![Apple-logo[1]](https://cdn.patentlyo.com/media/2015/02/Apple-logo1.jpg){kind=logo}
by Dennis Crouch
In the upcoming $500 million Apple v. Smartflash appeal, a central question will be whether the Smartflash patents properly claim eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 as interpreted by Alice v. CLS Bank (2014). (These issues will first arise in post-verdict motions before the district court). If these claims are patent eligible, then Alice will ultimately have only a minor shift in the law.
Although there may be factual underpinnings, patent eligibility is generally thought to be a question of law that is decided by a judge rather than jury. In this case, Apple motioned for summary judgment of ineligibility under the Alice standard. That motion was first considered and rejected by Magistrate Judge Nicole Mitchell and then confirmed without opinion by Judge Rodney Gilstrap.
Lets look at the Smartflash claims. Claim 32 of U.S. Patent No. 8,118,221 is fairly indicative and claims a data access terminal that is designed to take-in data from a supplier and provides the data to a carrier. The arguably novel features of the apparatus is found in the claimed software code that (1) receives payment data and payment validation; and (2) once payment is made then retrieving data and a “condition for accessing the data” from the supplier and send it to the carrier. The claim further points out that the condition is “dependent upon the amount of payment.” [Text of the claim is at the bottom]. That condition might, for instance, be that the data file (i.e., movie) is permanently accessible based upon a larger payment, but only available for a seven days based upon a smaller payment. The eligibility question will be whether this claim is effectively directed to an unpatentable abstract idea.
In Alice Corp., the Supreme Court explained a two step process for its abstract idea analysis. In step one, the court asks whether the claim is directed to or encompasses an abstract idea. For some, it appears that this approach involves considering the gist of the invention as claimed. Thus, in Alice Corp., the Supreme Court saw that the claimed invention was directed toward the general idea of “mitigating settlement risk” even though the particular claim at issue involved more particularized elements. In step two, the court asks whether any of the specifically claimed elements or combination of elements in the claim are sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Here, the question could be restated as to whether the claim in question includes an innovative or otherwise sufficient practical application of the aforementioned abstract idea.
In thinking through the claims at issue in Smartflash, the district court (through the magistrate judge) followed the two-step approach of Alice to ultimately find the claims patent eligible.
In step one, the district court sided with Apple – finding that the patent claims do recite abstract ideas. In particular, the court found that “the asserted claims recite methods and systems for controlling access to content data … and receiving and validating payment data” with the state purpose of “reduc[ing] the risk of unauthorized access to content data.” Generalizing further upon these notions, the court found that the general purpose of the claim to be “conditioning and controlling access to data based on payment” and concluded that to be an “abstract and a fundamental building block of the economy in the digital age.” In considering this approach, the district court interpreted Alice step one as focused on the “general purpose” of the invention and that Alice only “considers specific limitations at step two.”
In step two, the district court ruled against Apple — finding that the specific limitations found in the claims were sufficient to transform the abstract purpose to a patent eligible invention. “The asserted claims contain meaningful limitations that transform the abstract idea of the general purpose of the claims into a patent-eligible invention.” Here, the court pointed to the recited limitations such as “status data”, “use rules”, and “content memory.” Although those none of those individual limitations may be substantial enough, the court found them indicative of the reality that the “claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.” Finally, to drive-home this point, the court attempted to draw an analogy to pre-internet days and found that the solutions offered here is fundamentally different from prior solutions of the general abstract problem in pre-internet days.
In its step-two analysis, the district court attempted to hone its decision closely to Judge Chen’s decision in DDR Holdings.
[Read the Magistrate Judge opinion adopted by the District Court: 6-13-cv-00447-JRG-KNM-423-PRIMARY DOCUMENT]
In the same way that the Supreme Court’s Alice Corp analysis is deeply unsatisfying, the district court’s analysis here is also fails to be compelling. In each case, application of the legal rule to the particular facts is done in merely a conclusory way without support of either facts or substantial analysis.
= = = = = =
a processor coupled to the first interface, the data carrier interface, and the program store for implementing the stored code, the code comprising:
Now that some folks have again had to learn the hard way that a jury trial in E.D. TX is not necessarily the best way to invalidate a patent, look at all the CBMs belatedly instituted against the Smartflash patents:
link to iam-magazine.com
From the article: Although there is no evidence of [SmartFlash] engaging in abusive litigation strategies or of asserting low quality rights,
ROTFLMAO
Try to believe it, folks.
