In his list of the 10-most-overpaid-jobs, Money Magazine’s Rick Newman includes the following:
Patent attorney ($170,000). We tend to think of patents as the breakthrough insights of revolutionary inventors, but they’re increasingly a form of warfare among corporations seeking to prevent each other from gaining a technology edge. The lawyers who fight those battles are among the highest-paid professionals PayScale surveys.
http://money.usnews.com/money/careers/articles/2013/03/21/the-10-most-overpaid-jobs
Oddly, Newman’s reported average of salary of $170k is well above that actually reported by his cited PayScale results.
“No new compositions were claimed”
Not exactly true Ned – the claimed “new” composition was a MIXTURE of existing nodules – an aggregation, as the Court termed it (derogatively).
And yes, simply “plucking” something from nature does have its problems (but we both know that those problems have to do with you are effectively claiming from the weal, don’t we?)
anon, you have never, not once, told us all what you are talking about. Define software.
As to the printed matter doctrine exception, does it extent to recipes found in a book. The recipes are functional. But can one patent the book with the new recipe?
I have told you many many many many times.
Stop pretending Ned. The stench of intellectual dishonesty is ovepowering.
What’s next Ned?
Email excuses?
Dog ate my homework excuses?
Anon, does a product of nature exception, if it exists, extend beyond minerals and plants cited by Chakrabarty?
Minerals cannot be made, only found. Plants cannot be made, only found. I can see the problem with claiming such. It has to do with the requirement to describe how to make the claimed composition.
What about my answer makes you think I am trying to fool anyone, Ned.
What is your definition of software? How does your definition of software stack up against the exceptions to the printed matter doctrine?
You have (almost) managed to actually avoid a substantive discussion with your attempted derailment (the old, “I am so mad” routine is oh, so very stale).
Diehr was not overruled.
In Diehr, the math was integrated into the molding process. In Prometheus, the correlation was not.
Bilski did not say that the MOT was not a test. Prometheus clarified Diehr.
Anon, your statements are self contradictory as a norm.
Funk was a law of nature case. No new compositions were claimed.
However, I think the patent laws require one to describe how to make a composition. If one simply says, go mine it from the earth, or some such, I think there may be a problem.
Anon, you have schooled me, you say? You can't even tell me what the holding of Alappat is, let alone school me or for that matter anyone else.
Been there done that? You have to be kidding. You fool no one here, Anon. No one.
The words are STILL clear, distinct, unambiguous, and most definitely Ned is STILL trying to, but cannot ignore them.
Been there, done that, Ned.
What do you think is being discussed as the exception to the printed matter doctrine?
Stop trying to be so coy, man. Even Malcolm has admitted to understanding the controlling law here.
you don’t seem to understand it
Understand “what”, Alun?
101 Integration Expert said “Just remember that process claims in particular are inherently “integrated”.”
anon said: “No, they are not.” Claims can be easily written that are not integrated, and the use of “inherently” is inapt.
101 Integration Expert said: Thank you anon for the response. When one takes into consideration the ordinary, contemporary, common meaning of “integration” ; as [Diehr, at 182.] instructs us to do for all terms not otherwise defined, we know that “integration” consist of combining or coordinating separate elements so as to provide a harmonious, interrelated whole, organized or structured so that constituent units function cooperatively. Such are essential ingredients to every process, for without these intrinsic parts the process as a whole could not function.
Therefore, when specifically talking about a “process claim” it is entirely appropriate to describe the claim as “inherently integrated”, even if the claim is not inherently statutory or patentable.
For example, the claims could be an inherently integrated mental process, or an inherently integrated math equation standing alone. Such subject matter is a Court decreed exception to statutory subject matter so those particular process claims would not be statutory despite their inherently integrated nature.
Furthermore, even if the inherently integrated process claims were new and useful they still would not be statutory subject matter because of the Court created exceptions prohibiting pure mental processes and stand alone math equations as statutory subject matter.
Now, as far as patentability is concerned it is also possible that an inherently integrated process claim may not be fully described and enabled by the specification so that one of ordinary skill in the art could understand and implement the steps. There may not be clear definitions or antecedent basis of the terms in the process claim, written in the specification so that one of ordinary skill in the art could understand or practice the process. Thus, the inherently integrated process claim could fail 112.
