I wrote these articles (links in sidebar) earlier this year concerning two different Fed.Cir. cases and what may be learned from them. In the end, they are really just vehicles to express my opinions regarding litigation and litigation tactics (Bard v. Gore) and pseudo-§101 pseudo-jurisprudence, i.e., subject matter patentability (Mayo v. Prometheus).
I am not embarassed by these articles, but they are far too long for web reading/browsing, and such an extended, in-depth format is neither sustainable nor preferable. In terms of doing anything people browsing the web will actually read, the writer has to adopt a short-n-sweet, in-your-face, opinion-without-any-support style, which I am now trying in terms of blogging.
Although I love in-ur-face, and I eagerly shorten things whenever possible, I greatly prefer in-depth analysis because then I can actually prove I am right by real-world example, rather than the hand-waving opinion-crap of blogs and the media which normally rely on (1) hypotheticals (i.e., "I want to convince you with something that sounds right, but most likely isn't, and regardless would never occur in the real world"), (2) misunderstanding or misrepresenting one or more specific well-known cases; and/or (3) overblown, over-simplified abstractions of patent law and/or legal principle that are both ridiculous and, in the end, unsupportable (as a way to approach and/or understand the real world).