Who on earth is Richard Lloyd and why is his head so deeply up his own behind? This is just ridiculous:
while bringing a PTAB challenge may be cheaper than traditional litigation, the data shows it is a venue which the fabulously rich are disproportionately flocking to.
That’s because the fabulously rich are disproportionately targeted by junk patents wielded by the merely incredibly rich.
Welcome to earth, Richard. Good lord.
Because repeating post 8 as post 22 somehow “furthers” the conversation….
O
M
F
G
And yes folks, this is a recurring meme…
The recurring meme is a thread that begins with fifteen comments of “anon” and Night Writer spewing platitudes over themselves and insulting everybody else.
There is so much bizarre nonsense in that decision it’s impossible to know where to begin. This chestnut lies close to the core:
The claims address specific ways of managing access to digital content data based on payment validation through storage and retrieval of use status data and use rules in distinct memory types and evaluating the use data according to the use rules.
Friends, that’s not a summary of the claimed subject matter for the purpose of beginning the analysis. That right there is supposed to be the main argument for why the claims are eligible!
Using “distinct memory types” to store information is ancient and pre-dates computers (never mind the complete absence of any “distinct memory types” recited in claim 28, or the absence of “user status data” for that matter). Using rules to “determine access” is ancient and predates computers, not to mention this absurd “invention”. Rules are not eligible for patenting. Information is not eligible for patenting. The rest of the claim is just an old framework, devoid of new technology (and there’s a great reason for that which is perfectly consistent with the patent trolling business model).
There’s a bunch of verbiage in the decision about the “new problems” presented by the “Internet Era.” But they aren’t “new problems.” They’re ancient problems: how to maximize control and profit when providing a service. In the context of these claims, a statement like “Digital Rights Management is a technology that was developed after widespread use of the Internet” is truly laughable.
“Horseshoe Rights Management is a technology that was developed after widespread use of the horsehoe.”
“Hot Air Popcorn Popper Rights Management is a technology that was developed after widespread use of the hot air popcorn popper.”
“Safety Deposit Box Rights Management is a technology that was developed after widespread use of the safety deposit box.”
News flash: rules and laws that govern “access” aren’t technology. They are abstractions.
Also from the decision: The patents also address the unique problem of controlling a user’s access to data that the user already possesses by tracking use data and restricting access according to use rules.
Unique? Because banks don’t have rules about when you can look at the will in your safe-deposit box. That’s not to say those rules aren’t technological. Coming up with those rules is a lot like rocket science, except there’s no rocket and the science is 8 year old clubhouse level stuff (“okay, it’s Freddy’s yard so he doesn’t need to use the password”). Promote the progress!
Hi MM,
Digital rights, horse shoe rights and popcorn popper rights are certainly 3 different things. They are each also certainly specific versions of ‘abstract rights’.
Digital rights, as described in the decision, are controlled on a computer by software. Horse shoe rights,mentioned in your post, are controlled by blacksmiths using nails.
Your argument against the decision seems to be:
1) Managing horse shoe rights is ancient.
2) If you take the claims and replace, Digital with Horseshoe, Computer with Blacksmith and Control with Nails then you will have an ancient process well known to any BHOSITA. (Blacksmith having ordinary skill in the art).
3)Therefore these claims are invalid.
I do not understand the last step in your argument. It seems like the step is: ‘A process claim is ineligible if the process is well know in one art (horseshoe rights management) and you use exactly the same process in a different art (digital rights management)’.
Could you expand a little about how you get from 2) to 3) ?
Finally I would make a request to everyone who has strongly disagreed with MM over the past several decades to not post any spoilers about how MM is going to answer since I am new here and don’t know the ending yet.
Sure – since you’ve been nice enough not to obfuscate a desired change in law with what the law actually is now, I will not “spoil” and give you the easy prediction.
How much time did you want to have for Malcolm’s “response?”
Slashdot: Digital rights, horse shoe rights and popcorn popper rights are certainly 3 different things. They are each also certainly specific versions of ‘abstract rights’.
That wasn’t my point. I was mocking the magistrate judge’s silly effort to make “management rights” seem like some important “new technology”. I’m sorry if you missed that point (although it doesn’t appear that you tried very hard to get it).