Likewise the inherently integrated process claim as a whole could have been known, and described, and practiced before in this country or another and thus not be novel. Or the inherently integrated process claim when considered as a whole could be obvious in view of the prior art. In any of the above scenarios the inherently integrated process would not be patentable, but still the claim would be an inherently integrated process.
That means the claims must be viewed as an “inseparable whole”. To view the claims any other way would require that which is “inherently integrated” to be artificially torn apart, or simply put, dissected. Dissection is expressly prohibited by the Court precisely because dissection is the antithesis of the inherency of integration.
And also, bs on the whole AF’s returning routinely after 3 mo. Nobody around here is taking that big of a workflow hit that badly and the LIE’s aren’t routinely taking their time on AF’s either. I don’t even think I’ve ever see an AF take more than a week to hit my docket since it was filed. And it is very very rare that one goes over 10 days on my docket (or anyone else’s from the no’s that I’ve seen).
“Why would I file an RCE before you respond to my amendment?”
You just said you knew you were going to be out of town. Jes us. This isn’t rocket science. Either conduct an interview and get the examiner’s go ahead for an allowance, make sure he has plenty of time to respond with that allowance, or file the RCE, or else accept your horrendous workload after vaca without whining about it and telling us how hard it is. You stat deadline is set brosef, you must work around it, and if what you’ve been doing is less than ideal for you, then consider your alternatives. You can also notify your client that you need to have a response by x date in order to fully be able to handle an after final amendment since sometimes you like to be a human being. I’m just saying, you are needlessly complicating your life. There is absolutely no point (usually anyway) to pushing the stat deadline even though I hear a lot of you tolerate it to an absurd degree.
Just imagine where we would be if there were patents when the wheel came about – the technological innovation that would have resulted to today if patents were invented much earlier in human history would have been absolutely astounding. We would be living on Mars right now. Without patents there is now incentive to create and innovate new technology. I hope the newly enacted patent laws will incentivize people to file many more patents – the more patenting we have, the more technological innovation we get: more patents = increased innovation + jobs and wealth creation. I feel so excited to be a part of this wonderful patent law system that we are so fortunate to have in America.
Still nothing on your side of the ledge in this discussion, Ned.
“The Supreme Court made it clear that the molding process was one of these kinds of processes because it passed the MOT.”
MoT reality check:
Bilski: MoT not required
Prometheus: Mot not sufficient.
Ned, it is really easy to type this EVERY TIME you misapply the law as regards MoT.
I suggest that you copy it and past it into all of your replies until you understand the significance of what the Supreme Court has said.
Please.
Thanks.
“Your statements in the contrary seem to imply”
My statements properly provide the (non-conflated) law of 101 separate from the law of 102.
See Prometheus.
It is your hubris that keeps you attempting to do things that the Supreme Court has directly shot down.
“where any court found unpatentable a composition of matter that was unknown at the time of its discovery‘
Funk.
And Ned, I have schooled you many times on exactly what that holding includes.
Remember: a case can have more than one holding, and the holding includes those items that are necessary to defeat the argument raised against it.
The merry-go-round continues with you.
Been there, done that, Ned.
Software is a machine component.
fine…ill take a pay cut to $160k..
101, Diehr found claimed subject matter eligible because the ineligible subject matter was integrated into other subject matter, a molding process, that the patent laws were designed to protect. The Supreme Court made it clear that the molding process was one of these kinds of processes because it passed the MOT.
It is critical therefore in integration analysis to first find underlying subject matter that is otherwise eligible for patenting because of its nature, because is of the kind of subject matter that the patent laws were designed to protect. Passing MOT is an example.
Once you find that underlying subject matter, you next determine whether the ineligible subject matter is integrated into it.
I think, 101, when you talk about integration, you failed to consider the first step.
Sent from Windows Mail
You talk about exceptions to the printed matter doctrine. With respect to what? You haven't even explained what it is that you're talking about.
What is software?
Sent from Windows Mail
Anon, you state that software is patentable and copyrightable but you won't even tell me what software is.
Sent from Windows Mail
Anon, Alappat's holding is controlling law, not its dicta.
Sent from Windows Mail
anon, water is not patentable because it is known, not because it is ineligible subject matter.
There has never been a case, ever, where any court found unpatentable a composition of matter that was unknown at the time of its discovery.
Your statements in the contrary seem to imply that an unknown chemical is unpatentable on some other basis.
