Before writing more about Trading Technologies v. CQG, I will first note that TT is my former client and I personally filed the original complaint in this very case 12 years ago (2005). Although TT is no longer my client, I am bound by and respect the rules of professional ethics and the duties owed to former clients.
The new non-precedential opinion from the Federal Circuit affirms the district court ruling that TT’s asserted claims are patent eligible.
The patent claims here cover a computerized method and system used for trading stocks and similar products. When buying and selling stocks, speed and accuracy are both critically important and in this invention, TT created a Graphical-User-Interface design (and operational software) that helps traders buy and sell stock more quickly and more accurately. See U.S. Patents No. 6,772,132 and No. 6,766,304.
The court writes:
It is not disputed that the TTI System improves the accuracy of trader transactions, utilizing a software implemented programmatic [method]. For Section 101 purposes, precedent does not consider the substantive criteria of patentability. For Section 101 purposes, the claimed subject matter is “directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate,” Enfish, for the claimed graphical user interface method imparts a specific functionality to a trading system “directed to a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts.” Id.
The opinion is authored by Judge Newman and joined by Judges O’Malley and Wallach. The court’s opinion is a short and interesting read:
Precedent has recognized that specific technologic modifications to solve a problem or improve the functioning of a known system generally produce patent-eligible subject matter. … [I]neligible claims generally lack steps or limitations specific to solution of a problem, or improvement in the functioning of technology.
For some computer-implemented methods, software may be essential to conduct the contemplated improvements. Enfish… Abstraction is avoided or overcome when a proposed new application or computer-implemented function is not simply the generalized use of a computer as a tool to conduct a known or obvious process, but instead is an improvement to the capability of the system as a whole.
We reiterate the Court’s recognition that “at some level, all inventions . . . embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.” Alice, quoting Mayo. This threshold level of eligibility is often usefully explored by way of the substantive statutory criteria of patentability, for an invention that is new, useful and unobvious is more readily distinguished from the generalized knowledge that characterizes ineligible subject matter. This analysis is facilitated by the Court’s guidance whereby the claims are viewed in accordance with “the general rule that patent claims ‘must be considered as a whole’.” Alice, quoting Diamond v. Diehr.
As demonstrated in recent jurisprudence directed to eligibility, and as illustrated in the cases cited ante, the claim elements are considered in combination for evaluation under Alice Step 1, and then individually when Alice Step 2 is reached. Applying an overview of this evolving jurisprudence, the public interest in innovative advance is best served when close questions of eligibility are considered along with the understanding flowing from review of the patentability criteria of novelty, unobviousness, and enablement, for when these classical criteria are evaluated, the issue of subject matter eligibility is placed in the context of the patent-based incentive to technologic progress.
The patents are also currently being challenged on 101 grounds in CBM proceedings before the USPTO. Although I feel that it should have a direct impact, it is unclear to me whether this decision will impact the PTO proceedings addressing the identical question. (For instance, the court here holds that the patent covers a technological invention – and CBM proceedings can only proceed for non-technological inventions.) Patentees may also consider petitioning the court to make this decision precedential.
We just printed a Deathstar yo-yo on our 3D printer.
The machine had no capability to print a Deathstar until we loaded the .stl file, which instructed the machine how to do it.
Later, we loaded a new .stl file to print cable clips, something the machine could not print before the new instructions were added.
Do I have a new 3D printer?
I’m not really asking.
Of course you are not.
Not that you are confusing the work product and the machine making the work product or anything trivial like that, eh?
Get your money back from that Holiday Inn that you stayed in last night.
Yea, but the output on a computer monitor is not a “work product” because you say so.
Yea because the printed matter doctrine is grounded in statute, as your separation of powers fetish demands.
Yea, as if my human consumption test is not grounded in the fact that its the most accurate meaning of the word “abstract”
Yea as if the 11 CAFC judges and 8 Supreme Court justices don’t have 19 different ideas of the proper subject matter analysis for information inventions.
Yea as if I ever discuss inventions as “software” rather than as “information” based.
anon your script is tired. the regulars here know that I know enough to reasonably participate, and the terrain that you are so sure of is entirely in your mind since here in objective reality, the terrain is a random walk that no lawyer or judge can predict until the opinions come out. You are as adrift as me, or anyone else and I suggest your fantastic world is far more elaborate than mine….
Yea because the printed matter doctrine is grounded in statute, as your separation of powers fetish demands.
