By Dennis Crouch
Despite being held-back by the Federal spending sequester and a focus on implementing the first-to-invent and post-issuance review procedures of the America Invents Act, the US Patent Office has also awarded more patents than ever. The preliminary figure for 2013 is 277,861 patents issued, which represents a 10% jump over last-year’s record. See USPTO Patent Grants: Another Record Year (3rd in a Row). The average pendency of utility applications (application filing to issuance or abandonment) has been slowly decreasing over the past several years, but has hovered around 37-months for the past six months.
How exactly was the Patent Office held back by the sequester? Wasn’t the sequester over before any actual impact to the Office?
In yet another one of those hmmm moments, Malcolm posted several ‘test’ posts days prior to the site changing its community listings (which no longer includes neither 6, NSII, IANAE, Leopold, and even NWPA – also odd).Given the past incidents and suspicions of Malcolm’s (non-public) involvement with the site (including being the only one ever to provide a link within the site with the old software), the perception that Malcolm enjoys an inordinate amount of access/latitude is surely not a good thing.Given the rampant runaway CRP on this particular thread, it is safe to say that the moderator, the good professor, is asleep at the switch.C’est La Vie.
I have to say that MM is a little unnerving given that he threatens people on here too and appears to be part of the administration of the board. I am sure that one time he used my real first name. It seems obvious that his point is to kick up lots of dust around any post that disturbs him. It is clear that the Susskind post deeply disturbed him.
When did he threaten someone, NWPA?
Oh please LB!
From Merriam Webster,Threaten: to say that you will harm someone or do something unpleasant or unwanted especially in order to make someone do what you want.Malcolm’s posts are definitely something unpleasant and unwanted (add – and it is very clear that he makes his comments in order to get what he wants, or to stop actual conversation which would highlight the lack of legal and factual foundation of what he wants).
Now that’s just pathetic.
Except LB we all know that MM does threaten people.
Booga booga!
Leopold, what’s really pathetic is how you rush to upvote Malcolm at the rate you do, and on the topics that you care to so ‘speak’ on.The largest clear source of blight on these threads gets your approval which speaks ill of you.
In yet another one of those hmmm moments, Malcolm posted several ‘test’ posts days prior to the site changing its community listings (which no longer includes neither 6, NSII, IANAE, Leopold, and even NWPA – also odd).Russia just called. The demand for tinfoil just spiked up unexpectedly (over 100 fold) and they predict a worldwide shortage within the next couple weeks.
I’m still interested in the “Information” point raised by MWPA, namely, that (as Susskind teaches) the aggregate sum of “Information” in the universe neither rises nor falls. Ergo, whenever numbers are crunched, the “transformation” prong of the MOT Test for patent eligibility in the USA is fulfilled. Are numbers physical entities? I think not.When it is a physical string of A’s, C’s T’s and G’s, as in DNA, that we crunch, we are told it is ridiculous to suggest that string is to be considered as “Information”. However, when the physical string is of 1’s and 0’s, we are told it is ridiculous NOT to consider such a string as “Information”. That can’t be right, can it?I suspect that, in citing Susskind, and reminding us that “Information” (as opposed to “data”) is nothing more than a concept, an idea (like time or entropy) used by physicists to explain our universe, NWPA has damaged his own efforts to prove that any method of transforming “Information” is per se eligible for patenting.
I suspect your post is so muddled with nonsense that I don’t have the time to sort it. I also suspect if you take the time to go and read what I wrote you may adjust your opinion. And, I did not make the point you are attributing to me regarding DNA.
That’s quite alright NWPA, that you don’t have the time to address what strikes you at first blush as “nonsense”. It’s hard, and life’s too short. I quite understand. I know it is not you who makes the DNA point. But neither did I “attribute” it to you. The shoe fits though, doesn’t it?I have read your stuff. I replied hoping you would enlarge on your views. Never mind though; with what they have already, our readers can already make their own minds up.Sorry, that up above, I mis-typed your pseudonym. I apologize because I know that i) our names are very important to us and ii) some round here (not you of course) get very tetchy about things like that.
“Agreed, good Night. We are done.”
