Utility Patents Granted in 2013: A New Record (For the Fourth Consecutive Year)

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.

244 thoughts on “Utility Patents Granted in 2013: A New Record (For the Fourth Consecutive Year)

  1. How exactly was the Patent Office held back by the sequester? Wasn’t the sequester over before any actual impact to the Office?

  2. 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.

    1. 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.

        1. 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).

            1. 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.

    2. 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.

  3. 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.

    1. 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.

      1. 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.

        1. 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.

          1. 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)

            1. 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.

            2. 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!

            3. >”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.

            4. 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.

  4. 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

    1. absolutely NOTHING with any basis in law or factMaybe you should run with “Every patent creates a job.” That was a good one.

      1. 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.

          1. 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.

        1. 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.

    2. 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.

  5. 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.

    1. “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.

      1. “…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.

    2. 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.

        1. 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.

          1. 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).

            1. 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.

            2. Read the amicus curiae briefs for any of the major 101 cases.Name the Big Corporation and show me the quote.

            3. 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.

            4. 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.

            5. 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?

            6. 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.

            7. 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.

  6. 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.

    1. You have some of that froth on your nice shiny hat now too. You imply that the Founders were bad because they were “rich white people?” Really? Wow, that liberal taint you carry is cloying.And why the dissembling with kit claims? You have already volunteered that you know the controlling law regarding the exceptions to the printed matter doctrine..The ‘best part’ (oh the irony) is that the more Malcolm struggles against the facts and the law, the more he harms his own cause. That is just the consequence of his own intellectual dishonesty. Thing is, I am not sad at all watching the spectacle that is Malcolm. Maybe eventually he will slip (again) and try to discuss substantive points (and provide more volunteered admissions against interests) instead of font styles, or banal name calling, or things I have not said, or maybe we will get to see another vacuous *click* from him (funny, how he cannot see the consequences of his ‘positions’ – and that’s being generous – that he takes on these boards; odd preference of his I guess)

      1. 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.

        1. 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.

          1. 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.

            1. “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’).

            2. “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.

          2. 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?

            1. “Not a theory. That’s a fact.”from the one who does not know the difference between fact and spin, lol – oh, how so very Carroll of you, Malcolm….and (yet) again with the strawman of “purely mental processes”…. You are not paying attention, are you?And yet more of that delectable Malcolm-Accuse-Others CRP, combined with a vacuous *click* – how ‘special’.Attaboy deluxe Malcolm/sarcasm

      2. 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.

          1. ..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.

      1. 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?

            1. 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.

  7. 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

    1. 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?

      1. 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?

          1. 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.

            1. So was all that yapping a dodge to not address the substance of whether or not you are conflating human thinking with a machine processing information?

            2. conflating human thinking with a machine processing information”Conflation” is what happens in a patent claim that describes the allegedly new information processing function of the machine without any corresponding new structure to carry out that alleged new function.It’s not my problem, friend. It’s yours. And guess what? You aren’t going to solve it because you lack the intelligence and candor to solve it. You’ve proved that here, over and over again. Other people will likely solve the problem for you, but you won’t like the solution. You can take that to the bank.

            3. LOL – now it is merely “allegedly” new functional capabilties that the old machine possesses…Because Malcolm said so – oh, how very Carroll of him to redefine what conflation means.Here’s a better word for the human thinking/machine differentiation: anthropomorphicationNow, let’s all watch Malcolm choke on his own bile.

            4. now it is merely “allegedly” new functional capabiltiesSee blogtroll run. Run, blogtroll, run!anthropomorphicationJust bold font this time? That’s not very persuasive. Try all caps and italics next time. Then surely we’ll all know what you are really trying to say, and would probably actually write out in full sentences if you were capable of doing so in English.

            5. So, I will take that as a yes that all your yapping is to avoid the substantive issue of your persistent conflation of human thinking with machines processing information.

            6. I will take that as a yesGo ahead. It doesn’t mean “yes” as far as I’m concerned but if you want to take the information and say that it means “yes”, you are free to do so. You’ve just “transformed” the information. So wonderful. So patent-worthy. Just what “the Founders” intended and, more importantly, it’s what the “laws of physics tell us” must be eligible for patenting.

            7. “Great PR strategy — repeat your incomprehensible, irrelevant nonsense, then insult everyone who disagrees with you as deceitful and ignorant.”Wow – Malcolm’s strategy to a T.(just need to throw in a heavy dose of Accuse-The-Other-Person-Of-That-Which-Malcolm-Does)

          1. LOL – talk about nonsense…Tell us then, where do these new functions come from if they are not present in the initial machine (the old box) that is NOT configured (and yes, you did volunteer an admission that ‘configured to’ is structural language, no matter how badly you want to say you did not) with the man made manufacture and machine component of software?What, Malcolm to give actual answers on a substantive matter?LOL – you will pardon me for not holding my breathe. Look instead for one of his typical vacuous responses like third grade level name-calling or that vacuous beauty of *click*.

            1. “where do these new functions come from”In the case of a patent application they come from typing them out on a sheet of paper that will then be submitted to the patent office.

            2. (sigh)6, ever the joker.Now try again, and in context.(and if you feel like actually taking your attempted humor one more step, please note controlling law regarding that typed out sheet of paper – ask Malcolm to volunteer this admission, er um, information, as he has in the past)Thanks buddy.(add below)And Malcolm – now how are they realized? While dreaming is important to creativity, more is required – and actualized with patents. Or do you think (like 6) that the Britney Spears CD is the same as a Microsoft Operating System disc? But we both know that software patents are more than mere dreams, right? We both understand the Grand Hall experiment, right?LOL – more Malcolm FAIL.Add: Malcolm replies to my question as to where innovation comes from with “dreamt up by bottom-feeders like you” Now putting aside the attempted slander (for the moment), I would just point out that ALL innovation – every patent – comes from someone dreaming up’ the innovation. Innovation does not happen without a person being involved and that person’s insight.So yet again, this board is treated to a vacuous insulting post by Malcolm – quite literally only one of now more than one hundred on this thread alone, and with ZERO posts by Malcolm that add anything of value to any discussion here.

            3. I will be happy to adjust my context to a different context. You’ll need to let me which alternate context you wish to discuss. Here at Patentlyo we generally discuss in the patent context.

            4. “Here at Patentlyo we generally discuss in the patent context.”LOL – you have yet to show that you know what that means, 6.

            5. how are they realized? While dreaming is important to creativity, more is required – and actualized with patentsNews flash for you: claiming an old computer with new functions in a patent doesn’t “actualize” anything. Or perhaps you have an interesting definition for “actualize” that you’d like to share with us. It wouldn’t be the first time you’ve performed that trick.

            6. How about constructive reduction to practice?Maybe you have heard of that term?How about meeting the rest of the laws under the Patent Act (which the software patents do).And by the way, you still have not explained how you think the ‘old computer’ gains these actual new functions.add: look at the sum total of your posts here, Malcolm: nothing but vacuous fallacies, name-calling, unanswered counterpoints, and Accuse-Others-Of-That-Which-You-Do. The fallacy of “use an old machine” for example – you cannot use an old machine without first changing that old machine. Changing the old machine by adding a new manufacture of the component of software creates a new machine – in fact and in law. As much as you might wish to think that you can ‘use a machine’ with software ‘totally in your mind,’ in this reality that does not happen.That’s the point of the Grand Hall experiment. You start with two identical physical machines, each without any software whatsoever. At that point you have two ‘old machines.’ You then take one of the two machines – and only one of them – and update the one machine by configuring it (yes, that means making a physical change by adding a new component [and it matters not that the naked eye cannot see the physical change, see Alappat]). Now compare the two machines side by side. Can the ‘old machine’ do what the upgraded machine can do -without likewise being changed, what is claimed in the improvement thereof? To you, somehow (and yet unexplained) the ‘old machine’ incorporates all, any and every improvement possible – no matter what – and that is the ‘Morse’ tie-in, no matter what the improvement, no matter how unforeseen at the time of the ‘old machine’ creation, you somehow ‘magically’ believe that such ‘old machine’ covers all future invention. You vacuously waive your hands about and say “the machine was meant to be changed,’ as if that is somehow a ‘logical’ panacea. You fail to see the correlation with the (purposefully equally vapid) ‘logic’ that combinations of electrons, neutrons, and protons were ‘meant to be changed.’ And believe me, the analogous chemical fallacy rests on even more compelling grounds, as those components are far more ancient and the ‘law of nature’ by which those components are configured is also far more ancient and well understood.Hmmm, you engage in blustering ad nauseum and NOT providing any actual answers… “It wouldn’t be the first time you’ve performed that trick” add: that you bluster about ‘not understanding’ what is perfectly understandable is simply disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.And NEWSFLASH for you, changing a machine by adding a man-made manufacture (software) means making a new machine. Always has – always will.LOL – typical Malcolm FAIL.

