This morning, President Obama signed the Leahy-Smith Patent Reform Act — enacting it into law. The provisions of the new law have a variety of effective dates. Some changes to the law happen immediately and the increased patent office fees will be instituted on September 26, 2011. Other changes will not be implemented until 2012 and 2013. These include the revised post-grant opposition procedures and the rewriting of the rules of novelty and nonobviousness.
Just to be clear, the transformation did not require the use of machines.
A human pounding wheat with a mallet is a patent eligible process.
Your understanding of the MOT is downright weird.
Sent from iPhone
The process could be performed without a computer, or any machine is the correct way to word it. Same point though.
Um no Leo, that is not my “argument”. My statement of facts, backed, if I were a lawlyer with access to experts, by evidence, and then followed by a simple “yes” is sufficient to answer the question.
I’m also aware that offereing facts at the appelate level is not the way to impress them. I would however have answered the question thus. And/Or, if they prefer, I would simply tell them that the answer to their question is a question of fact which would require evidence which was not on the record.
50 cents? Keep your money, I’ll do it for free.
“If the way you wilt on this board is any indication you would not be able to put two sentences together that consist of anything cogent,”
I make my position very cogent to all who hear me irl. Everyone understands it quite well once I’m through. Many reject it though (people who, notably, admit that they don’t understand Bilski), many more are quite open to it (people who do understand Bilski).
“Rader: ” How you distinguish between a field of use and a specific application?””
First I would note that distinguishing between the two is irrelevant to determining if an abstract idea is being preempt. But if they wished to do so anyway just for kicks then you determine if the only thing preventing the claim from preempting an abstract idea is that the claim includes a limitation or limitations which do nothing more than specify an entire field.
That’s hardly enough to make me uncomfy.
” and the invention could be performed by humans by themselves.”
You need to reread the claim in Diehr old man.
“Benson, in fact, is no longer controlling law, is it?”
Tell it to Bilski :/
Yes it was over ruled as the “exclusive test” in Bilski and reduced to being just a clue.
A MOT can help but it is not required and has no legal basis for not allowing a claim to pass 101.
Furthermore the MOT as applied by the CAFC and purportedly taught in Benson required the machine to implement the claims. This is no longer the case.
As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, while Diehrs claim included a machine and transformation, it also included human operators for the apparatus, mental steps, and the invention could be performed by humans by themselves. And most important Diehr did not depend on any such MOT being required to get his patent. It first and foremost required an application to a specific industrial processes.
Thus the power of Bilski 14 when Diehr cabins Flook and Benson. And why we are where we are today in Ultramercial.
DEAL WITH IT BABY!
AI
Diehr applied the MOT test of Benson. It was not overruled.
Sent from iPhone
“The lower court cannot over-rule the higher.”
The higher Court did in Diehr, reaffirmed in Bilski, at 14.
You dont even need a computer for 101. It can help but it’s not a requirement.
BILSKI 14!
The lower court cannot over-rule the higher.
Alappat held the digital processing circuit patent eligible because of the "useful, concrete and tangible" test. But that test has been overruled by the Federal Cir. en banc.
The Supreme Court unanimously approved.
Sent from iPhone
Ned:
Alappat came after Diehr and followed the DCAT, ( Diehre Concept and Application analysis/test. )
Remember it is because of this analysis/test that Diehr was granted his patent and Bilski was denied his.
And most important remember that Diehr cabined Flook and Benson and that was reaffirmed in Bilski at paragraph 14.
So Ultramercial did not need a machine or transformation or even a computer at all to pass 101.
it’s DCAT that rules here.
So then it seems reasonable that one can look for concrete and tangible steps ( not results) to see if there is indeed a specific application as required by Diehr.
You may not like it. But thats the law.
BTW, since Dennis has not opened an Ultramercial thread I will continue your but whuppin over there. Come on over if ya wants some more.
I am just trying to follow what you are saying. If Alappat came after Benson, how are the Feds going to have a hard time squaring the two? Benson, in fact, is no longer controlling law, is it? Plus I have not seen any judicial opinion that actually states that Alappat has been overruled. None.
Isn’t there a simpler answer?
Are you really THAT clueless?
Sent from iPhone
Rader is pissing into the wind and bucking for a bruise from just about everyone on the Fed Cir and the Supreme Court if he continues along the State Street and Alappat path.
