Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[JSonnabend]

Oh man, that's great.  I dealt with a dozen or so Lemelson patents in connection with opinion work in my early years at the big firms.  They read like 1950's Popular Mechanics articles crossed with poorly written science fiction from the same period.

I cringe every time someone holds up Lemelson as a champion of the little guy.  He was a charlatan, plain and simple, IMO.

- Jeff

[JimIvey]

I've been fortunate enough to not have to deal with Lemelson directly, but I know people who weren't so fortunate.  I'm happy to see this result as well.  If Jerome had invented anything of substance other than a means for manipulating and abusing an otherwise reasonably good patent system, perhaps I'd feel differently.

Regards.

[clarklawyer]

This is a very emotional issue for many inventors who feel that Lemelson was both a genius and a hero who beat a system stacked against the li'l guy.  I know of one attorney who was "turned in" to his firm for expressing a midly negative opinion of Mr. Lemelson's patenting techniques in an online forum.

That attorney was not punished for his comments, but he did have some uncomfortable moments.  And of course he felt justifiably vindicated once after the district court results in this case.  (No that guy wasn't me as you could probably tell by looking at my relatively big registration number).

But I don't expect the emotion to die down after the CAFC decision.  

[JSonnabend]

Good to see that.  Now, if we can just get some relief from Leo Stoller on the trademark side of the fence . . .