            7. How about constructive reduction to practice? Maybe you have heard of that term?I have. Describing a new function for an old box is not a “constructive reduction to practice” of a new invention.You can keep trying to change the subject as often as you want, TB. The issues raised by functional claiming at the point of novelty aren’t going to go away just because you want them to. You’ll have to deal with them. Screaming “it’s been this way for a long time” is not going to work for your team much longer (did it ever work?).

            8. “new function for an old box”LOL – that meme is threadbare, Malcolm, as you continuously have run away from explaining how it is an ‘old box’ comes to have this new function.No answers from you on that. (still)No answers to the fact that a change to the ‘old box’ in the form of adding the manufacture of software and the reconfiguration of that ‘old box’ makes a new box – that is a fact and that is the law, you know (and yes, you do know this no matter how tightly you try to clench your eyes and wish it were not so – a volunteered admission against interest: configured to is structural language – your dissembling falters).So instead of actually answering the very simple question put to you, instead of you facing the power of the Grand Hall experiment, you (again) decide to dissemble and prevaricate – it is not I that is attempting to change the subject – I am trying to drag you back to the subject and have you give an answer you refuse to talk about – and now it is you that attempts to kick up dust (LOL, PON, really? you want to try to interject that into the conversation?)That bile you are choking on is starting to froth and splash all over your face.

            9. you continuously have run away from explaining how it is an ‘old box’ comes to have this new function.,I’m not running away from that explanation. The applicants for patents on the old boxes with new functions are the ones who are refusing to provide any explanation (other than “instruct the box to have the new function”).

            10. That does not answer the question, Malcolm.Try again. Explain: how does the ‘old box’ come to have this new function?A simple question, really – and then can you answer as to why are you dodging it?You have now kicked up dust in at least three areas of which I have not said what you purport me to say, and yet you still have not answered me and the questions that I have asked Malcolm, all the while claiming that you are not running away.Why the duplicity?

            11. Explain: how does the ‘old box’ come to have this new function?The burden isn’t on me to to provide that explanation. The old box has the new information processing function because I say that it does. Once an ordinary person in the art of giving old boxes new functions is provided with the information processing function, it’s just a matter of ordinary skill to make it happen. What is there to “explain”? Haven’t you heard of “constructive reduction to practice? LOL.Seriously, that’s exactly how it works in the world of the softie wofties. Dream it up, and get your patent. Unless of course we’re talking about some description in the prior art of what a computer is capable of doing. None of that prior art stuff is enabled. Hell no! It’s all “science fiction.” Because … “the 2nd of Law of Thermodynamics”. Or something.That’s how “skilled artisans” know that determining which TV shows in given set were watched by you is “totally different” from determining which TV shows in a given set weren’t watched by you. Skilled softie wofite artisans can actually make those arguments without getting disbarred or sanctioned. They can even get patents based on such arguments.It’s a broken system, gleefully exploited by people who really love money but who would rather make money by preying on other people than do any work themselves.

            12. do you think (like 6) that the Britney Spears CD is the same as a Microsoft Operating System disc?I think that a computer will treat those discs however it’s programmed to treat them. As you will surely never understand (or you will surely pretend not to), terms like “the same as” lose their meaning when we toss structure out the door and focus only on information processing “functionality.”You say a lemon is worth a quarter. I say it’s worth a nickel. Has there been a “transformation”? Apparently so in the increasingly confused and bizarre world of the patent teabaggers who will eagerly recite whatever script is being passed around that day, without any consideration of the consequences of their inane positions.

            13. LOL – “however it’s programmed to treat them” – sounds like a machine to me, and a likely patent eligible one at that – just like the type of machine that is a category under the patent law. Maybe you heard of this thing called law? It is different than the thing you spout called ‘policy’ (otherwise known as wishful thinking).”eagerly recite whatever script is being passed around”More of that delectable Malcolm Accuse-Others gambit.(Malcolm, your gambits are rather stale)

            14. Maybe you heard of this thing called law? It is different than the thing you spout called ‘policy’So much stoopit. So little time.

            15. software patents are more than mere dreamsOnly because the PTO and some ignorant judges created a shameful coddling culture that primarily benefits bottom-feeder patent attorneys and grifters at the expense of everyone else. If you describe your dream to the PTO and your dream is about a new function for an old computer, apparently that’s plenty good enough for the PTO. Unlike every other item of manufacture, the new structure of that new computer need never be described, nor is it necessary for a single working example of such a computer be provided. And now we’re being told that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics requires that result. I’m pretty sure there are zero Justices on the Supreme Court who are going to buy that line of b.s. but its funny watching you and NWPA hail The Great Susskind as some sort of white knight for software patents.

            16. Your reading still svcks, seeing as I have made ZERO comments regarding the Susskind information. (lol – now watch some dissembling from Malcolm, who will try to pass off the fact that he was blatantly wrong about the content of my comments and watch him try to make some asinine point about my not commenting on Susskind without realizing that ALL of my points works without Susskind. Malcolm, kindly address the CONTENT of my posts, not what you wish that content were to be)And as far as I can tell (and that is pretty far), since all of the rest of the patent laws apply to software inventions, your “at the expense of everyone else” is pure malarky. That’s rather important to keep in mind.”because the PTO and some ignorant judges” Not just them, as the Congress wrote 101 to be, well, a pretty wide open welcoming gate. You might as well share some of your choice expletives, er um, ‘wisdom’ with the rest of the real world that simply does not share your mania against real inventions.LOL – and no, there has not been a requirement for “working models” for more than 200 years now.Time for you to catch up to the modern times, my friend.add: “nor is it necessary for a single working example”By working, you mean to the full scope of exacting utility that the claim purports to cover? Let’s see how that works in the Pharma field – if you apply that thought there, you would need to have your proof of utility – including the full gamut of FDA approval – at the time of your application filing. Good luck with that change to the law.

            17. yes, you did volunteer an admission that ‘configured to’ is structural language, no matter how badly you want to say you did notYes, you did volunteer an admission that you enjoyed hiding behind the bushes by the elementary school, no matter how badly you want to say you did not.Fun game! You’ll start the next round, as usual?

            18. Once again Malcolm, there is a clear difference between my listing what you actually said and your making things up whole cloth unrelated to anything whatsoever.

      2. If the information isn’t lost and it has changed, then what has happened? It has been transformed and meets the machine or transformation test. Not only that, but one can show that to transform the information would require a minimum amount of energy. Physics is telling us that what is happening is a real physical process that obeys the laws of physics. That there are energy, space, and time constraints. For a contrary view, read Bilski dissent where J. Stevens presents a view of information taken from the medieval ages. J. Stevens appears to believe that his mind is devoid of physical form.

        1. Night, I should be surprised if anybody contributing to this blog were to dispute that a machine that is processing data i) consumes energy ii) needs time iii) takes up space iv) obeys the laws of physics and v) processes the data.anon helpfully reminds me that my brain is not a machine “in the patent sense”. I take from that remark that some data processing devices under the sun and made by man are not machines “in the patent sense”. Of course, I am more interested in i) what transformations are transformations in the SCOTUS sense and (even more so), what processes are processes in the patent sense.Digital computers and computer-implemented methods are all eligible at the EPO. I imagine Night would approve of that approach. Perhaps SCOTUS will say that also in the USA they all are too, I’m looking forward to it telling me whether that they are (or in the alternative, that some processes are not processes “in the patent sense”).

