By Dennis Crouch
Golden Bridge Tech v. Apple (Fed. Cir. 2014)
This case should be seen as a follow-on to Judge Moore’s recent decision in X2Y Attenuators v. US International Trade Commission (Fed. Cir. 2014). In both cases, Judge Moore applies the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer to limit claim scope.
Here, Golden Bridge asserted two patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,574,267 and 7,359,427, the first of which had been previously asserted in a different case. In the prior case, Golden Bridge stipulated to a particular definition of the claim term “preamble.” (Note – the word “preamble” is in the claim and its definition is in dispute). Golden Bridge then submitted the stipulated construction to the USPTO for the still-pending application as well as the prior patent that was also under reexamination. Although submitted in an IDS, the stipulated dismissal was never directly or otherwise referred to in the prosecution history.
In the new lawsuit against Apple, Golden Bridge argued that the prior stipulation was not binding and the IDS filing certainly should not be seen as a prosecution disclaimer. Both the district court and now the Federal Circuit have rejected Golden Bridge’s position:
We conclude that GBT’s submissions during prosecution of its stipulated construction for the term “preamble” constitute disclaimer. . . . Here, GBT clearly and unmistakably limited the term.
Rather than merely filing the IDS form, the applicant included a cover-sheet letter asking the USPTO to consider the references stating:
It is respectfully requested that the documents be expressly considered during prosecution of this application.
In the only off-kilter portion of the opinion, Judge Moore identified that statement as important for the disclaimer – finding that “[i]t would have been natural for both the PTO and the public to rely upon the stipulation in determining the scope of the claimed invention.” (In my view, any IDS Submission already includes at least an implicit request that the documents be expressly considered.)
Judge Moore takes care to limit the ruling here by expressly indicating that the ordinary submission of third-party prior art should not ordinarily create any disclaimer. The difference here is that the IDS submission included an admission by the patentee to a court of law that related directly to claim term scope. Judge Moore also indicated that the patentee could have overcome the disclaimer with an express statement in the prosecution history denying the applicability of the prior in-court statement.
I wonder if the case would have been decided differently by Judge Moore if the IDS submission had included a boiler-plate statement that “No aspect of these submissions constitute a disclaimer of claim scope.” Judge Moore is a particular stickler regarding admissions and statements by parties, even when made in boiler plate language. Thus, I suspect that such a disclaimer-of-disclaimers would have been effective here. On the flip side, I also wonder whether the submission of the stipulated claim construction as a public document in Federal Court (even without the IDS submission) should itself be seen as a prosecution disclaimer in itself. Anyone truly concerned with the patents in question would have reviewed the court filings and likely seen them as more important than the prosecution history files of continuation or foreign applications, for instance.
Ned has question information. Look at it this way. Information is one way to measure a property of matter/energy. The machines are processing/transforming the information.
A property of matter (no one contends that information is not a property) is being changed/transformed.
That change transformation takes time, energy, and space.
That is real my simian-minded friend. A machine that does what the human brain does and replaces millions and millions of people, and yet, there are those that say it is not an invention. In 100 years you will be laughed at. Now, Google is paying people to take you seriously.
Just remember that your perversion of the truth may be feeding your babies, but that you are intellectually dishonest and a destroyer of our system of laws.
Remember what you are.
So, let’s all just agree that Ned has turned into a smelly @pe and should no longer be taken seriously.
I do chuckle at your portrayal, but at the same time hold out an olive branch (I am an eternal optimist at heart):
Outright dismissal is not required, if Ned can be honest in his use of language and terms of art.
I think that alone – not twisting what the terms of art mean, and not twisting case law to fit his pre-ordained Ned-IMHO-Law agenda will be enough. One step at a time, viewing the proper context will reveal to Ned that his world view is errant and fundamentally flawed.
Of course, Ned will have to be able to accept the legal conclusions and follow the path where this logic leads.
He will have to refrain from his abandoning discussions, refrain from his taking umbrage (unjustifiably), and refrain from denying the context of the terms of art, and how the pre-1952 world was fundamentally changed by what Congress (and Congress’es use of the words drafted by then pre-judge Rich) did.
It may be asking too much at one time – but at least if he is honest in his use of terms he may be able to constrain himself properly when he seeks to compose a statement that just will not fit reality.
Night, to the extent that you continue to erect strawman and put forth inane arguments, you only make yourself appear, how should we put it, simian?
Ned, come on. You sound more and more like Richard Stern everyday. You present every conceivable intellectual dishonest argument you can to eradicate information processing from eligibility.
10’s and 10’s of millions of jobs being replaced by information processing machines. The Information Age (’cause of these machines.) And, yet somehow they aren’t eligible according to you for some voodoo reason. Your arguments are come listen to my tail and you too can believe that these machines are not real.
