Rather, I was saying that you should go easy on EFF and Beta News.

And I called your post self-promoting because YOU said it was so at the end of the post.

We’ll talk about function copying in patents the next time you write about AT&T v Microsoft, and how your comments above suggest that software patents may be patents for functionality enabled by software:)

I don’t want to get dragged into this swamp of an argument again, but just in case any readers are confused about this: the “insult” to professor Duffy occurred several months before I wrote the Teleflex article and was on a completely different subject.

And I have no idea what point you’re making here. That I’m not ever allowed to criticize the ideas of people who have greater expertise than me?

And yes, the Teleflex piece was no less clumsy than the Cato paper, which you can’t even defend.

It’s certainly true that patents provide “more certain protection against the copying of the function of a program more broadly.” But it’s far from obvious that “protection against copying” is always desirable. Outside the patent context, such copying is often known as “competition,” and public policy generally aims to enhance it.

Let me see if I can spell this out for you: Copyright covers the actual string of 1s and 0s that make up a particular piece of software against copying. Patents cover the “function of a program more broadly” against copying.

Now, in the posts you reference above, I’m clearly talking about copying in the latter sense. And in this post, when I talk about “copying,” I’m clearly talking about it in the former sense—the actual 1s and 0s. The problem here isn’t that I don’t understand patent law, it’s that you seem to be going out of your way to misunderstand what I write.

Also I can’t believe you’re referring people to your post on my Teleflex article, which is probably the most embarrassingly clumsy hit piece you’ve ever written about me. If I were you, I would try to keep people as far away from that post as possible to spare myself any further embarrassment.

It’s certainly true that patents provide “more certain protection against the copying of the function of a program more broadly.” But it’s far from obvious that “protection against copying” is always desirable. Outside the patent context, such copying is often known as “competition,” and public policy generally aims to enhance it.

Let me see if I can spell this out for you: Copyright covers the actual string of 1s and 0s that make up a particular piece of software against copying. Patents cover the “function of a program more broadly” against copying.

Now, in the posts you reference above, I’m clearly talking about copying in the latter sense. And in this post, when I talk about “copying,” I’m clearly talking about it in the former sense—the actual 1s and 0s. The problem here isn’t that I don’t understand patent law, it’s that you seem to be going out of your way to misunderstand what I write.

Also I can’t believe you’re referring people to your post on my Teleflex article, which is probably the most embarrassingly clumsy hit piece you’ve ever written about me. If I were you, I would try to keep people as far away from that post as possible to spare myself any further embarrassment.

1) TLF Post: Copying Innovation is Hard 2) TLF Post: But What Are Software Patents Good For? (where you famously noted that copying can be competition) 3) IPcentral Post: Patently Ridiculous, Really

Now, I’m not trying to claim that you are misinformed or newly informed Tim, I’m just suggesting that you probably should go easier on EFF and Beta News for making a, well, reasonable mistake.

Also, good job correcting Donald (not David) Stout’s name. He needs all the press hits:)

Great to see you taking my advice Tim, and especially because you wrote a whole self-promoting post on taking my advice. I only told you at least 3 times coping is not necessarily pertinent when it comes to patents. Most recently, I gave this feedback to your American patent article.