Jiggery-Pokery Mock,
Three blind mice
Ran up the Clock,
The clock struck one,
And two got away
With major IPR violations.
That one is just too funny; that Scalia J. says SCOTUS cares.
That SCOTUS should stick to the letter of the law as legislated by Congress pursuant to the Constitution
"Calling the Court's reasoning "absurd," "interpretive jiggery-pokery" and "pure applesauce," Scalia said the law was clear -- and accused the Court of rewriting it once again to get the result it wanted. ... Scalia said, "We should start calling this law SCOTUScare." ... And one more putdown: “Words no longer have meaning if an exchange that is NOT established by a state is [nonetheless abstractly] ‘established by a state.'” ... Scalia has gone to the pantry before for analogies. The “sheer applesauce” reference in Thursday’s King v. Burwell dissent follows along the lines of a 2007 dissent, in which Scalia referred to an opinion by Justice Stephen Breyer as “pure applesauce.”
Does SCOTUS care?
When it comes to inventors and 35 USC 101
There is total contempt by Court.
Take "Alice" (away please).
The letter of the law says:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
No comments:
Post a Comment