What about a machine that changes the concept of velocity of mass as a result? Should that machine be eligible? (And, I will bet if you cared to try you could characterize many other inventions in terms of concepts they change.)Max, your point appears to be to diminish my point. Think. Take a step back. A machine that transforms a fundamental quality information. To transform the information requires that machine which must have structure. This is every bit as much as a transformation as bonding atoms, and one clue to the truth of this is that to transform the information we need a machine and to expend energy. Perhaps the problem is that your manner of thinking about this is all wrong. Go to first principles.It is fine if you mess up my name.
How does a machine change a concept?(you are going to have to deal with those that will purposefully not understand the language you are using)(there is a hint at about 55 minutes into the video)
That is the question isn’t it anon? If Max is going to cast information as a concept, then how many other inventions can be discussed in terms of changing concepts?I think we know that Max trying to categorize information as a concept is an attempt to put it into the ineligible category. According to max then temperature is a concept. Ovens should certainly be ineligible under 101 because they are changing the concept of temperature.And, let’s not forget those chemical reactions that are changing the concept of bonding.Really Max, you should be ashamed of yourself.
New, enabled and inventive data processing machines are patentable. They process data but they don’t “transform” Information. New enabled and inventive heaters are patentable. They change the temperature of an object, but do not transform the concept of temperature.New enabled and inventive clocks are patentable. They Display the passing of time, but do not transform time.You say that an oven is:”changing the concept of temperature”If you don’t mind my saying, NWPA, that’s weird!
>”Information” (as opposed to “data”) is >nothing more than a concept, an idea >>(like time or entropy) used by physicists >to explain our universe,I think I made my point. Your attempt to characterize information as a mere concept is no different than characterizing other properties such as velocity or temperature as mere concepts. Do you get that to transform the information you need a machine and energy? Think that through completely. You also might want to think through what it means to transform something and ask yourself whether or not the information processing even makes sense as not having been transformed. What is something if not transformed? What would that mean? Also, you might want to look up the philosophy on the mind and body. You will find many including J. Stevens believe there is no physical nature to his mind. And if you listen to his type you will get this notion that his marvelous brain is doing something computers cannot and that what goes on in a computer is something you specify and then take to a clerk to make work. (I would have loved for that conceited old man to say that to a room full of AI researchers with IQs of 170+.) But, then conceited people get that way by isolating themselves.
I see you mention concepts and properties. I think they are different. I accept that mass, velocity and temperature are “properties”. In an object like a baseball they change when the ball hits my forehead. We can measure them, in units we all understand. My forehead is a tool for changing those properies of that ball. Not yet convinced though that another of the properties of that ball is “information” which my forehead has the capability to “transform”. Information is a concept (like time or entropy) not a property of a specific physical thing like a wave, a chip or a baseball. Can you measure how much time is in the ball? I simply do not see how time is one of the properties of the ball.
Another literal Malcolm CRPfest here:On this thread alone, Malcolm has posted 92 times at the initial time of this comment, and in nearly 7,000 words has managed to say absolutely NOTHING with any basis in law or fact, while engaging in his usual assortment of banalities.@TABOY
absolutely NOTHING with any basis in law or factMaybe you should run with “Every patent creates a job.” That was a good one.
Wasn’t mine, but thanks for the suggestion.My posts have plenty of merit on their own.Maybe you should try some of mine? You know I am willing to share my intellectually honest posts. Can you stomach that? Can you deal with intellectual honesty?I for one would like to see you give it a try.
Wasn’t mineNever heard you once object to it.Still haven’t.
On the range of absolute CRP that is on this board, the rather innocuous post of every patent creates a job in itself is a rather small error.Besides which, I HAVE posted to the contrary. On a specific guest thread I posted that patents can often have the effect of eliminating certain types of jobs due to the fact that innovation focus is often geared to business cost factors and that people are often today’s biggest costs. There is a reason why the latest cyclical recovery has been one of the lowest job producing recoveries and that is because of innovation in the efficiency areas.So once again, you are banal AND wrong Malcolm.Go figure.Now PLEASE, take me up on my request and post with at least some minimal respectable level of intellectual honesty.
Maybe you should try some of mineShall we start with you purporting to use mailroom staff to screen incoming registered letters addressed to attorneys, and discarding them if they referred to “prior art”?Just kidding.