          1. Clearly, what I am arguing is that the laws of physics are telling us that the transformations that the information processing machines are performing should be treated as patent eligible transformations. Every bit as much as molecules and atoms reacting in a test tube.And, further, read Stevens’ dissent in Bilski (or Benson). I do not agree with your characterization that there is a general agreement on the physics of information processing. We have a medieval contingent of our Supreme Court.Furthermore, given the real physics of information processing, how is it possible for something without structure to transform information?

            1. I take it, Night, that your question is rhetorical. Apart from that, I think we are talking not to each other but to other readers of this blog. You know, at this point, I can’t think of anything to add that those readers would find useful.

            2. Whatever Max. I think you are mistaken if you think this view of information processing is generally accepted.I also think that if this view of information is accepted then the burden shifts to the other side to say why any information processing method or machine isn’t eligible for patentability. And, finally, did you not read my post above regarding our medieval Supreme Court. Or, did you just discount it out of hand? (And, this puts to rest that structureless entities can transform information as asserted by Lemley.)

            3. Night, thanks for describing what I wrote above as “ridiculous”. I enjoyed that.You write:”If the information isn’t lost and it has changed, then what has happened? It has been transformed and meets the machine or transformation test.”and your “meets” is where we part company. “Information” is a concept relied upon by physicists when formulating natural laws, a concept like entropy or time. You say that when “Information” changes, it meets the “transformation” prong of US patent law jurisprudence. and that anybody who disagrees with you on that is simply “ridiculous”. Count me as one of those who disagrees with you (and furthermore thinks you are the one who is ridiculous).Of course, it barely needs adding, A machine programmed physically to manipulate non-physical information in a new, enabled and non-obvious way is proper subject matter for patents. But that’s not what we are discussing here is it? You ask why I don’t criticise a Justice of the Supreme Court. It is because I am not a US citizen or even a US resident, and so am in these columns properly reticent about venturing any such criticism. I’ll leave that to you.

            4. >I should be surprised if anybody >contributing to this blog were to dispute Max, you were the one taking the high hand with me first. I doubt that more than half of the SCOTUS, the Fed. Cir., or the readers of this blog can even begin to understand my arguments. Many here in the U.S. believe that the mind is separate from the brain and there is no underlying physical nature to their thinking. You say you disagree, but there is not really anything you are saying that I can respond to. Your version of 101 is throwing in our 103, 102, and 112. And, yes, it is ridiculous to discount the physical reality that transforming information is a real physical process.

            5. Agreed, good Night. We are done. Our readers (if any are still there) will decide whether we are both “ridiculous”, just one of us, or even perhaps neither of us. That’s fine with me.

            6. OK Max. But, I will reiterate that I think you and others are missing the big picture. Information processing is every bit as much as a physical process as bonding atoms. Our bodies move physical objects. Our brains process information. Perhaps you think this obvious, but here in the USA few people understand this.

            7. I can see that we can transform mass to energy. Where I struggle is in seeing how I am to “transform” a concept in physics, like entropy, information or time. Transform it into what, for goodness’ sake? We can process digital pulses that represent data and we can build digital pulse processing machines, of course, but that in my book is not the same thing as to “transform” that which Susskind when addressing determinism calls “information”.

            8. I doubt that more than half of the SCOTUS, the Fed. Cir., or the readers of this blog can even begin to understand my arguments.Ladies and Gentlemen, I’d like to present my next witness: Colonel Nathan Jessup.

            9. Malcolm’s irony meter is indeed broken, as he writes punch lines that describe his own arrogant and bloated psyche.

            10. the laws of physics are telling us that the transformations that the information processing machines are performing should be treated as patent eligible transformations.Patent eligibility is determined by our legal system, not by the “laws of physics.”This sort of quasi-scientific nonsense you’re spouting spectacularly crashed and burned in Nutjen. You really think it’s going to work this time? Guess again.”A method for determining the price of a purple pickle on May 20 in a leap year, comprising determining said price with a computer. “Eligible for patenting? Yes, you say, because “laws of physics.” Give us all a break, please.

    2. 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.That’s pretty funny stuff right there.

    3. old news NWPA. I heard about the hawking dispute a couple of years ago at least and it was long settled even then. But what of it? Even if a machine is transforming information that’s not what is being discussed in the MOT, so it isn’t going to help ya any my brosefus.

      1. Why isn’t it a MOT? Why is bonding two atoms together a transformation but changing information is not? Physics is telling us that changing information is every bit as much a transformation as bonding atoms together.

        1. Perhaps you should bother yourself to read about the history of the MoT. I don’t have time to hold your hand through it bro. Sufficie to say, your waving your arm around is not a transformation, neither is many many things, same for your information “transformation”. What they’re talking about is a transformation of a physical object from one thing to another. Remember this test originated in the iron age. Read the opinions from back in yesteryear where this thing got started and you’ll start to get a feel for the “transformation” prong. “Why is bonding two atoms together a transformation but changing information is not”Ask the English judge (iirc) that dreamt it up and expounded upon just that in an ancient decision. It’s more “that’s just the way things are Little Timmy” rather than some sophisticated answer that will appease you. “Physics is telling us that changing information is every bit as much a transformation as bonding atoms together.”New understandings in physics aren’t a ground to change the law :( Sorry, they just aren’t. Absent congressional approval anyway. To be clear, I think it would be great fun if discoveries/new theories in physics impacted our everyday lives like you’re proposing. But the fact of the matter is, they just don’t bro. And I can certainly understand why they don’t.

          1. Don’t be ridiculous 6. The point is that patent law is supposed to adapt to new technologies and understand them. These machines are performing a transformation every bit as much as bonding atoms in a test tube. Physics says so. Max’s post was ridiculous. My guess is about 80 percent of the federal circuit judges are incapable of understanding the arguments I’ve presented here without years of remedial training.And let’s be clear. We are talking about a federal circuit that spent what 1/2 an hour talking about a paper and pencil test for information processing during Alice oral arguments. The Church-Turing Thesis renders their arguments absurd.

            1. My guess is about 80 percent of the federal circuit judges are incapable of understanding the arguments I’ve presented hereWhen we get to 100% we’ll all be better off.

            2. These machines are performing a transformation every bit as much as bonding atoms in a test tube.If that’s true then I should be able to claim a “process” of making new bonds in a test tube merely by stating that it happens.There’s something profoundly different between using a computer to “receive data X and spit out data Y” and “bonding atoms in a test tube.” For starters, I can’t “bond atoms in a test tube” using only my mind, no matter how much time you give me. But I certainly can receive data X and spit out data Y using only my mind. So your statement is false.Care to revise your statement? Care to propose some alternate method of claiming your softie woftie junk that addresses this issue? Of course not. Instead you’ll just spew out some mindless drivel or a non-sequitur that you’ve decided answers all your critics (e.g., “Church-Turing thesis”! “House argument!”; “anthroprotomorphicatization!” etc etc).

            3. “using only my mind”LOL – pay attention, Malcolm, and leave out the strawman of ‘totally within the mind’ as you are the ONLY ONE who ever goes there.Add: Once again Malcolm dribbles out his fallacious position of ‘using old machines’ (or the equally dubious ‘new functions for old machines’ – especially as he refuses to discuss how it is that an old machine all-of-a-sudden had this new function with no changes to the old machine) without taking into account the reality (factual and legal) that changes to a machine mean that no old machine is being claimed.It is not magic (as Malcolm seems to persevere in portraying) that the addition of new components (manufactures of software) change an old machine into a new machine. This is fact. This is law. See Alappat.It is also not a surprise to seem him spout his favorite meme of Accuse-Others-Of-That-Which-He-Does by accusing NWPA of being too ignorant to understand or insisting on pretending that NWPA does not understand reality and law – all the while Malcolm continues to pretend and continues to dissemble.