Just. Like. A. Witch. Hunt. Isn’t it? Think about it.
Tale of course. Witch hunt is what you are about.
Just think Ned all of these bizarre thoughts are in what? Come on now. You can figure it out. In what? An information processing machine your brain. Funny how you always duck out of arguments when the going gets tough.
Night, I don’t present any intellectually dishonest arguments. In fact, I go out of my way to cite case law, to cite statutes, to cite legislative history, etc. etc. etc.
What do I get from you? Anything at all comparable?
anon, any fair reader would recognize a direct quote as not being a 1ie. Any fair reader would recognize a direct quote from the case cited by Federico as not being a 1ie.
The only person who is dissembling here is you.
Pointing out that Ned has directly prevaricated in his use of the Frederico material is not considered acceptable (while his actually doing so, is?)
C’est la vie
Your “direct quote” Ned was a but a kernel of truth wrapped in a greater 1ie.
I showed you the context from which you grabbed that quote of yours, and the key point therein (which you have NEVER admitted to) is the statutory distinction made in 1952 to separate out patent eligibility from patentability.
Such is critical when you attempt to make a post-1952 101 argument on items that are no longer 101 in the post 1952 patent law.
I have explained this to you with many resources, from government records, to your own Frederico, to the Cornell Law notes.
You have NEVER acknowledged what I have placed in front of you, let alone integrate that understanding into your arguments.
Ned, what you do present are intellectually dishonest arguments.
You present arguments such as let’s make all information processing machines eligible for patentability as long as they are burned into a ROM.
No intellectually honest person that is educated can deny that information processing machines are eligible under 101. It is simply absurd to contend that building machines to do the work of our brain is not eligible. And, the absurdity of this contention grows with each day that the machines become more proficient at their tasks. Benson had many absurd statements at the time that now are transparent attempts at selling untruths to ignorant judges.
The only reason Benson hasn’t been overturned is that the SCOTUS has become populated with unforgivably ignorant justices. Our society has bifurcated more and more into the scientifically literate and illiterate. The liberal arts educated feel less and less of a need to understand technology.
What are some of the outrages? Claiming that information processing methods are natural laws is one.
Steve Jobs said I don’t mind so much that Microsoft won, but it is so wrong because their product is so ugly. This was prior to the re-birth. That is how I feel about 101. I wouldn’t mind if you were right, but you are using arguments that are intellectually dishonest and intentionally misleading to win.
NWPA, do us all a huge favor and tell us what you mean by “intellectually dishonest”. That term has a definition, and the definition doesn’t fit where you’re using the term.
6 – use s little common sense and move outside of the narrow band of the scholarly definition.
The term clearly is amenable to an easy meaning – take it with baby steps if you need to – I am confident in your ability to figure it out.
“The machines are processing/transforming the (measurement of a property of matter/energy).”
Makes your sentence a little less convincing when you say it that way doesn’t it?
“(no one contends that information is not a property)”
I’ll contend that you need some evidence for that. Further though I will say that information is not always a property “of matter”.
“A machine that does what the human brain does”
If that be so then why would we allow patents thereupon?
“In 100 years you will be laughed at. ”
Yes, for not more vehemently opposing folks like NWPA with his wingnut “theories”.
As ever 6, you provide the comical relief.
The bells at the tips of his cap are a nice touch.
A machine that produces heat may be called a furnace, but no one would think a computer that processes data and does nothing else but produce numbers from numbers, but whose only utility is generating heat would be a new computer.
We all know that a anything that has mass could be uses a boat anchor. But that is not the kind utility contemplated by section 101.
LOL – talk about a strawman….
Come back to reality and realize the common sense that computer programs are not written to “g3nerate heat.” The common sense (and intellectually honest) view here is that software is written for utilitarian purposes.
STOP KICKING UP DUST.
Night, information is a term of art describing a state of the universe. The universe moves from state to state according to the laws of nature.
Information is a statement of fact. Information, like facts, are neither machines, manufactures nor compositions.
Processing information from one state to another using math or the equivalent is not the kind of information of physics. The information of physics describes changes made by laws of nature.
But laws of nature are not the subject of patents, never have been. Applications of laws of nature are.
Neither are mathematical algorithms the subject of patents.
But your constant paean call for patents on information processing essentially calls for patents on math and on laws of nature.
Apply information processing to a task, driving a car as in your examples, and we have a patentable application. But you are never satisfied when I say that I have no problem with your examples. You simply resort to calling me names when I resist patenting information or information processing in the abstract as being non statutory. It plainly is non statutory, of course; and courts have held such, uniformly, save for State Street Bank, forever.
