Linear Algebra and Its Applications, second edition, by Gilbert Strang. It's hilarious!

As to consequences, out of curiosity I Googled the Canadian fertility rate: it's 1.68 per woman, which is substantially below the replacement rate of 2.1 per woman.  See here http://www.med.uottawa.ca/sim/data/Birth_Rates_e.htm

However, it crashed in the early '60s and has been fairly steady since, so one can't say that SSM in Canada caused it.  It is possible that acceptance of SSM is a symptom of a dying society rather than a cause.

SSM is not so much bad as that traditional marriage is good and necessary.  If a society does not encourage men to get married, a lot of them won't; that's how men are wired.  I sympathize with the libertarian position of getting government out of the marriage question entirely, but thats the fool in me.  

It does seem like people make up their minds based upon factors that don't have much to do with evidence, so evidence serves only rationalizations.  So SSM is just a part of a larger cultural shift/decay, and if it's on its way, well, we'll see how it works out.

ctlaw, thanks for the links.  Any information is appreciated in understanding the new law.

However, I still don't think that the grace period change is the crucial point.  According to those links, the grace period provisions appear at first blush very similar to current law.  For example, currently any 3rd party disclosure is assumed to be prior art and can be used against an applicant, just as is practically the case with the new AIA (because of the view that the PTO is reputed to be taking). 

The real difference is that an applicant can no longer swear behind his application filing date.  This is the real difference in the prior art rules, not the prior art rules themselves!  

I think you are correct that the grace period has effectively changed because of this.  But I maintain that all problems with the new law stem from the first-to-file nature of the new system.  And I fear that Professor Epstein is right that it is a problem.

Thanks, Robert!  Expert I am not, but I hope the Professor will pop back in and enlighten us further.

As to Robert E. Lee's points, patents are not and will not be renewable. Patents also (section 101) cannot encompass a human organism.  Patents of gene sequences have been upheld by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit because those sequences cannot exist independently of a human, so patenting the sequences does not "encompass a human organism," or so the reasoning seems to go.  But the Supreme Court appears ready to hear the appeal.

As I say, patent law is hideously complex.  I ask three different Primary Examiners (folks empowered to decide on allowability of a patent) and I'll often get three different answers.  I'm certain that AIA will not solve this problem. If you are interested, take a look at the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) : http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/index.html

I should add that I do not speak for the USPTO.

As far as I can tell, prior art statutes have been rearranged, but not substantially changed.  The problematic new one year grace period referred to in the article exists now in substantially the same form.  So in the area of patent law with which I am most familiar, Professor Epstein seems to get it wrong.

However, this is not to say that his main point that this is a bad and unnecessary revision is incorrect.  The rest of the world is on a first-to-file system while we had remained first-to-invent.  I'd say we've done pretty well as innovators to date, so why the change?  

I'm guessing it has a lot to do with the current administration and the Democrat congress of 2009-2010 and their internationalist bent, along with their penchant for crony capitalism.  My suspicion is that switching from first-to-invent to first-inventor-to-file shifts the advantage toward more established players: now a little guy has to not only prove that he invented it first, but that the other guy stole his idea and didn't invent it independently.  

This whole AIA thing affects me more than most of the Ricochetti. Why?  In my declining years (I have very recently entered what Cicero defined as old age) I have become a Patent Examiner in the semiconductor arts at the USPTO.

I read Professor Epstein's column with great interest, hoping to learn from a master pedagogue what the new AIA will entail in layman's terms.  The fact of the matter is that patent law is terribly complex, and last week I got my first brief introduction in the changes in "prior art" rules.  As AIA filings are unlikely to appear on my docket anytime soon (I am now examining cases filed in May 2012) I won't be getting intensive training from the PTO anytime soon.

I know that the Professor has a constrained space in which to make his argument, but I came away rather disappointed.  While the prior art rules have been changed, the AIA doesn't eliminate "the older rule that only prior art developed more than one year before the filing date can count against the patent."  That's still there, along with the other rules that apply anytime before applicant's invention. Continued...

