By Jason Rantanen
Today, the patent office issued new instructions (download: PTO Alice Instructions) for patent examiners to follow when examining claims for compliance with Section 101. This practice is similar to those it followed after the Court issued other substantive patent law opinions. One important component of the new instructions are that they make it clear that going forward, the PTO will be applying the Mayo v. Prometheus framework to all types of inventions:
[T]he following instructions differ from prior USPTO guidance in two ways:
1) Alice Corp. establishes that the same analysis should be used for all types of judicial exceptions, whereas prior USPTO guidance applied a different analysis to claims with abstract ideas (Bilski guidance in MPEP 2106(1I)(B)) than to claims with laws of nature (Mayo guidance in MPEP 2106.01).
2) Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims (e.g., product and process claims), whereas prior guidance applied a different analysis to product claims involving abstract ideas (relying on tangibility in MPEP 2106(Il)(A)) than to process claims (Bilski guidance).
In addition, the PTO provides a bit of guidance for determining whether a claim will fail one of the two steps. For the first step (determine whether the claim is directed to an abstract idea), the memorandum provides four examples of abstract ideas referenced in Alice:
- Fundamental economic practices;
- Certain methods of organizing human activities;
- “[A]n idea of itself; and
- Mathematical relationships/formulas
If an abstract idea is present in the claim, the examiner should proceed to the next step, determining whether any element or combination of elements in the claim sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of limitations that may be sufficient to qualify as “significantly more” include:
- Improvements to another technology or technical fields;
- Improvements to the functioning of the computer itself;
- Meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Examples of limitations that are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” include:
- Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with an abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer;
- Requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
Read the entire memorandum here: PTO Alice Instructions. Thanks to David Taylor at SMU Law for sending me a copy of the memo.
[…] PTO Issues Alice-based Examination Instructions […]
It is the job of patent attorneys to push the eligibility envelope, but if there is no envelope to push against, well then their efforts bring scorn on the patent system.
Congress and SCOTUS have to build the envelope, but it has to be resilient.
There is a parallel with angioplasty balloons. Too rigid (PET) and under the control of fallible doctors they burst like a paper bag when asked to stretch enough to save the patient. Too stretchy (PE) and they will stretch so far they they injure the patient. When the patient is technological progress, a degree of flexibility to deal with unforseen developments is vital to the health of the patient.
SCOTUS got to the Golden (Polyamide, limited resilience) Mean on this one. The “abstract” and “significantly more” tests are not so far away from the EPO’s “technical”. I expect US jurisprudence and EPO jurisprudence from now on to feed off each other, and improve clarity and consistency in both jurisdictions.
Beware the line of “bring scorn on the patent system.”
There is no shortage of those who would cry out scorn no matter what the situation.
Beware too, the implicit urge present in MaxDrei’s post to apply law that is beyond the scope of the sovereign.
There is NO one world order – yet.
“Congress and SCOTUS have to build the envelope”
Emphasis added to draw attention to the clear error and misstatement as to which branch of the government has sole authority to write patent law.
I think we are back to the blue pencil rule, except its all collapsed into 101… which means why do anything else after 101? That is my biggest issue with Parker v. Flook.
For those who don’t know what the blue pencil rule is, the examiner makes an imaginary line through parts of the claim that are abstract ideas and examines the remaining parts under 102. 103, and 104.
As an analogy, let’s take a post on this blog. Some posts will have something useful to the conversation (statutory) and parts that are personal attacks (non-statutory material). Some are a mixture of both, for example the one below. The examiner will “blue pencil” out the useless attack and examine the rest. For example:
(sigh)
And you STILL do not get that invention was carved out of 101, do you?
Why do you think the power-addicted Court has hung their implicit writings hook on 101, when it would make eminently more sense to separate their “letters” and drop them in the corresponding mailboxes of 112 and 103? Read again Prometheus and the dead letter comment there.
Use some critical thinking skills Ned. (yes, it might be necessary for you to put to one side your agenda – don’t worry, after you put it aside and use some critical thinking, after that, if you still want to pick that old agenda back up, no – save perhaps Ned Heller – can stop you).
I wish some posters would show some self-restraint and resist bickering back and forth about nothing… this thread has turned into a cable news show.