Sent from iPhone
Gottschalk v. Benson was decided November 20, 1972.
In re Alappat was decided July 29, 1994.
How does Benson overrule a notion that Alappat establishes?
“Alappat itself invented the useful contrete tangible result test. That has been overruled by everyone. So, there is nothing left of Alappat at all. Nothing.”
Nedo,
I listened to the arguments and I recall the appellee said he was not using the over ruled State Street test which focused on a result. But instead used the concrete and tangible steps language to argue his claims were not mere mental steps and therefore abstract.
This prompted the panel to ask, “Which are the concrete and tangible steps in claim one?”
And I believe it was judge Rader himself that posed a number examples from the appellees steps that were indeed concrete and tangible, to the opposing attorney, whom had no rebuttal at all!
I concur with this panel. If you are going to say my invention is abstract you better dang well be able to prove the steps in my claims are all mental without any concrete and tangible steps at all or get the he l l out the room.
6 I would pay 50 cents to see you stand before Rader and this panel while trying to explain your phoney pre-emption doctrine and non substantive use of “field of use limitations” to reject business method claims.
You would be the one flustered and calling the panel t**** and what not.
Heck I would even pay to see you have to stand before the BPAI and argue for 15 minutes in favor of those useless theories of yours.
If the way you wilt on this board is any indication you would not be able to put two sentences together that consist of anything cogent,
Rader: ” How you distinguish between a field of use and a specific application?”
6: ” Wets his pants. ”
6, the Feds will have a hard time squaring Alappat with Benson, which squarely overruled the notion that GP computers were patentable subject matter simply with new programming and without a new use. Alappat itself invented the useful contrete tangible result test. That has been overruled by everyone. So, there is nothing left of Alappat at all. Nothing.
6, perhaps you have also hear that the Romans themselves called themselves Romanians?
Look on their maps.
Romania.
This was during the Empire.
Night, I would modify your statement that like this:
“Transforming information from one physical state to another physical state is technology.”
AI, I have no idea what you are talking about.
simple, no.
Could have, but it was in fact repealed. The applicant just has to name inventors and receive their oath. The PTO is not going to look further unless there is a derivation proceeding. In court, there is no grounds whatsoever for challenging inventorship.
Lionel,
Typically, those would be good questions. But as I pointed out to Willton, Big Corp avoids the egregious conduct exception with a colorable argument that it thought the unwilling-to-sign inventor was the inventor, and withthe change in the law, can itself sign the declaration. Merely being incorrect fails to rise to the level of egregious conduct – you would need to prove that Big Corp knew that the unwilling-to-sign inventor was in fact not the inventor, but still conspired to commit fraud on the Office.
Good luck with that!
The points of the matter are these:
Who can sign was changed.
102(f) was removed.
All “deceptive intent” clauses were removed.
Big Corp would have to try really really hard to be nailed for IC.
But donn’t the correct inventors need to be listed on the application forms? Doesn’t that still have to be signed? Wouldn’t that be IC if the information were incorrect? Or can they leave the inventor(s) off altogether?
102(f) did not need to be removed. It could have been modified instead.
Wilton, let me put it another way, Congress remove 102(f) and did not condition patentability on whether or not the name inventor actually invented anything. This is specific intent to remove inventorship from patentability and validity, and an implicit intent to remove it from IC as well through a back door. No court would hold it IC to not be an inventor if inventorship was intended by Congress not to be a condition of patentability.
“does not engage in egregious misconduct…”
I omitted a sentence: You are depending on something that is not in play. The Big Corp can make the colorable argument that it believed that the nonsiging inventor was the true inventor (wink wink) and they are off the hook.
Don’t forget that the new law also wiped out every instance of the phrase “with deceptive intent.”
Funny how that works – still have not seen any rationale for making that move that passes the sniff test.
LHSC is the poster above “Large Happy Smiling Corp.”
You still miss the point that the scienter of intent gets laundered out since the Big Corp now has the ability to declare in place of an inventor unwilling to declare. Big Corp does not engage in egregious misconduct because it is not responsible for the state of mind of the (non-signing) inventor.
I am not sure how you are missing this hole – it is big enough to drive a truck through.
