laws have to provide notice of what is or is not required. A law can not be so convoluted as to defy comprehension. This should not be confused with ignorance of law. This is indiciferability of the law.
It is not rewriting a law to toss out an incomprehensible law. It is not rewriting the law to declare a patent invalid.
Quote: “It is not rewriting a law to toss out an incomprehensible law. It is not rewriting the law to declare a patent invalid.”
And what part of the law is incomprehensible, exactly? Can you cite me the section of Title 35 that is confusing? I realize that no statute is perfect but here, the Court took it upon itself to say, “patent rights smatent rights, you have to license.” Ok, so what if it wasn’t Intellectual Property but real property? Would it be ok for the court to say, screw your property, you have to lease it out?