So the examiner will blue pencil out the post and leave this part remaining:
Why do you think the power-addicted Court has hung their implicit writings hook on 101, when it would make eminently more sense to separate their “letters” and drop them in the corresponding mailboxes of 112 and 103? Read again Prometheus and the dead letter comment there.
(How do you strike text on this blog?) Is it
blah blah blahOk, I got it now. Sorry for the multiple posts. The blue pencil rule in action is…
(sigh)And you STILL do not get that invention was carved out of 101, do you?
Why do you think the power-addicted Court has hung their implicit writings hook on 101, when it would make eminently more sense to separate their “letters” and drop them in the corresponding mailboxes of 112 and 103? Read again Prometheus and the dead letter comment there.
Use some critical thinking skills Ned. (yes, it might be necessary for you to put to one side your agenda – don’t worry, after you put it aside and use some critical thinking, after that, if you still want to pick that old agenda back up, no – save perhaps Ned Heller – can stop you).Fun game J, but I have one better for you (saves on all of that cross-out too).
Here’s your typical Malcolm post, but instead of cross-out, I use electronic white out:
MM
anyday at anytime
[this page blank on purpose]
it would make eminently more sense to separate their “letters” and drop them in the corresponding mailboxes of 112 and 103?
Why do you believe this “makes more sense”?
Read again Prometheus and the dead letter comment there.
I’ve read it many times. Do you believe that mental processes are ineligible, regardless of how useful and non-obvious are? Nearly everybody believes that.
So why does it “make sense” to examine a claim in the form [oldstep]+[newthought] under 103? Why waste defendant’s time and money going through the 103 analysis of the [newthought], with all the secondary considerations etc, when any child can see that the claim is simply protecting the ineligible subject matter as applied to a particular subfield (i.e., the field in which the old data-gathering step is performed)? Please explain.
I think we are back to the blue pencil rule, except its all collapsed into 101… which means why do anything else after 101?
There is no need to do 101 first. If you have 102 art by all means use that to tank the claim and be happy about it. If the claim is plainly not enabled or incomprehensible use 112. You can do the 101 analysis (and you should do it) whenever the eligibility issue becomes apparent. Sometimes that’s not going to be apparent until the 103 analysis has been completed. [shrugs]
“I’ve read it many times. ”
LOL – did you re-read our little back and forth on that section in the archives? It was pretty funny how I had to hold your hand and get you to see that the comment was to the Court’s judicial exceptions.
MM, some of my post was a quote from a previous one by another user and are not my views. (I quoted it to illustrate the use of the blue pencil, and as a jest to some to drop the personal attacks.) To clear things up, yes, I believe mental processes are non-statutory, even if they are novel or unobvious.
So why does it “make sense” to examine a claim in the form [oldstep]+[newthought] under 103? Why waste defendant’s time and money going through the 103 analysis of the [newthought], with all the secondary considerations etc, when any child can see that the claim is simply protecting the ineligible subject matter as applied to a particular subfield (i.e., the field in which the old data-gathering step is performed)? Please explain.
I don’t advocate the use of a 102 or 103 evaluation of [old step]+[new mental process]. I advocate for a 102 analysis of [old step]+
[new mental process]. Where did I strike “new mental process”? In my 101 analysis… which is why examiners must do 101 analysis first. (And it wouldn’t take much time to reject [old step]+[new mental process], especially if the old step is an everyday computer.“ the dead letter comment there.
I’ve read it many times. Do you believe that mental processes are ineligible, regardless of how useful and non-obvious are? Nearly everybody believes that.”
Non sequitur much?
j, it would be nice if moderators would use blue pencil.
I notice that some posters get exasperated when they cannot convince others they are right. When the attacks are directed at me, I really do not take offense.
But I can see the bickering here is annoying others. It really should be toned down just a bit.
The exasperation comes less from “convincing others” and more from getting others to actually have a discussion.
I have long ago provided the solution to toning down any bickering.
Post with intellectual honesty.
Acknowledge and deal with valid counterpoints raised.
Stop the Accuse OthersOf That Which Malcolm Does.
Stop the spin
Stop the mischaracterization of law (including the exceptions to the judicial doctrine of printed matter)
Stop the mischaracterization of facts
Stop the mischaracterization of what others post
Stop the mindless ad hominem that is completely unsupported with zero posting of merit
Should be relatively easy.
This reminds me of a story my Pastor told once…
He was not a fire and brimestone guy (he was Lutheran, after all), but the church begged him to give such sermon. He finally gave one, raked the congregation across the coals. His hope was that it would encourage some self-reflection and make people better Christians.