            4. “But I certainly can receive data X and spit out data Y using only my mind. So your statement is false.”This sounds like something right out of a witch court. So, what you seem to be saying is that if we can build a machine that only can do what a human mind does, then it should not be eligible for patentability? What?!?!?! So, your brain can magically transform any data? How come you can’t beat a computer at chess then? So, apparently the computer can perform an information transformation that you can’t.So, the computer can perform transformation that can’t be done in your brain. The transformations are every bit as real as bonding atoms together.Your response reminds me of when I was in High School and I hadn’t studied for a test. The teacher put down “Logic?” and gave me a D.Your mind is not transforming the information in the machine.

            5. what you seem to be saying is that if we can build a machine that only can do what a human mind does, then it should not be eligible for patentability?Uh … no. Not at all. That machine is certainly eligible if it’s described as a new machine and recites the new structures responsible for its useful properties.But the information processing functions themselves aren’t eligible for patent protection. You can’t simply recite the new functions for the old machine and magically obtain a patent on all new machines with those functions. That would turn the patent system into a sad, broken joke. Which is exactly what has happened.All this has been explained to you before but you are either too ignorant to understand or you insist on pretending that you don’t understand. This is your problem. And you’re not alone, in case that makes you feel any better.

            6. How come you can’t beat a computer at chess thenI’ve beaten computers at chess lots of times. I’ve beat them at plenty of other games, too.Oh, but wait: maybe you’re talking about a “computer, wherein the computer is configured to beat MM at chess.”Oops! I just innovated all over myself again. Can I haz patent now?

            7. Brother you can tell me not to be ridiculous all you want, but I’m not the one you have beef with. “The point is that patent law is supposed to adapt to new technologies and understand them.”Well just as soon as the congress writes that into the law I’m sure the courts will bow down and acquiesce, until then, nothings going to change on this front. The MoT was made for a purpose, specifically to exclude things like you’re wanting to now include. “These machines are performing a transformation every bit as much as bonding atoms in a test tube. “Feel free to argue that all you like, but when the courts say “nah brosef” don’t come crying to me or act like you’re surprised ok? “My guess is about 80 percent of the federal circuit judges are incapable of understanding the arguments I’ve presented here without years of remedial training.”To be clear, we all understand them just fine. What you don’t understand is that the MoT, and preemption were both put in place for A REASON. And the reason was not the old view of physics or anything like that. It was adopted to distinguish between things patent eligible and not eligible. Substantive patent law does not, cannot, and should not, change due SOLELY to knew ways of thinking. Because the law itself affects so many things, it needs congress to switcheroski it. “And let’s be clear. We are talking about a federal circuit that spent what 1/2 an hour talking about a paper and pencil test for information processing during Alice oral arguments. “They’re trying to adopt a test that will save some of what you want to be eligible. You should be thanking them, profoundly.

            8. “Well just as soon as the congress writes that into the law”They already did – way back in 1952, at the least, with the wide open gates to 101 and the use of the term ‘any.’Did that same Congress make the MoT? No? Who did? And that’s the same group that lately said that the MoT was not required, wasn’t it?LOL – and you want to wander back into ‘preemption land’ now do you 6? You just love showing your ignorance on many fronts, don’t you?

            9. So, just to be clear, why do you reckon that the USSC told us point blank not a few years later that there was indication that the congress did not intend substantive change to the law?

            10. That’s easy 6 – they wanted to keep their fingers in the 101 nose of wax.I have said this many times. Pay attention.

            11. Ahhh, I keep forgetting that it was a conspiracy amongst the judges specifically targeting you. Silly me, how could I forget that you belieb in conspiracy theories? And worse yet, how could I possibly forget your particular conspiracy theory?Tell you what sparky, why not float that argument before them sometime? Put in an amicus. Just admonish them for their conspiracy to keep their fingers in the nose!

            12. Silly 6 – not a conspiracy against me (odd how you think that), and very much a (political) reality – people with power do not like to give up that power.add: note that in Prometheus it was not the law itself that the Justices were concerned about becoming a dead letter, it was their judicial exceptions.Seriously 6 – your belief system appears to be hyperventilating.

          2. Maybe 6 needs to pay attention to the history of MoT in patent law…Here’s a hint that I often share with Ned:Bilski: MoT not required.(lol – logic fail for Malcolm as the converse of MoT not required is lost on him)

            1. Here’s a hint that I often share with Ned:Bilski: MoT not required.It’s never clear where TB is going with his “hints.” Probably that’s because TB has no idea what he’s talking about and just likes to pretend that he has some devastating argument lurking behind his bizarre innuendo.MoT is not necessary to find subject matter ineligible. But it’s an important clue. That’s what Bilski said. In what possible way could the existence of alternative routes for finding subject matter ineligible (that do not depend on the MoT) assist TB in his defense of softie wofite junk patents? It’s a complete mystery. He’s never attempted to explain a word of it to anyone. And this has been going on for years.I guess that’s why the term “crazy person” is occasionally invoked to describe TB’s weird rhetorical … “methods.”

  8. The patent teabagger’s fundamental belief: more patents, all the time, is the best thing ever. Everything they do and say can be most easily understood once this fundamental belief is acknowledged.The patent teabaggers will never be satisfied and they’ll never admit “enough already.” If we can flash forward twenty years from now to some imaginary time when the PTO is granting upwards of a million patents a year (following the “usual trend”) there will still be a handful of wealthy, Texas Republican “anti-government” bottom-feeders (and their enablers) cheerleading for more, whining about some reasonable change in the law “destroying innovation” (or better yet, “harming children”), blaming the PTO for not coddling them more, and claiming that the grant numbers are just compensating for “the Dudas era.”Take it to the bank.

    1. “The patent teabagger’s fundamental belief: more patents, all the time, is the best thing ever”You only highlight your ignorance of what a patent is and the Quid Pro Quo exchange by attempting to denigrate those who know what patents are and the merit achieved in that exchange.If you really understood what the patent system was for, you would recognize that there is no upper limit desired for good valid patents. There is no “enough already” – ever. If we ever have the innovation efforts underway to obtain a million patents a year, we would be most fortunate – not cursed as your anti-patent addled mind would project.The rest of your post is not even worth commenting upon.

    1. Leftcoastrocky,Why do you ask? I’m curious, as the Quid Pro Quo is technically an even value swap, do you think it matters who (or what nationality) the applicant is?

      1. as the Quid Pro Quo is technically an even value swap, do you think it matters who (or what nationality) the applicant is?Go ahead and answer you own question, TB. Does it “matter” if 50% of all US patents are foreign owned? What if the answer is 100%? Don’t forget to tell everyone if it “matters” to you. Then tell everyone whether you believe it “matters” to anyone else, where “anyone else” includes a small business owner who receives a cease and desist letter informing him that when he uses a lawfully purchased computer screen to display a picture of a piece of chicken on the side of his car that he’s infringing a patent owned by a retired Texas patent lawyer who now lives in France.You think these facts “matter” to people?It’s always fun playing with the teabaggers. They really are as clueless as they appear.

        1. Why would I answer my own question, Malcolm?Gee, you don’t seem to get the self-contained Echo chamber comment at all, do you?(yes that was rhetorical).”really are as clueless as they appear”There you go again, doing that Accuse-Others-Of-That-Which-You-Are thing again…I wonder if you realize that your vapid trolling of my comments is quite the blight, or that there is an actual point that could be understood in the larger picture of understanding what the Quid Pro Quo is about.(yes, that too is rhetorical)add: and Malcolm accuses me of changing the subject – as if his tro11ing of me here was not an attempt to change the subject… The Accuse-Others-Of-That-Which-He-Does gambit needs to be retired. Maybe an old box has that invention already made…

            1. …because answering your own question makes you not a total dipsht…?In this case (as usual) there’s very little you can do to redeem yourself because you’ve already indicated your beliefs about the answer (go ahead and pretend that you haven’t though — that would be amusing, but not unexpected).The best part is that it drives home just how insanely nutty the teabagger crowd is (and let’s face it: you are surely their favorite son and finest representative). You look at an exploding grant rate and immediately think: “GOOD!” and then your brain just shuts off. It never even occurs to you to think about the future or the logical consequences that follow from the endless patent fluffing b.s. that reflexively flows out of your piehole.

