October 4 Symposium and CLE on Resolving Patent Disputes

Dear readers –

I want to invite you to join us here at the University of Missouri School of Law on October 4, 2013 for a Symposium focusing on “Resolving IP Disputes: Calling for an Alternative Paradigm.” The symposium is sponsored by the MU School of Law’s Center for the Study of Dispute Resolution as well as the Journal of Dispute Resolution (JDR). Professor Jim Levin and I are organizing the event. If you are planning to attend from out of town, please let me know and we can help with logistics. I expect for this to be a fairly small event with about 100 intellectual property and dispute resolution professionals in attendance in addition to a number of academics, students, and business folks. There is no fee to attend or to receive CLE, but it would help us if you register using the following link:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1hWoGc0DvHBDcc-wsO-06fphE8oRjWEbTESDLdLKqnPI/viewform

— Dennis (dcrouch@patentlyo.com)

= = = = =

Abstract of the Symposium

Patents now pervade the American business culture and marketplace. The number of issued patents continues to increase as does the intensity of enforcement. Most new products and services are covered by one or more patents – only some of which are owned by the manufacturer or service provider.

Patents have the potential of serving as tools for business transactions – a legal mechanism for capturing and transferring the value of innovation while allowing the resulting information to be spread widely. However, patent enforcement through litigation is incredibly expensive and time consuming. Litigation costs regularly exceed $10,000,000 in contested cases and lasts for years.

This year’s Journal of Dispute Resolution symposium explores alternative mechanisms for resolving patent disputes and for proactively transforming would-be disputes into cooperative business arrangements. At the same time, patents may be different from other private-law concerns. The power of patents to block use the use of useful articles creates a strong public interest in results that both encourage innovation without unjustly limiting access to information or ideas.

This symposium is sponsored by the University of Missouri School of Law and the Journal of Dispute Resolution, the flagship journal of the University of Missouri’s Center for the Study of Dispute Resolution.

= = = = =

Brief Agenda for the Symposium

Friday, October 4th

8:00 AM to 8:30 AM – Continental Breakfast and Coffee Reception Sponsored by Turner Boyd LLP

8:30 AM to 8:45 AM – Introductory Remarks

8:45 AM to 9:40 AM – 1st Panel– Disputes with an industry focus, including biotechnology and smartphone disputes: Dean Gary Myers (MU), Kevin Noonan (MBHB), Jorge Contreras (American University)

9:45 AM to 10:40 AM – 2nd Panel– Practical issues of resolving disputes before the USPTO: Anne Craig (Harvard), Matthew Smith (now with Turner Boyd), Jaron Brunner (DWT)

10:55 AM to 11:55 AM – Keynote: —Greg Gorder (Co-Founder of Intellectual Ventures)

1:20 PM to 2:15 PM – 3rd Panel—Transparency in in patent disputes and patent information: Yvette Liebesman (SLU), Dennis Crouch (MU), Bernard Chao (U Denver)

2:15 – Conclusion

2:20 – Reception Sponsored by the Biotech and Pharma Patent Blog Patent Docs

= = = = =

I look forward to seeing you there.

73 thoughts on “October 4 Symposium and CLE on Resolving Patent Disputes

  1. 73

    link to cnn.com

    Researchers at the University of Washington have demonstrated what they say is the first example of a noninvasive human-to-human brain interface. In a video posted online, they show how a scientist could control another scientist’s hand motions just by using brain signals sent over the Internet.

    It’s really a pity that “new brain signals” aren’t eligible for patenting.

  2. 72

    “Should purely mental processes be eligible for patenting”

    Asked and answered – repeatedly

    Les said “yes – they should be eligible”. And you agree, right?

  3. 70

    realistic world view

    LOL – like software has nothing to do with today’s ‘modernity?’

    Like that, 6?

    LOL

  4. 69

    really a question of underlying “beliefs” to anon

    LOL – try reading, 6 – the ‘belief’ driver is Malcolm. Mine is law.

  5. 67

    I do this all the time.

    1ie upon 1ie.

    What about Myriad?

    Should purely mental processes be eligible for patenting

    Asked and answered – repeatedly

  6. 66

    Anything that comes up that points out flaws in the script is ignored.

    Hardly, Tr0 llb0y. I’m happy to respond and address any perceived “flaws” in my reasoning and either correct those flaws or explain why the “perception” of those flaws is incorrect. I do this all the time.

    It’s important (but apparently impossible) for you to understand that just because you say you are “pointing out a flaw” doesnt mean that it’s actually happening. Likewise, just because you say that I “voluntarily admitted” something that “torches me agenda” (??) doesn’t make it a fact that you can repeat over and over and over again after I’ve told you (1) that I’ve made no such admission and (2) asked you kindly to STFU about it or show me where the admission was made. To behave otherwise is to be a blogtr0ll and a l i a r, Tr0 llb0y. And that’s basically all you do here.

