Professor Bob Jarvis (Nova Southeastern) is finishing up a law review article discussing the depiction of patent lawyers in popular culture (TV shows, movies, novels, comic strips, etc.). Although he’s already found dozens of such characters, he’d like to hear from any Patently-O readers who know of such characters (he’s trying to make his piece as thorough as possible).
Bob can be reached at jarvisb@nova.edu. His deadline is Friday, June 10.
I’ll highlight the Javris article once it is out. Meanwhile, you may want to check-out the article by Professor Ed Lee (Kent-IIT) titled Patent Trolls: Moral Panics, Motions in Limine, and Patent Reform. The article “provides the first empirical study of the use of the term “patent troll” by U.S. media.”
Oliver Farnsworth is my favorite patent attorney in David Bowie’s 1976 film, “The Man Who Fell to Earth.”
Speaking of Fictional Patent Attnys, I remember reading a Calvin and Hobbes comic where Calvin calls his dad at work on a weekend and asks him to tell him a story. The Dad is all like “Calvin, I’m really busy with work”, so, of course, Calvin guilts him into reading a story…which is just the spec of a gear system.
I thought it was thought provoking years ago, but now, seeing how “hard” the Patent Attnys “work” the comic is hysterical. Working, on a weekend, to actually CLAIM you invention instead of simply adding one word that “differentiates” from the reference?
Hahahaha, MAN, Calvin’s dad, what a tool.
???
You call the attorney a “t001” and only show that you lack understanding of what is actually done.
Your position is even more wrong than “just grab a student and give him some pizza over the weekend.”
You have invoked the “four finger” maxim: you point a finger at someone else, but four times that is pointing back at you.
Maybe grasp a little understanding of the terrain before you saunter in to do battle….
Oh hey anon, how you doing? You still hanging around on this blog jabbing Ned in the back of the head, desperately hoping he notices you? But, you’re right, you’re right, I should give credit where credit is due for making the system work – the Examiners. Without them patents wouldn’t get examined OR prosecuted.
Seriously though, four finger maxim? Are we still in grade-school? Your comment is completely devoid of anything even close to a response, let alone a position. Sure, you’re going to argue that mine is too…but you responded in a way that shows you’re offended, so you did get my point. Hit a little close to home?
If not, let me spell it out for you: Calvin’s dad is a tool because he’s doing his job instead of calling the Examiner’s SPE and demanding that the Examiner do it for him.
If this were a military engagement, like you’ve suggested, the attny wouldn’t attempt to fight the other general on the battlefield, the attny would, instead, show up with one guy, lose, then complain to the general’s boss that the general was “unreasonable”/used an unfair tactic/violating Zurko/denying a “right” to a patent (there isn’t one, no…no…stop, breath, there isn’t one)/etc… On the off chance that the general’s boss didn’t fold, the attny would call the Emperor (because, remember, in RPGs Empires are evil and Kingdoms are good, and since you think the PTO is evil for *gasp* making you earn a 20 year monopoly on a new method of going to the bathroom on an aeroplane [actual application], this fits), who would also be his law school buddy and demand that the general be forced to do battle again, but this time with only one man – Tyrion Lannister
Once the general, inevitably, loses because his own side refuses to hold the attny accountable for anything, the attny would then go to a “quality” symposium and complain about how mean the generals are and that, how do you put it, abstraction should be patentable, regardless of how abstract it is? Then the attny would describe a hilarious story in which it took his company three years, 8 million dollars, and a team of attnys and experts to prove the invalidity of a patent, all the while, with a straight face, completely ignoring the redacted obverse of that statement – if it took him all of that, how does he expect one man (Examiner) to do that in eight hours? But then, in the same breath, demand that “pendency” be reduced while quality goes up (you can’t complain that it’s an “internal” problem when the external problems [that would be you] keep aggravating said internal problem).
The opposing general would then quit after three years of being made to punch himself in the face and the attny would complain that there are no experienced generals on the other side.
