I take umbrage at the fact that (a) WIPO decisions are not based
on evidence that has been heard from both sides and in many cases
is not true (b) that it is quoted as being "fact" when it is in fact
"assumption" .I am upset that Berryhill posted the case because (a)
I did speak with about the case on the phone and he therefore knew
which case (b)
because he must have known that I did not want
it explicitly disclosed in this thread. As for the decision,
as I say I have not read it and do not want to bother reading
it as have other business afoot. The case is going to Court and
it will be decided there.
"Perhaps this will educate others that "blustering a lot about technicalities and form over substance when it comes to legal matters" is not the same as "having legal knowledge." What do you call "legal knowledge".
DG
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcorandazza  I can't believe three things here:
1) That DG actually takes umbrage at this decision - given the facts.
2) That DG is upset that Berryhill posted a public record.
3) That DG would get a decision and not bother to read it.
There is no "indiscretion" here, DG. Yes, Berryhill posting the decision exposes your foolishness and crushes any sympathy anyone might have for your cause. However, he's done nothing remotely wrong. In fact, he's done a public service by posting the decision. Perhaps this will educate others that "blustering a lot about technicalities and form over substance when it comes to legal matters" is not the same as "having legal knowledge." |
http://www.circleid.com/posts/jurisd...or_too_little/