    For instance, please point out a flaw in the proposition that all claims in the form [oldstep]+[newthought] are ineligible because they effectively prevent practitioners of the prior art (the old step) from thinking about the new thought without infringing the claim.

    This is where you always stumble, Tr0 llb0y. You fling insults, you l i e, you attack strawman (and then accuse me of not responding to the strawman, even after I do so), you recite meaningless words like “anthrophomorphication”, and then you insult some more.

    Go ahead. Turn over a new leaf. This is what I’m talking about when I refer to your “script.” You just can’t handle the basic stuff and you never could for fear that it’s some sort of “trap.” It’s not a “trap”. It’s just trying to get you to admit some really basic facts about the world.

    Contrast with your bal0ney about “the modern world brought by software”. What point were you making? That I’m a hypocrite because I use patented software? Really? If not, what then? Just tell everyone what you were thinking. Let everyone know. That’s called having a discussion.

    Should purely mental processes be eligible for patenting? Another question that should be easy for you to answer. But you won’t do it. What exactly is the problem? What are you afraid of? It’s not remotely similar to any of the “beating your wife” type questions of the sort you relish. It’s just a straightforward policy question. Why won’t you answer it? You have strong opinions about just about everything else tangentially related to 101 that you aren’t afraid to express. What is it about this fundamental issue that troubles you so?

  7. 65

    you employ an implicit ‘but for’ in your view of patents

    I have no idea what you’re talking about and I’m not going to try to read your mind. Maybe try writing in plain English and giving an example of what you mean. That sometimes helps. Or just keep slinging insults like you usually do.

    Patents are not rewarded merely on a ‘but for’ basis

    I never said they were. I’m sure you aware, however, of “arguments” made in favor of software patenting that go something like this: “the modern world was brought to you by software.”

    Please tell everyone, Tr0 llb0y, whether you can see an implicit “but for” in that “argument”. Thanks.

  8. 64

    “It is you that holds the quasi-religious (and antiquated) beliefs.”

    See? It is really a question of underlying “beliefs” to anon, not of “law” though he likes to cover that up and pretend that it is because he thinks it adds legitimacy to his “beliefs”.

    And that is also why the whole discussion mirrors the “republican vs. democrat” political discussions as MM often brings up. It’s all a matter of what world view and beliefs you bring in from your past experience that determine where you fall. Of course, while anon likes to think that he’s in the majority, people holding his world view and “beliefs” that underlie the positions he takes are few and far between. In fact, outside of his little art niche I doubt if they hardly exist at all. On the other hand, people with a realistic world view are heartily in the majority, thus the current political pressure on software patents.

  9. 63

    “It is you that holds the quasi-religious (and antiquated) beliefs.”

    See? It is really a question of underlying “beliefs” to anon, not of “law” though he likes to cover that up and pretend that it is because he thinks it adds legitimacy to his “beliefs”.

    And that is also why the whole discussion mirrors the “republican vs. democrat” political discussions as MM often brings up. It’s all a matter of what world view and beliefs you bring in from your past experience that determine where you fall. Of course, while anon likes to think that he’s in the majority, people holding his world view and “beliefs” that underlie the positions he takes are few and far between. In fact, outside of his little art niche I doubt if they hardly exist at all. On the other hand, people with a realistic world view are heartily in the majority, thus the current political pressure on software patents.

    And of course patent law doesn’t depend on the subjective world-view and beliefs held by some of the artisans. And it is a sha me that the federal circuit allowed it to creep in.

  10. 62

    “It is you that holds the quasi-religious (and antiquated) beliefs.”

    See? It is really a question of underlying “beliefs” to anon, not of “law” though he likes to cover that up and pretend that it is because he thinks it adds legitimacy to his “beliefs”.

    And that is also why the whole discussion mirrors the “republican vs. democrat” political discussions as MM often brings up. It’s all a matter of what world view and beliefs you bring in from your past experience that determine where you fall. Of course, while anon likes to think that he’s in the majority, people holding his world view and “beliefs” that underlie the positions he takes are few and far between. In fact, outside of his little art niche I doubt if they hardly exist at all. On the other hand, people with a realistic world view are heartily in the majority, thus the current political pressure on software patents.

    And of course patent law doesn’t depend on the subjective world-view and beliefs held by some of the artisans. And it is a shame that the federal circuit allowed it to creep in.

  11. 61

    never said it was,

    LOL – never said it was what? What you just said it was?

    You spin so much you have lost the ability to tell which end is up.