My argument that this claim is junk has nothing to do with horseshoes.
I’ll ignore for the moment the fact that the claim we’re discussing isn’t a process claim. That in itself says quite a bit about the junkiness of the claim but let’s not get bogged in such trivial details as to the difference between a process and a device. I mean, you’re new to this, right? Fresh off the boat? Of course you are.
Process claims are ineligible if the only new step in the process is itself ineligible (You should read the Supreme Court case Prometheus v. Mayo and think about it for a while if you have difficulty with this fundamental fact about our patent system).
There is no innovation recited in this claim other than “apply access rules conditioned on payment.” Payment conditioned access rules are ineligible subject matter. The claim protects the use of payment-conditioned access rules in the context of old technology. Therefore the claim is junk.
This is pretty easy stuff.
Thanks for the quick reply!
“anon” You are aware of the adage about insanity, right? And while law may be squishy, the items I post (and yes, perhaps post arrogantly – being correct allows that leeway) are simply NOT squishy.
Bow down, everyone.
We now have 222 posted comments below which almost no one is going to read because they are overwhelmingly anonymous personal opinions or personal attacks on the personal opinions of others. Including yet more pointless personal rantlings about long concluded Sup. Ct. decisions. Since they have not the slightest influence on the Sup. Ct., the Fed. Cir. or Congress, there is no reason why anyone should read them, or why the ranter waste everyone’s time. If comments would stick to specific useful facts or law, they might be worth reading.
What if hidden in these comments is a bright line test for information processing patents that will be universal admired by all? Better read everything to be on the safe side.
It is nice that you actually admit that information processing is a transformation.
I think the reality is that you are in the camp of wanting the law changed. I think Congress is the place to go. Trying to bend physics (note that Google wants judges with no science background so they buy this stuff) is not the way to go.
I will give credit to Slashdot Reader as being more honest in his approach of commenting here, as it is clear that he his looking to change the law (as opposed to others who post as if the law says something that it does not or who want judicial activism to rewrite the law – and yes, rewriting is different than interpreting).
Out of curiosity – did you intent your comment to be ironic, or did you simply blunder into it?
I really think he’s got the one comment that will influence the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals Federal Circuit and Congress.
Oh wait, it’s nothing more than “overwhelmingly anonymous personal opinions or personal attacks on the personal opinions of others”
Never mind (said in the best Emily Littella tones)
Whats all this I hear about patient eligibility? I thought Obamacare fixed all that and why do we have to have a whole discussion about Alice’s corpse. If she died because of patient eligibility I say let her rest in peace and stop talking about it. It just goes to show you, it’s always something—if it ain’t one thing, it’s another.
RR
Either all software is obvious and shouldn’t be patentable for that reason, or all software is opaque and mysterious and has to be explained and claimed down to every MOV A, B and NOP, else one is discussing and claiming a vague abstract fundamental building block. Either software is math(s) that merely transforms data from one form to another or software doesn’t transform anything and therefore must be tied to a machine, even though whats you invented is a process, independent of the tools used to carry it out. So you see Mr. Richard Fader of Fort Lee, New Jersey, you should keep all your inventions to yourself there in your mother’s basement, don’t attract investors, don’t release new aps with da pretty pictures and the blinky bug thing thats all ewwei and gooi and you do know what it is, don’t create jobs, don’t pass GO and don’t collect 200 dollars.
Good night Jane. Good night Roseanne. Good night and have a pleasant tomorrow.
Les, information is not patentable subject matter. When a claim only purports to process information and no more, then the claim is not patentable.
Use a programmed machine to do something new, then we start talking patentable invention.
It is just this simple.
Diehr’s use resulted in something (in a single use) that was NOT new.
Perfect cures were known previously.
Further, the PON in Diehr (your version of the phrase) was a single thing: guess what that was.
Les, regarding 8724716, all I see in the claim you posted are mathematical calculations. If there were corresponding actual circuits being claimed, perhaps this would be patentable per Alappat if the claims were set forth in means plus function format.
So, an new halftoning process is not patentable? A new processes for sharpening Hubble images is not patentable? I new process for calculating Fast Fourier Transforms is not patentable?
