Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Patent Law Blogs -> IPBiz

Patent Law

: IPBiz

California clueless? Myelofibrosis debate a remake of Dumb and Dumber?

By Lawrence B. Ebert, Esq.

IPBiz continues to get chuckles at the "back and forth" on californiastemcellreport on "how much" credit CIRM should be getting on the myelofibrosis work. Of course, none of these people are talking about who would get the most financial benefit if the science took off. You get three guesses, and "California taxpayer" is NOT a correct answer. Dumb and Dumber? The more one sees of this stuff, the happier one is to be in New Jersey, where there is some figment of common sense, at least as to public funding of stem cell research as the economy goes down the tubes.

On californiastemcellreport:

jeff sheehy said-->

I hate to whack you guys, but David and John, this is extremely silly. UCSD cites CIRM support in its press release. I'm sure CIRM support is cited in the publication since citing funding sources for published research is obligatory. Debating what role any dollar of support from any funder had or did not have is as stupid and pointless as the questions asked at the recent Democratic Presidential debate mucked up by ABC. We'll have to nickname you two "George" and "Charlie" if this keeps up.

[IPBiz may discuss Sheehy's unfortunate remark later.]

Jensen said -->

Thanks for your comments, Jeff. However, the criticism of CIRM's statement came from a well-regarded scientist. There is no doubt that CIRM funding played a role in the research, which the researcher acknowledged in her article. The question is whether CIRM overstated the significance of its funding.

See also

On CIRM taking credit for myelofibrosis work

***
Of the analogies to the "George" and "Charlie" show on the Obama/Clinton debate in Pennsylvania, maybe the
californiastemcellreport people ought to note one >commentary about George:

He's all about the tit-for-tat, inside-the-Beltway minutiae that NOBODY trying to get a college loan or figure out how to keep their home or is worried about the skyrocketing cost of food CARES ABOUT.

Maybe the California taxpayer doesn't care about their bickering about "who" gets "what" credit for the work, but might like
to know, that even if commercially successful, the work would not benefit the California taxpayer.

***
If the people arguing credit for myelofibrosis (who might be deemed "The Three Stooges") ever wise up, they might
take a leaf from the Glen Poshard notebook, and plead "inadvertent stoogism."

***

Further to the Obama/Clinton debate, Larry Kudlow wrote:

Look, here?s the deal: Obama bungled the tax question, big time. Period. End of sentence. End of story. To my liberal friends out there all I can say is: Get over it. Your guy has a very poor grasp of basic economic principles.

IPBiz notes that there are many lawyers who have limited abilities in math, and many economists who have limited understanding of law. One finds a perfect storm in Obama's advocacy of Lemley's theories on patent law reform, now
rejected by enough senators that S.1145 won't even get a vote. The unions figured out the underlying jobs issue in patent reform, but Obama never did. Just as the folks at californiastemcellreport never figured out the "payback the taxpayer" issue. They probably never will. Simpson at least "talks the talk," but he can't "walk the walk." For example, his poorly thought
out re-examination challenge of the WARF patents, cost California taxpayers (and others) a lot of money. Simpson never mentions that the USPTO found that the references he (and PubPat) cited to the USPTO were NOT enabled (i.e., useless) and the declarations of Trounson, Loring and the others to be conclusory (i.e., useless). Sound and fury, signifying nothing.

***

Also, on the Clinton/Obama debate, the LA Times wrote

Said Rick Kaplan, executive producer of "CBS Evening News": "It's never a good idea to irritate the audience."

As a former ABC producer, Kaplan said that, on a personal level, he hopes the controversy does not hurt Gibson, whom he called "a great journalist and a great person."

But as the producer of a competitive program, Kaplan acknowledged thinking that the reaction could give CBS an opening.

"Maybe it gives me a chance to attract some of those viewers if they go hunting," he said.

One notes Kaplan did not profer a "hope" about George. Nor did Kaplan say much about CBS News ratings under the Katie Couric regime, marked by (among other things) Katie's plagiarism of a story about "her" first library card. Peter Jennings would never have done that. Walter Cronkite would never have done that. Rick, it's never a good idea to pass off someone else's work as your own, even if the Harvard Business Review tells you to plagiarize with pride.

The "30 minute national news format" is becoming a relic of times past, with Charlie Gibson probably the last remnant of the Cronkite imagery. Arguing about "who's best" here is like the calforniastemcellreport people arguing about credit for
the myelofibrosis work: it's "deck chairs on the Titanic."

***Saved for a later date

Colbert I. King's comments about the 1960 West Virginia primary.

Jon Stewart on the Obama/Clinton debate

Full post as published by IPBiz on April 19, 2008 (boomark / email).