TL;DR – you’re still wrong and you always will be until you turn the lens of introspection on yourself. I also know you’re going to snarkly try to turn this statement back onto me, which is fine, you’ve not had an original thought since you came up with your handle…(that one is deep, you might not get it)
“ and since you think the PTO is evil for *gasp* making you earn a 20 year monopoly on a new method of going to the bathroom on an aeroplane [actual application], this fits)”
Absolutely wrong.
You are still not recognizing the terrain.
Sigh…must we do this anon? You and I are never going to see eye to eye on the problems of the system so why don’t we just hope that neither of us runs into the other during prosecution.
“Sigh…must we do this []?”
LOL – your choice to post – as is mine to post in reply.
Don’t like my replies? Do a better job with your posts. Don’t disparage what you don’t understand.
Must?
Of course, there is no “must.”
Three separate responses in under 30 mins to basically the same post? You’re like George Costanza in “The Comeback” rescheduling the same meeting multiple times trying to respond to a coworker’s slam. Do you just skulk on this blog all day? Stream of consciousness-ing responses as they come to you instead of thinking about a response and then posting? If that’s the way you prosecute applications then you’re more of a problem in the system than any of us realized.
It’s not so much that I don’t like your replies, some of them are pretty decent, it’s that most are chocked full pure sophistry and the time required to dissect actual reality from your fantasy exceeds my lack of desire to exercise my dog’s glands.
So, sorry if you feel that way, but I’m going to have to break up with you. It’s you, not me.
Each response is to a different portion of your post – NOT any type of “rethinking” on the same point.
Your “characterization” – much like the rest of your views – is a miss.
You claim “pure sophistry,” but that too is a miss, and so… No, it is not me, and it is you, after all.
As to “original thought,” you couldn’t be more off if you tried.
Really.
Your first paragraph makes it sound like you haven’t been around, and then you claim that I haven’t “done anything” – do you even begin to comprehend the p1ssp00r logic there?
No anon, it’s three pointing back. ☞ Thumbs point up or almost forward in that apophthegm.?
Hey – I know only three fingers point back – but the adage is four (and it is not my adage, so I left it alone).
‘trolls’
The patent system now teeters on the brink of lawlessness. Call it what you will…patent hoarder, patent troll, non-practicing entity, shell company, etc. It all means one thing: “we’re using your invention and we’re not going to stop or pay”. It’s a pure red herring by large invention thieves and their paid puppets to kill any inventor support system. As Mark Twain said, ‘truth is not hard to kill, and (that) a lie well told is immortal’. Those who use the amorphous phrase ‘patent troll’ expose themselves as thieves, duped, or doped and perpetuate the lie.
For our position and the changes we advocate to truly reform the patent system, or to join our effort, please visit us at link to aminventorsforjustice.wordpress.com
or, contact us at tifj@mail.com
iDan: does Mal think that patentability of an indexing system depends on whether the photos it’s indexing are new or not?
“Index this” isn’t eligible for patenting regardless of what’s being indexed, e.g., the “newness” of the information being indexed isn’t relevant to the analysis. To look at it another way, if all your doing is reciting a prior art system for creating, transmitting and storing information, then adding the ineligible subject matter “index this” achieves one of two possibilities: (1) nothing, i.e., the limitation is ignored and the claim is anticipated; (2) the limitation is given “patentable weight” and the claim is ineligible.
It’s the same analysis, of course. And the same result: the junk claim is tanked.
And all this is basic, fundamental stuff that is essential to keep a sane patent system from imploding. We’re never ever going back to State Street. So get used to it.
The claim at issue is not directed to “index this”, it is directed toward archive this with this categorizing information which will help me find it again in the future.
Les archive this with this categorizing information
Totally different from indexing! Thanks, Les.
Your (1) or (2) “logic”…
isn’t.
Maybe you want to try using those short declarative sentences you are always on about and try to make your “argument” a little more cohesive with the actual law as written by Congress.
the actual law
Oh lookie! Here comes the “expert” who knows what everything isn’t. Deep insights abound! Let’s all bow down.
