By Dennis Crouch
I have greatly reduced my travel schedule this fall – spending time instead milling lumber and building my chicken coop (as well as teaching patent law & internet law).
I am, however, looking forward to returning to Atlanta in two weeks to take part in the 2016 Corporate IP Institute at Georgia State University. (October 25-26).
Chason Carroll, Jeff Kuester, and Perry Binder have put together a great program. In addition to Professor Hricik’s ethics talk, I’m particularly looking forward to the discussions of cybersecurity. I’ll be doing an IP Year-in-Review (Cases, Legislation, Regulation, etc.) The event typically has a high turnout of in house IP attorneys. See you there.
I left a comment on how to build a chicken coup using layered fencing and type of fencing. For some reason, it’s stuck in moderation.
Apparently I used some fowl words. 🙂 🙂 🙂
On a totally non-professional, non-business level, congratulations on your splendid constructional efforts and very best wishes to you and your family.
Unfortunately I am unable to think of any good chicken jokes. Henough of that!
Very best wishes
Paul Cole
Just for grins, Dennis, ask your fellow attendees to raise their hands if they think the Constitution applies to patent law.
Be sure to warn security in advance because all heck might break loose.
LOL
OT, but Blue Spike’s will try to resurrect its junky “compare these two signals” patent in oral arguments versus Google tomorrow.
link to google.com
1. A method for monitoring and analyzing at least one signal comprising:
receiving at least one reference signal to be monitored;
creating an abstract of said at least one reference signal wherein the step of creating an abstract of said at least one reference signal comprises:
inputting the reference signal to a processor; creating an abstract of the reference signal using perceptual qualities of the reference signal such that the abstract retains a perceptual relationship to the reference signal from which it is derived;
storing the abstract of said at least one reference signal in a reference database;
receiving at least one query signal to be analyzed;
creating an abstract of said at least one query signal wherein the step of creating an abstract of said at least one query signal comprises:
inputting the at least one query signal to the processor;
creating an abstract of the at least one query signal using perceptual qualities of the at least one query signal such that the abstract retains a perceptual relationship to the at least one query signal from which it is derived; and
comparing the abstract of said at least one query signal to the abstract of said at least one reference signal to determine if the abstract of said at least one query signal matches the abstract of said at least one reference signal.
In other words, compare the “perceptual qualities” of two signals. Perceptual qualities are “humanly perceptible”. But this wonderful “machine” has a “feature selector” that can identify all, or nearly all, of the perceptual qualities of the object that differentiate it from a similarly selected object of other signals. There’s nothing circular or self-enabling about this g@rbage! Nope.
Judge Moore is on the panel. Count on her to be simply amaaaazed!
After all, “limited rules! limited rules!”
Oh, it’s going to be loads of fun.
link to books.google.com
Prof. Samuelsen, 2010: “And if the Federal Circuit does not limit patentable subject matter to technology, I foresee that there are going to be First Amendment defenses raised in patent cases, too, because to the extent that a method is patented that you can basically think and infringe it, or communicate and infringe it, those methods which are non-technical could potentially raise free speech issues …”
Using existing communication channels to communicate “new” content, e.g., information about “snowplows” or “available real estate”, is about as non-technical as you can get.
As predicted by a lot of thoughtful people, we’ve reached the b0ttoming out point where the issue can’t be swept under the rug anymore. Kudos to Mayer for raising the red flag.
Woo-we, you finally found some corroboration.
Although Samuelson herself is not exactly the most “able” (to put it gently) when it comes to patent law…
Samuelson herself is not exactly the most “able”
Oh, here we go again. Bow down everyone. The “True Attorney” is here with his “substance.”
But he’s not a hypocrite! Nope. He’d never just drive by and insult someone. Nope. Not the great “anon.”
Samualson is well known as being anti-patent.
Is this news to you?
Maybe you want to read what you quoted from Samualson…
If you have a point to make, try declarative sentences and plain English.
Good luck.
…and the “funny” thing here of course is that Malcolm makes again that which he accused me of here on the new thread (the one he is having a meltdown on).
Funny in that grotesquely sad and shameful way.
Notfanuttin…. but a dozen medium eggs go for like 50 cents retail…what sorta ROI you expecting out of this coop de poulet?
Or are you in it strictly for the noise and cholesterol?
If there’s any attorney out there so clueless that he/she still believes that “obviousness can take care of everything”, then they must have missed the CAFC’s Apple v. Samsung decision (among many easy-to-find facts abou the US patent system).
How many EPO decisions have referred to “audience cheers” at a marketing seminar to justify a finding on non-obviousness? That kind of silliness is a special feature of the US system. And we’ve got at least a couple judges on the CAFC who really love shiny things that inspire fanb0ys to cheer wildly. Yay!
Impressive! I tried hatching a plan to build one once but I ended up just winging it and then fowling it all up so since I didn’t want to ruffle anyone’s feathers, I simply quit.
Is the opening for the chickens a frame configured to define a frame opening and be attached to a chicken coop wall having a wall opening, wherein the frame opening is to be aligned with the wall opening, said frame having a top frame portion, a bottom frame portion, a first side portion, and a second side portion;
I know some foxes that can help guard that chicken coop…
😉
Hilarious!
Every person I’ve known who has had a chicken coop has had all of the chickens killed by predators. On our land, we have foxes, weasels, hawks, owls, coyotes, bobcats, raccoons, each of which would love a chicken for snack. Every time I think I want chickens, I remember how many predators we have, and I rethink it. Plus, I’m too busy writing software patents to handle care of chickens. 😉
This is kinda technical stuff but if you build a fence around the area in which the chickens roam (I think they have this stuff called “duck wire” … the name escapes me) and then you make sure that the chickens are in the coop before you close it up for night, the chickens can live for many years without being eaten by a predator.
They dig under. Or find other ways in. Weasels are, well, weasels.
With apologies PB, but your “I’m too busy writing software patents to handle care of chickens” was too good to resist for bad puns. E.g,:
That is nothing to crow about, since these days many of your software patents will come home to roost after laying an egg.
P.S. Dennis – your kids will enjoy raising chicks to edible size, my sister and I sure did during WWII, when they were really needed.
That’s a fine looking coop, Dennis. If you get your chicks soon, you might have eggs by Eastertime (assuming you don’t already have a flock).
Comments are closed.