It does make it almost impossible to post on this board. It appears to be a tactic of MM to flood any post he doesn’t like with replies. But, I guess if Dennis wants to allow this, there is nothing we can do.
Lest we forget, not only has the government begun granting more patents than every before at an every-expanding rate, but copyright protection was also recently dramatically expanded for the benefit of the same privileged stakeholders.link to abovethelaw.com…As you hopefully know, until 1978, the maximum amount of time that work in the US could be covered by copyright was 56 years (you initially received a 28 year copyright term, which could be renewed for another 28 years). That means, back in 1957, everyone who created the works in that list knew absolutely, and without a doubt that their works would be given back to the public to share, to perform, to build on and more… on January 1, 2014 at the very latest. And they all still created their works, making clear that the incentive of a 56 year monopoly was absolutely more than enough incentive to create….If you wanted to find guitar tabs or sheet music and freely record your own version of some of the influential music of the 1950s, January 1, 2014, might have been a booming day for you under earlier copyright laws – “That’ll Be the Day†and “Peggy Sue†(Buddy Holly, Jerry Allison, and Norman Petty), “Great Balls of Fire†(Otis Blackwell and Jack Hammer), and “Wake Up, Little Susie†(Felice and Boudleaux Bryant) would all be available. You could score a short film with Dmitri Shostakovich’s Symphony No. 11 in G minor (Opus 103; subtitled The Year 1905). Or you could stage your own performances of some of Elvis Presley’s hits: “All Shook Up†(Otis Blackwell and Elvis Presley) and “Jailhouse Rock†(Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller). Today, these musical works remain copyrighted until 2053.
“Lest we forget, not only has the government begun granting more patents than every before…” That part is true, albeit not the entire picture (but lovely seeing you enjoy the chum)”…at an every-expanding rate” That part is completely false. (sigh) but Malcolm will continue to post in his delightfully misleading way.
“…at an ever-expanding rate” That part is completely false.Okay, Humpty Dumpty. Whatever you say.
“…at an ever-expanding rate” That part is completely false.I’ll ask you again, TB, since you believe that graph above just reflects the”expected” and “usual” trend: draw a line from the grants in 1943 to 1953 and determine the slope. Then 1963 to 1973. Do the same for 1973-1983, 1993-2003 and 2003-2013. Then plot those slopes as a function of time and, assuming your “normal expected trend” continues, tell everyone how long you think our joke of a patent system can be sustained without massive changes in the number ofexaminers, incredibly long delays before examination, or further (seemingly impossible) reductions in the quality of examination.
OK, so now we are lumped in with copyright extension and with anti-gay coupling and with right wing tea baggers and with white old rich men that are bigots. So, I guess we are just bad people. Are you sure you don’t want to throw in there that our mothers wear army boots?You are ridiculous.
“Are you for weakening copyright protection? If so, why do you hate artists?”/patent teabagger “logic” off
Irony. The big corp wanted to expand copyright and got it. The big corp wants to end information processing patents. It is very clear that on balance money and power is for tearing down our patent system. Be real.
The big corp wants to end information processing patents.Wasn’t there some congressional testimony recently regarding patents? I don’t recall any “Big Corps” taking this position. Who do you have in mind and can you provide a quote for everyone?On the other hand, I am aware of many, many individuals and small business owners who share that sentiment (myself included).I’m also aware of some who do not. Those people fall into two categories: (1) water carriers with a distinct teabagging whiff about them; and (2) people who are invested in the status quo (e.g., patent trolls, wanna be patent trolls, and assorted grifters). Many people fall into both camps (1) and (2).
Are you kidding? Read the amicus curiae briefs for any of the major 101 cases. I mean come on. Everyone knows big corp on balance wants to end patents.
Read the amicus curiae briefs for any of the major 101 cases.Name the Big Corporation and show me the quote.
No thanks. I am not your research assistant. And, I am sure if I did do as you ask then you would discount it and want a total which would be days of work. It would be a good article to make these types of objective measures.
a total which would be days of workThat’s pretty funny. You’d think that if it were true that “Big Corp” wanted to end patents on information processing (as you have endlessly asserted here) that someone from your very vocal and very concerned tribe would have compiled a list of those “Big Corps” and the quotes attributed to them. Then we might have some data we could compare to, say, the number of Big Corps who have said the opposite of what you claim. And then we’d know something about the veracity of your assertion. Well, I guess we know quite a bit about that already.