A new, useful, composition of matter is per se patentable under 101.
I wouldn’t say I was in flyover country, but it’s nice to live somewhere I can actually get around easily without having to sit on the beltway or at every single stop light on Rockville Pike.
If you’re practicing patent prep and pros in Dogpatch Junction, Nebraska, then the salary range you quoted is probably pretty nice. The hours are terrible, but I found you can’t make a lot of money without putting in a lot of time at work. You gotta choose.
If you’re making the salary range you mentioned and you’re working in DC/NY/Chicago/LA/SF/Boston/etc., you’re just plain crazy to work that many hours for that (relatively) little pay. Go work at the PTO, especially when the 3 new sattelite offices open and they’re hiring only experienced people.
“Just remember that process claims in particular are inherently “integrated”.”
No, they are not.
Claims can be easily written that are not integrated, and the use of “inherently” is inapt.
Hello Ned:
And to offer you further clarification on “Integration”, the true purpose and significance of this important legal doctrine being referenced in Prometheus was to exalt “claims as a whole” over dissection, which is the stripping away and ignoring of steps or elements in the concluding analysis.
As the Government attorney said during Alice Oral proceedings, the claims are to be viewed as an “inseparable whole”. That’s the doctrine of Integration in effect!
It’s why the Prometheus Court explicitly stated after it’s extra solution activity analysis for preemption of a law of nature, that….
( In Diehr, the overall process was patent eligible because of the way the additional steps of the process “integrated” the equation into the process as a whole. 450 U. S., at 187. These additional steps transformed the process into an inventive application of the formula. ) [MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES v. PROMETHEUS LABORATORIES, INC 566 U. S. (2012) 3 Syllabus] (Emphasis Added)
Just remember that process claims in particular are inherently “integrated”.
Claims as a whole is the law of the land.
There is no dissection allowed ever.
Is it anything like the controlling law concerning the exceptions to the printed matter doctrine that you attempt to conceal or disguise in your habitual rants against the patenting of software?
Anything like that, you hypocrite?
dissembling present participle of dis·sem·ble (Verb)
Verb
Conceal one’s true motives, feelings, or beliefs.
Disguise or conceal (a feeling or intention).
What is it that you think I am concealing or disguising Malcolm?
“then why is that you object to repatenting the statue”
The statue is not eligible for patenting in the first place. ( I already mentioned that since you don’t understand this, you cannot hope to understand the law of 101.
Software, on the other hand can achieve different protections under each of copyright law and patent law, each for different aspects.
I have been more than clear about this Ned.
“unchanged in any functional way”
Completely wrong Ned. You can even ask your pal Malcolm about the controlling law when it comes to the exceptions to the printed matter doctrine (at least he has openly admitted to understanding what the actual controlling law is in this regard.
I also note that this is yet another thing that you constantly refuse to even acknowledge.
Why is that?
You have heard of this thing, right? You have heard of the exceptions to the printed matter doctrine, right?
Cat got your tongue? Having a difficult time swallowing what the law actually is?
I scoff at your intellectual dishonesty Ned. As should everyone.
Anon,
You misquote me and make me say something I do not think. I said “there may be a system that do not rely so heavily on free market”. The “so heavily” here is fundamental.
“The system you ‘wish’ for that does not rely on ‘free market’ is inherently more skewed than one that does rely on free market.”
So, you already know the characteristics of a system not yet defined. You have prescience ability, or you rely on unverifiable certitudes ?
I see pure free market as something not so much better than a jungle’s law (please, note the “pure”) as it is totally alien to humanistic values and will not by itself set a tolerable society. Laws and morals are used to shape the societies we live in. Inherently, they skew free market. A pure free market is merely a philosophical concept, or an economic theory, but not something than we can see applied in the real world. So, we you exhort me to see the world as it is, it seems contradictory with the supporting the ideas that free market (i) rules the world and (ii) is the best ruler we can find.
“a dream state doomed to failure and misery”
OK, so that’s it. You’re the classical free market proponent, state adversary, and believer that everybody that does not fully back the idea that free market is an ideal are either naive dreamers that wish to enslave the free market believers in a coercive state doomed to fail. Of course, reality is with you and obviously supports your views. Sorry, a discussion limited to such binary alternatives as good and bad / realistic and dreamer and so on bore me. I guess this is as far we will go, at least on that topic.