And that’s not even addressing Ned’s point that the section of law tying most directly to the 102 patentability section is no more.
I think that Ned is trying to point out ot you tha the bounds of IC are “but for” and relate to the patentability determinations of 102, 103 and 112.
I think that Ned is trying to say that the “who” portion does not rise to the “but for” level.
Then you didn’t read Therasense thoroughly enough. Therasense makes an exception to “but-for’ materiality when the applicant engaged in “affirmative egregious misconduct”, and cited the filing of a false affidavit as an example. If the USPTO still requires an oath or declaration for every patent application, then the filing of a dec. naming incorrect inventors would trigger this exception.
By the way, what is “LHSC”?
All one has to do is name the inventors and receive assignments from them. They do not have to BE inventors. There is nothing in the statute that defines that concept. It has been totally removed.
Moreover, the patent is not invalid even if the named inventors did not invent. 102(f) HAS BEEN REPEALED!!!!!!
So, I still do not see how IC, which depends upon patentability and validity, which are not involved here, can have any role at all in the future.
Willton,
I think that Ned is trying to point out ot you tha the bounds of IC are “but for” and relate to the patentability determinations of 102, 103 and 112.
I think that Ned is trying to say that the “who” portion does not rise to the “but for” level.
The point of LHSC is that the intent prong of IC is now substantially weakened as Big Corp can file in the name of the inventor wherein the inventor refuses to sign (for example, the inventor believe that he would be committing IC). Since the Big Corp does not carry that same “state of mind,” the intent prong of IC vanishes, thus no IC.
It’s a bit like money laundering.
Inventorship affects ownership, and therefore affects who can rightly apply for a patent, hence the reason why we have derivation proceedings now. I don’t see anything in the AIA that says an applicant can apply for a patent without listing the correct inventors. If an applicant lied about who the inventors are, I don’t see how that can escape the bounds of IC.
“Those seeking to butcher and twist the Supreme Court line of cases and pervert the DCAT (with a nod to Actual Inventor) are taken to the woodshed.”
Thanks for the nod 😉 I just listened to the Oral proceedings and wow! This panel just crushed every piece of cr aap 6,MM, Ned and the rest has ever posted!
I particularly liked this question that had the opposing attorney stumbling for an answer.
“How you distinguish between a field of use and a specific application?”
Care to answer that 6?
:: silence::
Wilton, you miss my point ENTIRELY. If inventorship does not affect validity or patentability, it does not affect IC either.
So what? Whether a patent is ruled invalid under 102 or unenforceable due to inequitable conduct, the result is effectively the same: the patent cannot be enforced against those who make, use, import, sell or offer to sell articles or services recited in the patent’s claims.
Honestly, I don’t understand why the elimination of 102(f) is a big deal. When was the last time you saw a patent ruled invalid under Section 102(f)? When was the last time you saw a patent ruled unenforceable due to inventorship issues?
Chirp Chirp Ribit Ribit
How dumb am I? Don’t answer that.I called Someone for help. He called back. Send money he said. CC will do. Debit Card will do. Send at least a 1000.00 and I will get started immediately. I said after some discussion.. not now. I want this mess fixed first… The Bulb must have blown in my head. All this time and each time I did get a Lawyer they said no, were fired, or wouldn’t help me. In any area. Why even one wouldn’t even speak to me. So why didn’t I hear the Bell? BUT I am so glad I said they are trying to drop me into another Rabbit hole.
And earlier when I stated I was driving the Turnip truck? I’m going to retake my License to Drive it.
Thanks for taking a second look. I am sure their are many others out there that would also appreciate a second look also.
Congress ought to give Money for that very thing to correct the FTF.
I am not crying. I am celebrating!
Bilski, Research Corp., Classen, Ultramercial!
I am going to print these cases, frame them and put them on my office wall right beneath my patents!
BTW, last week I received my first USPTO certificate with Kappos signature. Very nice indeed. At least one more due this year.
Woo Hoo!
“It is sweet serenity that Malcolm and Ned have their tails tucked between their skirted legs on this thread because, after all, what can they say? Their favorite theories are eviscerated by the reasoning of this case.”
Oh yes and how sweet it is! I am surprised that loopy 6 didn’t proclaim victory after reading this case, as he usually does when he gets bludgeon by the Court. But he has posted enough garbaged to make up for it.