Afterwards, the response was essentially the same. “Great sermon! Best ever! I have a son/sister/nephew/granddaughter who really needed to hear that.”
This reminds me of a story my Pastor told once…
He was not a fire and brimestone guy (he was Lutheran, after all), but the church begged him to give such sermon. He finally gave one, raked the congregation across the coals. His hope was that it would encourage some self-reflection and make people better Christians.
Afterwards, the response was essentially the same. “Great sermon! Best ever! I have a son/sister/nephew/granddaughter who really needed to hear that.”
Consider a device that calculates the price of soybeans using the formula:
X=a/B*(C+D)^2 – [(e+f)/g)]
Is that device patentable over a device “configured” to use the same formula to determine how many children in a particular hospital are likely to get the flu?
Remember that the device has no idea what the input or output data means. It just “crunches the numbers.”
Related question: does the PTO have a database of algorithms and numeric relationships? If they are indeed “the essence of electronic structure” (as has been asserted by a certain judge once upon a time), it would seem critical to organize these structures in a way that can be easily searched.
Device… Knows…
Is this one of those devices for whom 6 is fighting for their civil liberties?
Device… Knows…
Mr. “Intellectual Honesty”, folks, hard at work attacking individual words in a sentence completely removed from their context.
It’d be almost impossible to believe except that’s pretty much all this m0 r0n knows how to do.
“Is that device patentable over a device “configured” to use the same formula to determine how many children in a particular hospital are likely to get the flu?”
You betcha. Just claim & prosecute it as a new-use invention, and voila’!
Just like Diehr.
Now, like Diehr– you’ll have to live with this limited-use scope — but fair is fair.
“Is that device patentable over a device “configured” to use the same formula to determine how many children in a particular hospital are likely to get the flu?”
That is an interesting question.
However, it would be resolved under 102 or 103, NOT 101!
The Court’s machinations about avoiding placing their judgment in the appropriate section of law (be it 103 or 112) are clear given the official public record in the 1952 Act.
See Prometheus and the dead letter comment: no matter what, the Court will not relinquish its addiction to jam its fingers into the 101 nose of wax.
To wit (re 103) – as I have stated explicitly before (but the naysayers seem to have a difficult time with their selective memory),
from the notes tab at : link to law.cornell.edu
“This paragraph is added with the view that an explicit statement in the statute may have some stabilizing effect, and also to serve as a basis for the addition at a later time of some criteria which may be worked out.”
Clearly Congress would not permit the “addition at a later time” power to be the very power of the courts to develop a definition with the t001 of common law evolution, since that was the power immediately being rescinded. That addition at a later time then can only mean an addition by Congress.
Congress told the Court in no uncertain terms: get out of the map writing business – your anti-patent antics go too far.
What is the clear takeaway in the line of cases from the Court is a repudiation of a direct act of Congress – a bloodless revolution of the pen (even as they denigrate scriviners) by a branch of the government totally ignoring the separation of powers doctrine.
Looking forward (as intelligent and thoughtful patent attorneys should always be doing), is there a way to distinguish new, non-obvious useful algorithms that do not merit patent protection from new, non-obvious useful algorithms that do? Put another way, exactly what should be required of an information processing method (or an apparatus) claim reciting an algorithm in order to confer both eligibility and patentability to that claim in view of the vast history of algorithms and symbol manipulation in the prior art? Is there anything that will suffice?
Just looking forward, folks (and probably not too far forward).
Yes. Put that algorithm to work controlling an injection molding apparatus or a drill press to better produce some useful product, and you are good to go.
Put that algorithm to work controlling an injection molding apparatus or a drill press to better produce some useful product, and you are good to go.
Just so we’re clear: you’re suggesting that I can put “a computer” onto any old device, recite any algorithm, and if the device is “better” than the prior art device you’re entitled to a patent?
I’m 100% certain you’re wrong about that. You seem to be taking Diehr for a wild joyride, as if Diehr was written yesterday. It most certainly wasn’t and a claim like Diehr’s would have pretty much zero chance of being granted and/or successfully enforced today.
I’m trying to encourage you to look forward but instead you are looking backward. Try harder.
