8 ms·

"the U.S. legal system lacks people, particularly judges, with technical backgrounds, yet at the same time are intensely unhappy with the decisions of the Feder

"the U.S. legal system lacks people, particularly judges, with technical backgrounds, yet at the same time are intensely unhappy with the decisions of the Federal Circuit" Agreed that what we need are smart generalist judges who care, not technology specialists. Tech specialists are as likely to become corrupt as any other specialists that set and expand the limits of their own power. The CAFC is bad because abuse of its power is in the interest of the judges, not because of ignorance. The result is the worst technology decisions we could fear. Sometimes technical illiteracy seems to shine out as a problem as in the recent EU decision on "forgetting," but the problems there are obvious to any educated layman. It's not tech ignorance that leads to bad decisions but plain old ignorance and corruption by personal interest.

rayiner 12y ago
I find the self interest argument silly. A federal court of appeals appointment is a lifetime appointment, and the last step of a career. There's no revolving door, consulting gigs, etc. Almost all judges serve until they retire entirely, and a COA judge is more likely to die in office than take another job after their service. Your line of reasoning is an instance of a common strain of intellectual laziness: "I don't agree with you, therefore your motives and intentions must be bad or self-serving." There are major ideological issues at play. Many people with no personal interest believe in patent maximalism, just as many people believe in maximization of other property rights. A lot of people think we should privitize water--do you find it so hard to believe that many think we should privatize ideas? My own background is in aerospace engineering. I never imagined until I got into software that anyone would be opposed to patents. When everyone around you wants to work for Pratt and Whitney or Boeing, its easy to dismiss troll lawsuits as: "some minor thing that just affects those startups and their software stuff. Real engineering companies like DuPont and Boeing and Pfizer need patents because those Chinese companies will rip you off and copy your designs down to the English silk screening." I think that's not an unfair characterization of how many engineers think about patents. And the views of the broader engineering community are what inform judges and legislators. I think that's a lot simpler of an explanation for the state of patent law than self-aggrandizing judges.
- jessaustin 12y ago
  The two explanations don't contradict each other. In fact, it's clear that self-interest and a "filter bubble" à la déformation professionnelle would reinforce each other. Why take such pains to differentiate between the two?
  - rayiner 12y ago
    Because the "self-interest" angle is intellectually lazy and in this case very attenuated. There's only so much self-interest you can ascribe to someone with a Constitutionally-guaranteed salary fixed by statute.
    - jessaustin 12y ago
      Clicking through the wikipedia link provided below, I find that six of the twelve non-senior members of the court are described as having worked as patent lawyers, taught patent law, or worked for the USPTO. Several others are described as having worked for firms that do patent law, although their specific duties while there are not described. The point is that after self-interest affects one's thinking during the first several decades of one's career, one is unlikely to have a contrarian epiphany after appointment to this court.
      - pdabbadabba 12y ago
        I think this is basically right, though I want to point out that this is not the same as self interest or corruption -- it's an instance of institutional bias. If I'm understanding you correctly, your argument (which I agree with) is that judges from the backgrounds that you list have spent years steeping in a certain intellectual environment where, simplistically, everyone is a patent maximalist (or, similarly, where nobody questions the fundamentals of the patent regime). They won't immediately (if ever) lose this mindset once they're appointed to the bench. The only reason this distinction matters, I suppose, is that it is fairer to the judges themselves than calling them "corrupt" or "self-interested." It's not the judges' fault if they have worked at patent firms for 30 years before they're appointed. It's the fault of the people appointing them for not selecting from a more intellectually diverse set of candidates.

rayiner 12y ago

I find the self interest argument silly. A federal court of appeals appointment is a lifetime appointment, and the last step of a career. There's no revolving door, consulting gigs, etc. Almost all judges serve until they retire entirely, and a COA judge is more likely to die in office than take another job after their service. Your line of reasoning is an instance of a common strain of intellectual laziness: "I don't agree with you, therefore your motives and intentions must be bad or self-serving." There are major ideological issues at play. Many people with no personal interest believe in patent maximalism, just as many people believe in maximization of other property rights. A lot of people think we should privitize water--do you find it so hard to believe that many think we should privatize ideas? My own background is in aerospace engineering. I never imagined until I got into software that anyone would be opposed to patents. When everyone around you wants to work for Pratt and Whitney or Boeing, its easy to dismiss troll lawsuits as: "some minor thing that just affects those startups and their software stuff. Real engineering companies like DuPont and Boeing and Pfizer need patents because those Chinese companies will rip you off and copy your designs down to the English silk screening." I think that's not an unfair characterization of how many engineers think about patents. And the views of the broader engineering community are what inform judges and legislators. I think that's a lot simpler of an explanation for the state of patent law than self-aggrandizing judges.

jessaustin 12y ago
The two explanations don't contradict each other. In fact, it's clear that self-interest and a "filter bubble" à la déformation professionnelle would reinforce each other. Why take such pains to differentiate between the two?
- rayiner 12y ago
  Because the "self-interest" angle is intellectually lazy and in this case very attenuated. There's only so much self-interest you can ascribe to someone with a Constitutionally-guaranteed salary fixed by statute.
  - jessaustin 12y ago
    Clicking through the wikipedia link provided below, I find that six of the twelve non-senior members of the court are described as having worked as patent lawyers, taught patent law, or worked for the USPTO. Several others are described as having worked for firms that do patent law, although their specific duties while there are not described. The point is that after self-interest affects one's thinking during the first several decades of one's career, one is unlikely to have a contrarian epiphany after appointment to this court.
    - pdabbadabba 12y ago
      I think this is basically right, though I want to point out that this is not the same as self interest or corruption -- it's an instance of institutional bias. If I'm understanding you correctly, your argument (which I agree with) is that judges from the backgrounds that you list have spent years steeping in a certain intellectual environment where, simplistically, everyone is a patent maximalist (or, similarly, where nobody questions the fundamentals of the patent regime). They won't immediately (if ever) lose this mindset once they're appointed to the bench. The only reason this distinction matters, I suppose, is that it is fairer to the judges themselves than calling them "corrupt" or "self-interested." It's not the judges' fault if they have worked at patent firms for 30 years before they're appointed. It's the fault of the people appointing them for not selecting from a more intellectually diverse set of candidates.