This made me chuckle.
As explained in the easy to follow Set Theory explication, whether of not it is grounded in statute is only a limitation of the pervasiveness of what Congress actually wrote.
In other words – your barking up the wrong tree.
That you might find even some small delight in that only shows your own lack of understanding.
So the judicial exceptions are not limitations of pervasiveness? Uh huh….
Where did you see me say anything about ” limitations of pervasiveness” in regards to either the judicial doctrine of printed matter or to the exceptions to the judicial doctrine of printed matter?
Try please to keep up Mr. Snyder.
Mr. Snyder,
You are NOT as grounded – not even close – because you still refuse to acknowledge, let alone understand law , its history and the facts on the table.
Instead, your own personal feelings are what drive you.
You got burned, and like a woman scorned, you have a fury that blinds you.
I’ve had multiple interactions with the patent system anon, and you know I’m not free to talk about them, but five minutes of effort would lead you to the public record filings, which can clarify your quite incorrect conclusions.
Beyond that, your endless appeals to authority are meaningless becuase nobody has a grip on information inventions, which is amply illustrated day after day by the case reports we all see.
As to my emotional blindness? White hate clarifies rather than obscures quite often, and especially in matters of ideology.
You really should strive to do better.
“and you know I’m not free to talk about them”
Not talking directly about them does not hide the rather evident fact that you have been emotionally scarred by them.
“your endless appeals to authority are meaningless ”
Do you even know what that means?
“White hate clarifies rather than obscures quite often, and especially in matters of ideology.”
I am most definitely not the one that needs to strive to do better (hint: that would be you). My views remain grounded in actual law, actual history, and yes, actual facts.
anon you are a human Mobius strip, and apparently a kind of lazy one.
Says the guy who says nothing – nothing that accords with law, the history of law, or facts pertinent to the discussion.
But, hey, you “feel” strongly about this (with your “white hate“, and you have concocted a brand new scheme and perhaps most critical of all, you slept at a Holiday Inn last night…
MM, I enjoy many of your posts. Where would you stand on these two inventions as far as 101:
(1) Invention #1 is a control circuit for window made of electrochromic smart glass, the control circuit works by monitoring a logic state of a register that is tied to a photovoltaic. If it’s sunny outside the state changes to “sunny” and the control circuit sends a current into the window to render it opaque. The control circuit is a GPU executing software.
(2) Invention #2 is a window made of photochromic smart glass. The amount and distribution of dye in the window is selected so that window is opaque when it’s sunny.
Both inventions operate the same under the same conditions.
Is either invention patentable? They operate according to logic, in one the logic is embodied in the GPU, in the other it’s embodied in the selection of the dye.
You didn’t ask me, but neither would be an invention because the previous invention of the “smart glass” would render them obvious.
The very point of smart glass is to adapt opacity to conditions- doing so by totally conventional means is not an invention.
If you mean in a subject matter sense, both are clearly within the scope of the patent act.
Apologies for the blurt.
Mr. Snyder, you quite miss the point attempted (even as you recognized the difference between patentable (as per “the rest of the statute”) and patent eligible.
You do realize of course the notion that software is equivalent (in the patent sense, and yes, that is in fact different than “the same as”) both firmware and hardware right?
You have heard of this thing called ASICs, eh?
I drove my car through Beverly Hills. It was a big improvement to my car, obviously, over the time I drove it through the south side of Chicago.
It must have felt like a new machine to you. Therefore, it had to be one. Also, a big of protons.
The “experience” was totally different I tell ya…
Yay!
Good day for GUI design and related innovations.
Claim 1 of US Patent 6,772,132:
1. A method of placing a trade order for a commodity on an electronic exchange having an inside market with a highest bid price and a lowest ask price, using a graphical user interface and a user input device, said method comprising: setting a preset parameter for the trade order displaying market depth of the commodity, through a dynamic display of a plurality of bids and a plurality of asks in the market for the commodity, including at least a portion of the bid and ask quantities of the commodity, the dynamic display being aligned with a static display of prices corresponding thereto, wherein the static display of prices does not move in response to a change in the inside market; displaying an order entry region aligned with the static display prices comprising a plurality of areas for receiving commands from the user input devices to send trade orders, each area corresponding to a price of the static display of prices; and selecting a particular area in the order entry region through single action of the user input device with a pointer of the user input device positioned over the particular area to set a plurality of additional parameters for the trade order and send the trade order to the electronic exchange.