You are being ridiculous. You read the briefs. It would take you 2 minutes to find one. I am not going to be put in the position of proving something to your standard. You look it up. I remember reading some and could name a few corporations off the top of my head. But, it doesn’t matter does it?
I remember reading some and could name a few corporations off the top of my head.Just name one and provide the quote.Seriously, it’s a bit weird that you can’t just whip this info out after years of asserting that that some impressive conglomeration of Big Corps are out there trying to destroy software patents. According to legend, I think some of them are even supposed to be paying me to comment here.
I would be much obliged if you spent 10 minutes or so giving us the corp name/brief itself. I promise to not make fun of your complex (whatever they call that complex)/paranoia re big corp.
The patent teabaggers are just another embodiment of the Federalist Society, a bunch of conservatives in fake intellectual clothing trying to preserve the status quo because they like the status quo, all the while hiding behind bogus self-serving platitudes and weird man-worship of “the Founders” (who just happen to be cut from the same rich white cloth as those who benefit most from the status quo).You never heard these same deep thinkers wringing their hands about new instructions being read out of kit claims when determining the obviousness of those claims. Somehow that was just fine. But do the same thing under 101 and suddenly they’re clutching their pearls and crying about the separation of powers.The best part is how they refuse to even talk about the consequences of their positions or precisely how they would prefer that the issues be addressed. Pretty sad excuse for an intellectual. But they make great footsoldiers, I’m told.
You are just ridiculous.
Here’s what “ridiculous” looks like:http://politicalticker.blogs.c…to those who haven’t heard a non-religious argument against gay marriage, you need to expand your view. There are plenty, most particular is that, scientifically, those parts weren’t made to fit that way.Has someone asked the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to weigh in on this?
scientifically, those parts weren’t made to fit that way.What I wouldn’t give to see that guy’s browser history…
What I wouldn’t give to see that guy’s browser history…Justice Scalia doesn’t let anyone near his computer.
Justice Scalia doesn’t let anyone near his computer.Too bad, I bet he’s aware of a half-dozen other ways the parts “weren’t made to fit”, most requiring fewer than two men.
why the dissembling with kit claimsYou apparently don’t know what “dissembling” means (although we know where you first learned the word – LOL!).And we also know why, in spite of all your straight shooting and sincerity, you’ve always pretended not to understand the relationship between the treatment of kit instuctions in an obviousness analysis and the treatment of new thoughts in an analysis under 101. Let me know if you want me to go into additional detail and spell it out for you, again.
LOL – just like the meaning of the word ‘effectively’ or the word ‘conflate,’ right Malcolm? You are such a t001.You tried this banal trick before. I will remind you that I slammed you by posting with definitions before. I can do the same here.From vocabulary.com: To dissemble is to hide under a false appearance, to deceive.Clearly, you know (and attempt to hide because it is inconvenient for you) the controlling law as to the exceptions to the printed matter doctrine (as you have volunteered an admission against interests in the past that you do know such controlling law) and you seek to deceive by drawing a fallacious comparison between software and kit instructions. Thus your post is clearly dissembling in nature.And please, put the shovel down instead of reching out that vapid pet theory of yours with [oldstep][+[newthought] – you and your sockpuppet legion are the only ones who ever even posted such claptrap.
you know (and attempt to hide I’m not hiding anything, nor attempting to hide anything.you seek to deceive by drawing a fallacious comparisonI’m not “drawing any fallacious comparison” or seeking to do so.Do you actually have a point to make? If so, articulate it in English and explain your reasoning. Otherwise you’re just flinging insults and innuendo, as usual.And citing a dictionary definition is nice, TB. But try using the word accurately. Then we’ll know that you really understand what it means.
“But try using the word accurately”LOL – already did – thanks (I even explained it to you)add: Malcolm states he is not ‘hiding’ when it comes to the controlling law of the exceptions to the printed matter doctrine…So Malcolm, straight up then (since you are not hiding), what is the controlling law when it comes to the exceptions to the printed matter doctrine?Come now, you were ‘brave’ enough once to volunteer an admission. Or are your LIES that when you attempt to say that you never made such an admission going to catch up to you?LOL – answer Malcolm – or continue to run and hide. Either way everyone know you know the controlling law, whether you admit it or not, whether you can stop hiding or not, well, that is a different question.Still no answer from Malcolm.It is abundantly clear what Malcolm’s ‘position’ is here: prone and castrated (I don’t think that’s exactly what he had in mind when he said that his views are always ‘quite clear’).