  12. 59

    Above (but cannot post directly to it because Malcolm didnt close his tags), Malcolm states:
    There is nothing “misrepresenting” about it, Tr0 llb0y

    This is a blatent 1ie. it is name calling, pure and simple and does not addrss the subtance of my post (as typical) and the actual fact that counter points are ignored and the same B$ posts are made ad infinitum, ad nauesum, without regard to the counter points made. Hence, you have a script. You follow that script. Anything that comes up that points out flaws in the script is ignored. And you (once again) are merely accusing others of that whcih you do.

  13. 58

    Again, Malcolm, if you cannot connect your accusation to a patent, all you are doing is pandering.

    And also again, you employ an implicit ‘but for’ in your view of patents that is simply not appropriate. Patents are not rewarded merely on a ‘but for’ basis – no matter how much you think they should be.

  14. 57

    “price” is only a term like “chair” that has different levels of abstraction. When “price” is tied to a specific thing, you are no longer on the top rung of that ladder.

    Why does a “price” become less abstract when it’s “tied” to a specific thing? Does it take more energy to change the price “$24” to the price “23.99” if the price is “tied” to a pair of movie tickets as opposed to if it’s not tied to anything? How do you measure the energy it takes? Is the “price” even less abstract if you know the title or genre of the movie? Is “the price” less abstract if the movie can be purchased with “one click”? Does the “price” of a movie become more or less abstract if the movie is just a single dot moving around on a screen? What if the movie is copyrighted? Is the “price” more or less abstract?

    the model captures anything else (everything else) that is patent eligible.

    There’s a “model”? It “captures things”? Is the model eligible for patenting? Why or why not?

    Seriously, I’d love to see this “model” applied to “prices” in the context of computer-implemented patents which purport to determine “prices”. Let everyone know where we can find that “model” explained and put into action.

  15. 56

    that is precisely the type of disingenuous misrepresentation

    There is nothing “misrepresenting” about it, Tr0 llb0y.

    It’s a 100% accurate description of your character that explains why and you behave like you do.

    Ned to this day remains silent on the exceptions to the printed matter doctrine and that beautiful word: anthropomorphication, while you have volunteered an admission that wrecks you and admitted that you think that machines actually do think.

    Again, this false statement has nothing to do with the irrelevance of your comment about a box with “old elements” in it in response to comments relating to claiming old computers that calculate “new” numbers.

    Keep tr0llin, Tr0 llb0y.

  16. 55

    you have admitted knowing such is a structural term.,

    Never happened, Tr0 llb0y.

    ou cannot hide the fact that this is in the archives.

    Whatever you’re referring to, you’re wrong and I’ve told you as much before, Tr0 llb0y.

    Dennis, are you deleting all of the posts where I remind Tr0 llb0y that he’s a path0l0gical liar or just some of them?

  17. 54

    If you cannot show a link between the skimming and patents, Malcolm, of what possible value are you providing with this post?

    The “link”, dear Tr0 llb0y, is that the “progress” that is allegedly “promoted” by issuing patents on “complex” abstractions such as “accounting methods” and “business arrangements” is not, in fact, “progress”, but rather skimming and profiteering itself, by either the practitioner of the method or the alleged “inventor” who seeks to add another layer of skimming to the paradigm. Moreover, as everyone knows, patents are not necessary at all to “promote progress” in “profiteering” and “skimming.” All that is needed is the lure of money.

    That’s the “link.” Enjoy.

    How is Jane doing?

    No idea what you’re talking about.

  18. 53

    You never responded to the idea that you prove you case Malcolm by refraining from all use of ‘modernity’ to prove just how ‘j_nky’ software is.

    That “idea” (to the extent it can be parsed) was never expressed by me or anyone else that I know of.

  19. 52

    the screening at PatentDocs is definitely not the type to ‘catch’ what you spin here,

    I never said it was, Tr0 llb0y. We weren’t talking about anybody’s “spin,” though. We were talking about the incessant s0ckpuppetry you engaged in here for years, posting dozens of comments a day under dozens of pseudonyms where each comment was little more than a drive-by insult. I and others complained about that behavior of yours. And Dennis busted you, one year ago. Now you post your drive-by insults twenty+ times a day under your “anon” moniker (the same one you use at Big Gene’s website when you and Gene insult people there who don’t stick to the script (see, e.g., link to ipwatchdog.com for many fresh examples).

    Nothing like that is going on at PatentDocs, as far as I can tell, so you’re strange obsession with commenters there is just that: strange.

    But keep tr0llin, Tr0 llb0y. It’s what you do best.

  20. 51

    If you cannot show a link between the skimming and patents, Malcolm, of what possible value are you providing with this post?

    How is Jane doing?

  21. 50

    link to philly.com

    An analysis of lease agreements, government documents and thousands of pages of court records shows that such underpayments are widespread. Thousands of landowners like Feusner are receiving far less than they expected based on the sales value of gas or oil produced on their property. In some cases, they are being paid virtually nothing at all.