            2. “very little you can do to redeem yourself”LOL – yet more of that ‘precious’ Accuse-Others CRP from Malcolm..Let’s see ,… hmmm., the future or logical consequences of more patents……more innovation – check…more wisdom captured and shared in the public domain – check…the founding fathers’ view of the patent system working the way they intended – checkLooks like all good things to me.Tell me again why you think we have a patent system – we can add that to my list.Also looks like you need to get into a line of work in which you can believe in the work product you produce. This obsession of yours that patents are ev1l is really doing some odd things with your psyche.

            3. the founding fathers’ view of the patent system working the way they intendedThat’s so sweet that you think so. Please say hi to the FFs for me next time you go on one of your fantastic time travel adventures!!!

            4. Don’t be silly Malcolm, no one said anything about time travel.However, there is this thing called historical research. Some people even earn awards for that type of effort. Goes with recognizing the truth of events.It may not be interesting as your make-things-up world, wherein you can no longer tell the difference between fact and spin, but it does help to understand actual historical perspectives and the discussion of law.You know, real law.

            5. there is this thing called historical research. Some people even earn awards for that type of effort.So who’s the world’s most respected expert on what the Founding Fathers thought of software patents? I’d love to read some of that awesome “research.”

            6. Don’t you get dizzy applying so much spin?(perhaps the open ended nature of 101 escapes your ability to understand…)LOL -more Accuse-Others-Of-That-Which-Malcolm-Is: give a list of inventions in the modern century that the founding fathers actually discussed. OK…. So every single invention in the modern era that the Founding Fathers did not discuss, you think is something that should not be within the patent law…Stellar logic there Malcolm./facepalmAnd in case you cannot figure it out Malcolm, the insult ‘hurled’ at you was not due to the fact that you asked me a question, it was due to the fact that you purposefully asked a bogus question.But you already knew that, didn’t you?

            7. Tr 0ll b0y wrote: there is this thing called historical research. Some people even earn awards for that type of effort.And then TB was asked to provide an example of who he was talking about, in the context in which TB chose to bring up the issue. In response, TB hurls an insult.What a t 0 0 l.

  9. This is funny.link to cnn.com…Apple has not rolled out a smartwatch yet but is widely rumored to be doing so soon, marking the tech giant’s entree into the emerging wearable-tech field.Wearable technology is an “emerging field”? I wonder when the author of this piece was born. Yesterday perhaps?In any event, get ready for the USPTO to pretend that “wearable tech” is really totally different from “handheld tech” (which the USPTO treated as totally different from “tech”). The “limitations” just write themselves …”wherein the wearable computer device receives real-estate availability information”"wherein the wearable computer device is configured to send and receive information from one or more remote devices, wherein said information is party size cheeto bag information”"wherein the first wearable computer device is configured to send and receive information from a second wearable computer device worn on the same person as the first wearable computer device, wherein at least one of said first or second wearable computer devices is configured to receive information from a remote wearable computer device on a second person”Innovatin’ is so much fun! And it’s super easy, too, as long as I can just sit and imagine the dreamy functions that I want and make up some acronyms where it might otherwise sound too obvious. That’s how it works in the magical land of the softie wofties.

      1. All those limitations describe functions of wearable computer devices five years from now. That’s all you need for the claims. In five years, more “wearable tech” devices will have those functions than ever before in the history of humankind. Is that because of some “new technology” recited in the claims? Of course not. It’s because of marketing.And that’s how the “innovation” game is played in the “computer-implemented arts.” Granted, I spent only 30 seconds typing those awesome limitations out. I could spend much more time if I wished. I just don’t like the way the gravel tastes at the bottom of the tank. But some people love it. And mostly those people are privileged people who don’t have to worry about where next month’s rent is coming from. Are you starting to see the big picture finally? It became quite clear to me years ago when I saw the endless reams of junk draft applications spewing out of the the printers at the law firm. Meanwhile, I’m assisting Nobel prize winners in medicine, helping them understand the implications of experiments they spent years and hundreds of thousands of dollars designing and carrying out.

          1. “Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.”That’s nice. Guess what? The fact that one does not need to have any technical skills whatsoever to “innovate” in the softie woftie “arts” means that the typical “innovations” in that field are (wait for it) obvious junk, at best.The phrase you are referring to was not meant to promote bottom-feeding obvious functionally-claimed garbage filed by market speculators and grifters. It’s purpose is much narrower than that. But go ahead and pretend otherwise. The proponents of junk do that quite regularly, just like they like to pretend that reading “claims as a whole” means that everything new is non-obvious.

            1. LOL – because ‘real patents’ take a Flash of Genius (add: or maybe a Nobel Prize, no wait, that’s a different government program), or are only attempted to be patented because otherwise the cost of development would be prohibitive or some other such claptrap, er, um, Malcolm wisdom, but most definitely, anything that a common man could do could not possibly involve ‘true’ invention./eyeroll

            2. because ‘real patents’ take a Flash of GeniusThe point of the law is to ensure that the sole basis for denying a patent to an otherwise eligible invention is not the mere fact that the invention was accidentally stumbled upon, or discovered after routine trial and error that required nothing more than sweat on the part of the inventor. It’s not to prevent someone from simply considering the fact (among other facts) that the inventor has done nothing except describe a new function for an old machine. One other fact that can be considered (again – among others) is, of course, that the function recited in the claim is an information processing function, and the old machine was built for the sole purpose of processing any kind of information. It’s not merely “how the invention was made” that “negatives” functionally claimed junk like this. It’s how the claimed invention (and not an actual specific working embodiment of that invention, which is never discosed) relates to the prior art.In a nutshell, the idea that in 2014 somebody could commonly and readily obtain a non-obvious patent on an old machine described in such a manner is ludicrous. For that matter, it was ludicrous 30 years ago and probably 50 years ago as well. And that’s not even getting into the absurd cesspool where media containing instructions for the computer are generically (and functionally) claimed as well.or are only attempted to be patented because otherwise the cost of development would be prohibitiveTo the extent that what you wrote is parsable and makes any sense, it’s not a position of mine. As usual, it’s anybody’s guess how as to how you arrived at it.

            3. “done nothing except describe a new function for an old machine”LOL – you could not be more wrong.First, you (once again) trot out the fallacious ‘House’/Morse argument, that ‘the machine’ includes all improvements to the machine by way of additional manufactures and changes to the machine (i.e. software), and then you mistake the fact that new uses of old items (even if we allow that fallacy for argument’s sake) are EXPLICITLY meant to be patent eligible.You lose. Period. You even lose if you delude yourself that your statement is correct and you ignore reality and law (you know, the law that is controlling that you have volunteered admissions against your interests).As they say, svcks to be you, Malcolm.add: Also, your rebuttal fails in at least this respect:”an otherwise eligible invention is not the mere fact that the invention was accidentally stumbled upon” and yet, your previous post stated:”one does not need to have any technical skills whatsoever to “innovate” in the softie woftie “arts” “So tell me, Malcolm, what type of technical skills are needed for accidentally stumbling onto an invention (you know the part to be protected under law) that does not also cover your attempted denigration of level of skill ‘needed’ to invent in a particular art field (that you despise)? Let me know if you still cannot see the inconsistency, and I will try to find some first grader to explain it to you in terms that you can understand.

            4. the fallacious ‘House’/Morse argument,Nobody knows what the heck you’re talking about. Making up some strawman garbage and calling it “fallacious” is not an argument.But you know that already. Maybe you should take Eric Guttag’s advice and come up with some better, uh, “rhetoric”?Good luck.

            5. More of the Vinnie Barbarino rhetoric from Malcolm.That stuff never worked in the first place, Malcolm.You really need to update your schtick.

            6. That stuff never worked in the first placeThat’s because you are incapable of articulating your beliefs in plain English and prefer instead to simply insult people with endles, meaningless streams of spewage.Oh but wait! The “great [insert pundit name here]” wrote something that “sounded” in your spewage. Therefore it’s everyone else’s problem if nobody can understand your horsesht.

            7. LOLLearn to read Malcolm.Your tactics not working has absolutely nothing to do with my posting.You quite FAIL all on your own accord.