…And once again the selective editing sets in.
Nice job Prof.
What does Malcolm have over you? He vom1ts forth “wife-beatings” and accusations of theft and you don’t bat an eye. Someone throws a little “zzzz.s” at him and it’s “Oh Noes, that just has to be censored.”
You do know that the perception that is being created by such non-objective editing is what is “causing you pain,” right?
How much do you charge your imaginary clients to advice on filing “index this” claims, “anon”?
And then what do you do with the money you steal?
Yay! Another “beat your wife” Malcolmism.
Great job Prof – “love” the ecosystem efforts we see.
So how do you advise your imaginary clients when they come to with an “index” this claim, “anon”? You don’t seem to like my advice.
So tell everyone what advice you’d give.
After all, you’re totally not evasive. You’re very serious! We all have to pay attention to you.
So put on the big boy pants and tell everyone. What advice do you give?
I “don’t seem to like your advice” …?
Maybe you should try reading what I actually wrote.
I even used those short declarative sentences that you are always going on about.
How about it pumpkin? Give it a try.
try reading what I actually wrote.
LOL
D ude, we can all read what you “actually wrote”. There’s nothing there except for your usual vapid “I’m right because ‘actual’ law” bal0ney.
Is your argument that “index this” is a process, therefore a claim reciting old techn0logy, some allegedly “new” data content, and a step of “index it” is eligible and patentable? Is that how you’d advise your clients?
Oh right: that’s the kind of question you are always loathe to answer because it would reveals more than you’d like it to. Better to just drive by in your cl0wn car, throw an egg, and screech “actual law” a zillion times. You’re a super serious person! Filled with all kinds of deep insights.
You say everyone can read what I write – but you STILL are not responding to what I actually wrote.
Instead we have your usual mischaracterization followed by goal post moving to something that I have not written.
Come on Malcolm, F O C U S (it helps if you don’t do your usual first reflex move to your tired ad hominem and responded to what I actually wrote – and yes, I do mean “respond” to mean “respond with inte11ectual honesty.”
Give it a try.
you STILL are not responding to what I actually wrote.
Anybody know what this g00fball is talking about?
I don’t.
Anybody care?
I don’t, other than the laughs of course.
The typical running away…
“Go figure Folks.”
Maybe next time you type a response, you, you know, respond….
ps, the black and white is still there at 8.2
MM posted:
And you seem to be beating your wife!
Yes, it’s so much fun “discussing” patent law with a fake attorney who the mind of an infant.
Show them a creek and they see Niagara Falls! OMG we better build an ark before we’re all washed away!
I figure that if any of Mal’s comments needs to be repeated, over and over, on every single article on PatentlyO, it’s this one. Dennis, can you please consider using this wonderful example of cordial debate as a tag for the site? You know, something like:
“PatentlyO: America’s leading patent law source with fake attorneys who beat their wives”
Meet the lovers of computer-implemented junk.
Has there ever been a more thin-skinned bunch of wealthy entitled crybabies in the history of the United States legal profession?
I don’t believe so. It really is something to behold.
Sorry, Mal, your post trivializing domestic abuse was much more deserving of quotation.
trivializing domestic abuse
I think I just pulled a muscle rolling my eyes.
But you’re a very serious person, iDan! Maybe someday we’ll find out about the awesome invention that didn’t make it into Troll Communications LLC patent. If so, it will all be thanks to you. In the meantime, of course, much sleep will be lost over it.
‘
MM: “domestic abuse”
I think I just pulled a muscle rolling my eyes.
Should we be concerned for someone, Mal?
There is only one thing he is beating on a regular basis and it isn’t his spouse.
Patentlyo, junk, trolls. Attaboy Dennis, you’ve really built something of value.
Hint: to reclaim a little professional credibility, employ a filter that searches for “MM”.
Not.
Going.
To.
Happen.