    In many cases, lawyers and auditors who specialize in production accounting tell ProPublica energy companies are using complex accounting and business arrangements to skim profits off the sale of resources and increase the expenses charged to landowners.

    Promote the progress!

  22. 49

    My post at 11:35 already takes this into account – as I have done before, and before, and before…

  23. 48

    nobody will write new code

    LOL – but there are places where strawmen abound!

    (ps, the other argumetns are not stale – you would need to actualy address the points made, and provide some (SOME) intellectually honest basis for refuting them for them to be stale)

    Instead, we are ‘treated’ to the CRP, run away, and CRP again show.

  24. 47

    You mean you can’t tell just

    LOL – usually the tip is the word “configured to” – you know, like you have admitted knowing such is a structural term.

    And like you can continue to attmept to deny or kick up dust every time this is pointed out – but you cannot hide the fact that this is in the archives.

    As they say, svcks to be you.

  25. 46

    His script just doesn’t allow him

    LOL – You see Malcolm – that is precisely the type of disingenuous misrepresentation that earns you the insults you receive.

    I am the one making key points that others – such as yourself and Ned – refuse to address because it is your script that cannot handle the points made.

    For another example, note that Ned to this day remains silent on the exceptions to the printed matter doctrine and that beautiful word: anthropomorphication, while you have volunteered an admission that wrecks you and admitted that you think that machines actually do think.

    It is you that holds the quasi-religious (and antiquated) beliefs.

    Your constant meme of acusing-others-of-that-which-you-are/do is beyond trite. It is also unbelievably transparent. Just as it is transparent that you employ legions of svckies.

    You f001 no one.

  26. 45

    you, 6, and MM rehash your old, stale arguments about the unpatentability of software-related claims

    It’s too bad there aren’t any other patent blogs out there where patent apologists rehash old stale “arguments” like “software is just like any other chemical”, “modern cars have 100 computers and a billion lines of code in them!”, “nobody will write new code for shoving advertisements in your face in your robot car unless we continue granting software patents!”, “anybody who is anti-software patent is anti-patent”, “anybody who is anti-software patent is simpy naive about software and patent law”, “ANTHROPOMOROPHICATION!”, etc., etc.

    It really is too bad there aren’t any other patent blogs out there like that. Because, you know, you seem like you’d be really happy hanging out there instead of here.

  27. 44

    And Ned, you need to understand that ‘using’ software is impossible until the software is loaded and the machine reconfigured with that software.

    Again, this has been explained to you many many many many times.

    Yet you insist on riding your merry-go-round.

  28. 42

    observer: a trap for the unwary

    LOL. What’s the “trap”, and what happens to the “unwary” when they fall into it?

    is the computer merely computing primes (and it just calculated 17 after previously calculating 13)? or has the computer been re-programmed

    You mean you can’t tell just from the recitation of the function? Oh my.

  29. 41

    Tr0 llb0y understands, Ned. His script just doesn’t allow him to articulate his understanding. His script tells him to spew some nonsense about old atoms being combined to make patent-worthy new chemicals.

    Tr0 llb0y’s entire mythos is apparent in his simple admission: “all of the anti-software patent arguments boil down to be simply anti-patent arguments.”

    In other words, Tr0 llb0y has a quasi-religious belief that software is no different from any other invention (I suppose all inventions are the same in Tr0 llb0y’s world, which is why he publicaly refuses to discuss them), just as a creationist believes that “intelligent design” is a scientific theory “just like evolution.” That’s why when you press on the weak points in Tr0 llb0y’s “arguments”, you don’t get any recognition of the issue. Instead you get an insult (typically an accusation that you are “d-mb” or “blind”). You might as well be talking to a member of Fred Phelp’s church about the legal merits of gai marriage.

  30. 40

    I think Dennis needs to make a blog post on WildTangent petition so that everyone might know of this development.

    You mean you want Dennis to provide a vehicle for (yet another) 300 comment post where you, 6, and MM rehash your old, stale arguments about the unpatentability of software-related claims. Woo hoo … another waste of time in the making.

    Don’t worry … I’m sure Dennis will oblige.

  31. 39

    A new number is computed by the machine. Is the machine new?
    Come up with a better hypothetical than that. Your hypothetical is missing key elements, e.g., why has a new number been computed. For example, is the computer merely computing primes (and it just calculated 17 after previously calculating 13)? or has the computer been re-programmed?

    You should know better. Actually, I’m sure you do, as I am sure that your hypothetical was intended merely to be a trap for the unwary.

  32. 38

    already been educated before with respect

    LOL – really? because you said so? When? It’s not in the archives, Malcolm.

