RSS
Patent Hawk Files Supreme Court Brief On Behalf Of All Oregon; Oregon Officials Say 'Who?'
from the good-work! dept
You may recall that a guy named Gary Odom, who refers to himself often in the third person as "Patent Hawk," has been known to stop by here every so often to insult us without ever, you know, backing up a point. His day job is helping companies do patent/prior art searches. Last year, he made a bit of news by suing Microsoft for a patent he held on "editable toolbars" (exciting stuff). Microsoft later accused him of violating a contract, in that Odom (whoops) had worked for Microsoft, and had an agreement about not filing for certain types of patents, or asserting them against Microsoft.
Now, with the Supreme Court agreeing to hear the Bilski case, which could have a big impact on the patentability of software and business models, a bunch of folks have been dutifully filing their amici briefs attempting to convince the Supreme Court one way or the other. These latest briefs more or less reflect what was in the original briefs filed prior to the CAFC ruling. Still, there was one interesting one: Odom and a buddy filed their own brief (which Odom, again in the third person praised his own brief as being "cogently potent in its brevity and conservatism" -- nothing like patting oneself on the back).
The brief itself is fine (though I believe a bit misleading in what it leaves out... but that's what these briefs tend to do). However, what stood out, was the odd claim on the brief that it was filed on behalf of the State of Oregon (where Odom resides). That's quite a claim... and it appears the State of Oregon, in the form of its Attorney General, doesn't agree with Odom that this represents the state:
Now, with the Supreme Court agreeing to hear the Bilski case, which could have a big impact on the patentability of software and business models, a bunch of folks have been dutifully filing their amici briefs attempting to convince the Supreme Court one way or the other. These latest briefs more or less reflect what was in the original briefs filed prior to the CAFC ruling. Still, there was one interesting one: Odom and a buddy filed their own brief (which Odom, again in the third person praised his own brief as being "cogently potent in its brevity and conservatism" -- nothing like patting oneself on the back).
The brief itself is fine (though I believe a bit misleading in what it leaves out... but that's what these briefs tend to do). However, what stood out, was the odd claim on the brief that it was filed on behalf of the State of Oregon (where Odom resides). That's quite a claim... and it appears the State of Oregon, in the form of its Attorney General, doesn't agree with Odom that this represents the state:
Tony Green, a spokesman for the Oregon Attorney General, said no one in his office had heard of Odom's purported statewide representation before [Joe Mullin at The Prior Art] called. "It is our preference that people accurately convey who they're writing an amicus brief on behalf of," says Green. "We neither authorized this or had any knowledge of it."Of course, Green also points out that the Supreme Court figured out that Odom's claim to represent the State of Oregon was backed up with about as much weight as his typical insults, and properly filed the brief as just being from Odom and his friend, rather than the state of Oregon.
I have an app...
Top 5 Reasons Why Mobile Analytics Is Important
How My First Game Made $28,623
I have an idea...
5 Things You Should Know About Crowdfunding For Startups
App Developer Conversations: Successful Fundraising Techniques
I’m looking for research...
Why Data Is The New Oil, With Dan Foreman Of Lumi Mobile
Innovate More. Code Less: Optimizing Open-Source Utilization
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Really?
Often?
Mike, c'mon.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Really?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Really?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Really?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Really?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Really?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Right
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Impersonation of a Person in Authority or just Fraud ?
They should.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Impersonation of a Person in Authority or just Fraud ?
Odom obvioulsy doesn't care about his reputation.
Pulling stuff like this, how can people really take him seriously?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Bleh!
Perhaps I should sue him for mental distress. :-P
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Patent Hawk
If you want to find prickly over ripe ego's look no farther then your own clients at M$.
Keep your day job.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patent Hawk
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Leave Hawkie alone !
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
With so many briefs basically hiding their points within long winded dissertations, it is a pleasure to read one that isn't.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Smart guy, bad tactics
So my advice - take what he says with a grain of salt. The attacks are the norm and I usually don't agree with his opinions, but there's almost always something entertaining in what he has to say.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Um... IANAL, but
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
stop the shilling!!!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: stop the shilling!!!
I find this quite funny, since I pretty much disagree with everything Microsoft says about patents: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081020/1938442601.shtml
Not only that, but I've pointed it out to you guys before. So why do you keep insisting otherwise?
You don't build credibility by stating stuff that is demonstrably false.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: stop the shilling!!!
BTW, United Nations and I announce you to be of no significance.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Lets all jump on the attack Mike bandwagon
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment