3 ms·

They have a personal interest, albeit indirect, in tending to decide in favor of patentees. They ignore the Supreme Court's repeated (if somewhat muddled) atte

They have a personal interest, albeit indirect, in tending to decide in favor of patentees. They ignore the Supreme Court's repeated (if somewhat muddled) attempts to get them to take a more balanced view. I will grant that they're probably not cynically corrupt: they probably sincerely believe they're doing the right thing for the country. But the convergence of this belief with their personal interests is just a little too convenient.

rayiner 13y ago
In terms of direct personal interest, it's hard to get someone less interested than a federal COA judge. They have life tenure and a Constitutionally guaranteed six figure salary. They typically serve for life and it is exceedingly rare for them to ever return to private practice. They also have a direct incentive to make patentability more difficult: it means more work for them at no additional pay. Do they have an indirect interest in making themselves more relevant? Possibly, but so does any court. Yet the overwhelming trend over the last few decades has been for the courts to cede territory. Strongly favoring arbitration, giving broad interpretation to bars like standing, etc. Most people worry about the opposite problem: courts declining to exercise jurisdiction in the face of the other two branches. Calling this "corruption" stretches the word to the point it loses any meaning, and also deeply confuses the causation. The Federal Circuit doesn't skew towards aggrandizing patent law because they somehow want to benefit their former colleagues in practice (and some of the strongest advocates like Judge Reader never even practiced!) Rather, people who strongly believe in patent protections self-select into becoming Federal Circuit judges.
- ScottBurson 13y ago
  All right, point taken. But I still think a strong word is called for, and I don't have a ready alternative. Maybe "renegade", the term Scalia used for the Eastern District of Texas, will do. "Ideological" doesn't quite seem strong enough to me, though it's getting there.

rayiner 13y ago

In terms of direct personal interest, it's hard to get someone less interested than a federal COA judge. They have life tenure and a Constitutionally guaranteed six figure salary. They typically serve for life and it is exceedingly rare for them to ever return to private practice. They also have a direct incentive to make patentability more difficult: it means more work for them at no additional pay. Do they have an indirect interest in making themselves more relevant? Possibly, but so does any court. Yet the overwhelming trend over the last few decades has been for the courts to cede territory. Strongly favoring arbitration, giving broad interpretation to bars like standing, etc. Most people worry about the opposite problem: courts declining to exercise jurisdiction in the face of the other two branches. Calling this "corruption" stretches the word to the point it loses any meaning, and also deeply confuses the causation. The Federal Circuit doesn't skew towards aggrandizing patent law because they somehow want to benefit their former colleagues in practice (and some of the strongest advocates like Judge Reader never even practiced!) Rather, people who strongly believe in patent protections self-select into becoming Federal Circuit judges.

ScottBurson 13y ago
All right, point taken. But I still think a strong word is called for, and I don't have a ready alternative. Maybe "renegade", the term Scalia used for the Eastern District of Texas, will do. "Ideological" doesn't quite seem strong enough to me, though it's getting there.