Before you answer Ned, have a look at this claim, which issued May of 2014:
1. A method for an Inverse Fast Fourier Transform (IFFT) in a communication system, the method comprising:
determining an IFFT size based on a number of input information symbols, the IFFT size being the smallest power of two (2) that is greater than or equal to the number of input information symbols; and
performing an IFFT operation based on the determined IFFT size,
wherein the performing of the IFFT operation based on the determined IFFT size comprises:
determining a number of butterfly corresponding to the determined IFFT size, and
performing a butterfly operation based on the number of butterfly,
wherein the butterfly operation includes processing the information symbols based on corresponding at least one of radix-22 and radix-2 patterns.
US 8724716 B2
Throw in there as well an art field that Ned and I have discussed in the past: encryption.
Oops.
Les, when I say “use” the programmed machine to “do” something new and we might have patentable subject matter, and you respond with a number of examples of exactly THAT, I think we are on the same page. Not so?
Ned – you said:”Les, information is not patentable subject matter. When a claim only purports to process information and no more, then the claim is not patentable.:
Now you say:”
Les, when I say “use” the programmed machine to “do” something new and we might have patentable subject matter, and you respond with a number of examples of exactly THAT, I think we are on the same page. Not so?
”
Perhaps we are not on the same page. I was responding to your assertions about information processing. I think all my examples purport to only process information, yet unlike you, I think they are eligible. Witness, the claim to a method of inverse FFT….
Let’s also remember the oft cloaked notion that you cannot “use” the newly programmed computer until AFTER you have changed the “old box” by adding the machine component of software to the “old box.”
No “magic” allowed in all-of-a-sudden having a new capability without this important step.
Processing of a composition of matter is per se a patentable process because a composition of matter is per se patentable subject matter unless not new.
Processing of information is per se not patentable subject matter because information is neither a machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
Using information processing to modify the making or using of a machine, manufacture or composition of matter is nominally patentable subject matter because the modification produces a new or modified machine, manufacture or composition.
“because a composition of matter is per se patentable subject matter unless not new.”
Per se… unless…
With all due respect, what the H kind of drugs are you on? You pulled this “per se” notion straight out of your arse.
anon, are you seriously having difficulty once again at understanding 101?
Information is not patentable subject matter.
Get that through your head, please.
Using information processing, however, to DO something new or improved may well be however.
The distinction between “per se” and the “DO” lies in this.
Put your strawman away Ned – no one is claiming information.
I have explained this to you in Simple Set Theory, and you were unable or unwilling to take issue with any point I made in that discussion.
Further, your house of cards tumbles down given that your view rests merely on something ineligible, and as Les has vividly pointed out, you change your tune (selectively and without a legal reason) when the ineligible item is of one type versus another – and yet BOTH are ineligible.
Your position is simply not coherent, as it requires a differentiation beyond mere ineligibility.
Ned –
You did it again. You said processing information is not per se eligible because the work piece (information) is not eligible.
I don’t follow your reasoning.
Wood is not per se eligible because it is a product of nature. Yet you agree that processing wood is eligible.
Is a new data processing method of sharpening Hubble images eligible or not?
Is a new way to perform an FFT or and IFFT eligible or not? Note: The T in both of those stands for TRANSFORM.
Ned –
I think you would also assert that pine or maple wood is not patentable, would you not?
Does it follow then that a method of processing pine wood or maple wood is also not patentable?
Les, a kind of wood is a composition of matter that is ineligible not because it is not a composition of matter because it is not new. Nevertheless, a method of processing and composition of matter regardless that it is not new seems at 1st blush to be directed to a patentable process.
I thought you would say wood is not patentable because it is a product of nature. Perhaps, “not new” is why you accept that products of nature are not eligible.
In any event, here you accept that processing ineligible subject matter IS eligible. Earlier, when the work piece was allegedly ineligible information, you seemed to indicate that the ineligibility of the work peace made the process ineligible.
So, now I’m confused. Why exactly do you believe processing information is not eligible subject matter?
Ned’s view has ZERO consistency.
Now it appears that the “type” of ineligible material (ineligible not-new wood versus ineligible “information**”) somehow makes a “magical” legal difference.
What utter rubbish.
**assumes for argument’s sake that the characterization of “information” is used. It is expressly noted that such just does not fly in the real world – for other reasons often put on the table for discussion.
A better phrase (maybe) would be ‘information processing only’ claim.
Compression or encryption produce a tangible result, for example smaller files which take up less space on a hard drive or less bandwidth on a network.