“The universe moves from state to state according to the laws of nature.”
Electrons, protons and neutrons are products of nature, and only combine according to the laws of nature. Only God works from scratch.
“Processing information from one state to another using math or the equivalent is not the kind of information of physics. The information of physics describes changes made by laws of nature.”
This is a logically INconsistent statement. I think that you left out a large chunk of explanation in your use of the term “not the kind of.”
“Neither are mathematical algorithms the subject of patents.”
Too broad a statement – See Diehr, see cryptography. Distinguish between pure math and applied math.
“Apply information processing to a task”
Ignore the point placed before you that software – a man made manufacture and machine component IS made for utilitarian purposes.
But instead of addressing the points I place before you, it is YOU Ned, that resorts to name-calling of me.
Why the hypocrisy?
OT, but the names should ring a bell:
The latest papers from the Clinton White House reveal behind-the-scenes concerns about three lawyers who would join the U.S. Supreme Court:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
Stephen Breyer and
Sonia Sotomayor.
Read more: link to nationallawjournal.com
The 3 that are the new 4 that remains less than 5.
Each – notably – carried warnings about having a strong judicial activist streak.
Let me also (in direct contrast, repeat Judge Markey’s words concerning how such “judicial activism” should be noted in regards to patent law:
“[o]ur concern here is with plain, simple disregard of the statute—
evidenced in the promulgation of some words and phrases that muddy
the decisional waters and other words and phrases that render the law
as written by congress a nullity. In sum, when it comes to patent cases,
the statute is the law—and court opinions containing language and
concepts contrary to the statute are unlawful.
Howard T. Markey, Why Not the Statute?, 65 J. PAT. OFF. SOC’Y 331, 331 (1983).
(italic emphasis in original, bold emphasis added)
anon, the SC has acknowledge in Alice is that it is interpreting 101 consistently with the so-called exclusion. I, for one, do not think they go far enough.
But, let’s set that aside for the moment.
Rich’s problem was not his penchant for the statute, but his penchant for overruling cases of vintage that were so ancient that the one had difficulty tracing the origin back to a statute.
His overruling of Hotel Security in State Street Bank was a horse of a different color, however. He was flat out wrong there, as the cases he overruled expressly relied on the statute and not on any exceptions to find business methods and printed matter non statutory.
Thus Rich himself was a hypocrite.
Ned,
In Alice, 3, the new 4, is still not 5.
Until you come to grips with that, anything you have to say on business method patents is beyond suspect.
As to the exceptions to the judicial doctrine of printed matter, until you can square the simple Set Theory explanation I provided to you, likewise, your mouthings mean nothing.
All you have done is twist reality to fit Ned-IMHO-law and you are purely in fantasy land on those accounts.
You cannot even answer the simple question as to why Congress would bother writing a limited defense to business method patents, if – as you would hold – they were already non-statutory.
Thus, it is not Rich who is the hypocrite – it is you.
Ned, address whether or not information processing machines are inventions.
Macro reality: machines replacing 10’s of millions of humans. The machines are doing this based on their software. And, this somehow isn’t patentable? Come on.
Night, information is neither a machine, manufacture or a composition.
A number is useless. What a number represents is an abstraction.
A 1 has no structure.
Transformation of numbers from one number to a different number is not a process.
New or improved machines that facilitate the transformation of numbers are eligible.
An old machine that does nothing different that it has always done is non statutory under 101.
Combine a non statutory old machine with a non statutory information process and one gets a non statutory machine or process.
Tie the use of the number to modifying the functionality of the machine — now that is eligible.
“A 1 has no structure.”
A space has no structure.
Morse claim 5 – as contrasted with claim 6.
“Transformation of numbers from one number to a different number is not a process.”
Discuss cryptography (your assertion is simply too broad).
“An old machine that does nothing different that it has always done is non statutory under 101.”
Wrong – it is non statutory under 102, not 101.
You (again) play the pedantic semantic game of switching from “statutory category” to “statutory.”
“Tie the use of the number to modifying the functionality of the machine — now that is eligible.”
What software, ever created for a utilitarian purpose, does not change the functionality of the machine?
That is what software is created to do: by its nature, software is geared to functionality.
Your desperate, fingernail grasp on your agenda is slipping – you cannot use the words of the Court, as they violate your understanding of statutory category, and you have no solace in the words of the Statute itself (you have yet to answer my simple question as to why Congress would write a limited defense to something – that as you hold would not be statutory to begin with – AND WOULD NEED NO DEFENSE). You position then, would make a nullity of Congress’s words (see Markey).
If you stop trying to spin the Court’s view, you will see that you have been cast adrift from your legal moorings by your very own Court. You either must accept the fact that the Court has acted ultra vires (in relation to Judge Markey’s warning), or you must accept the fact that your own agenda is ultra vires.