    What is in the archives is a series of mewling “so-what-if-Ha-prove-it” nonsense while you ever so carefully avoid actually addressing the matter as I included Prof. Crouch’s admonition against no 1ying (not that has ever really stopped your dissembling and prevarications in the past).

    And the screening at PatentDocs is definitely not the type to ‘catch’ what you spin here, but nice attempt at dust-kicking.

    So my questions to you remain unanswered: why the dissembling? Why the hyprocrisy?

    Gee what a surprise.

    Not.

  33. 36

    Maybe you want to explore the ladders of abstraction concept,

    I certainly do. But not in this thread. Maybe you should write up a little article about your beliefs on this “ladders of abstraction” theory and submit it to Dennis so we can all see how it works (according to you, anyway).

    Go for it, Tr0 llb0y. And please, please, please use the example of “tying a price” to something in your li’l treatise.

  34. 34

    no, anon, you stop. If you add that the machine is structured with a specific function to calculate differently, every time (like microcode for example), then I will agree you have a new machine.

    But you have never agreed with this statement either.

  35. 33

    Another example you have never acknowledged:

    Your Tinkertoy box is filled with chemical elements. Every element is known and old in the art. The elements attach by a natural process that is also known and old in the art.

    Are you willing to say that every possible configuration is de facto created when you have your Tinkertoy box?

    Are you catching the drift of your strawman and way too over-simplified question of ‘computing a number?’ Apply your ‘logic’ to fields outside of your desired agenda and watch the NIMBY reaction. So too, all of the anti-software patent arguments boil down to be simply anti-patent arguments.

    Open your eyes.

  36. 32

    The great legal answer, Ned: it depends.

    You are falling for the fallacy ‘House’ argument and forgetting a key element of 101: for any improvement thereof.

    It might help you to think of a great big toy box with bits [pun intended] and pieces available to put a new machine together, like a box of Tinkertoys. Are you willing to say that every possible Tinkertoy configuration is de facto created when a box of Tinkertoys is put together? Of course, that is plainly ludicrous, and in fact would mean that Morse really did deserve a patent on all his claims.

    Your ‘logic’ is simply internally inconsistent.

    This has been explained to you many many many times in the past (including other analogies like you are given three resistors and asked if the resistors configured in series is the same thing as the resistors configured in parallel).

    You refuse to even acknowledge these valid points and insist on riding the same merry-go-round with the same trite ‘House’ argument.

    Please stop the charade.

  37. 30

    Of course I don’t agree with your views of any of that regarding 101, but your point is good that maybe they will pick up Wildtangent too.

    But, it does seem like this has become a ripe issue for the SCOTUS.

  38. 29

    When will it stop? Not soon, if only because I see from recent USPTO announcements that EPO thought is steadily advancing into the USPTO a little bit like Lord Denning’s incoming tide:

    link to newlawjournal.co.uk

    and this only serves to encourage me.

    Frankly, I should have thought that, for this reason alone, any US patent attorney wanting to achieve for his/her client good results at the USPTO might be glad of some insights into EPO thinking.

    Why do I post such stuff here? Mainly in the hope of learning how to beat up EPO thinking, for the benefit of my clients and the progress of their cases at the EPO. But all I get here is “The EPO? It is all BS”. That don’t help me much, except to encourage me (and the USPTO) that the EPO really is on to something.

  39. 28

    “Fact” from you Malcolm is a meaningless word, because you have made it known that it is perfectly acceptable (to you) to employ whatever spin you need to in order to further your anti-patent agenda.

    You throw out strawmen and spin away, not realizing just how silly you are, how obvious your ploys are.

    There is nothing to ‘accept’ about your misdirection on ‘software’ and your implicit reliance that patents are only for things that BUT FOR would not be undertaken. Do you even realize how banal your views are? How dreadfully warped your notion of patent basics are?

  40. 27

    How about your anti-software agenda, and the countless 1ies, obfuscations, and spin in your attempts to portray law that you knew was different than what you portrayed?

    How about how even after you blew up your agenda with voluntared admissions, you still attempt to carry on your agenda through deceipt, obfuscation, strawmen, and constant misrepresentations (of my posts – and others’ )?

    How about your inability to be intellectually honest concerning, well just about every single facet of the Myriad case?

    And yes, that includes not having the nuts to admit that I was right in that case and why. LOL – afraid to give any credibility? As if you had any to give.

    And the sick projections? How about those?

    I wonder if you have any inkling of how you come across. Any.

  41. 26

    Thus if one invents the new business algorithm that produces a number, call it price, it seems that the problem is that one cannot make a number. One can calculate a number, but once cannot not make it.
    Stuck in the iron age again?

    When Benson was decided, I doubt a person in the courtroom had ever seen a computer. In today’s work environment, you are very likely surrounded by a multitude of CPU-driven devices operating millions of line of code.

    Modern cars can have 30 or more computers and run up to 100 million lines of code.