This is why Alice is such a disaster. It’s impossible to tell from reading claims what’s patentable and what’s not. You have to somehow “divine” whether something “is an improvement to way computers operate”, especially when the claimed subject matter doesn’t actually improve the computer itself: it only improves the way trades are made using the computer. The same with Enfish. Both of these were really improvements to the functioning of software — the computer itself was not “improved” in any way. When I look at both the claims here and in Enfish, I think they’re invalid under Alice. Yet, the courts hold the other way. Why?
Enfish:
“Much of the advancement made in computer technology consists of improvements to software that, by their very nature, may not be defined by particular physical features but rather by logical structures and processes. We do not see in Bilski or
Alice, or our cases, an exclusion to patenting this large field of
technological progress.”
The claim there:
A data storage and retrieval system for a computer memory, comprising:
means for configuring said memory according to a logical table, said logical table including:
a plurality of logical rows, each said logical row including an object identification number (OID) to identify each said logical
row, each said logical row corresponding to a record of information;
a plurality of logical columns intersecting said plurality of logical rows to define a plurality of logical cells, each said logical column including an OID to identify each said logical column; and
means for indexing data stored in said table.
Can anyone look at this claim and tell me what’s patentable about it (under Alice, that is)? The only way to do it is research the “improvement” made to some “software”, and then somehow correlate that “improvement” with the claim.
How the hec k is an Examiner supposed to do this? And what do I tell my client? Currently, I’ve been telling them that I have no idea whether their claim is valid or not; they’ll have to wait until litigation.
Also, why aren’t the claims under Alice valid under this theory? They involved computer software that was an improvement over other software.
why aren’t the claims under Alice valid under this theory?
This is just my opinion, but I read Trading Techs as the CAFC throwing up their hands and saying “heck if I know what Alice means. Let’s just treat Alice as confined to its own facts and try to sketch out a 101 test based on our own precedents, unburdened by the more confusing aspects of Alice.”
In other words, if you are having a hard time reconciling this case to the holding in Alice, join the club. I do not think that they can be reconciled.
I think that this case represents a bolder presentation of the trend we have seen emerging in the CAFC over the last three months of some of the judges realizing that they have tried to implement Alice, and it just cannot be done. Mayo and Alice are just too entirely self-contradictory.
Instead of continuing to beat their heads against the wall trying to implement an inherently undiscernible standard, it appears to me that certain judges (Taranto, Reyna, Newman, Moore, and O’Malley) are just going to give up on it and forge a new test. Meanwhile, Dyk, Wallach, Mayer, and Hughes are sort of apostles of Alice and are going to do their level best to see that Alice is implemented in a strong sense by resolving any internal contradictions in Alice always in favor of unpatentability.
Mayo and Alice are just too entirely self-contradictory.
Tell everyone what’s “self-contradictory” about those cases, Greg.
Also, the fact that PatentBob is “confused” about something isn’t evidence of anything except, maybe, that the earth hasn’t completely blown up.
Greg – a lot like you – does not respond well to counter points presented to his views.
Except when he deigns it so, that is.
Greg, the difference between Alice and here is simple. In Alice, the claims were directed to a business method, non statutory. Here, an improvement to the way computers operate.
Now, this is why I believe the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit as a whole are following Flook/Bilski (Stevens) reasoning and not the Bilski majority which never bothered to explain its reasoning.
I am hard pressed to see how these claims are any more an improvement to how a computer operates than were the Alice claims. Both amount to a discovery that you could do X on a computer. This is not like Enfish where you have (arguably) created a method of indexing data that makes it faster to find certain kinds of data. The claim itself purports to be a method of placing a trade order, not a method of improving computer function. I know that Judge Newman’s opinion characterized these claims as improving computer function, but I think that it is to ingenuous to take that at face value. The invention claimed in Alice improved as much computer function as the invention claimed here.
Greg: I know that Judge Newman’s opinion characterized these claims as improving computer function, but I think that it is to ingenuous to take that at face value.
That’s because Judge Newman l i e d. Plain and simple.
Er “too ingenuous…”
Claims don’t improve computer functions brosefulous.
Good point. I should have said “the invention claimed in Alice,” rather than “the Alice claims.” I hope my meaning was clear enough, despite the lack of clarity with which I presented my argument.