And Nedo, what a shameless coward. He couldn’t even finish challenges that he started in this thread. But hey, what could he do when faced with defeat but run hide behind MM’ Skirt. Notice how Ned ( Curly of the Bunch) called out to Moe as soon as this decision came down only to get the two fingers in the eye!
lol
As Mooney would say. It’s been a great month for Patents! 😀
“You can, as MM says, take it to the bank AI.”
What does that even mean?
Oh wait..6 wrote it.
Nuff said.
… I would however inform you of that fact, if they are of the same manufacturing run and to within manufacturing tolerances, and provide you with this evidence that such is the case if you should so desire.
Your argument to the question “Are these machines identical?” is “No, but they were identical before one of them was altered to meet the terms of the claim”? Great strategy, 6. And just so you know, offering to produce new evidence at the appellate stage is probably not the best way to impress the panel either.
It hasn’t been this quiet on the blog comment sections since Bilski came out…
“Their favorite theories are eviscerated by the reasoning of this case. ”
Lol wut? There is no “reasoning” in this case. It is proclamation, of Rader’s views I should note, and nothing more.
“Those seeking to obscure law and conflate the segments of law are taken to the woodshed. ”
Rader even admits that it is a murky area of the law.
Their illegal attempts to overrule the USSC will not last forever. It may take a decade for someone to grow the balls to question it at the USSC, but meh, so is life. You put patent protectionists on the judiciary and this is the kind of horse sht you get.
“Those seeking to play House with “one computer is the same as any other computer” are taken to the woodshed. The fallacy of that inane argument should be crystal clear by now.”
Again, that’s not an “argument”, it is a fact.
You can, as MM says, take it to the bank AI.
Another “fly in the ointment” that is deceptive in the AIA, namely what is the “true” effective date of the microentity discount. The microentity discount won’t actually take effect until Kappos exercises his fee setting authority pursuant to Section 10 of the AIA. See below (from USPTO FAQ on the AIA):
Question FEE4: If I meet the micro entity of the AIA, will I be able to pay a micro entity fee beginning on the date of enactment – September 16, 2011?
No. The AIA does not permit the USPTO to apply the 75% micro entity fee discount until the micro entity fee for a specific item is set or adjusted using the fee setting authority provided in section 10 of the Act.
So while the microentity provision effective date is September 16, 2011, the fee reduction benefit of being a microentity won’t happen until Kappos exercises his fee setting authority under Section 10. Wonderful (and if you detect sarcasm in my comment, you’re correct).
I’m pretty sure the PTO is correct. If something is filed on a Thursday and you have 1 week to respond, the response is due on the follow Thursday, not Friday. If something is filed on Sept. 16th and you have 1 month to respond, your response is due on Oct. 16th. So for the provisions that go into effect 18 months later, the effective date is March 16, 2013.
Your date would make the bill go into effect 18 months and 1 day later.
The bill was signed on September 16, 2011. The 18 month period starting that day would apparently expire on March 16, 2013, making March 17, 2013 the effective date of the first-to-file provisions. However, the PTO website lists March 16, 2013 as the effective date. Does anybody else read the statute the way the PTO does, or do they have it wrong?
link to uspto.gov
“What are you crying about?”
6, you are truly clueless. Your tears, your posturing, your making up conspiracy theories of one sort or another, all of it just gets flushed away by the reading of the law.
It is sweet serenity that Malcolm and Ned have their tails tucked between their skirted legs on this thread because, after all, what can they say? Their favorite theories are eviscerated by the reasoning of this case.
Those seeking to obscure law and conflate the segments of law are taken to the woodshed. Count the number of times the Judge is explicit in directing that 101 should not be conflated with 102, 103 and 112.
Those seeking to minimize Alappat are taken to the woodshed. The “new machine stance is shown as a holding, with wide applicability, not a mere dictum pertaining only to the Alappat case, and certainly not “overruled” as Ned has crowed.
Those seeking to play House with “one computer is the same as any other computer” are taken to the woodshed. The fallacy of that inane argument should be crystal clear by now.
Those seeking categorical exceptions to patent eligible subject matter are taken to the woodshed.
Those seeking to read into the patent laws limitations and conditions which the legislature has not expressed are taken to the woodshed.