            8. Your tactics not working has absolutely nothing to do with my posting.Very impressive use of bold font! Is the use of more bold font part of the new PR strategy for the patent teabaggers that Eric Guttag was referring to? Gosh, I hope so because it dramatically increases the persuasiveness of your comments.Next time maybe add some capitalization and italics. And please don’t forget to throw in some weird reference to “arguments” that you never persuasively articulated or understood in the first place. That works really well, too.

            9. And is your commenting on style now a standard part of your not answering questions, or otherwise kicking up dust when faults such as your inability to read are noted?”That works really well, too”/off sarcasm.highlighting added because Malcolm has trouble reading.

            10. Let me know if you still cannot see the inconsistency, and I will try to find some first grader to explain it to youThere’s no inconsistency in my statements so maybe you’d better try to explain what you’re talking about. Good luck.

          2. Leftcoastrocky, You are absolutely correct in that ‘patentability’ shall not be negated.It cannot be more evident that Congress was explicit in their attempts to remove the Court from the defining of invention game. The purposeful intention of losing the separation of meaning of patent eligibility and patentabilty is one of today’s great obfuscation efforts.That is why the art field exclusion attack on software patents is being conducted at the 101 patent eligibility level in such artful dodging.Of course, the historical problem with that is that Congress moved in 1952 against the then anti-patent Supreme Court leaning to remove the common law ability of the court to define the 101-esque level of ‘invention,’ purposefully creating 103 and patentability and removing the atom bomb nullification of entire art fields that still remain within the useful arts (like business methods and software).It is only by dissembling, subterfuge, obfuscation and the like that any broad scale attack under 101 will ‘work.’ Witness the immediate doublespeak from Malcolm – at the same time ‘acknowledging’ the existence of 103 and the phrase you commented upon and criticizing an entire art field globally with ad hominem to the point that he believes the entire art field should be banned, obstinately under 101 (his longstanding obfuscation of a 103 per se = 101 ‘whatever’ mantra).Of course, the level of unintended consequences of such ‘working’ would be so immense as to undermine the entire patent system. That is why the Supreme Court has created such a mess with their nose of wax 101 twisting. They have to play pedantic word games and engage in ‘implicit’ findings in order to keep their fingers in that 101 nose of wax.

            1. “You need to get out more”LOL – says the man trapped in his mom’s basement.Way too ironic.add: “I’m assisting Nobel prize winners in medicine” – lol, the source of Malcolm’s Flash of Genius taint, no doubt. Didn’t he post a snide accusation with some type of ‘jealousy factor’…? Why yes he did. And look, it is actually Malcolm that is jealous – jealous of others being able to obtain patents on items that do not require a Flash of Genius. Yet another example of Malcolm’s Accuse-Others gambit. How very sad. Maybe he will make himself feel better while watching his cartoons.

  10. Just wondering what the projection is for design patents in light of the publicity related to Apple vs. Samsung? Any data?

    1. It seems pretty “excusable” given the unprecedented amount of information being thrown at the USPTO and the strange reluctance by The World’s Richest Complainers to demand that Congress authorize the hiring of a lot more Examiners.

        1. More of bad examiningAh, yes, that “bad examining” that is responsible for every patent that isn’t granted two weeks from filing, but has nothing whatsoever do with the record rates of grants. Got it.

            1. As everyone knows, there’s a really simple solution to that problem. And it’s a great solution because it helps the economy at the same time, far more directly than any number of junky patents will.Adding: it’s also true that in many cases the delay can be helpful to applicants because, for better or worse, the current law allows post filing data (unexpected results; licensees of the application; sales of products) to be used to counter obviousness rejections. If you really need a patent fast, you can get your application examined fast. It’s easier to do that now than ever before.

            2. The solution being to improve/expand the prior art data bases available to examiners, as well as improving the classification system.

            3. Those are great additional solutions. Of course, in addition to hiring people to design those improved systems, people will need to be trained how to use those new systems, which will require training people to train them.There’s no way to address an exploding broken patent system without hiring more people. Anyone who begs to differ really doesn’t care about fixing the broken, exploding system. Rather, such people care more about making it easier to take advantage of the broken system by breaking it further. Pretty much everything that comes out of the mouths of those people can be understood quite easily in that light.Take David Kappos, one of the guys most responsible for the broken state of the system. He wants us to believe that design patents are the Most Important Things Ever. Does the PTO have a database of designs that is searchable in any meaningful way? Not that I’m aware of. Could such a database be built in 2014? Of course it could. It just needs money. Who has the money? You’ll be shocked to know that the people with the money are the same people who want the system to remain as exploitable and broken as possible. Same as it ever was.

            4. The guy who QQs about broken systems is the same guy who wants to eliminate whole art units from patent coverage.Not.Buying.It.”David Kappos, one of the guys most responsible for the broken state of the system”LOL – Malcolm you are so wrong. But keep trying to denigrate the man that put the system back together after the Dudas fiasco. That only shows how little you have in touch with this reality.

            5. The guy who QQs about broken systems is the same guy who wants to eliminate whole art units from patent coverage.There’s no inconsistency there.

            6. “There’s no inconsistency there.”LOL – because Malcolm says so – oh so very Carroll of him.Use of the system – especially exploding use – is a clear sign that the system is working. The fact that you still want the system NOT to be used shows that you do not understand that the system was put in place TO BE used.Add: one offshoot of Malcolm’s ‘logic’ is that for some un-ascertained condition, perfectly valid and legitimate patents should be denied because of nothing more than his say so, his saying that ‘there are enough.” Sounds remarkably like the lame anti-software paper in the 1960s that complained that software patents should not be allowed because it would be ‘too difficult’ to examine them. LOL – do we really want ‘policy’ of “too-difficult-to examine” to be used to reject innovation? That’s as nutty as Malcolm’s innuendo that the Founding Fathers could not have wanted patents for software since they did not explicitly call out patents for software.

            7. LOL – because Malcolm says soNo. I say that because there’s no inconsistency in my comment. If you are aware of an inconsistency, then explain to everyone exactly what the inconsistency is. Ask your mommy to help you with the English.

            8. I always wondered about how design patents are searchable from the outside.I’m talking about searching from the inside. For example, what fraction, do you think, of all prior art watch face designs are in the PTO’s database? For any such design, what parameters are taken into account to more quickly identify the “closest” hits in the PTO’s database?

            9. Generally for something like watches or tables we just flip through all 4000+ references to search a case. In other words, I doubt if there are any.

        1. Well, if you read the GAO report, they said that heavy turnover was greatly diminishing the impact of the hiring binge at the time.In case you didn’t know, the USPTO is now ranked the #1 best subagency to work for in the entire federal government. I don’t know if Dudas read the GAO report, but I bet you Kappos did. Some of the graph above is based on continued hiring, but some is also because our retention rate has been substantially improved over the past few years, and our workforce is becoming more experienced and therefore capable (and required) of doing more work per unit time.

          1. “the USPTO is now ranked the #1 best subagency to work for in the entire federal government. “I bet it is. Put in a few years and you get $150K or so per year, all the while complaining about having to work “overtime.” (See page 1 of the aforementioned GAO report.) Plus, you can pretend to work from home.

            1. Put in a few years and you get $150K or so per yearThat seems very reasonable given the job requirements and what people on the “other side” are typically paid. How much does a seasoned partner in a law firm make these days? And by “seasoned” I mean the kind of partner whose head explodes whenever you mention Prometheus but who also acts surprised when he’s informed that Abstracts can be used for claim construction. You know, someone who’s really serious and needs a lot of attention.

            2. “And by “seasoned” I mean the kind of partner whose head explodes whenever you mention Prometheus but who also acts surprised when he’s informed that Abstracts can be used for claim construction.”LOL. I can’t say how much those guys get paid – I know they exist, but there aren’t any of those in my office.

            3. LOL, Malcolm is doing that Accuse-Others thing again…..here, Malcolm is posting with an “inane innuendo is otherwise worthless, as usual” attack on someone who has pro-patent views that Malcolm does not like.Go figure indeed.

            4. innuendo: an allusive or oblique remark or hint, typically a suggestive or disparaging one.LOL – Malcolm, try again.(btw, you really really really svck at this)

            5. Hah, idk about that, my 150k is slow coming man. How many years do I have to put in? I’m just now going to be cracking 100k shortly and I’ve been here 6.5 or so.