    Oh wait … we are just talking about “abstract ideas.”

  42. 25

    about an abstract idea being preempt

    LOL – maybe this time 6 will provide what he promised.

  43. 24

    Unlike Malcolm, who is more than willing to give opinions without understanding the context (and who often throws out (up?) his opinion without even reading the pertinent case), I want the context of the items for which you are so sure with your opinions.

  44. 23

    produces a number, call it price

    LOL – no Ned, we covered this on another thread. Price is not just a number.

    And “price” is only a term like “chair” that has different levels of abstraction. When “price” is tied to a specific thing, you are no longer on the top rung of that ladder. Understanding the ladder of abstraction model will help you out. Just like the model captures anything else (everything else) that is patent eligible.

  45. 22

    Alright anon, tell me why you care about being able to look up the cases pros history on pulic pair and I may get you another 5.

  46. 21

    Why wouldn’t they take both like they sometimes do? It would be a real dck move to take CLS bank while simultaneously leaving Rader’s “manifestly” abstract language to screw over people who have a legitimate complaint about an abstract idea being preempt. And not to mention leaving Wildtangent in the lurch even while they may go on to straighten out the law in CLS to the point that Wildtangent wouldn’t have turned out like it did. It would be a real shame if the only reason Wildtangent loses is that it had the misfortune to be sued before Rader et al. could get straightened out.

  47. 20

    who are just struggling trying to make ends meet

    LOL – nice non-sequitur. How would their personal financial situation have ANYTHING to do with your choice to lavish insults on someone not even posting here?

    You think that is somehow even remotely a relevant factor? Did Jane tell you that?

    Please be explicit

    LOL – check the archives. I may have missed a few dozen.

    You still haven’t answered my much earlier questions as to why you engage in this dissembling and why you so hypocritical.

    Honest answers – if that is even remotely possible.

  48. 19

    LOL – actually yet again you are trying to spin what I stated.

    But you see nothing wrong with spinning and misrepresenting what others have posted.

    That is your speciality.

  49. 18

    I read that too. Sounds like they may pick up CLS Bank instead, if they petition. It would make more sense to pick up CLS Bank since it was an en banc opinion.

  50. 17

    anon, this could get interesting if someone seriously brings up Section 282 and its apparent omission of 101 as a grounds for invalidity. That would force the whole of 101 onto 102/103 or 112.

    As I have mentioned here many times, Morse to me seem to rely on the then analog of 112 to hold and “abstract” claim invalid. That statute requires one not only to describe the invention, but how to make and use it. Since making and using is irrelevant to something abstract, as noted then by the Supreme Court, a claim that is not limited to something physically new cannot pass 112 eligibility.

    Thus if one invents the new business algorithm that produces a number, call it price, it seems that the problem is that one cannot make a number. One can calculate a number, but once cannot not make it.

    And, when the novelty over the prior art is abstract, the balance of the claim is, in the words of the Supreme Court, insignificant “extra solution” activity.

    The result may in the end be the same, but it might not. Rader’s raising of 282 definitely might throw a monkey wrench into everyone expectations.

  51. 16

    are you willing to live in a world that is ‘modern’ by your statement without any software?

    Sometimes I do live in that world. It’s called “reading a book on the beach.”

    Here’s the deal, Tr0 llb0y: if you believe that without patents on functionally claimed software methods (i.e., methods that merely describe what a general purpose computer can do after it reads the recited instructions) that nobody will write new software or that somehow the rate of “progress” in useful software will decrease dramatically, just say so. It would be really great if you had evidence for that proposition, of course, because otherwise it’s just an empty threat. And yes “threat” is the most acurate word to describe that “belief” when you lack the evidence. Even more accurate is the term “empty threat.”

    We all know that some patent prosecutor attorney and agents will cry if their easiest of easy pickings are taken away from them. And many patent trolls and a few wives of law firm partners who hoped to make a lot of money “off the Internet” may pretend to be deeply wounded.

    But progress in software writing will continue unabated. There will be zero detectable decrease in the rate of “progress” in software writing. None at all. Take it to “the Bank” (you know which one I’m referring to <--- LOL, patent humor, nyuck, nyuck!).

  52. 15

    “My appologies for a completely irrelevant comment, but the lovely giant free-standing [unsuported] Greek columns in this blog photo struck me as geological hubris”

    I know right? I was thinking similarly. I was thinking, someone should tell the architect that he forgot the rest of the building. Or maybe they just ran out of money halfway through construction lol.

  53. 14

    “And 6 – where are my 5 cases on the other thread? ”

    Already gave you 5, then you asked for 5 more and I declined. Apparently you have a hard-on for reading the pros. history for no reason.