Something about “niggling and pedantic” comes to mind…
😉
It’s all good I don’t mean to be pedantic. The reason I correct people on this point is to try to combat the near constant conflation with words scribbled on a page with an invention. Expunging that conflation helps prosecution.
And quite right you are to do so. I wish more people would trouble themselves not to confuse deceptively similar ideas, and to call me out when they see me indulging a muddle. Clear distinctions beget clear thinking, and clear thinking avoids erroneous conclusions.
Your reply is deceptive, my friend Greg – as you avoid conversations with the people that do the very thing that you “wish more people would do.”
Ned is off again on his anti-business method Windmill Chase…
anon, Hotel Security.
Not windmills at all.
Most definitely Windmills Ned – even Crouch called you out for misapplying Hotel Security.
Please Ned. The fancy screens they designed have NOTHING to do with how the computer operates. Nothing. What. So. Ever.
You have to somehow “divine” whether something “is an improvement to way computers operate”,
Because a certain class of incompetent and/or ethically bankrupt patent attorneys is apparently incapable of writing claims that describe an eligible invention.
If you’ve invented something that “is an improvement in the way computers operate”, it’s a bit odd — to say the least — to recite limitations about “displaying prices.”
And I know this will sail right over your flat head. It’s super nuanced!
“certain class of incompetent and/or ethically bankrupt patent attorneys”
talk about your curse-ades….
Does anyone know the procedural posture of this case? I was perplexed to see that the sole issue on appeal was whether the district court correctly decided that the claims were patent-eligible. I would expect to see a 101-only opinion on appeal when the district court goes against the patentee on 101 because the case is over at that point.
But with a 101 win for the patentee, there remain a whole bunch of validity, infringement and damages issues left to resolve. Why the trip to the Federal Circuit at this point? Ordinarily that would be an improper interlocutory appeal. I must be missing something.
Ordinarily that would be an improper interlocutory appeal
If the district judge allows it, it’s not improper, as far as I know.
Perhaps you have in mind the procedure of 28 USC 1292(b). That could well be how this case ended up at the Federal Circuit, but here the court did not mention that statutory exception to the final judgment rule.
I looked at the defendants-appellants’ brief and the attached district court judgment. It appears that the case proceeded to trial after the 101 ruling, and the patentee won a $15.8 million judgment. Best I can tell, the defendants-appellants limited their appeal to the 101 issue (maybe I missed something). If so, I’m a little surprised that there wasn’t any claim construction, validity, infringement or damages issue worth appealing.
MD: I want in the Decision a discussion why program-writing is “technologic”
LOL
You’ll never see any such thing because addressing the manner in which old programmable computers are programmed to execute ineligible logic (remember: that’s the sole reason that programmable computers were created) will give away the game.
It’s also why you never see anyone asserting claims to “A method for instructing an instructable computer to execute logic, comprising typing instructions into said computer with a keyboard, wherein said typing includes the following keystrokes …” and similar such claims. And that’s true no matter how awesomely valuable and earth shattering the “new logic” is.
Go figure.
…to execute ineligible logic…
Once again, how goes your copyright on logic?
A simple question, Malcolm, but one that simply eviscerates your dissembling.
Are you ready to explain how [Old Box] – with no change – somehow has new capabilities?
Hint: use the inherency doctrine in your answer.
Hint: oldbox has no new capabilities. It’s still oldbox, even when it has new software.
Does new software have new capabilities? It may, but they are abstract. Are those capabilities machines? No. Manufactures? Maybe. Compositions of matter? No. Processes? Maybe.
Are they too abstract to patent? Some say yes, some say no, and I say no if a machine uses the information, and yes if a person does.
The law was not written with software inventions in mind, nor have courts come to a working agreement about it. Until that happens, your opinion is just as worthless as mine. So sad.
“Hint: oldbox has no new capabilities. It’s still oldbox, even when it has new software.”
Nonsense. New capabilities for my old box is why I installed the new software.
If the box could not previously run your new software, and you change it in some way so that now it can, then oldbox has new capabilities.
If the oldbox can run software designed to be executed on it, regardless of what that software does, oldbox is still the same oldbox.
How many ways does this need to be illustrated? Looms and patterns? DVD’s and DVD players? Lathes and CNC codes? TV’s and TV transmissions?
If the TV can suddenly display signals from the flux on anon’s tinfoil hat, it would be newbox. If it can still only show that which is broadcast as TV signals, its oldbox.