“I’m not hiding anything, nor attempting to hide anything.”Worth noting here too is a response on another thread that Malcolm is very much hiding from:Speaking of Malcolm taint, the concept of ‘aggregation’ would help explain why his pet theory of [oldstep]+[newthought] is such a fallacy, and why he always runs away and/or dissembles when it comes to claims as a whole and integration, why he is always trying to introduce the strawman of claims completely in the mind (when the topic is claim elements in the mind and never a complete claim). Aggregation is the concept that explains why claims of [oldstep]+[oldstep] or [oldstep+[ANYTHING] may well be perfectly patent eligible AND patentable claims, as the concept distinguishes between collections that merely are unconnected and lumped together and collections that are integrated. His fallacy relies on the “+” always being an aggregation when clearly that is simply not so.
pet theory of yours with [oldstep][+[newthought]Not a theory. That’s a fact. There are no enforceable claims in that format. You’ve been asked to provide an example of one and you can’t. Nobody can. Nobody ever will.You embarass yourself by suggesting otherwise, but I suppose when you’ve got nothing else to lose that embarssment comes naturally to you.Are you grown up enough to tell everyone whether you believe that purely mental processes should be eligible for patenting? Or are you still sticking to your soiled patent teabagger script?
I only agree with your first paragraph.
You imply that the Founders were bad because they were “rich white people?”Not “bad”. More like “biased”, “compromised,” or “prone to serious mistakes in judgment.”That’s not a very controversial proposition.
…so all rich white people are “prone to serious mistakes in judgment,”….?Seek help Malcolm.Seriously.
..so all rich white people are “prone to serious mistakes in judgment,”….?Pretty much. They are not unique in that respect, of course. But it does provide a reason to pause before invoking some subset of them as some sort of magically enlightened group of humans with everyone’s best interests in mind.Again, there’s nothing controversial about this. It might make you sad, though, if you’ve spent the last ten or twenty years with John Jay’s name tattooed on your face.
The name Christine Ruth just doesn’t sound the same… Quaker Oats I presume.
This particular comment is for the purpose of investigating a particular function of Disqus.
This is a test comment.
Probably possible to claim that invention slow during GOP PRESIDENCIES
Dr. Susskind (perhaps the most respected physicist alive): “A violation of the most sacred law of physics. Information is never lost.” 16:40. Watch and weep haters. And, what are those machines that we call computers doing? They are transforming information. That takes time, space, and energy.link to youtube.com…
My computing data processing brain has taken the time, space and energy to understand (from reading Wikipedia) the notion that information is never lost. link to en.wikipedia.org…What I don’t understand yet is what that sacred (or not) postulated Law of Nature has to do with deciding whether any particular claimed “process” is eligible under 35 USC 101 to be patented.Who would like to help me here?
Let’s start with the fact that your “computing data processing brain” is not a machine in the patent sense.Is that understood?.add: Love the Malcolm FAIL.LOL – try again Malcolm, that ‘old box’ is precisely a machine in the patent sense. That ‘old box’ is also a new box in the patent sense when that ‘old box’ is changed with a new manufacture added to it. See Alappat.LOL – you seem to think that those new functions happen magically, or perhaps that somehow, they are there all along. And yet, as I recall, you never even tried to take the Grand Hall experiment.Why am I not surprised?
They understand, but they keep conflating this as it confuses the unwashed masses.
the unwashed massesGreat PR strategy — repeat your incomprehensible, irrelevant nonsense, then insult everyone who disagrees with you as deceitful and ignorant.What would Eric Guttag say? Oh right: he practically invented that approach (did he file on it, though? no? what a pity, he could have promoted progress but instead he just encouraged the copiers…).Maybe you should go with the JNG strategy: folks who think software and/or junky “computer implemented” patents should be massively curtailed are just “jealous” of the success and perserverance of those brilliant Texas patent attorneys. Run with that one. Seriously.