Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Addendum to Yesterday's Post on NPR Retraction and the Attacks on Biotechnology

In yesterday's post, I stated that "the author [of "Who Owns You?" has] characterized himself as an intellectual property attorney." It's been years since I read the book, but I seem to clearly recall the author of the book holding himself out as an attorney with expertise in intellectual property. However, that author has contacted me and asked me to retract that statement, stating that he has never claimed to be an "intellectual property attorney." I don't have his book at hand, and perhaps I was mistaken in my recollection, if so I apologize.

I'd rather not delve into his book again, but a quick Google search will show that he claims to be an attorney, to have JD from a US law school, to have spent years researching in the area of intellectual property and technology, to lecture on the subject of intellectual property, and to have published more than one book with a focus on intellectual property. I will leave it to readers to judge for themselves whether these credentials might lead one to infer that he holds himself out as an attorney with some expertise in intellectual property.

8 comments:

drkoepsell said...

I'm emailing you the pdf right away so you can see clearly that I do not claim, nor have I ever claimed as you said, to be an "intellectual property attorney". I am a philosopher and a lawyer (PhD and JD from SUNY Buffalo), with a primarily philosophical interest in issues surrounding intellectual property.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Holman,
Thanks for your perceptive post on Daisey and the similarity between his arguments and those of David Koepsell. There was an earlier extended discussion of "Who Owns You" on PatentDocs and Koepsell showed himself to be a vociferous and prolific generator of misleading statements. It's too bad that he and people like him are able even in some small way to influence the public debate. Thanks for trying to counteract this negative force.

David Koepsell said...

Thank you, Anonymous, for your cowardly 2 cents. I'm quite comfortable that the record shows I have been truthful and logical in my arguments, and am pleased that the courts are beginning to trend in the direction of justice. Kevin Noonan (at PatentDocs has always been respectful in his disagreements with me, and doesn't stoop to accusations or character assassination. We consider each other friends, even while disagreeing. He knows well I have never tried to mislead, but merely made ethical arguments, grounded in a deontological notion of the commons (which Chris never really seems to have engaged with) that disagree with his positions.

all my best,
David

price per head online said...

This is very great thing you have shared with us. Now I found enough resources by your tips about this issue, Thank you.

Glen Vernon said...

The patent eligibility of process claims does not apply to manufacture or composition of matter claims, and thus should not alter the Federal Circuit’s.We are specialize in providing sophisticated Intellectual Property Attorneys to advice to clients of all sizes.

Lucy Hayden said...

Your experts providing good knowledge of intellectual property assets. But we are providing claim terms is critical to patent litigators and must be given careful consideration by patent draftsmen. For More Details visit at this link:- intellectual property attorneys CA

jimmy wilson said...

Superb Post
Necklace Gift Box Target

Happy Days Jacket Replica said...

It sounds good