Those seeking to butcher and twist the Supreme Court line of cases and pervert the DCAT (with a nod to Actual Inventor) are taken to the woodshed.
Did I mention that those seeking to conflate (the whatever or take your pick legal “theorists”) are taken to the woodshed? Yes I did – but it is worth repeating.
I would like to know does NIT mean “NEW IN TOWN” and I would like to vote, and “NEW IN TOWN” and I would surely vote again?
And does CIT mean already “COUNTED IN TOWN” as in VIA the Census. Now I really get just how important that was for non Slaves. But I suggest you send me mine now. because I promise you I COUNT!
PS If I have it backwards on the CIT NIT please advise.
Ned threw down the gauntlet about naming 5 SCOTUS members and when “Supreme Court” named 10 Ned just ignored it. Typical Ned. When the heat is on he flees the kitchen.
“The people, and congress, never included software of business methods in patents. ”
Yes they did 6. You seem to be trying to piecemeal the arguments from the Amicus briefs and references on the losing side of Scotus Bilski, along with Stevens now meaningless dissents. But lack the intellectual chops to put together a cogent argument of your own which is evident when you are pressed for examples, and challenged to elaborate.
You occasionally do an adequate job of parroting or mimicking some of the things you read. But it’s apparent you lack a single original creative thought. You could not even explain your so called pre-emption doctrine when pressed on that issue. You totally wilt whenever faced with any question that will require more than skimming other people’s work and trying to use it as evidence for your own backwards thinking.
Oh and “6 is a…..” was right!
Is there a redline version of 35 USC that incorporates the changes required by this Act?
It's NOT a condition of patentability.
Sent from iPhone
Great Conspiracy? Um, no. Great patent bar desire to expand patents and protect those on the books. And, in this particular case, a desire of the attorney to not overly PO the judge that is handling his client’s case. It is hardly a conspiracy.
I do love how the attorneyta rd tries to dodge the simple question so as to not continue to PO Rader.
What is also funny is that this guy thinks that Ultramercial figured out a way to stop internet piracy. Lulzlulzlulzlulzlulz. Apparently all you had to do was make the person view an ad! Lulz.
What are you crying about? Rader is using his bully pulpit to try to enforce his illegal patent protectionist scheme, that’s no reason for you to cry. But I guess you guys will cry about anything.
“waiting on someone to provide evidence against so we can overrule, or have the USSC overrule.”
But… but… but… no one will ever do that, because of the GREAT CONSPIRACY.
QQ, QQ and then some more QQ.
Would you like some QQ with that?
I swear to g od. This fking blog is a pita to make posts on thanks to the anti-spyware sht we use.
Lulz indeed because the attorneyt ard didn’t have the bal ls and evidence to refute whatever ga rbage Rader was about to spout in re him answering factually. Had he come prepared then I would like to see the outcome of that particular convo going down.
Rader: “You wouldn’t argue that these are identical machines would you?”
Attorneywhoisnotat ard: “I would not argue that no, I would however inform you of that fact, if they are of the same manufacturing run and to within manufacturing tolerances, and provide you with this evidence that such is the case if you should so desire”.
Rader (flustered): But, but, but, but, ALAPPAT matters, not facts! We’ve based a decade of patent policy on that decision and to change it now would look totally bad!
Alappat. Just begging for someone who isn’t retar ded to have a go at the “argument”.
Lulz indeed because the attorneyt ard didn’t have the bal ls and evidence to refute whatever ga rbage Rader was about to spout in re him answering factually. Had he come prepared then I would like to see the outcome of that particular convo going down.
Rader: “You wouldn’t argue that these are identical machines would you?”
Attorneywhoisnotat ard: “I would not argue that no, I would however inform you of that fact, if they are of the same manufacturing run and to within manufacturing tolerances, and provide you with this evidence that such is the case if you should so desire”.
Alappat. Just begging for someone who isn’t retar ded to have a go at the “argument”.
“Best line: “Alappat told you.””
Yeah, he should have said:
“We said some factually unsupportable assertions in Alappat that are waiting on someone to provide evidence against so we can overrule, or have the USSC overrule. And we disquised them as a “holding”.”
I am glad my work on this blog is making a difference. Now if only someone from the PTO is paying attention to 6 and MM, we might able to clean out some of the old Dudas cobwebs.