  54. 13

    “The Supreme Court invited the Federal Circuit to develop the 101 criteria ”

    Yes, limiting criteria, not broadening criteria. There is a difference.

  55. 12

    “The petitioner may not like what the Federal Cicrusit’s development portends, but to state that the Federal Circuit is wrong to “set forth [its] own independent views, however valid [it] considers them to be” is to ignore what the Supreme Court actually said.”

    You still don’t understand what the “limiting criteria” meant when the USSC used that language do you? They’re opening the door for the feds to further limit criteria by which claims may be found eligible, not “limit the criteria by which we [the ussc] apply the judicial exceptions”. Admittedly, they should have spelled this out better for people who are bad at reading, but if you spend more than a minute reading the passage it should become very clear. In all honesty anon, you’ve been reading these things for a long time, it’s time to go ahead and take an honest look at them, uncolored by whatever preconcieved notions you may have, just look to the context only.

  56. 11

    My appologies for a completely irrelevant comment, but the lovely giant free-standing [unsuported] Greek columns in this blog photo struck me as geological hubris, considering the relative proximity of your University to the major fault lines intersection under New Madris, MO, center of the worst earthquake in recorded U.S. history.

  57. 10

    In addition to my comment on the prior post on this Symposium, it would be useful to see a study that breaks down litigation costs and their timing. In particular, how much of a cost and time burden on defendants is due to unrestrained discovery before any consideration of the actual scope of the claims or which of the defendants products are even likely to be infringed?

    The above commentator arguments about the extent to which 103 is going to be considered re 101 is not likely to affect the issue here, of earlier and cheaper litigation settlements, unless the Fed. Cir. accepts more 101 based summary judgments. But if more patents that the Sup. Ct. will consider obvious to them get taken up to the Sup. Ct., the Fed. Cir. may have to [like it or not]. Because it seems clear that the Sup. Ct. is not about to stop rejecting such patents even if they only get there on a 101 basis. I.e., the same Sup. Ct. that re-affirmed the “clear and convincing evidence” test and waffled Bilski seems to inconsistently want some kind of pre-trial obviousness filter for broad functional business method claims even if it has to be under 101?

  58. 9

    Moreover, the patent eligibility of computerrelated methods is undeniably important and impacts an increasingly important sector of the Nation’s economy.

    LOL what? ‘Everybody’ knows that software has nothing to do with this world’s modernity.

    /off sarcasm.

    You never responded to the idea that you prove you case Malcolm by refraining from all use of ‘modernity’ to prove just how ‘j_nky’ software is.

    Gee, I am sooo surprised.

    LOL – /off sarcasm again.

    Next thing you know we will have Malcolm repeating that he is not anti-patent and doesn’t see a problem with new patent law that makes all patents less valuable, more uncertain, more expensive, slower to get, and more troublesome to enforce.

    But he is not anti-patent.

    LOL – /off sarcasm again.

  59. 8

    Please be explicit about any such misrepresentation you believe I have made

    LOL – been there, done that. Check the archives.

    Plenty of things for you to answer. Let’s start with an easy one: Who was right in Myriad and why?

    As to Prometheus, I gave you your shot at correcting your bonfire toss.

    You.
    Ran.
    Away.

    That too is archived in black and white and no amount of your ‘spin’ can change that.

    LOL

  60. 7

    the desire to conflate 101 and 103 was yours (as recently pointed out by Ron Katznelson

    As I pointed out to Ron, I didn’t “conflate” anything but merely described my views regarding the obviousness of the claim at issue in that particular case. According to Ron, I wasn’t “allowed” to do that. Ron was wrong.

    This is a recurring behavior pattern with people who seem very dedicated to defending the worst examples of computer-implemented j*nk claims. They never want to talk about how j*nky the claims are. They just want to talk about how terrible it would be if this, that or the other patent statute was interpreted to make it easier to get rid of the j*nk. Why is that?

    And then inevitably one of your cohorts (e.g., “an observer”) will pop in to accuse the detractors of the claim of being “naive” or “silly” (because the “technology” of showing an ad to someone is really super dooper complicated, I guess) or, better yet, will proclam that “software claims are here to stay” and none of the Supreme Court decisions to date have “impacted” any of the claims they are prosecuting (in which case, one wonders what all the fuss is about).

  61. 6

    fitted up with a square head

    tranlsation please…

    (and we simply note that US law concerning Useful Arts is different than Technical Arts – as you already know that, MaxDrei)

  62. 5

    The petitioner reiterates an error that the concurring judge below made. See Bilski, 561 U. S. ____ (2010) at 16:

      In disapproving an exclusive machine-or-transformation test, we by no means foreclose the Federal Circuit’s development of other limiting criteria that further the purposes of the Patent Act and are not inconsistent with its text.