Ned,
You realize of course that Alappat is very much still good (and controlling) law, right ? You realize that Alappat was EXPLICITLY recognized as such in the very first pertinent case AFTER the Supreme gave us the MoT-eviscerating Bilski decision, right?
Just how many times must you be schooled on Alappat?
Does water belong to the weal of all mankind?
How about crystals though just discovered? How about living things, though just discovered?
How about you recognize the timelessness of a true 101 exception and stop trying to squeeze the 101 square peg into the 102 round hole?
Your thinking does not square with the law, Ned.
You are ignoring the ruling in Bilski, and pulling this ‘presumption’ from some netherworld.
Stop ignoring the law. Stop making up the law.
We are full aware of your opinion Ned.
The part that is amazing is that you think your opinion carries any weight whatsoever, since you steadfastly pick and choose only those words from the Supreme Court that you think you can twist to suit your agenda, and you refuse to even acknowledge all the other words.
Your inability to be honest with the full record denies you any semblance of authority for your mere opinion.
Again Ned you give me nothing to counter the actual words actually used by the Supreme Court.
Nothing, Ned.
It is difficult to imagine that you think you can carry the day with absolutely no legal support for your position whatsoever.
Point of Novelty is a canard in how you are attempting to use it.
Please stop.
101, I never agreed with you that only Liberal Arts are excluded.
I think that a process that passes the MOT is a process presumptively within the Useful Arts. If it does not pass, I think the presumption should be against eligibilty.
I thought that I covered it with the “sometimes”. But yes, there are indeed great agents. Most have PHD’s and firm experience, but those aren’t the ones that I was referring to. Obviously.
… and then there’s in-house, the third way that I hadn’t contemplated.
In house is a good place to be; just not an option for me where I am in flyover country. (my part of flyover country anyway; most people who refer to it as flyover country really have no concept of just how big the world is and how little they are)
Ned said: “101, a process that produces nothing within the useful arts is not a patentable process.”
We have already established there are processes for liberal arts and processes useful arts and that processes for useful arts are patent eligible.
Ned said: Price is abstract and is not within the useful arts.
101 Integration Expert: Again, another conclusory statement. The concept of price is abstract, but the application of the concept of price is not abstract and therefore is within the useful arts.
And yet you don’t seem to understand it – does that mean that MM is not even an amateur bird watcher?
You mean a self taught agent as opposed to the 4 credit course in mixed IP law that law school will let you do without straying outside the sacred ABA syllabus? You protest too much.
Ned: “According to you, 101, price is objective. But it is not physical.”
First, when did I say this?
Next, please do as I requested and show me one “thing” that is objective, that is also not physical.
::silence::
Thank You Very Much
Watch what you’re saying. Patent agents read this too.
Ned said: “101, is a claim to new mathematics a patentable process.”
101 Integration Expert: No, because disembodied math is a Court created judicial exception which you already knew. So this statement/question is just a dishonest attempt to erect a strawman argument.
Ned: Just how do you make 1 + 1 = 2?
101 Integration Expert: There are an infinite number of ways to apply that math equation in the real world. And if new and useful all the applications would be inherently “integrated” and patent eligible. IIRC, I believe it was Judge Newman that argued in the Alice enbanc proceedings that a calculator would be one such application.
According to you, 101, price is objective. But it is not physical.
101, Flook is on point here, so is Mayo. An alarm limit is an number. It was useful, no doubt. But it was not enough to find the process of computing the alarm limit eligible.
Prometheus' correlation was also a number as well. Useful, but not used.
Listen, anon, until the SC holds a claim invalid because of a Product of Nature except, such an exception is not establish law.
Chakrabarty decide the issue of whether living products were eligible.
Wow!
Anon you take the cake.
Flook's alarm limit was just a number.
Here, I quote the Supreme Court:
"An "alarm limit" is a number." Parker v. Flook, 437 US 584 – Supreme Court 1978 at 585. link to scholar.google.com
…
First, respondent incorrectly assumes that if a process application implements a principle in some specific fashion, it automatically falls within the patentable subject matter of § 101 and the substantive patentability of the particular process can then be determined by the conditions of §§ 102 and 103. This assumption is based on respondent's narrow reading of Benson, and is as untenable in the context of § 101 as it is in the context of that case. It would make the determination of patentable subject matter depend simply on the draftsman's art and would ill serve the principles underlying the prohibition against patents for "ideas" or phenomena of nature. The rule that the discovery of a law of nature cannot be patented rests, not on the notion that natural phenomena are not processes, but rather on the more fundamental understanding that they are not the kind of "discoveries" that the statute was enacted to protect.[15] The obligation to determine what type of discovery is sought to be patented must precede the determination of whether that discovery is, in fact, new or obvious.