“You wouldn’t that these are identical machines, would you?” 28.04
LULZ – haven’t we seen that very challenge on these threads? A grand hall comes to mind, one that only 6 even walked down (before he had his hat handed to him).
The word of Ping.
Repent Non-believers, repent, for your end is near.
He does not cite Ping though.
Best line: “Alappat told you.”
The word of Ping.
the BPAI oftentimes doesn’t understnad the art
How would you propose to fix this problem?
I’ve seen this fact pattern too often.”
Maybe you should try prosecuting something else besides diapers and software.
But what about if an entity (with a sufficient “interest”) declares, in place of an inventor, and thereby avoids the whole “false declaration” theory?
Since the entity can fully act in its best belief without the personal “falseness” or affirmative egregious misconduct that triggers the exception, there would be no inequitable conduct or fraud on the Patent Office.
link to youtube.com
If you guys want to see one of the coolest inventions of ever check out :30.
Although, since it was made by an architect it lacks what would make it soopar awesomezors! 5 pts if you know what it needed and what needed to go.
“This case is about the BPAI that looks at a rejection by the Examiner, decides it is crxp, and then proceeds to rewrite while passing it off as an affirmance. When Appellants says, “hey, this is a new grounds of rejection,” the BPAI just shrugs … “nah, its not.” I’ve seen this fact pattern too often.”
I know what the case is about thx.
“I did read it.”
The relationship of “diapers” to the issues discussed by the Federal Circuit was de minimus. If the most interesting thing you took out of this case was “diapers,” it tells us where your thinking trends.
“I could be mistaken about that though”
Now we are talk’n ….
This case is about the BPAI that looks at a rejection by the Examiner, decides it is crxp, and then proceeds to rewrite while passing it off as an affirmance. When Appellants says, “hey, this is a new grounds of rejection,” the BPAI just shrugs … “nah, its not.” I’ve seen this fact pattern too often.
You may ask, why does it matter? The application is still rejected. However, labeling a rejection as a new grounds is beneficial for a few reasons. 1) there is patent term adjustment considerations, 2) labeling a rejection as a new grounds sends a message to the Examiner that the prior rejection was crxp, 3) it is a lot easier to argue “the BPAI is wrong because of X and Y” when X and Y are new findings of fact when it is clear that these findings were not made by the Examiner. The reason is because the BPAI oftentimes doesn’t understand the art and makes findings that are nowhere close to being right. The Examiner knows this so it is easier to make those arguments when you are arguing that the BPAI’s new findings are wrong than arguing that the BPAI’s affirmance of the Examiner’s rejection is wrong.
You may ask, why does it matter? The application is still rejected. However, labeling a rejection as a new grounds is beneficial for a couple of purposes. 1) there is patent term adjustment considerations, 2) labeling a rejection as a new grounds sends a message to the Examiner that the prior rejection was crxp, 3) it is a lot easier to argue “the BPAI is wrong because of X and Y” when X and Y are new findings of fact when it is clear that these findings were not made by the Examiner. The reason is because the BPAI oftentimes doesn’t understnad the art
Finally, I’ve been given the impression that the BPAI is discouraging “new grounds” in decisions (wastes time and the BPAI has a backlog to work through). If more Applicants challenge this, the BPAI may decide to stop lending a hand to Examiners when the rejection is crxp and let the Examiner reopen if they want to institute a new grounds of rejection.
It pays to read the case
I did read it. By the way, we all know why your jaw dropped, sockie.
Keep fluffin’!
The funniest thing about that decision is that it appears that the examiner did notice that they used a product-by-process limitation in the last big limitation followed by a chemical limitation whereas the board did not recognize that and thus threw themselves into what looks from the outside to be a new grounds of rejection.
I noticed that. The good news is that even if this terribly drafted claim survives the PTO, in order to infringe you have to carry out the recited steps. Are there any diaper manufacturers out there that are “cold caustic extracting” their own wood pulp?
“Nobody could have imagined that our eternally whining, crying sockpuppets would appreciate the latest in diaper technology.”
It pays to read the case — too bad you never let the facts get in the way of a good blathering.
The funniest thing about that decision is that it appears that the examiner did notice that they used a product-by-process limitation in the last big limitation followed by a chemical limitation whereas the board did not recognize that and thus threw themselves into what looks from the outside to be a new grounds of rejection.
