![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Serious lawgasm here.
Feb. 2nd, 2009 04:06 pmOh man, I hope one day I will be able to write like this. I don't know how to describe what makes it so compelling, but it really is.
[Warning: it's a petition for the Supreme Court to review a patent case, so you might not be able to appreciate the beauty. It's a relatively non-technical issue, though: whether a scientist who negligently didn't disclose that a drug comparison used different dosages for each drug can be considered to have "lied" so bad to the Patent Office that the entire patent deserves to be rendered unenforceable.]
The logic is there. The horrible consequences are there, but not overbearing. Every opening sentence to every paragraph is clear-cut and strongly stated. The use of academic criticism and dissenting opinions to make the point is beautiful.
If I had any faith in the Supreme Court's ability to consider patent cases on the merits and not go "OMGscaryscience!" I'd say I can't see how they can possibly resist taking this one. Reading their petition and Judge Rader's dissent in the lower court, I am convinced. It's not just this case that needs to be fixed but a huge problem that is particularly bad in patent law but extends beyond.
There are problems with the facts of this case that make it less than ideal, and given past Supreme Court handling of patent appeals, I am a little worried that they'll take the case, get everyone all excited, and then not even get to the issue. But the petition is framed as raising just that single issue, and it was properly preserved and everything, so this shouldn't be another LabCorp. *crosses fingers* I just don't see another case that looks this good, with this good an advocate for it, coming up anytime soon.
[Warning: it's a petition for the Supreme Court to review a patent case, so you might not be able to appreciate the beauty. It's a relatively non-technical issue, though: whether a scientist who negligently didn't disclose that a drug comparison used different dosages for each drug can be considered to have "lied" so bad to the Patent Office that the entire patent deserves to be rendered unenforceable.]
The logic is there. The horrible consequences are there, but not overbearing. Every opening sentence to every paragraph is clear-cut and strongly stated. The use of academic criticism and dissenting opinions to make the point is beautiful.
If I had any faith in the Supreme Court's ability to consider patent cases on the merits and not go "OMGscaryscience!" I'd say I can't see how they can possibly resist taking this one. Reading their petition and Judge Rader's dissent in the lower court, I am convinced. It's not just this case that needs to be fixed but a huge problem that is particularly bad in patent law but extends beyond.
There are problems with the facts of this case that make it less than ideal, and given past Supreme Court handling of patent appeals, I am a little worried that they'll take the case, get everyone all excited, and then not even get to the issue. But the petition is framed as raising just that single issue, and it was properly preserved and everything, so this shouldn't be another LabCorp. *crosses fingers* I just don't see another case that looks this good, with this good an advocate for it, coming up anytime soon.
