We wish them the very best of luck in this coveted battle. And hope that our readers will come back on who they think is better suited to this adjudicatory position that will entail tackling complicated patent law concepts.
However, I wonder why no leading patent practitioners are gunning for this position? As some of you may know, the eligibility criteria provide that any patent attorney with 10 years of experience are eligible for this post.
On another note, I don’t recollect seeing any announcement of this vacancy at the IPAB. Did this advertisement appear in a newspaper? If so, can those of you in the know please refer us to the same?
And lastly, one hopes that nomenclature does not come in the way of a free and fair adjudication i.e. a “technical” member ought not to get overly “technical” with the law in a bid to do justice to his title. Let me leave you with the wise words of Peter Prescott J who valiantly held forth on the sheer impossibility of defining terms such as “technical” and “technology”:
“The more you try, the more you will discover what a horribly imprecise concept it is. Many have tried to frame an acceptable definition, but to the best of my knowledge none have succeeded. It is like the equally vexing question, “What is Art?”. The hard truth is this: concepts of that sort have no existence, and words of that sort have no meaning, except by human convention; but human beings are hopelessly in disagreement at the margin. And it is, precisely, at the margin of uncertainty that cases come up for decision.”
ps: image from here