You think you’re so smart, Martin! But watch this: printed matter doctrine! inherency! Grand Hall! box of neutrons! and most importantly, the Wright Brothers.
Consider yourself decimated!
/patent maximalist off
Not yet, anon’s keyboard must have worn out or he/she is on the way to Trump’s inaugural, but I assume by tomorrow AM I will have been asked and answered but good…..
Or, you can try to understand the terrain upon which you want to do battle…
😉
…and there is a clear difference between the capability of “running software” and the capability that running particular configurations of software provide – much like the importance of not just haphazardly throwing protons,neutrons, and electrons together, and putting them together in a specific configuration.
That’s Malcolm’s purposeful dissembling aside, of course.
Yes. Those are all new machines. It is merely a point of view.
You can call something a music box or you can call it a pop goes the weasel player. If you invent a pop goes the weasel player you can claim the precise configuration of fingers on a drum and the precise dimensions of the harp elements.
If you later determine a gearing arrangement and a drum finger placement that plays a different tune, that’s a new invention.
Is a manual typewriter different than an electric? Sure it is. Whats different about them? Well, for one thing, the electric has additional parts.
Likewise, a computer with only WORD is a different machine from one with both WORD and EXCEL.
Likewise, a computer with only WORD is a different machine from one with both WORD and EXCEL
mmmm hmmm. Sure it is.
My car is a different machine when Rihanna is installed in the CD player than it is when Rihanna and Ariana Grande are installed in the CD player.
Totally different machines. Really.
Yay – nothing like not paying attention to the point already made (like so many times that even Malcolm has volunteered admissions against his interests as to knowing and understanding the legal points of the exceptions to the judicial doctrine of printed matter.
But hey – you just don’t care about the actual law, that much is clear – no matter how that lack of caring has left you scarred with your own emotional wounds from being sued, eh Mr. Snyder?
“Hint: oldbox has no new capabilities. It’s still oldbox, even when it has new software.”
Eminently no true.
Summed up in one word: configure.
(hint: do you configure your television set? Or is there inherency at play there?)
This makes zero sense. Bolding the word inherency does nothing to clarify. Either the computer is being “improved” or it is not. It certainly is not.
The software may be an improvement over prior art software, or the “bond trading system” as a whole may be improved, but the computer’s ability to run any variation of instructions within it’s designed I/O instruction set is not changed an iota, nor is your TV “configured” when you change a channel. If you change the power supply, or the display driver, or the tuner, or the input interface, you have changed the TV. If you merely change the input signal, you change nothing about the TV.
How. Many. Times.
And the screw isn’t changed when it is a component of an invention either. It is still a screw. Whats your point?
component 1 : computer
component 2: software
component 1 + component 2 = new machine.
component 1 : Old computer
component 2: New software
component 1 + component 2 = Old computer + New Software
Why such violence to the English language and common sense?
Because new software is hard to place in “Inventions Patentable”, so the patent bar can get paid instead of the copyright bar?
Plus I’m pro-software patent bub. Just not when the software achieves utility by processing information consumed by human beings.
You want to patent mpegs and clever self-driving algorithms, and clever phone number algos and a million other things, have at it.
The machines are still old machines unless there is new physical structure, because machines are physical things, as a child knows.
And yet – your own “I am pro-patent” stance fails because you want something different as the law – something completely untethered to law, history, or heck, even facts.
There are new physical structures. You just have difficultly seeing them because they are small. They are the electrical and/or magnetic fields that are installed or modified as a result of the software installation.
Les,
He refuses to acknowledge that software has – as it must, since it works – the critical part of the exceptions to the judicial doctrine of printed matter: the functional relationship.
This functional relationship is NOT “only in the mind” because computers do not have minds.
This is the beauty of one of my favorite words: anthropomorphication.
On another thread I posted the following link – it further debunks the misconception about software as somehow “thinking:”
link to aeon.co
Mr. Snyder will of course clench tight his eyes to such facts, simply because they do not align with his personal agenda.
Has the deadline passed for a cert petition to reverse McWrong? It must be getting close. This decision is just as bad as McWrong (which was, unfortunately, precedential). One reason to confine this case to non-precedent was surely to minimize its importance and decrease the otherwise phenomenal likelihood that the Supremes will crush the opinion into dust.