Half toning and image filtering are tied directly to the display intensity of an individual pixel on a screen or printer and so are also outside the range of ‘just information processing’ since they are tied to the physical world.
You IFFT looks to be part of a communications system so it probably also produces a physical result of reduced bandwidth.
‘Information processing only’ are apparently not patent eligible (see Ferguson maybe?) but I am not quite sure why.
This also seems to be the main complaint around here:
If an ‘Information Processing only’ patent is too abstract without a computer does patent law really say that if you add a computer it is now patentable?
The answer from Alice seems pretty unsatisfactory since the answer was ‘No it doesn’t’ without a good explanation.
“Half toning and image filtering are tied directly to the display intensity of an individual pixel on a screen or printer and so are also outside the range of ‘just information processing’ since they are tied to the physical world.”
So, you think a claim to a method of halftoning that ends with the last step: printing the halftoned version of the image– is eligible, but if that step is left off, and the claimed method ends with halftoned image data sitting in memory, that is not eligible?
That makes no sense to me. The invention is in the wonderful halftoning process, that is faster or provides fewer artifacts. Why should inconsequential post solution activity (printing or displaying) have a baring on the eligibility of the process?
If printing is required, then I have to sue end users, instead of infringing printer driver software developers….
Not at all, sorry I was not more clear. Half toning data sitting in a computer is tied to the physical world because it is rooted in the physical display of a picture.
Similarly compression reduces the number of physical bytes it takes to store data again rooting it in the physical world.
Both of these also do not depend on the ‘information as knowledge’ in the data. Halftoning works regardless of the ‘information as knowledge’ in the picture as does compression. I.E. It does not matter what the picture is a picture of, it all half tones the same.
So half toning and compression are not ‘Information Processing Only’ concepts, they have a connection to the tangible (non-abstract) world
Keep in mind Slashdot Reader that the idea of software and software are two very different things.
As noted in other legal discussions here, don’t be f001ed by the moving goalposts of TOTALLY functional claims or PURELY mental claims.
Slash –
So, because you know that halftoning can be used to print or display an image, claims to such are allowable even if the claim itself does not mention printing or displaying.
What happens when the invention is so new that you are not aware of its physical world use?
If you are not aware of the use of halftoning, then what you see is a process that inputs contone (e.g. 8 bit data) and converts it to binary (e.g., 1 bit data). That is strictly information processing.
You can’t generously evaluate the claim in light of what you know about a possible use. If it is important to eligibility it has to be in the claim. Else we have no certainty. Eligibility becomes something that is in the eye of the beholder… if the examiner knows it can be used in the real world, were good to go…. if not…. then not….
and oh by the way…. who would bother filing a patent application for something that had no real world use. Everything has some tie to the real world, else, why bother?
1) The real world includes everything including information, knowledge, ideas, bank balances and what I am thinking right now. The tangible (non-abstract) world is much smaller and includes only things we can see or touch or detect with sensors (like printer output or light or electrons).
Halftoning is connected directly to the tangible (non-abstract) world.
I would say that Smartflash’s claims are not directed to the tangible (non-abstract) world which is why we are talking.
2) From the Microsoft ‘310 patent Claim 1:
“A method for the halftoning of gray scale images
by utilizing a pixel-by-pixel comparison of
the image against a blue noise mask in which the
blue noise mask is comprised (etc etc)”
I suspect if you only claim the algorithm of how you are transforming the bytes you do not have a valid claim since it your claim will be rejected since you took out all the utility.
…”2) From the Microsoft ‘310 patent Claim 1:
“A method for the halftoning of gray scale images
by utilizing a pixel-by-pixel comparison of
the image against a blue noise mask in which the
blue noise mask is comprised (etc etc)”
I suspect if you only claim the algorithm of how you are transforming the bytes you do not have a valid claim since it your claim will be rejected since you took out all the utility.”
But that is very similar to what a claim to a halftoning method would look like. One only claims the algorithm of how you are transforming the bytes of contone date to bits of halftone data.