Look, I’m no fan of business method patents (which now, I think, are finally dead no matter the lack of a formal death notice) or even of most software patents. But I know that between Heaven (SCOTUS) and Here sit the PTO and the Federal Circuit to tell us all what the Supreme Court really meant. And yes, this is how I feel theywill interpret 101 (103 is still there, of course). Diehr lives, and if you can make the case that the hardware in your claim is now physically doing something that is unobviously different from what it was able to do before your invention, you have a decent shot at getting a patent that will hold up at least as far as the Federal Circuit.
if you can make the case that the hardware in your claim is now physically doing something that is unobviously different from what it was able to do before your invention, you have a decent shot at getting a patent that will hold up at least as far as the Federal Circuit.
Ah, I think this is likely closer to being correct. The “non-obviousness” of the algorithm is going to be a far less important (and possibly irrelevant) consideration as compared to the unexpected physical transformation effected by the improved machine.
Diehr lives
I agree that Diehr will always stand for the banal proposition that the mere presence in a claim of ineligible subject matter is not sufficient to render the claim ineligible per se. And to the extent Diehr has a “life” beyond that, it’s been clear for some time that its “life” has been evolving. Like certain species of giant lizards in our past, it seems to be shrinking as the years go by …
“ will always stand for the banal proposition”
Hey I know a certain pet theory that is the ultimate in banal propositions. It takes a de facto non-integration assumption, does not account for claims either of all old steps, nor allows for the fact that a claim may have mental steps as elements and is routinely parroted by a whole host of sockpuppets on another blog.
It seems that you are saying that Diehr has been either abrogated (by Congress) or expressly overruled (by the Supreme Court).
You don’t by chance have a citation to support this proposition (as forward looking as it might be)?
Diehr has been either abrogated (by Congress) or expressly overruled (by the Supreme Court).
I’m not aware of any serious commenter on the patent system who clings to the notion that at least some interpretations of Diehr were crushed by the logical reasoning presented by the Court in Prometheus.
Specifically, I’m referring to the formerly popular notion (among certain crowds) that the mere presence in a claim of a limitation (step or structure) that satisfied the eligibility requirement was sufficient to end the eligibility inquiry.
Thanks for your comment.
That does not address my comment.
Maybe you are confused with another blog.
Care to try again?
Off thread (sort of) but here is what appeared today on the IPKat IPR blog:
“Readers’ comments. Over the years, one of the most cherished institutions of this weblog has been the facility to post readers’ comments. While this facility is moderated, the blog team has sought to exercise its prerogative to block readers’ comments only where they are plainly spam, entirely irrelevant or (relatively infrequently) defamatory or obscene. However, this blogger is concerned that this facility is being abused by a number of readers who have begun to post anonymous comments that consist of little other than abuse, whether of members of the blog team or of other readers who have posted comments. Criticism of another person’s opinions or reasoning is acceptable and indeed highly desirable, as is the correction of factual or legal errors — but there is nothing that can be gained from posting personal abuse and insults, a practice that lowers the tone of debate and does nothing to enhance the reputation of this weblog as a place where even unpopular arguments can be articulated, analysed and, where appropriate, refuted. Accordingly, this blogger proposes to reject comments that consist entirely or mainly of personal abuse. If any anonymous reader feels that his or her freedom of speech is being compromised (as has been asserted on some previous occasions when this blogger has refused to allow an offensive comment), the person affected is free to post that abuse elsewhere and link back to the Katpost and/or comment. Alternatively, the abusive commenter can emerge from the protective shell of anonymity and give verifiable particulars of his or her identity, so that readers can ascertain for themselves the value, or lack of it, of the ad hominem abuse which they seek to publicise.”
I think it applies also to this blog! Regular readers, will know who the offenders are!
To one particular active and notorious poster here there are three sorts of response, namely i) take him on, ii) reason with him, iii) ignore him. Frankly (Ned I’m talking to you in particular) I think Option iii makes most sense and is best adapted to keep dilution of the thread to a minimum.
“Regular readers, will know who the offenders are!”
LOL – yet another try at the Crybaby Veto, eh MaxDrei?
Your option iii) is a FAIL – as this is nothing more than that old saw of CRP-ignore valid counterpoints, run away and CRP again.
I have shared the best path forward (and it is no surprise that the path actually aligns with what a true discussion means): take heed of the valid counterpoints raised, address them directly and honestly, and integrate them into the conversation going forward.