            6. $150K salary is reserved for GS-15 SPEs and management. Since you can’t get to GS-15 in a few years, as an examiner to get to $150K in a few years you’d have to hit every promotion on time and work full overtime. That’s not much of a life and few people do that.

            7. I said: “Put in a few years and you get $150K or so per year, all the while complaining about having to work ‘overtime.’”Nope said: “…as an examiner to get to $150K in a few years you’d have to hit every promotion on time and work full overtime. That’s not much of a life…”I’m assuming that this was meant as a rebuttal.

            8. “$150K salary is reserved for GS-15 SPEs and management.”And they’re the biggest know-nothing, do-nothing’s in the whole place!

          2. “In case you didn’t know, the USPTO is now ranked the #1 best subagency to work for in the entire federal government.”Huzzah, I didn’t know that. I thought we were still a few slots behind…As to the “turnover”, if they were paying what examiners would consider a fair wage at the lower levels more people might stay on and live in this neighborhood before they get to be a 11-12 and can move away. I’m always blown away by how I can live in other areas. I took my whole extended family of like 12 people out for dinner over christmas for the same amount I’d pay for one nice date around these parts.

          3. You must be uninformed upper management, as I hope you wouldn’t be that uninformed as an examiner. The lower attrition rates of the past few years has been due to the weaker economy and firms hiring fewer people. As the economy has improved the attrition rates are rising and will go back to their pre-recession levels. As for being the #1 subagency, you do realize that the employee survey was being conducted while people were worried about unpaid furlough during the budget standoff, which didn’t effect patent examiners. It’s easy to make #1 when you’re the only people not worried about your paychecks.

        2. Last time a ‘just hire your way out of it” tactic was attemptedIf you have an argument to make based on the GAO report, then please make it, indicate the specific numbers you are referring to, and provide your interpretations and explanations for your interpretations. Your inane innuendo is otherwise worthless, as usual. Actually it’s worse than that because nobody except a complete idiot would suggest that hiring more Examiners is in any way counter-productive to the goal of improving the public service provided USPTO.I’ll ask you again, 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 of examiners, incredibly long delays before examination, or further (seemingly impossible) reductions in the quality of examination. Good luck.

          1. Actually, my post is quite the opposite of “Your inane innuendo is otherwise worthless, as usual” as it has sparked dialogue between Nope and APoTU with both bringing good views – some relative improvement has been made in the Office, although substantial improvement is still needed. And yes, while you continue to blather about change is needed (without actually giving any meaningful suggestions yourself) I have provided suggestions in the past, including anti-widgeting the process and controlling the mix of workload based on a scaled difficulty of invention examination.As to your further inanity of “because nobody except a complete idiot would suggest that hiring more Examiners is in any way counter-productive to the goal of improving the public service provided USPTO”, you continue to live in a bubble, don’t you? Do you still not realize that such counter-productive ‘service’ is very much being attempted by the anti-patentists? LOL, oh wait, you still think that patents are a bad thing, even though you cannot give a reason for closing the patent office and not issuing any more patents.As to doing more of something that does not work, I thought that you would have learned your lesson after the Myriad case, you know, 30,000+ plus words of mewling QQ from you when all that you needed were three little words: “anon was right”More mischaracterization from Malcolm (this time regarding the Myriad decision, as my many many many posts on the topic before the decision was handed down cannot – with any intellectual honesty – be merely characterized as Malcolm so attempts.Yet another dissembling moment brought to all of us by Malcolm. Sorry, Prof. Crouch, your new software will not stop that blight.

            1. my post is quite the oppositeLOL.you cannot give a reason for closing the patent officeI’ve no idea what you’re babbling about. Maybe time to check your meds?all that you needed were four little words: “blind squirrel found nut”Fixed.

  11. What’s the status of Gil Hyatt’s submarine cases?It’d probably be helpful to everyone at this point if the USPTO simply granted them (like it does so much other junk) so the world could see how wonderful our patent system really is.Barring that, it’d be nice to see all the pending claims. Leaky, leaky …

    1. Like it or not, there are certain laws about patents being processed in confidentiality.Your wanting to play loose with rules you don’t like, well, that’s just Malcolm being Malcolm.

      1. Your wanting to play loose with rules you don’t likeThe rules aren’t relevant to me because I don’t work at the USPTO. I don’t want to “play loose with the rules.” I want to change them. Barring that, I’d welcome any leaks which would (1) harm nobody except a filthy rich crybaby and (2) would benefit, directly or indirectly, pretty much everybody else on the planet.

  12. I’ve certainly allowed quite a few. A friend of mine seems to think that this is actually a function of the fees being raised. That is, as the fees were raised, people are more serious about concluding prosecution, and allowances result. I don’t know if I concur or not, but I do think that the timing is rather odd if that was not the case. The allowances as a function of fees may also help explain certain historical anomalies.

    1. Certain historical anomalies….?Not really. It looks alike a pretty straight forward trend from about 1981. If you account for the missing chunks (due no doubt to the “quality” initiative of “just say no,” the curve is not all that surprising.add: one should also realize that innovation begets innovation and that an upward trend is not only to be expected, but is also a good thing.

      1. Not really. It looks alike a pretty straight forward trend from about 1981That’s pretty funny.From 1978 to 1998 the number of grants each year grew at a rate of approximately 10,000 patents per year. Then there was a marked upward blip in 1998, a few years before the dot.com bubble deflated and also the year that of Federal Circuit wrote their awful State Street Bank decision (the “high-water mark” in patentable subject matter jurisprudence, famously trashed by a majority of Justices in Bilski).After a short wallowing period following the deflation of the dot.com bubble and the 9/11 attacks, the grants/yr return to more or less the same rates of growth of the previous 20 years (which were historically high to begin with). Then the housing bubble bursts in 2008.From that point on, the rate of growth of patent issuance is unprecedented. Nearly as many patents have issued in the past two years — in the middle of a devastating recession — than were issued during four years of the dot com bubble (1997-2001).And, lest we forget, you’ve been complaining that entire time that the courts and the PTO make it too hard to get a patent … because of “leftist” “academics” or something? Like I said: that’s funny.

        1. Wrong Malcolm – look at the chart and draw a line – that line goes to 1981 (not 1998 – wow, look at that attempted spin).add: again you have a problem with basic math: rate and percentage of grant per application pool seems like a difficult concept for you to grasp. The historical rate has not been unprecedented at all – it has been merely restored from the UNprecedented (and unexplained – except for Reject Reject Reject) drop during the Dudas Just say No era (plain facts you also seem unable to grasp). – ADD you cannot operate in a vacuum – the ‘bites’ out of the graph are directly related to actions meant to deny applicants their rights. We are seeing the grant level ‘explode’ merely because applicants refused to bow down and accept ‘no’ from the Office. That’s also why the deck chairs of the Titanic were merely moved from one deck to another – the queues of applications were shuffled around. I have explained this many times now – pay attention. Take the infamous Office ‘Quality equals Reject’ graph, flip it upside down, adjust for time processing and overlay with the graphs for pendency build-up in any of the queues. Let me know the statistical correlation (if you know what that means). What we are witnessing is merely the backlog finally catching up.Just like the infamous “Quality” graph (used quite often in the Dudas era), you cannot rewrite history when it smacks you in the face like it does.LOL – or are you still pretending that Kappos had no reason to say “Quality does not equal Reject”?And you are still trying to say that the patent system is not under attack from the Left and the Right? May be some choice expletives for quotes I provide from others saying the same thing I say…?Or maybe some insight into patent greats like Chisum (who also says things I have said)…?

          1. or are you still pretending that Kappos had no reason to say “Quality does not equal Reject”?Of course he had a reason to say that: he wanted to throw his constituents a big juicy bone. And you’ve never stopped sucking on it.you are still trying to say that the patent system is not under attack from the Left and the RightI’m just laughing at the persecution complex that you share with your fellow patent teabaggers. Gosh, it must be so hard being “attacked” from the “Right” and the “Left.” It’s almost as if everyone thinks that you and your fellow patent teabaggers are self-entitled jerky a-holes and grifters or something like that. I wonder what mysterious reason there could be for disparate groups of people coming to that same conclusion. Probably something to do with communism. Or maybe it’s just jealousy of successful people. Yeah. That must be it.

