Huh? -- Stage 3

In the New York Times there is an article concerning a law professor at George Washington University, George Duffy, who has uncovered a fundamental flaw in the appointment of judges in charge of patent appeals and arguments. The flaw suggests that the current method of appointment of these patent judges is unconstitutional.

Unfortunately, due to the confusing wording of this article, I am not entirely sure what the flaw is. I do not believe it is because I have missed something, I have read the article several times, I simply think that this article is badly written. The article begins by examining Mr. Duffy and his works as a law professor, and then continues by explaining the possible impact that could arise because of this uncovered flaw. “The problem Professor Duffy identified at least arguably invalidates every decision of the patent court decided by a three-judge panel that included at least one judge appointed after March 2000.” This sounds important, too bad I don’t know why.

The author then continues by describing the government’s unwillingness to comment. Then the author outhlines the rules for appointment for judges, though not the judges that the article is supposed to be discussing. No, the author discusses tax judges. There is a short paragraph suggesting that there has been a new law concerning the patent appointments, and that it is unconstitutional, but there is no description in this article as to why this is unconstitutional.

I, on the whole, found this article to be terribly irritating. I kept waiting for an explanation to understand what the “flaw” actually was, but I never received one. I have actually begun to wonder if the author even knows what he’s talking about.