Does this mean ‘configured to’ is good language or not?
2.1
It means that the Court won’t tell you – that they REFUSE to tell you.
Take a look (again) at what the parties stipulated below (and thus, what separates holding from any attempted spin and dicta).
The statutory category requirement of 101 was met.
Thus, “configure to” STILL is good language for meeting the statutory category requirement of 101.
But (and despite the fact that Ned Heller likes to misrepresent my oft stated view on the record), the statutory requirement of 101 does not end with meeting of a category designation. As I have always and consistently maintained, the 101 Statute requires more than that.
Precisely what that “more” is is very much being mashed about by the Court in its re-writing (both implicit and now – with the insertion of “technological” – explicit) of the words that Congress chose, while fully ignoring exactly which branch of the government per the explicit words of the Constitution has the sole authority to write patent law.
As I explained in fine detail to 6, the Court has overstepped its bounds. If the Court wants to find – on a truly constitutional basis (which is doubtful that the conjecture concerning “blocking progress” would reach), then the legally valid option of the Court is to rescind the words of Congress and put the ball back into the court where that ball belongs.
2.2
This should please Malcolm as otherwise, all of those molecules configured with the ancient building blocks of electrons, protons, and neutrons, which merely utilize the laws of nature in how they are configured would be by logical extension deemed not patent eligible (distinguishing from the very real difference of possibly or possibly not being patentable).
Remember, the Court is applying their Letters (and such SHALT NOT BE PERMITTED TO BE MADE TO BE DEAD LETTERS) regardless of meeting any statutory category, so merely meeting that statutory category is not enough. The fact that this eviscerates the law is apparently not a concern, as clear guidance by the Court in their letters is nottheir concern. Breyer et al. can always backpeddle furiously during the next oral argument and claim that others have not filled in the necessary details.
It must be nice to be able to write law and not be accountable to anyone for how incomplete, nonsensical, or improper that writing may be. Don’t you just love the Royal Nine? They sure do.
2.2.1
Just started into the Aero decision – yet another Chamberlain-like waht-me-worry with “It will be time enough to deal with the “cloud,” the opinion said, when an issue directly involving that technology gets before the Court.” see link to scotusblog.com
Great job Court.
1
Prof. Hricik,
You have taken the bait in the “Hindsight” thread by closing the comments.
Yes, the discourse on this subject gets a bit rough at times, but buying into the Crybaby Veto is not the best way forward. Rather, allowing those that lack an understanding of statutory construction and the nuances of law to hoist themselves on their petard of banality provides a better path.
One (ever hopes) that when understanding does dawn, that such people then can review their own words and see and understand (that is, learn) from their own mistakes.
Take Ned Heller for example. While posting as he does in blind pursuit of an agenda, he may on occasion recognize that the Supreme Court is simply not synonymous with the Constitution. He may yet (someday) learn to apply this notion even to those things that align with his agenda. He just might yet learn.
Does this mean ‘configured to’ is good language or not?
It means that the Court won’t tell you – that they REFUSE to tell you.
Take a look (again) at what the parties stipulated below (and thus, what separates holding from any attempted spin and dicta).
The statutory category requirement of 101 was met.
Thus, “configure to” STILL is good language for meeting the statutory category requirement of 101.
But (and despite the fact that Ned Heller likes to misrepresent my oft stated view on the record), the statutory requirement of 101 does not end with meeting of a category designation. As I have always and consistently maintained, the 101 Statute requires more than that.
Precisely what that “more” is is very much being mashed about by the Court in its re-writing (both implicit and now – with the insertion of “technological” – explicit) of the words that Congress chose, while fully ignoring exactly which branch of the government per the explicit words of the Constitution has the sole authority to write patent law.
As I explained in fine detail to 6, the Court has overstepped its bounds. If the Court wants to find – on a truly constitutional basis (which is doubtful that the conjecture concerning “blocking progress” would reach), then the legally valid option of the Court is to rescind the words of Congress and put the ball back into the court where that ball belongs.
This should please Malcolm as otherwise, all of those molecules configured with the ancient building blocks of electrons, protons, and neutrons, which merely utilize the laws of nature in how they are configured would be by logical extension deemed not patent eligible (distinguishing from the very real difference of possibly or possibly not being patentable).
Remember, the Court is applying their Letters (and such SHALT NOT BE PERMITTED TO BE MADE TO BE DEAD LETTERS) regardless of meeting any statutory category, so merely meeting that statutory category is not enough. The fact that this eviscerates the law is apparently not a concern, as clear guidance by the Court in their letters is not their concern. Breyer et al. can always backpeddle furiously during the next oral argument and claim that others have not filled in the necessary details.
It must be nice to be able to write law and not be accountable to anyone for how incomplete, nonsensical, or improper that writing may be. Don’t you just love the Royal Nine? They sure do.
Just started into the Aero decision – yet another Chamberlain-like waht-me-worry with “It will be time enough to deal with the “cloud,” the opinion said, when an issue directly involving that technology gets before the Court.” see link to scotusblog.com
Great job Court.
Prof. Hricik,
You have taken the bait in the “Hindsight” thread by closing the comments.
Yes, the discourse on this subject gets a bit rough at times, but buying into the Crybaby Veto is not the best way forward. Rather, allowing those that lack an understanding of statutory construction and the nuances of law to hoist themselves on their petard of banality provides a better path.
One (ever hopes) that when understanding does dawn, that such people then can review their own words and see and understand (that is, learn) from their own mistakes.
Take Ned Heller for example. While posting as he does in blind pursuit of an agenda, he may on occasion recognize that the Supreme Court is simply not synonymous with the Constitution. He may yet (someday) learn to apply this notion even to those things that align with his agenda. He just might yet learn.
Comments are closed.