    The petitioner may not like what the Federal Cicrusit’s development portends, but to state that the Federal Circuit is wrong to “set forth [its] own independent views, however valid [it] considers them to be” is to ignore what the Supreme Court actually said.

    The Supreme Court invited the Federal Circuit to develop the 101 criteria in line with the patent act and (importantly) consistent with its text. Someone should remind the Supreme Court that this would be actual text, and not phantom implied text (as such implied text knows no limit to nose-of-wax twisting).

  63. 4

    I just want to confirm that it is indeed an eligibility issue even when you defer thinking about it until you get all the way to 35 USC 103. This is what (with impeccable and implacable German logic) the EPO does, and here:

    link to k-slaw.blogspot.de

    is how it ends up getting analysed and decided in Munich.

    Randall Rader is often over here, huddling. I think he has been fitted up with a square head by the denizens of DG3.

    The EPO Approach works a treat, but only because the EPO does obviousness with its very special “Problem and Solution Approach” that requires that the objective problem must be one that is, wait for it,……technical.

  64. 3

    WildTangent’s petition here:

    link to digitalcommons.law.scu.edu

    I’ll note, by the way, that WildTangent makes the same silly statement in their brief that Rader made in his silly opinion:

    the question for patent eligibility is
    whether the claim contains limitations that
    meaningfully tie that abstract idea to an actual
    application of that idea through meaningful limitations.
    This analysis is not easy

    In fact, in a great many situations it’s incredibly easy. All you need to do is look at whether the applicant has simply recited an old method and added a “new” “limitation” that, by itself, would be ineligible. For instance, a composition comprising a page of parchment sandwiched between a piece of leather is certainly eligible for patenting. But a composition comprising a page of parchment sandwiched between a piece of leather and comprising a “new” “copyrighted” poem is not patent eligible. That’s because such a claim is effectively a claim to the ineligible matter (the copyrighted poem) itself. Provided you have even a slim grasp on the basics of patent law, this analysis is very, very easy to understand and follow.

    The patent t–bggers, of course, want everyone to believe that this is properly a 103 issue. But it’s not. It’s an eligibility issue and it remains an ineligiblity issue even if you peform the analysis “under 103” (by ignoring the ineligible subject matter).

    Moving to Ultramercial’s claims, Ultramerical (like many computer-implenting “innovators”) relies heavily on alleged differences between the information content being transmitted by the computer in their claims versus the information being transmitted in the prior art (e.g., “copyrighted” content versus non-copyrighted content; “media products” versus “non-media products”; “sponsor message” versus “non-sponsor message”), where the prior art is unambiguous about the fact that computers can transmit any and all kinds of information. As a result, claims such as Ultramercial’s simply can’t be permitted unless we wish to radically expand what has previously been considered eligible subject matter and grant patentees the right to control what “new” information” is communicated by users of computers.

  65. 2

    link to blogs.reuters.com

    According to the company’s lawyers at Latham & Watkins, a three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ran amok in June when it held that patent eligibility extends to the concept of permitting online access to copyrighted material in exchange for viewing an advertisement. Instead of seriously considering the Supreme Court’s previous admonition about patent eligibility in Mayo v. Prometheus Laboratories, the WildTangent brief said, the Federal Circuit opinion, written by Chief Judge Randall Rader, sets up an eligibility test so easy that just about every computer-implemented abstract idea can pass. WildTangent contends that the Federal Circuit has contradicted itself, defied the Supreme Court and rewritten the Patent Act to promulgate its own expansive doctrine of patent eligibility.

    And Wildtangent is absolutely correct. From the brief:

    The concept of trading advertisement viewing for content is indisputably abstract. The court below recognized that formal claim construction was not necessary before resolving the 101 issue presented here. The claims at issue are based on technology that is easily understood – indeed, virtually any Internet user is familiar with websites that require viewing advertisements before viewing content. This case not only presents a computer-related method but one that applies to the Internet, a growing body of method patents. And the Federal Circuit’s decision in this case holding that the claims at issue are patent eligible under 101 is written in sweeping terms and will all but eliminate the important role of 101 in screening computer- and Internet-related patents.”

    Now we just have to count on our friends over at Gene’s place to do what they do best: shriek over and over again that IT MUST BE ELIGIBLE BECAUSE I CAN TOUCH THE NEW COMPUTER or some equally vapid nonsense of the sort that litters Rader’s awful opinion. Oh yes, and also NOBODY WILL WRITE NEW CODE UNLESS YOU HAND OUT PATENTS TO PREVENT PEOPLE FROM WRITING NEW CODE. Can we count on them for that? I’m pretty sure that we can.

    I’m also pretty sure that this is a great case for the Supreme Court to take a good look at it because (1) the claims are quintessentially awful; and (2) Rader’s opinion is so ridiculously easy to ignore (or slash into ribbons).

Comments are closed.