Idk, I could be mistaken about that though, maybe they just straight up did change the grounds of rejection. But that’s what it looked like happened to me.
I’m impressed. A useful post for a change
Nobody could have imagined that our eternally whining, crying sockpuppets would appreciate the latest in diaper technology.
6 … wow … I’m impressed. A useful post for a change.
I’ll be citing this shortly.
link to cafc.uscourts.gov
I decided to check out the oral args for Ultramercial. I have to say, from Rader’s dicussion it is very apparent that he has been a spyin’ on the online discussions.
A decision Broje will like:
link to cafc.uscourts.gov
Not if there are no grounds for holding the patent invalid, and there are none without 102(f).
Have you never heard of “inequitable conduct” and “fraud on the Patent Office”? It would seem to me that filing a false declaration naming a person who is not an inventor would fall under Therasense’s “affirmative egregious misconduct” exception.
“I am saying that you appear not to even care about whether you are right or wrong anymore,”
Well I might appear that way. But not really. I’m merely pointing out that the issue is, as Ned noticed, sort of a political one. One might call it a “patent politics” issue.
The one side believes that writing (wanking?) down on a sheet of paper some new functionality of a computer in legalese somehow advances a useful art, even though it doesn’t in reality. This side BELIEVES this. They don’t know it. They have no evidence for it.
The other side believes that writing (and wanking) down on a sheet of paper some new functionality of a computer in legalese does not advance a useful art. This side BELIEVES this. They know it. They even have evidence for it.
These are the two sides. The fundamental difference between them though is simply a belief.
However, that said, I do have a heavy focus on what we can “get away with” without tards like yourself having a cow because our leadership in congress doesn’t have the balls to simply set the record straight by either explicitly excluding or including software etc.
“Romanian technology stagnated. That was the problem.”
Says whom? Also note that “Romanian” technology is not the same as “Roman” technology. Perhaps you’ve heard of the country called “Romania”?
Is Ping still on here? Hey Ping.
6, MM, dope3, etc. Shhhh…
6: I am saying that you appear not to even care about whether you are right or wrong anymore, but rather whether or not you can get away with it, just like the Cybersource “judges.”
Ned: information transformation is technology.
Dope above regarding Rome: Romanian technology stagnated. That was the problem. Not that they didn’t have a lot, but that it stagnated. They were good at stealing it from others and invented a couple of important technologies, but rather than progressing they stagnated.
“attempt to follow Supreme Court precedent”
Does this include the bastardization of Supreme Court precedent that was “followed” in Cybersource?
Wasn’t the Rader approach the actual approach used by all nine Justices in Bilski?
The answers to these questions makes me wonder whether the conservative/radical labels are not simply backwards.
6:”You probably won’t. Because you sux at business. But if you were good at business then you’d do it the same way everyone else does.”
AI: You mean I can make money on a business selling hamburgers that has gone out of business? And out of business because a bigger McDonald’s stoled my invention that enabled me to compete nonetheless?? And you say everyone is making money on businesses that are closed and out of business? I have never heard of such 6. Can you provide one real world example?
6: ” If you try to bust up ins word processing then yeah, you might pull a patent hawk and you might get your “inventionlol” stolen. And then the judiciary might sanction the “theft”. And I might lulz.”
AI: So you just admitted that you don’t care if MS steals software inventions from little inventors. And I pressume you feel the same about big comps stealing business methods as well. Well then there is no reasoning with you eh 6? You have no ethics, no moral compass, no integrity whatsoever. You believe in theft, and discrimination.
6. “Because they’re abstractions. You even just admitted it.”
AI: You have evaded the point that once abstractions,( which all inventions are at conception) are applied, once reduced to practice, they are no longer abstract.
You must evade this point because your unethical philosophy of IP piracy, theft, and discrimination can’t stand when confronted by the law.
You must evade this point because your intellectually impotent ideas like your phony pre-emption doctrine falls like a house of cards when forced to identify and provide examples of abstractions in a claim.
You must now cut and run since you can reply with anything but juvenile invectives and more evasion.
You may now join Malcolm and Ned in the Club. NAL would be so proud of you.
:: Gives 6 His Skirt::