Why you (and yes, the small circle of your compatriots – even those only too willing to plunge a blade into the back of your “reasonable assumptions”) fail to be willing to engage in such a conversation is abundantly clear: you do not want your soapboxing diluted.
Your “dilution of the thread” is clearly not directed to conversation and meaningful discussion, but your ability to soapbox without a critical reprisal.
Here in the States, we rather prefer the ability – even the sharp ability – to be able to voice those reprisals.
That you seek to ignore the best path forward (and advocate the CRP soapbox route) is not a surprise at all, given how easily your own views fall to simple critical comments.
The better path – for all – is for you to stop and critically think about exactly why your views are so easily wrecked. Step up your game – not your soapbox. Don’t be offended, but rather be thankful that you have the opportunity to have your message vetted your message and made stronger.
” without a critical reprisal.”
I don’t particularly see the need for any “reprisals”, critical or not. Maybe if you’d simply leave the reprisals out then you might not have everyone so agin ya.
LOL – of course you don’t 6, you want only soapboxes passing in the night with your “anything goes” mantra.
Silly 6, the real world does not work that way.
You do know that a reprisal is a retaliation correct? What do you feel like you need to retaliate for? Do you feel personally under attack or something? What action against you are you retaliating for? And for what purpose would you carry out this retaliation?
You do know that it is a proper word for a discussion such as this, right? One of the meanings is “comeback – as in what happens with the switching of burdens, overcoming a prima facie case and the lot.
Why are you so intent on kicking up dust?
I don’t see that definition in either google’s def or merriam’s def. In fact, my interbuts says that it is a synonym, not the definition. And in this case they’re only similar in meaning.
But be that as it may, keep your “comebacks” not actual reprisals or retaliations and people might not dislike you so much.
LOL – as if the point here is a popularity contest….
6, you remain clueless, as you once again show that emotional side of you that wants acceptance – blind acceptance.
Sorry, but in the real world there is no such coddling.
“as if the point here is a popularity contest”
It’ll be one real fast if everyone asks for you to be banned.
The Crybaby Veto was attempted several times 6.
Um, you got anything else…?
“The Crybaby Veto was attempted several times 6.”
Yeah but you still had a few holdouts. Including me.
Had.
As I learn more about your condition I’m less and less concerned about keeping you around. And I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that’s probably so for more and more people. It isn’t anything personal brosef, or having to do with your “ideas” or whatever. I just feel like your time could be ridiculously better spent in counseling and you could use a nudge. Then, when/if you get better then you could come back upon your docs say so.
Whew, it’s good to know then that your “power” and thoughts about “keeping me around” matter as much as they do.
(that would be exactly zero).
Your med control line is a massive FAIL – but hey, if you want to keep flogging that horse, have at it.
Look at the “content” of the people “agin” me.
That is, if you can dig past the table pounding and find some small bit of law or fact that is not twisted and spun out of all recognition.
Keep looking. Let me know when you find something (and not something “subjective all in the mind anything goes,” something tied to this reality)
Sometimes anon reminds of that Jack Handy bit where the guy calls you on the phone to threaten you and says “Here that? That’s dynamite.”
Malcolm I don’t know Jack Handy but I do know by now that anon craves attention (in the form of replies) and gets upset when ignored. Methinks he gets more attention on this blog than on any of the others.
Recall how often we find him whingeing about correspondents being afraid to reply or having run away from the argument.
It’s sometimes not easy to resist the temptation (don’t I know it) but nevertheless I would encourage you (Ned, 6, and everybody else) to resist rising to fisherman anon’s hook, however temptingly he baits it.
You quite miss the fact MaxDrei that dueling soapboxes is not a discussion.
Of course, that is not surprising, given that many of your views simply fall apart with any amount of critical thinking, and you cannot be bothered to do anything but soapbox what is clearly CRP.
Your suggestion has been put forth before: and shown to be, well, probably the least effective suggestion for encouraging actual conversation.
Again, not a surprise given the “content” of what you provide.
There is some stuff that is attempted to be passed off as critical thinking that is far more offensive…
Hint: it’s usually posted by MaxDrei and his close circle of friends.
That is, when they are not attempting Crybaby Vetos…
I see also over at the Kat that is in fact a Crybaby Veto attempt there.
Shocking, I tell you, shocking.
And in typical drive-by, step up onto his soapbox and spew, but disappear from any ensuing actual discussion, MaxDrei’s cry for a universal Crybaby Veto is being resoundingly THUMPED over at the Kat thread.