Second, respondent assumes that the fatal objection to his application is the fact that one of its components—the mathematical 594*594 formula—consists of unpatentable subject matter. In countering this supposed objection, respondent relies on opinions by the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals which reject the notion "that a claim may be dissected, the claim components searched in the prior art, and, if the only component found novel is outside the statutory classes of invention, the claim may be rejected under 35 U. S. C. § 101." In re Chatfield, 545 F. 2d 152, 158 (CCPA 1976).[16] Our approach to respondent's application is, however, not at all inconsistent with the view that a patent claim must be considered as a whole. Respondent's process is unpatentable under § 101, not because it contains a mathematical algorithm as one component, but because once that algorithm is assumed to be within the prior art, the application, considered as a whole, contains no patentable invention. Even though a phenomenon of nature or mathematical formula may be well known, an inventive application of the principle may be patented. Conversely, the discovery of such a phenomenon cannot support a patent unless there is some other inventive concept in its application.
Here it is absolutely clear that respondent's application contains no claim of patentable invention. The chemical processes involved in catalytic conversion of hydrocarbons are well known, as are the practice of monitoring the chemical process variables, the use of alarm limits to trigger alarms, the notion that alarm limit values must be recomputed and readjusted, and the use of computers for "automatic monitoring-alarming."[17] Respondent's application simply provides a new and presumably better method for calculating alarm limit 595*595 values. If we assume that that method was also known, as we must under the reasoning in Morse, then respondent's claim is, in effect, comparable to a claim that the formula 2πr can be usefully applied in determining the circumference of a wheel.[18] As the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals has explained, "if a claim is directed essentially to a method of calculating, using a mathematical formula, even if the solution is for a specific purpose, the claimed method is nonstatutory." In re Richman, 563 F. 2d 1026, 1030 (1977).
Ned: “101, “Everything that is physical is objective” does not mean that everything that is “objective” is physical.”
Please show me one “thing” that is objective, that is also not physical?
::silence::
And point prove.
Anon, I find it interesting that you talk about Alappat in ways that are remarkably different from the ways that State Street Bank talks about Alappat. Yet Rich wrote both.
anon:”Pure conclusory conjecture Ned.Your statement is empty and meaningless. You are assuming the very fact you must prove.”
The master is still faster than the student. Or simply put, I owe you a coke!
Anon, seriously. After all, it is you who constantly says that software is copyrightable, meaning that computer instructions written down so they can be perceived by a human, as defined by the copyright act, is what you mean by software.
So, if you say that a book, a printout or some other readable media having different code is patentable because the code varies, then why is that you object to repatenting the statue if the image it portrays varies. The both cases, the book or other media, like the statue, remains in essence old, unchanged in any functional way from other books.
But then you argue, the computer instructions are useful when in a computer, in executable form, thus the book containing the instruction is patentable.
But this means that you could patent a cookbook because the recipes were useful.
You could patent textbooks because the knowledge they contain is useful in all sorts of ways.
You could patent the bible, or other holy books, for providing practical advice to a good and holy life.
You do this all the time with software, Anon. And yet you scoff at me?
Ned: “Price can be applied to produce a physical result, but it is itself in not physical.”
101 Integration Expert: That’s why in patent law you get a patent on the “application”, and not on the concept itself. The “process” of applying “any” concept, not judicially excepted, is eligible.
Ned: the output of the process under consideration is price.
101 Integration Expert: I do not know what you mean by that statement. I was not aware we were considering any specific process, but instead discussing the “process” category in general, which is essentially all a business method is, according to the Supreme Court.
Ned: That price can be applied to a useful application is hardly beneficial to the patentability of process that produces prince under Prometheus.
101 Integration Expert: Again, your above statement is unclear and does not seem to make any concrete, discernible, intelligible point. None the less I will try and break it down to make some sense out of it.
First of all your statement “price can be applied to a useful application” is repetitive and somewhat circular in reasoning. If “price” is applied it is simply an application, period.
