January 25, 2010
Quinn the Eskimo
Charming Gene Quinn of IPWatchdog is running a hot streak. An anonymous comment crowning Quinn "the King of Douchebags" put him enough out of sorts to change his web site to admit only registered supplicants to comment on his blog. One can only speculate as to his apoplexy if he instead had been titled the Queen of Douche Bags. Quinn's expressed desire is "to encourage an atmosphere free of the petty and vile Internet discourse that so many traffic in these days." Apparently, someone else has the same goal. Invent Help is suing Quinn for "false and misleading claims in their Internet advertising." Invent Help and Quinn compete to service inventors. Quinn opines that "they apparently do not like the fact that I have written about invention submission scams..." Apparently not.
On a personal note, months ago I kindly requested that Gene take me off his mass email list, which he saw fit to put me on without asking. He curtly replied, noting that he would take me off his blogroll also. Petty pique. Best wishes, Gene.
To quell untoward speculation: this entry title is merely a continuing foist at being artsy-fartsy. Astute readers will recall that Quinn the Eskimo is a Bob Dylan song. The blog entry title has no particular intimation.
Posted by Patent Hawk at January 25, 2010 8:11 PM |
Recalling the warm (non)response to my pointing out your erroneous reply to my comments about your focus, I'd say that you and Gene are two peas in a pod, patent hawk - a petty pique pod.
Posted by: Noise above Law at January 25, 2010 8:50 PM
Noise above Law,
Cute, but what the hell are you referring to?
Posted by: Patent Hawk at January 26, 2010 1:28 AM
Please tell Quinn his CAPTCHA code entry box is not showing up for posting comments but is required for posting comments. Catch 22 situation.
Posted by: step back at January 26, 2010 2:59 AM
Not to “interfere” with your stream of conscience postings, or to wake you from your half-sleep, but on your thread
you accused me of a semi-coherent rant and having trouble handling two themes in a single blog entry.
I refuted your view and pointed out just why you were off-base.
It seems that you and Gene share the same trenchant "my view is correct no matter what" mindset.
I also recall that you removed the link to Gene’s blog site for a time, just as you say he was going to do to you – now I know why.
Posted by: Noise above Law at January 26, 2010 4:57 AM
I think your readers will better relate to the Manfred Mann version of your 'entry title'.
Posted by: Mindless Drivel at January 26, 2010 9:19 AM
Petty much Noise?
Posted by: 6000 at January 26, 2010 1:59 PM
Good point about the Manfred Mann version. It rocks. Dylan seldom had the definitive version of his own material.
Talk about a rocking tidbit of Quinn the Eskimo, rolled into a "Mighty Quinn" medley, Leon Russell put out a rollicking soulful live version, on his 1973 Leon Live album.
Noise above Law,
I think 6000 has you this one.
I post blog entries for information and entertainment, not run a debating society. You kids want to tie one on in a stream of comments, have at it. You came to the right place. Sorry not to join in, I’m a bit pinched for time.
Following the axiom "it's not what they call you, it's what you answer to," I often give my readers the last word, as a matter of courtesy, and an otherwise lack of inclination to give a flying squirrel about what others think. Just because you didn't roust me for a response doesn't make me petty. On the contrary. Petty people are often obstinate. If you posited a refutation that went unanswered, salve your ego with getting the better of me. Declare victory and walk off the field, leaving me proverbially sucking left hind teat.
Posted by: Patent Hawk at January 26, 2010 4:35 PM
Thank you – your reply is validating in oh so many ways.
Let’s start with a famoose adage – if 6 agrees with you, you are probably wrong. The corollary holds – if you agree with 6, you are probably wrong. It’s a pretty solid adage as those things go. You said: “I think 6000 has you this one.” I’ll leave it to you to connect the dots.
I will hand 6 a compliment – three words and it was pretty funny. But got me? Petty? – I laugh. I answered your flippin question (in case you were half asleep, let me repeat it: “Cute, but what the hell are you referring to?” – You asked, I answered. Why would answering your question be petty? Sounds like incoherent ranting to me.
Let’s move onto another validation:
"Sorry not to join in, I’m a bit pinched for time."
Well obviously not a completely accurate statement – you did answer with a post here.
I said “It seems that you and Gene share the same trenchant "my view is correct no matter what" mindset."
You comment back
“Petty people are often obstinate.”
“…an otherwise lack of inclination to give a flying squirrel about what others think.”
Kinda just like I said…not caring about what others think is analogous to “my view…no matter what.”
You see Hawk, I also post for entertainment and do like to use someone’s words to disprove what they say (and 6 is a good example, as he provides such abundant rope). I rather like the definition of obstinate of “stubbornly persistent in wrongdoing” – your flying squirrel marks you as stubbornly persistent, your views, as I have highlighted, mark the “in wrongdoing.”
Your own definition marks you as the petty pod partner.
Your temporary removal of Gene’s blog link when you criticize him for the same thing – definitely entertaining.
You know, maybe 6 meant that Noise sees much petty here (well, we both know that it not what he meant – see the first comment above).
Yet another validation:
“If you posited a refutation that went unanswered, salve your ego with getting the better of me. Declare victory and walk off the field, leaving me proverbially sucking left hind teat.”
Why win in silence when I can rouse you into a reply such as you have given that salve’s ego such much more thoroughly? But wait, you don’t have time to answer…
Finally, I offer a more appropriate adage that comes to mind with your reply – and may better fit your “not run a debating society” – it’s better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and prove it.