See for yourselves:
link to ipkitten.blogspot.com
Come MaxDrei, join the discussion.
Not bad. Now — once they let us in on their definitions of the following terms — we’ll be all set to go:
1. Abstract (idea)
2. Fundamental economic practice
3. Significantly more
/sarcasm off
My exact thoughts. “We’ll know it when we see it.”
There couldn’t have been worse guidance given to a group of engineers with no legal training, no industry experience, and no concept of their role in the economy.
McPatentpants: I’m surrounded by an invisible shield! You can’t touch me!
Court: No, you’re not.
McPatentpants: Yes, I am!
Court: [slaps Kookoo in the face]
McPatentpants: I’m surrounded by an invisible shield!
Court: No, you’re not. I just slapped you in the face.
McPatentpants: But we’re still having the same conversation!
Gee, I wonder what happens next?
To borrow a phrase:
“I can’t even figure out what you’re ranting about.
Guess you’re out of luck …?”
Hmm, even here my use seems so much better.
You really blow at this advocacy on a modern social media thing, Malcolm.
To borrow a phrase: “I can’t even figure out what you’re ranting about.
I’m not ranting. And my question was rhetorical.
lol – the rest of the world is just wery wery quiet (they must be hunting rabbits)
– said in the best Elmer Fudd tones.
That was actually funny MM.
I missed the punchline the first time I read it lol.
NRLB v. Canning
link to supremecourt.gov
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled Obama’s recess appointments to NLRB unconstitutional because they occurred when congress was not on recess. A majority ruled that a recess must be at least 10 days to count as a recess for the appointments clause. Four justices would have gone further, and would have affirmed the lower court holding that a recess in occurs only between congresses.
The NRLB, without the members unconstitutionally appoint, were without power to act.
The opinion is silent on who an officer is. But if the NRLB members are “officers,” I think the Director of the USPTO is one, especially if congress says so.
What we have here, then, is a problem for the PTO as it has a person operating in the capacity of director who has not been appointed by the president and approved by congress.
If this has no consequences legally, then then I would wonder why we would even create such a fuss over the NRLB.
Thus, I think there may be a problem with any appointment made by the faux director, or any actions required by law to be undertaken by the director.
Your right to whine about branch to branch malfeasance has been revoked due to your desire to reinstate the Royal Nine to their pre-1952 Crown.
To the great, anon.
I genuflect, your honor, nay I grovel at your feat and lick your mud-encrusted boots, to seek audience.
May I humbly seek your leave to again post here? I apologize for thinking the Supreme Court can be right now and then. I wish submit for your kind consideration by frequent denunciation of Bilski as being wrong to the extent anyone can understand that decision.
There, your honor. I throw you a bone.
Can I be allowed to post here once more?
You can post all you want – and you can even be inconsistent all you want. Just realize that I can be sarcastic, especially as to your duplicity and false umbrage.
OK pumpkin?
Don’t like it? There’s a surefire way to change. Of course, that involves you opening your eyes and perhaps recognizing when you are way off the deep end in you advocacy. Is that too much to ask, that when you advocate you do not misrepresent the law, nor historical facts to reshape the world in your own image and desire?
It’s not too difficult – especially when I am helping you out.
(Upcarry). The creation of a willing victim. Anons ultimate goal has been achieved.
Anon you should be happier brosef.
?
You quite evidently miss the point completely 6. Absolutely the wrong takeaway – showing plainly that your control crusade over me is misguided.
You do realize that your obsession with me reveals more about your latent defects, right?
lulz, my “obsession” isn’t with you brosef. It’s with your mental disability. It is amusing as all get out. And if you didn’t post so much I wouldn’t have so much fodder to be interested in. (I’ll rest assured that you’ll copy me on this in a little while lol)
And there ain’t much to “take away” from what he said. He was clearly prostrating himself before your greatness in the hope that you’d let him post more. It is exactly what the psychopath wants. Read the fraking literature re re.
To be sure, he was being facetious and that is to highlight your behavior!
Again with the vap1d attempted control of “mental disability”…?
6 – that was old five minutes after your first attempt.
And the fact that you have to implore me to read the literature only proves my point: clearly, I am not as you are attempting to mischaracterize me as being.
Clearly your antics have failed. Do you not care to see that?