For example see this claim:
7. A method of halftone screening, comprising the steps of:
receiving image data having a number of image tonal levels representative of a continuous tone image;
receiving description data corresponding to an identified halftone type corresponding to an associated document rendering device;
associating each image tonal level of received image data in an m row by n column planar array with a corresponding number of halftone tonal levels associated with a selected linearization curve corresponding to a screen frequency of the associated document rendering device, wherein m and n are each integers greater than 2;
populating a two dimensional look up table (LUT), wherein the LUT includes a halftone cell value corresponding to each…
link to google.com
So… why is halftone patent eligible? What do you think is in the claim beyond what you say is not enough?
cur, to some degree you are right. But the debate is interesting nevertheless.
It’s too bad curmudgeon did not include the Office in his list…
link to uspto.gov
Or maybe curmudgeon was just wrong…
link to washingtontimes.com
Hmm, are these two things victory for the ‘ecosystem?’
From the article: “But the term “patent troll,” directed against such bad actors, has been transmogrified by corporate marketers to include legitimate small inventors….”
Precisely.
The problem has been generalized to making money off of patents. Many of the big boys have long done just that. But any small fry or university needs to be able to make money off his patents if he is not in the business of making products, but simply inventing. Inventors also needs to make money off of patents in order to get start-up financing to produce new products or services.
The problems a lot of the big boys are having with patents are related to the Federal Circuit’s consistent expansion of patentable subject matter, including such cases as State Street Bank, its consistent refusal to see anything wrong with functional claiming as witnessed by In re Donaldson, and its coddling of indefinite claims by its use of the aphorism, “If it can be construed, it is not indefinite.”
But these decisions were backed by many of the big boys themselves. Just look at the positions IBM has taken in various amicus briefs for the last 40 years. Ditto the AIPLA and the IPO.
The patent system was all but wrecked by the Federal Circuit in issuing these decisions — so much so that both congress and the supreme court had to react. But the reforms currently pending go to far, and undermine the patent system even further by being solely focused on the little guy, making it almost impossible to even think about investing in new technology unless one is already a big boy because the patents one receives are not practically enforceable.
“transmogrified”
I am pleased that you picked up on that quote – my favorite line of the article.
I asked Night Writer in another thread to define software- he or she would not even go there- to just state the accepted, universal definition of software as coded instructions for a processing machine to execute. Instead, he came up with a cute notion that software is some kind of chip- not the kind made of semiconductors having a structure, but more a chip made of words I suppose- which I can’t understand at all.
He won’t go there because going there implicates the MoT, and we can’t have that.
The Supreme Court does not want to be strictly limited to an MoT, apparently out of a reasonable fear of precluding patent eligibility of unknown future innovations. Congresses have shown year in and year out that they have no appetite for substantially changing the language of 101, so that’s a dead avenue.
The ease with which two judges in DDR torpedoed many of the good effects of Alice demonstrates the futility of judicial fixes without a bright-line test.
Perhaps what is needed is a special carve-out akin to 35 USC 287 (c), but for software (defined as coded instructions to a processing machine) applying the MoT in that narrow instance only as a definitive test. By doing so, it would give every district judge a much clearer path- and it’s likely the most practical and least disruptive real-world way to solve the iceberg problem of hundreds and hundreds of thousands of bad software patents out there just waiting to be uselessly litigated.
Such a step would not foreclose progress on self driving cars, robots, or all the other future gadgetry that depends on software, but it would foreclose all the rent-seeking inherent in the utterly insane land rush we have experienced to divide and parcel ownership of the basic ideas of the digital era.
The only judicial fix that can work is going to be a flat adoption of the MoT, so the interesting question is will the Fed Circuit drive the Supreme Court to do what it does not want to do? If the court goes there, will they attempt to limit it to software? This Apple case may be the one that makes it happen due to the stakes and the clear focus on software that Alice lacked.
I defined it for you Mr. Snyder:
A machine component and manufacture in its own right.
Your “definition” tends to depend on confusing what it does with what it is. There’s enough confusion already on that point without trying to kick up dust.
[Software] is a machine component and manufacture in its own right.
Right. It’s a “machine component” and “manufacture” that you can send through space on an electromagnetic wave.
That makes a lot of sense. Sure it does.
Modern inventions sure are hard to understand, eh? I guess there is the easy way out and huff and puff a lot.
Night Writer: Modern inventions sure are hard to understand, eh?
Machines and manufactures aren’t modern concepts. Neither are “instructions” or “information.”
Calling “instructions” or “information” a “machine” or a “manufacture” doesn’t change that fact. But pretending that “machines” and “manufactures” always included “instructions” or “information” will cause chaos to a legal system that didn’t have those definitions in mind.