Whose welcome? My welcome? What difference, at this point, does it make?!

So God made a farmer.  Just in case Valiuth and Blackadder are unable to fulfill their duties due to unexpected scandal.

If you are going to France, let me give you a warning...

I typically find Peter Robinson and Rob Long to be interesting, engaging, and insightful, but on this count I agree with Albert Arthur. With respect to the current polls, they wallow in pessimism, not in truth or analysis. If, in fact, America re-elects Obama, I will be surprised, but not shocked. And if we do, it will be a huge indicator of who we are as a nation. Discussion about that is welcome. As it is, their pessimism is neither insightful, engaging, nor interesting.

For the record, I don't believe Obama is leading, and short of a real, major gaffe (as opposed to his past media-driven "gaffes") Romney will win by a clear margin. We'll see which reading proves correct in November.

1. The Taking of Pelham 123 (1974): This is my number one movie of all time largely because of its complete lack of pretention; i.e. it is a movie, not a "film."   But it has a really interesting, gripping story, great characters, top-notch comic relief, ruthlessness with very little explicit or graphic violence, and perhaps the best cast of character actors of any movie of the last 50 years. It's 100minutes of entertainment. I didn't see the remake, but I read that it's everything the original is not.

2. Duck Soup. Just hilarious. Of course, if you want to see Chico play the piano, you'll need to pick a different film.  To be honest, I prefer Horsefeathers, but I'm trying to be objective.

3. Brideshead Revisited (UK miniseries). If I have to be serious at the movies, this is a faithful and complete adaptation of Waugh's deep, and deeply moving, Magnum Opus. Nearly all of his sparkling dialogue is included.

JM Hanes:

Let me restate my argument, at least for the benefit of anyone else who may be reading.

"Justice Roberts...may have sacrificed the Constitution's last remaining limits on federal power for very little—a little peace and quiet from attacks during a presidential election year."

You have characterized this statement as ad hominem. You have reiterated that by saying, repeatedly, that Mr. Yoo accused the Chief Justice of valuing the constitution so lightly as to accept "a little peace and quiet" as adequate compensation. At the very least, this characterization is uncharitable. The entire rather short article  focusses on what Justice Roberts may have been trying to achieve in light of, in Mr. Yoo's view, the strangeness of the decision. This sentence simply states Mr. Yoo's opinion that the Chief Justice has failed catastrophically in his aims, not that he was craven.

Sorry that you think I joined Ricochet in an indignant pique. I honestly thought my rather minor, but as a matter of decorum, important point would be met with consideration.  Again, I'm happy to entertain your arguments; can you please be clearer about why you are so certain of your interpretation?

"...worst sort of ad hominem." "Motive based 'analysis'..." "Impugning the Chief Justice Personally..." "...dangerous, as well as ugly..." 

If you "admire Mr. Yoo tremendously," then you will reread the article and explain precisely why you are so convinced of imputation of motive. Keep in mind that you are the one who is evidently quite indignant at the imputation of motive; you should present the evidence for it and not merely assert.

Mr. Yoo stated that that's all his decision was going to get, not what he meant or intended to get out of it. Mr. Yoo is calling into question the Chief Justice's judgment, not necessarily his motives. Peter's "damning" characterization can fairly be read the same way.

It is not that it sounds like ad hominem to me, but that it is ad hominem according to your stated standards.  What it does sound like to me is that you have chosen an interpretation to give yourself license to engage in precisely the behavior you condemn. Let me add a following comment to clarify why I am being so seemingly strident.

Well, JM Hanes, you just got me to join Ricochet.com, so kudos to you! I've actually been meaning to for a while now, but now I can respond. 

If find the assertion that Professor Yoo was engaging in an ad hominem attack to be curious. The sentence in question is an opinion about the results of Justice Roberts's compromise decision; it does not presuppose any particular intent on Justice Roberts's part at all. A quick glance at the context of the full article doesn't seem to alter that conclusion about this sentence.  The only way to deem it ad hominem I think is to impugn Mr. Yoo's motives, which would be, ironically, ad hominem (surely unintentionally so)!