Which leads of course to the question of: Why not?
It’s not like it is unknown just how Malcolm has posted since about February of 2006…
Happy Decade of Decadence!
Last time I checked you guys already have two echo chambers in regular operation.
Somehow that’s not enough?
LOL
Nice “spin” but the point here is NOT your ad hominem label of “echo chamber,” but rather the ceasing of your blight.
Believe it or not, your blight is NOT some “line of defense” protecting some field of rye and preventing (Oh Noes) echo chamber effects just because conversations are engaged in an inte11ectually honest manner.
Wake up son.
onversations are engaged in an inte11ectually honest manner
Of course they are! Please spend as much time as possible in your echo chamber telling yourselves that! And be sure to pass around the ruby slippers, too. Clicking them changes everything!
Squint as hard as I may, and I cannot see anything of merit in your reply, Malcolm.
Harriet Korn, played by Kathy Bates, in the short-lived TV series “Harry’s Law”, was supposedly a fired patent attorney turned criminal defense lawyer. I wonder how many of those there actually are.
link to en.wikipedia.org
“Kiss or Kill” (1997; Australia)
The young girl, now a woman in her twenties, is Nikki Davies (Frances O’Connor). Nikki and her boyfriend, Al Fletcher (Matt Day), are small-time criminals who target married businessmen. Nikki picks up a charmless patent attorney in a bar and accompanies him back to his room where she slips something in his drink. The man passes out, Nikki lets Al into the room and they begin casing it for valuables.
Then things start to go wrong. Al discovers their mark is not merely unconscious but dead. They flee the scene but back at their place the situation gets more complicated. A video in the patent attorney’s briefcase features a famous ex-footballer, Zipper Doyle, engaged in pedophilia.
I haven’t seen this documentary yet.
Why stretch to contend that backing up photos from a smartphone is “abstract”?
Maybe you should read the case and learn what the judges actually wrote.
If the specification “fails to provide any technical details” and only has “vague, functional descriptions”, then why not simply reject it under 112 and call it a day?
Then all the patent maximalists will be totally happy!
LOLOLOLOLOLOL
Sure they will.
This was truly a comment that needed to be posted twice and bumped up to the first level. Such insight and wit needs to be highlighted for all to see: “LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL” should replace “PatentlyO” as the title of this blog.
Perceptions… perceptions… perceptions…
Happy decade of decadence !
This was truly a comment that needed to be posted twice and bumped up to the first level.
In fact, the first one was accidentally posted up top.
The comic book series Daredevil: Yellow has a brief mention of patent law in a somewhat ambiguous context that raises the issue of the difference between the domain of patent attorneys/agents and regular attorneys. I wrote about it here.
In Calvin & Hobbes, Calvin’s dad is a patent attorney, although this only comes up in a couple of strips.
Obviously, he’s included Calvin’s father from Calvin and Hobbes, based on Bill Watterson’s father, patent attorney James Watterson?
When a comment like that gets hit by the filter, but insults and name calling don’t, then maybe the filters need to be adjusted.
Speaking of patent trolls, serially offending patent troll TLI Communications LLC saw its incredibly junky patent re-tanked this morning by the CAFC, applying 101 in a precedential opinion.
TLI Communications LLC vs. A Zillion Companies Who Actually Make Stuff
Panel: Dyk, Schall, Hughes
Here’s the junk claim:
17. A method for recording and administering digital images, comprising the steps of:
recording images using a digital pick up unit in a telephone unit,
storing the images recorded by the digital pick up unit in a digital form as digital images,
transmitting data including at least the digital images and classification information to a server, wherein said classification information is prescribable by a user of the telephone unit for allocation to the digital images,
receiving the data by the server,
extracting classification information which characterizes the digital images from the received data, and
storing the digital images in the server, said step of storing taking into consideration the classification information.