I know this is really difficult to follow. Try.
So software magically replicates MM? Or does it take time, energy, and space to copy software much like replicating DNA.
Our friend Merriam has this to say:
Something made from raw materials by hand or by machinery.
Funny, nothing obfuscated by Malcolm overcomes this.
Nothing.
Please describe the “raw materials” that are used to create instructions so we can all see what you’re envisioning.
As you know, hands and machines can create a lot of stuff that nobody believes — and nobody has ever believed — is eligible for patenting. In that regard ,your self-serving definition is a bit problematic.
I dont see why it’s so difficult to simply accept the fact that claims which implicate information and information-processing are always going to present subject matter eligibility issues of one degree or another. That’s because information is abstract.
To put it in the most simple terms, information processing is “different” from other kinds of methods. As a result, computers whose sole purpose is to process information are “different” from other kinds of machines and present distinct eligibility issues.
Pretending that this isn’t the case is not only weird but counterproductive.
It’s not self-serving, and it’s not my definition, and there is not a limit as to what the raw materials may be.
You do know how to read a basic defintion, right?
Just like you know the difference between the thought of software and software, right?
Or are you going to pretend again that you don’t move the goalposts when talking about the difference in claims between the Vast Middle Ground (likewise, not my term) and your fallacy of claims TOTALLY in the mind…
there is not a limit as to what the raw materials may be.
So, according to your definition, using my personal experience as “raw material” to write down a useful fact “by hand” results in a “manufacture” as that term is contemplated by the patent act.
Looks to me like you’ve got a serious problem with your definition. But go ahead and invent some “exceptions” for us. You won’t be the first to do that.
Still need Useful Arts – and you know that.
So no – I most definitely do NOT have a problem with the standard and basic definition.
I have no problem at all.
And no need to invent any exceptions.
Thus, you acquiesce the point to me?
Maybe you want to next talk about another point that you have acquiesced? The one related to the actual state of the law and the exceptions to the judicial doctrine of printed matter?
Or are you going to pretend (again) that you volunteered that admission against interests (like you did when Prof. Crouch switched to the DISQUS format and the archives were temporally unavailable)…?
Oops. Man, these facts sure are inconvenient for you.
you acquiesce the point to me?
You are truly victorious in your own mindd, “anon”!
Keep on decimatin’, bro.
In my mind and on these boards.
Anytime you want to try to prove otherwise go ahead and start (here’s a hint though: leave behind your v@pid short script and try to make some real legal arguments).
Another word (not mine, except perhaps the spelling) applies here:
Anthropomorphication
Machines really do NOT think – you are inserting a fallacy in trying to create a dilemma in a machine based on ANY sense of Mental Steps doctrine. Any intellectually honest person understands that to be the case In The Art.
It is YOUR pretending that is not only weird but counterproductive.
Here we go again with that big, bold, single word “argument” followed by an impossible-to-understand “explanation” that invariably trumps all.
Sorry, “anon.” You may have convinced yourself but the rest of us really have no idea what you are talking about. I’m happy to hear from anyone who can spell out “anon’s” argument in English on “anon’s” behalf.
The best I can do to respond to this hand-waving for the moment is to simply remind you that the digital computer was designed to facilitate accurate information processing, information storage and information retrieval, in the same way that pencils and pens and paper and phonographs and tape recorders were. A pencil and paper can’t rescue an ineligible information processing claim, regardless of the awesome functionality and utility of that claim. You apparently believe the magic word “computer” should make all the difference for some mysterious reason. In 2015? Seriously? Oh wait — let me guess: you’re talking about a portable wireless computer that you can hold in your hand and buy stuff with. Obviously that’s completely different.
it is a single word that wrecks your position
Bow down, everyone! The great “anon” has spoken.
Better than the Red Queen’s baseless edicts.
And that’s a fact, Jack.
Nice edit, Bro.
MM
1. Anon’s raw materials are electrons or magnetic particles and some sort of a matrix in which the electrons or particles can be grouped and held.
2. Anon quoted only 1 of several definitions of manufacture. the same source also defines manufacture as : the act or process of producing something.
Software is produced. Therefore it is manufactured. Therefore, software is a manufacture.
“Software is produced. Therefore it is manufactured. Therefore, software is a manufacture.”
Hilarious. Circular wuuuuuut?