Second your use of the words “useful application” is misleading and potentially confusing because it implies that some applications in general are not useful. When logically, any applied concept is in effect being used, and therefore useful to at least the person applying it.
Next, the concluding part of your statement “a useful application is hardly beneficial to the patentability of process that produces prince under Prometheus” is on it’s face logically false, and factually incorrect.
1. The Court in Prometheus never held such, as above, thus you are incorrect.
2. The “benefits” of an application of a concept in a process, even one for conducting business, is not a condition of patent eligibility according to the statute and Supreme Court case law. And I stress what we are discussing is patent “eligibility” of processes for conducting business, not “patentability”. So please do not move the goal posts to patentability, until you conceded you have lost the point on eligibility.
Finally your conclusion that, “when the output of a process is price and price is not within the useful arts because of its abstractness, and the process or producing price is not within the useful arts.” is simply a conclusory statement that assumes the facts you state. For example you assume and therefore conclude:
1. The application of the concept of price is not within the useful arts.
2. The output or result of a process for setting a price is abstract.
3. The eligibility of a process is determined by it’s output or result instead of the steps of the process.
Therefore you have failed to prove that my following statement is legally invalid:
“The “process” of applying “any” concept, (including price) not judicially excepted, is eligible.
And ultimately you have failed to provide any legal foundation for invalidating business methods in general and specifically, business methods that include an application of the concept of price.
Do you have anything else to argue that you have not already presented? If not please kindly concede, and let’s move on.
Thank You
Ned,
Once again you come empty handed. You present nothing to support your view. I have the words of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Which of us has the better position?
Answer HONESTLY.
Flook has been cabined by Diehr.
Price is just “a number” It is ground in a larger economic sense to an actual system of commerce. The alarm limit in Flook (and please read the decision again carefully) was ooutlawed on the basis that the concept of an alarm limit was beign claimed, and NOT an actual number per se. Any indication of “number” was in a vacuum that you do not have with price. Even the label of price cannot be taken in a vacuum. If I say “dollars,” does that mean US, Canadian, Australian, or even some of the South American and African Dollars?
Sorry Ned, your argument here fails.
Therein, you are wrong.
Until you can realize this, you will not understand the law of 101.
On first thought, how about you pay attention to what I say (and not be in such a hurry to say I am using State Street)?
“confuse the art with the underlying sculpture”
Fn Seriously Ned?
Really?
PON is the term of art for identifying a functional claim.
Not law until a case relies on it for a decision. No case has.
Anon, the only re-install going on here is recognizing that the MOT is a useful test.
Physicality is the clue, required even, but that latter bit is my opinion.
Price is a number. I cite Flook as well. The alarm limit was a number. It was not used for anything, but useful for sounding alarms.
Not eligible.
A statue, yes.
Water, yes. But known.
Point of novelty….
Canard, Ned.
Try using a real legal augment please.
Still waiting for some (any) legal authority to back up your position, Ned.
You come empty handed to my posts of 6:57, 7:11 and 7:12.
Please don’t come empty handed and expect me to be convinced. And please be aware that merely saying “some professor said” is actually worse than coming empty handed (you lose even more credibility points by doing that).
The ball is STILL in your court, Ned.
I’m waiting.
As is evident with your postings of today, Ned your agenda is attempting to reinstall MoT is still very active.
It’s time you let that go.
“That price can be applied to a useful application is hardly beneficial to the patentability of process that produces prince under Prometheus”
Pure conclusory conjecture Ned.
Your statement is empty and meaningless. You are assuming the very fact you must prove.
Ned,
Do you consider an actual statue to be within the Useful Arts?
Ned,
Do you consider pure water (H2O) to be within the useful arts?
anon, of course, the opprobrium regarding State Street Bank can safely be ignored because it was only dicta.
On second thought, maybe not.
“But physicality is required, I believe, for patent eligibility.”
Can you provide a citation from the Supreme Court that states this requirement?
Contrast that with what the Court actually DID say in Bilski.
Thanks.
Why, anon, is a statue not an article of manufacture? I think you confuse the art with the underlying sculpture.
“consistent with your admiration of State Street Bank”
I just finished telling you that I have purposefully avoided directly using State Street and here you ar (yet again) trying to pin me to that case.
Ned – stop with the intellectually dishonest tactics.