          2. look at the chart and draw a lineROTFLMAOTry this: 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 of examiners, incredibly long delays before examination, or further (seemingly impossible) reductions in the quality of examination.Serious question. Ask your mom to help you.

          3. We are seeing the grant level ‘explode’ merely because applicants refused to bow down and accept ‘no’ from the Office.Pure, unadulterated horsesht.patent greats like ChisumLOLOLOL

            1. “Pure, unadulterated horsesht.”LOL – Because Malcolm says so, oh, how very Carroll of him.Another vacuous post from you in regards to Chisum – and yet, you continue to not have anything actually substantive to say.LOL – go figure indeed.

            2. Again – a meaningless post by Malcolm.Anytime you want to add something (anything) substantive, please go ahead.And yes Malcolm it is meaningless as you refuse to actually add any substantive comments to the discussion. Somehow you think that when a well known and respected authority on patent law publishes an article that so happens to repeat many of the things that I have posted that either the well known and respected patent law authority is a hack (from your previous comments) or that I am merely attempting to inflate my importance, when actually the point is clear that my posts are substantive (and reflect well known and respected authorities) while your posts, well, continue to be a blight.

            3. a meaningless postNot meaningless at all. I’m just laughing at your endlessly pathetic attempts to inflate your importance by appealing to your favorite authorities.

            4. Appealing to authorities – especially recognized ones, happens to work pretty darn good in the real world Malcolm.Much better than your appealing to ad honinem, old worn out cliches, evasive dissembling and that ‘adorable’ Accuse-Others-Of-That-Which-You-Do schtick of yours.You should try it some time, that is, if you ever find recognized authorities that spout your nonsense (and your puppets such as Shirivan don’t count).

            5. a well known and respected authority on patent law publishes an article that so happens to repeat many of the things that I have postedImpossible to parody this stuff.

            6. You should spend less time trying to parody and more time actually adding comments with substantive merit.The parody stuff you attempt is not working for you anyway.

      2. an upward trend is not only to be expected, but is also a good thing.LOL. By that logic, let’s just end the charade and rubber stamp patents for everybody, then.

        1. Clearly you do not get it – nor have you paid attention to my posts.I have explicitly stated that a rubber stamp is NOT what I advocate, nor have ever advocated – (but that won’t stop you from trying to read from a script and try to have my position to be something it has never been).Sorry that such does not fit into what you think – no matter how many times you dissemble on that point..Add: “by that logic” Really? Do you even get why patents are a good thing? Seriously, by your logic, we should just close the patent office and be done with it.Malcolm since you clearly do not believe that patents are a good thing, why is that we even have a patent system (in your humble opinion)? LOL – Still no answer to this simple question.

          1. Seriously, by your logic, we should just close the patent officeNot at all. I support a functioning patent system that promotes progress, rather than promoting the perpetuation of a class of grifting speculators.

            1. Malcolm said soI did. And you can quote me on that. So can anyone else. Or you can just pretend you made the phrase up yourself. I’m generous that way.

          2. I have explicitly stated that a rubber stamp is NOT what I advocateOh, bold, italics and caps — all in the same sentence! Very fancy.In fact, it’s been clear from the beginning that your vague calls for “better examination” at the USPTO are just self-serving baloney which really means “make it harder for examiners and easier for applicants.”In this very thread, you did “explicitly state” the following: an upward trend is … a good thingAnd that’s what my earlier comment was directed to (as if you didn’t know). If the “upward trend” in the rate of patent grants is, in and of itself, “a good thing”, then why not accelerate that trend even further by making examination both cheaper and even less demanding on applicants than it is now (assuming that’s possible)? e.g., why not take whatever steps are necessary to double the number of patents being granted/yr every two years instead of every five years? I’m curious as to why you’d even pretend to resist such measures.

            1. Nothing at all vague about “Do the job right the first time.”And your comment (as typical) was misleading – and wrong. The grant rate of about 75% of applications submitted is at the historical level after rebounding from the inexplicable Reject Reject Reject dive into the near 30% range. You keep on having problems understanding the actual math involved.

            2. The grant rate of about 75%The “historical” percentage of applications that result in patent grant is a related but distinct issue from the number of grants/year. As we’ve discussed before, you seem unable to understand the distinction and very willing to confuse the two issues (when it suits you). As an illustration of your problem, why don’t you tell everyone what should be expected to happen to the percentage of applications that result in patent grants if 1 billion applications are filed tomorrow by 1 billion different people, and please explain your answer.You keep on having problems understanding the actual mathNot at all. You are having problems with “the math” because you want to pretend that everything is “normal” about recent trends in the US patent system. I don’t have any problems with “the math” because I’m just looking at the numbers and not trying to kick up dust around them like you are.

            3. Number of grants per year must be looked at in relation to the total number of applications being submitted. (and not in a vacuum, which you seem to prefer)Do’h! (said in the best Homer Simpson tones)Grants per year is not the same as the grant rate that is to be compared to the Reject Reject Reject era graph – or any other metric with examination and patent or no patent data. You are confusing throughput with rate.

        2. Maybe things would be more clear if Prof. Crouch posted the number of rejections that the Office provided this year (sort of like, in answer to my typical calls for a complete picture when the “oh my gosh, too many patents” data is chummed out).Again – throughput and patent grant rate are different things, and the number of grants – alone and in a vacuum – simply do not tell the whole story.

  13. 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.Also despite KSR and several other Supreme Court cases providing additional reasons to deny the patenting of junk.The term “runaway train” leaps immediately to mind. Also “insanity” and “wealth transfer in the usual direction.” Also “gosh, that’s one gigantic bubble.”Think about it. The US population is growing at its lowest rate since 1937. And we’re still crawling our way out of a miserable recession at an historically slow rate.link to npr.org…Meanwhile, apparently, the richest people in the country are enjoying their wonderful stock market gains and their expanding patent bounties. At the same time (and this is the strangest part of all) this group (and their syncophants) endlessly complain that current laws make it too difficult to obtain and enforce patents. And a disproportionate number of these people appear to be Texas-style Republicans, the same people who believe the Worst Things Ever are (1) anything that makes it more difficult for rich people to get richer and (2) anything that makes life easier for the exploding population of poor people.Go figure.

    1. The term that comes to mind on seeing your moniker is: QQ on those ev1l patents being granted.Add: “the richest people in the country are enjoying their wonderful stock market gains and their expanding patent bounties.”Which makes it very odd for you to be so very vociferous against software patents. Often you have commented that anything that can be so easy to invent (as in, by the common man) should not be patent eligible. So often, you have sounded in a but-for super expense as the proper (and perhaps only) rationale for patents. These are opposite of what you QQ here. They are also opposite of what the award winning journalist captured in his investigation of the intent of the founding fathers (as noted by 6′s former man crush Dudas at PatentDocs awhile back).If one did not know your dissembling ways, one might wonder at the inexplicable dichotomy in your diatribes.But your dissembling is pretty legendary.

      1. Often you have commented that anything that can be so easy to invent (as in, by the common man) should not be patent eligible.I’ve never said that. But I’m not surprised that you would think so, as you suffer from many other similar delusions.often, you have sounded in a but-for super expense as the proper (and perhaps only) rationale for patentsNo idea what you’re trying to say here. Maybe you can re-write in English and provide a specific example of what you’re referring to? Your use of the term “sounded” is usually a good indicator that you are pulling something out of your hind end.the award winning journalist captured in his investigation of the intent of the founding fathersGosh, that must sound so impressive to someone like you. “Awards.” “Founding fathers.” Strong, powerful stuff. Congratulations, I guess.

    2. MM, hopefully, Lee, ex of Google, may actually crack down a bit on software patents if any of the attitude of her bosses about such patents made any impression on her whatsoever.On the contrary, some have said that she herself filed a lot of software patents and argued for their eligibility to her own management.We shall see. But we can hope, can we not?

Comments are closed.