Got that? It’s the storage of images and some information about the images “offline.” Because sometimes the local memory is limited. And nobody knew that until these super smart “innoavators” filed their patent. But they’re not tr0lls! It would be “unfair” to call them at. Let’s just call them b0tt0m-feeders and bigtime l 0 s ers. Does everybody feel better now? Gosh, I hope so.
From the case (applying Enfish — surely the only reason this wasn’t a simple Rule 36 decision because it wasn’t a close call):
The specification does not describe a new telephone, a new server, or a new physical combination of the two [<— imagine that! focusing on the physical arrangement]. The specification fails to provide any technical details for the tangible components, but instead predominately describes the system and methods in purely functional terms.…. Put differently, the telephone unit itself is merely a conduit for the abstract idea of classifying an image and storing the image based on its classification. Indeed, the specification notes that it “is known” that “cellular telephones may be utilized for image transmission,” id. at col. 1 ll. 31–34, and existing telephone systems could transmit pictures, audio, and motion pictures and also had “graphical annotation capability,” … vague, functional descriptions of server components are insufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention
Much, much more to come …
If the specification “fails to provide any technical details” and only has “vague, functional descriptions”, then why not simply reject it under 112 and call it a day? Why stretch to contend that backing up photos from a smartphone is “abstract”?
Why stretch to contend that backing up photos from a smartphone is “abstract”?
Maybe you should read the case and learn what the judges actually wrote.
If the specification “fails to provide any technical details” and only has “vague, functional descriptions”, then why not simply reject it under 112 and call it a day?
Then all the patent maximalists will be totally happy!
LOLOLOLOLOLOL
Sure they will.
“Patent maximalists” like invalidating patents? I’m not sure you even know what you’re saying anymore, Mal.
“Patent maximalists” like invalidating patents?
No, they like misreading cases and trying their best not to understand what is going on.
Not sure how it’s misreading a case or failing to understand what’s going on to recognize that at least the attorney who drafted the ‘295 Patent had no idea how the system worked, and therefore provided no details regarding the classification system. To put it in EPO terms, he discussed the problem, but left the solution as an exercise for the reader.
The underlying invention appears to be directed to a way to organize data for faster search and retrieval – something that certainly is an improvement to computer functionality, and should pass muster under current 101 jurisprudence – except that it was never actually described in the patent. Instead, they merely say that digital images are stored “taking into consideration the classification information.” How is that consideration applied? You certainly can’t tell from reading the patent.
Now, I’d say “where’s the invention? What makes anyone think the inventor was in possession of a solution to the problem he identified? Shouldn’t this fail under 112?” If throwing out vague “magic happens here” patents is being a patent maximalist, then we all should strive to be one.
iit The underlying invention appears to be directed to a way to organize data for faster search and retrieval
By classifying it!
Wowee zowee. It’s like rocket science, except there’s no rocket and no science.
Now, I’d say “where’s the invention?
And the answer is: there’s isn’t any, at least not an eligible one.
Shouldn’t this fail under 112?”
Sure. Also 103. So what? Junk patents fail under multiple statutes all the time.
What everybody else knows but you seem to have a difficult time understanding is that the CAFC and other courts spent so much coddling computer-implemented hacks when it came to interpreting (or shall we say “rewriting”? LOL) 112 that proving a 112 failure in the computer-implemented arts became a ludicrously expensive farce, just like 103.
they merely say that digital images are stored “taking into consideration the classification information.” How is that consideration applied? You certainly can’t tell from reading the patent.
But the computer-implementers will tell us that “the skilled artisan can figure all that stuff out.” And, hey, here’s an “expert” mouthpiece to explain it all to the jury.
Or we can just throw the junk in the trashcan where it belongs. Thank you, very much.
” So what?”
So what- …so Justice, that’s what. An illogical, ill-conceived, poorly reasoned precedential opinion begets more illogical, ill-conceived, poorly reasoned opinions and is detrimental to the entire system.
So what- …so Justice
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Cry me a river, concerned one.
You guys really do take the cake.