I’m guessing there’s no debate on that…
Posted by: Noise above Law at January 26, 2010 8:53 PM
"it’s better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and prove it.
I’m guessing there’s no debate on that…"
lol. True dat' true dat'. Now if only she would follow her own advice...
For God's sake, please don't respond and "remove all doubt". Petty please.
Posted by: Jules at January 27, 2010 8:46 AM
I find your post humorous.
Posted by: Noise above Law at January 27, 2010 9:17 AM
...see, I can be not obstinate.
Posted by: Noise above Law at January 27, 2010 9:18 AM
Ahhh, good. Believe me I often agree with what you say, but that "get the last word in, edgewise" approach grates on my sanity. As you might have guessed, I was the one over at just-an-examiner arguing with you about that period. I had to just stop, otherwise that conversation would go on forever. No hard feelings ;)
Posted by: Jules at January 27, 2010 10:04 AM
Ha, this post is full of WIN. Eugenius gets spanked in the main post, and Noise About Law has the poopoopants in the extended over a lack of response to a comment that Hawk probably never even noticed.
Love it. 4 Stars. Would read again.
Posted by: IP Crotchflog at January 27, 2010 7:11 PM
Hawk begging off that he does not have time, or as the poster above indicates, that he hasn’t read the response are misleading notions.
As can be seen both in this and the earlier thread, Hawk actually DID take the time and DID respond to my initial posts.
It is his responses that continue in seeming ignorance and banality that I question. It is in the light I shine on his position that the absence of response is telling.
Hawk then wants to beg off with a “I’m not into debating” stance.
Hmmm, if you do not want to debate, what are you doing having a legal blog in the first place? The legal arena is rich with debate – that’s an important part of what we do!
Posted by: Noise above Law at January 28, 2010 5:35 AM
I take issue with calling Gene Quinn the "King of Douchebags." He is more of a run of the mill douchebag. At best he could be a "Viscount of Douchebags", more likely a "Shift Leader o' Douchebags".
It is pretty funny that he locked his blog down over that one comment though. Nothing says "nobody cares about this blog" quite like a blog with zero comments. Now he's begging for money to defend himself with. Whoops, maybe you shouldn't have run your mouth about Invent Help, Gene.
Posted by: Blog Gossiper at January 28, 2010 5:37 AM
I think Hawk's stance was more of a "I have a life" stance, Noise.
Posted by: Blog Gossiper at January 28, 2010 5:40 AM
You are a bit off on a few things.
Gene's post is not begging for money. Rather, he is saying that he will gladly accept money. Huge difference.
*Gene can come across as a douche. Hawk comes across in the same way with such coments as his flying squirrel. Like I said, two pees in a pod.
Hawk's stance was NOT "I have a life" - it was a cop out on actually discussing substantive matters where his offered opinion is plainly wrong. Note that his "excuses" of time and reply don't wash as he did read the initial posts, albeit read them poorly, and he did take the time to reply, albeit without substance.
There is nothing wrong with having an opinion, but having an opinion and not being to back it up sets a poor example for a legal forum. Don't get me wrong - I like his irreverence. I do find his posts entertaining for the most part. I simply take issue with vapid viewpoints. Seriously, we get enough of that with 6 posting all over the place.
Posted by: Noise above Law at January 28, 2010 8:27 AM
One can only speculate as to his apoplexy if he instead had been titled the Queen of Douche Bags.
Nobody would mistake Gene Quinn for Noise Above Law.
Posted by: Registered User at February 9, 2010 10:59 PM
Because of Quinn being bashed on another blog I have been led to this discussion. Although I do not agree with some of his views points does not mean that his stance is "my view is all that matters." B
As I posted on this other blog, so he's opinionated, big deal. What should matter is the substance of his blog posts. Just because someone does not agree with you does not make them "out of it" or egotistical. I respect Gene because he does so much to support the small inventor and frankly seems to be someone who is making a difference in the patent world. That is why he was granted interviews with Peggy Folcarino, Mr. Michelson, Judge Rader and others.
If you follow the IPWatchdog blog you will recall (as Hawk points out) that the comments you refer to above were comments made to an article he wrote about his pending lawsuit with ISC. Did you ever stop to think that maybe the comments were removed because of the pending case? That was the first thing I thought. And beyond that, unlike this blog, Quinn does not leave comments on his blog that are nothing but insults and "flame throwing" such as the "douchebag" comment you refer to above.
I can't find the article he wrote the comment that he is trying "to encourage an atmosphere free of the petty and vile Internet discourse that so many traffic in these days." But he even says that if all you are going to do is flame throw and not add anything to the discussion, then they are not welcome to comment. He does not remove the comments of those who disagree with him, only those who name call and bash him or others and act like children. I think it's classy really.
Whether you like Quinn or not, agree with his political stances or not, he gets the job done. Do I agree with everything Quinn posts, no of course not. But he does not just post what others write and he does not make assumptions to what others think and feel. He does his research and reaches out to those of power within the patent world and is making a difference for the betterment of all of us individual inventors. How can you not have respect for that?
Oh and one last thing, I am not an attorney but since when does an attorney and an invention submission company "compete?" Last I checked attorneys are licensed to practice law and invention submission companies are not. Even the USPTO has sued ISC, so why is Gene a douchbag for standing up to the ISC bullies and trying to protect those of us who have very few on our side?
Posted by: Curious at April 13, 2010 1:00 PM