br><br>I think having most of the judges who decide patent cases not be patent lawyers is an important check on abuse in the patent system. This "reform" seems likely to make it more likely that former patent lawyers will be hearing patent cases. Richard, if the proposal were to hire some engineers to advice judges on the merits of patents, I think that would be a fantastic idea. But I think Mike is right that that’s not what this “training” is likely to be. Rather, the training is likely to consist of instruction on the minutia of the Federal Circuit’s patents jurisprudence, which will make them more likely to follow the Federal Circuit’s lead and rule on the minutia of patent doctrine without looking at the big picture.

I think having most of the judges who decide patent cases not be patent lawyers is an important check on abuse in the patent system. This “reform” seems likely to make it more likely that former patent lawyers will be hearing patent cases.

]]> By: Richard Bennett http://techliberation.com/2007/02/14/expertise-is-not-always-a-good-thing/comment-page-1/#comment-37146 Richard Bennett Wed, 14 Feb 2007 19:15:26 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/02/14/expertise-is-not-always-a-good-thing/#comment-37146 Tim, take off your tin-foil hat and look at the problem objectively for a second. Engineers invent, lawyers litigate. The patent court is doomed because its very structure has liberal arts majors* passing judgment on the work of engineering majors. There's always going to be a disconnect, and always going to be suits, frivolous or otherwise. Our system of government doesn't have a better solution than to team judges with engineers who can help them understand the technical issues in play. Engineers can't do it alone as they rarely understand the legal issues. This would still be a problem if all the lawyers were neutral and all the engineers were acting in good faith. (*Full disclosure: my only college degree is in philosophy, a liberal arts discipline) Tim, take off your tin-foil hat and look at the problem objectively for a second. Engineers invent, lawyers litigate. The patent court is doomed because its very structure has liberal arts majors* passing judgment on the work of engineering majors. There’s always going to be a disconnect, and always going to be suits, frivolous or otherwise.

Our system of government doesn’t have a better solution than to team judges with engineers who can help them understand the technical issues in play. Engineers can’t do it alone as they rarely understand the legal issues. This would still be a problem if all the lawyers were neutral and all the engineers were acting in good faith.

(*Full disclosure: my only college degree is in philosophy, a liberal arts discipline)

]]> By: Richard Bennett http://techliberation.com/2007/02/14/expertise-is-not-always-a-good-thing/comment-page-1/#comment-48884 Richard Bennett Wed, 14 Feb 2007 19:15:26 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/02/14/expertise-is-not-always-a-good-thing/#comment-48884 Tim, take off your tin-foil hat and look at the problem objectively for a second. Engineers invent, lawyers litigate. The patent court is doomed because its very structure has liberal arts majors* passing judgment on the work of engineering majors. There's always going to be a disconnect, and always going to be suits, frivolous or otherwise.<br><br>Our system of government doesn't have a better solution than to team judges with engineers who can help them understand the technical issues in play. Engineers can't do it alone as they rarely understand the legal issues. This would still be a problem if all the lawyers were neutral and all the engineers were acting in good faith.<br><br>(*Full disclosure: my only college degree is in philosophy, a liberal arts discipline) Tim, take off your tin-foil hat and look at the problem objectively for a second. Engineers invent, lawyers litigate. The patent court is doomed because its very structure has liberal arts majors* passing judgment on the work of engineering majors. There’s always going to be a disconnect, and always going to be suits, frivolous or otherwise.

Our system of government doesn’t have a better solution than to team judges with engineers who can help them understand the technical issues in play. Engineers can’t do it alone as they rarely understand the legal issues. This would still be a problem if all the lawyers were neutral and all the engineers were acting in good faith.

(*Full disclosure: my only college degree is in philosophy, a liberal arts discipline)

]]>