Les, An illogical, ill-conceived, poorly reasoned precedential opinion begets more illogical, ill-conceived, poorly reasoned opinions and is detrimental to the entire system.
Agreed.
Two examples:
1. Benson.
2. In re Bernhart
The underlying invention appears to be directed to a way to organize data for faster search and retrieval
By classifying it! Wowee zowee. It’s like rocket science, except there’s no rocket and no science.
You seem to be under the impression that no method of classifying data that results in faster search and retrieval would be science… Perhaps that’s the pharmaceutical lobby’s opinion, but I think millions of scientists in information theory would beg to differ.
Shouldn’t this fail under 112?”
Sure. Also 103. So what? Junk patents fail under multiple statutes all the time.
So what? If there’s no invention described, you arguably shouldn’t even reach 103, because you can’t properly interpret the claims in view of the disclosure.
But your “so what” points to a more fundamental disagreement, Mal: many of us – who you term “patent maximalists” – believe that the different statutes exist for different purposes and should be properly applied independently. I.e. 101 covers patent eligibility; 102 novelty; 103 obviousness; 112 written description and enablement, and each have different tests and thresholds that are applied. The “so what, it doesn’t matter, just use any statute” leads to rejecting claims under 101 for being obvious- er, “abstract”- without using any of the 103 tests. Basically, you’re arguing for a doctrine that the result is all that matters, rather than the structure (ironic for someone who condemns patents that describe results, rather than structure), while the rest of us believe the process is important.
Now, this is of course different from your pharmaceutical side of things, where the question of whether it’s a predictable art or not changes depending on whether you’re arguing obviousness (“of course, it’s unpredictable! A tiny change can result in unforeseeable results!”) or written description (“of course, it’s predictable! Why, without biosimilars, we’d have nothing!”), so perhaps it’s understandable that you’d focus on results and ignore process.
It is not understandable – the issue here is NOT “Pharma patent law,” but instead is “patent law.”
He already knows this and yet insists on prevaricating endlessly.
Yay ecosystem – happy decade of decadence.
iit You seem to be under the impression that no method of classifying data that results in faster search and retrieval would be science
And you seem to be beating your wife!
Yes, it’s so much fun “discussing” patent law with a fake attorney who the mind of an infant.
Show them a creek and they see Niagara Falls! OMG we better build an ark before we’re all washed away!
iit you’re arguing for a doctrine that the result is all that matters
Err…. that would be your Federal Circuit, not me.
Remember? “Improves the computer”?
I know the case is really old, like half a week, so it’s easy to forget this stuff.
iit the different statutes exist for different purposes and should be properly applied independently
That’s nice. Go ahead and apply them “independently” until the cows come home. The bottom line is that if you can tank the junk claims easily under 101, or 102, or 103, or 112, then do it.
Go ahead! I’m already looking forward to your awesome analyses under those statutes. Because you’re super concerned and super dooper serious.
Sure you are.
If there’s no invention described, you arguably shouldn’t even reach 103
Absolutely correct. But it’s important to remember that “no invention” includes “no eligible invention.”
I can sit here all day and “invent” computer-implemented junk pretty much endlessly, just like any patent attorney with half a brain. But it’s not eligible for patenting.
I’d love to be able to explain why in terms that you can understand but you need about ten years of basic education first. Sorry about that. Take comfort in the fact that you’re not alone.
And oh yes: you have “anon” to keep you company. He’s a real genius. Filled with deep insights. You won’t ever be bored. LOL
The “so what, it doesn’t matter, just use any statute” leads to rejecting claims under 101 for being obvious- er, “abstract”- without using any of the 103 tests.
What “103 tests” are you referring to, exactly?
The tests in the statute?
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Abstract iDan, Why? Dismissal under 12(b) vs. jury trial on enablement.
Dismissal under 12(b) vs. jury trial on enablement.
Should “which is cheaper” be a substitute for “which is right”?
Abstract iDan, well if one has to go to the specification to confirm the result, then one does question how this is a proper vehicle for 12(b)(6).