Just how bad is it? Well, try to wrap your head around all this nonsense:
The court found that these patents are directed to improvements in existing graphical user interface devices that have no “pre-electronic trading analog,”
News flash: graphics were used to present data before electronics. Also, data was presented using graphics generated electronically eons before this patent was filed. That technology and those “analogs” were in the public domain and that is all that matters for the analysis.
The district court explained that the challenged patents do not simply claim
displaying information on a graphical user interface.
LOL Now get ready for this next part. Scrivener’s delight!
The claims require a specific, structured graphical user interface
There is a things displayed on parts of the screen! Therefore: “structured.” Yes, friends, the US patent system is a j0ke. Electronic displays that have no distinguishing physical structure (relative to the prior art) are deemed by the fiction writers on the CAFC to be “structured” based on the information displayed thereon. Clever!
paired with a prescribed functionality directly related to the graphical user interface’s structure
Oh, wowee zowee! The things are in locations for a reason! And what’s this about “prescribed”? Is that different from “recited”? Of course it isn’t. But it sounds so much more … serious! And the more window dressing the better when you’re trying to keep things as opaque as possible.
The short version of the word salad I quoted is : the claim recites a user interface in functional terms. Why not just say that? Well, we all know the answer to that question …
that is addressed to and resolves a specifically identified problem in the prior state of the art.
That’s nothing but boiler plate bal0ney recited by every patentee using functional claiming to protect logic “on a computer.”
But here’s where the decision goes completely off the deep end (this is page 7). First Newman attempts to compare this claim to the claim at issue in the CAFC’s equally r0tten DDR decision, i.e., she suggests that the claim solves “a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks”. That’s absurd. The claim tells you right off the bat what it is: “a method for displaying market information.” If these guys thought they were solving a “computer networking problem”, don’t you think they would have simply claimed that instead of this narrow pile of ineligible g@rb@ge?
But wait! That’s not all. The best part comes at the end of this paragraph where Newman states “the graphical user interface system of these two patents is not an idea that has long existed, the threshold criterion of an abstract idea and ineligible concept.”
Say what?! Since when? As the CAFC itself has explained on literally dozens of occasions: the novelty of the ineligible abstraction or concept doesn’t matter for squat. The Supreme Court as well is crystal on this point. So where did Newman dig this up? Unbelievably, she tries to pin it on Mayo! And even more unbelievably, the cite she provides is completely off point (“the patent must “amount to significantly more in practice than a patent upon the [ineligible concept itself]”).
The rest of the analysis is an absolutely unintelligible attempt to distinguish this case from reams of cases where the CAFC has found the claims ineligible (and remember: those cases don’t include the dozens of Rule 36 smackdown of ineligible claims that the CAFC has published, including a couple more this morning).
The farce continues.
“The court found that these patents are directed to improvements in existing graphical user interface devices that have no “pre-electronic trading analog,”
News flash: graphics were used to present data before electronics. Also, data was presented using graphics generated electronically eons before this patent was filed. That technology and those “analogs” were in the public domain and that is all that matters for the analysis.”
These remarks seem to indicate that you have fixated on the word “pre – electronic.” However, the phrase has additional words including “trading analog.”
In the olden days traders did not have a graphical display. First everything was done over the phone and with little slips of paper Later there were text based alpha-numeric displays (sort of a green on black motif). Also, there was a lot of yelling and slips of paper and offensive sport coats:
link to youtube.com
Sure, there may have been yearly charts prepared, but those weren’t used while trading.
“But wait! That’s not all. The best part comes at the end of this paragraph where Newman states “the graphical user interface system of these two patents is not an idea that has long existed, the threshold criterion of an abstract idea and ineligible concept.”
Say what?! Since when? As the CAFC itself has explained on literally dozens of occasions: the novelty of the ineligible abstraction or concept doesn’t matter for squat. The Supreme Court as well is crystal on this point. So where did Newman dig this up? Unbelievably, she tries to pin it on Mayo! And even more unbelievably, the cite she provides is completely off point (“the patent must “amount to significantly more in practice than a patent upon the [ineligible concept itself]”).”
Since you and the Supremes keeps saying things are abstract because they are old…. like hedging for example.
Reread Bilski, including the Oral Argument… One of them said is was abstract because it was in his old text book.
you and the Supremes keeps saying things are abstract because they are old…. like hedging
“Hedging” is both old and abstract. Nothing controversial about that.
And the Supremes never said that the correlation the infringer “thought about” was old.
Try to keep your facts straight, Les. I know it’s very difficult for you.