There is no logical legal ground other than these two points for you Ned. No honest ground.
“An old machine that does nothing different that it has always done is non statutory under 101.”
Wrong – it is non statutory under 102, not 101.
Right, I have cited you Frederico who cites a case. The ’52 Act was passed with the understanding that an old machine was non statutory under 101.
Congress has ruled!
You may have mis-cited Frederico – and I have corrected such cites.
Your use of “statutory” when you mean to say “statutory category” is only causing more conflation Ned.
May I suggest that you use the proper terminology in our discussions?
Frederico:
“The definition does not modify in any way the statement in section 101 that a new machine, a new manufacture, or a new composition of matter, can be patented; if a machine is not new, if a manufacture or composition of matter is not new, it still cannot be patented. The decision of the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals in In re Thuau, 135 F.2d 344, has not been overruled by the statute. ”
Anon, it is not that you have not “corrected me.” It is that you have failed to acknowledge simple, but inconvenient truths.
Patent eligible v patentable
There is no accident that you conflate these terms.
There is a difference.
Subject matter for patent (section 101). One of the basic and most important sections of the old statute was R.S. 4886 [section 31 of former Title 35, U.S.C.A.], which specified the subject matter for which a patent could be obtained and recited conditions for patentability. In the new code, this section has been divided into two sections, section 101 relating to the subject matter for which a patent may be obtained, and section 102 which defines statutory novelty and states other conditions for patentability.
And in the proper context from whence you grabbed your quote:
The remainder of the definition of “process” in section 100(b) reads “The term ‘process’ . . . includes a new use of a known process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or material.” This phrase has caused some discussion and misunderstanding, particularly with respect to the patentability of so-called new uses. The Revision Notes state, as to this part of the definition, that it “clarifies the status of processes or methods which involve merely the new use of a known process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or material; they are processes or methods under the statute and may be patented provided the conditions for patentability are satisfied.”
The holding of this decision is simply that an old material cannot be patented as a composition of matter, because it is an old material, and the fact that the inventor or discoverer may have discovered a new use for the old material does not make the material patentable.
Thus, Ned, the attempt by you to twist this 102 item into a 101 discussion is DENIED
Frederico:
Patentable novelty or invention (section 103). The Committee Report state, in the general part, that one of the two “major changes or innovations” in the new statute consisted in “incorporating a requirement for invention in section 103.
Do these words “patentable novelty or invention” sound familiar Ned – Do they sound in any OLD case law that you have attempted to spin as not being affected by the 1952 Act?
Tell me Ned, why do you persist in such amateur ventures as to refer to Frederico, when a proper read of Frederico supports my views and not yours? Do you really think that your mis-cites are effective?
(sigh) this ge + ne filter trap is tiresome.
Frederico:
Patentable novelty or invention (section 103). The Committee Report state, in the [overall] part, that one of the two “major changes or innovations” in the new statute consisted in “incorporating a requirement for invention in section 103.
Do these words “patentable novelty or invention” sound familiar Ned – Do they sound in any OLD case law that you have attempted to spin as not being affected by the 1952 Act?
Tell me Ned, why do you persist in such amateur ventures as to refer to Frederico, when a proper read of Frederico supports my views and not yours? Do you really think that your mis-cites are effective?
May I suggest, anon, that we look at the holding of the case Federico cites. In re Thuau, 135 F.2d 344 (C.C.P.A. 1943). link to scholar.google.com
“The doctrine is so familiar as not to require citation of authority that a patentee is entitled to every use of which his invention is susceptible, whether such use be known or unknown to him. Likewise, with regard to an unpatentable article or substance long in use, any member of the public has the right to every use of which the article or substance is susceptible so long as it is unchanged in any way, regardless of whether or not such uses were known prior to his own use.
To allow a patent for an old composition without change in any way, merely because it may be used for a specified purpose, would result in a situation where two compositions of exactly the same character could be sold by merchants to consumers, but if one of the compositions was not made by the patentee or his assignee or licensee, the merchant might be liable to suit for infringement if the composition was used by the purchaser for therapeutic purposes, and the user would certainly be liable to such a suit.
In our opinion the patent laws do not contemplate that two identical substances or devices may be legally sold side by side, only one of which is the subject of a valid patent, and we are in agreement with the view expressed in the case of H. K. Regar & Sons, Inc., v. Scott & Williams, Inc., supra, that a patent for a new use for an old substance quite unchanged is not authorized by the patent laws because such use is not the invention or discovery of “any new and useful art, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvements thereof” as required by Section 4886 of the Revised Statutes”
It seems that new uses of old devices are claimable as processes.
Two gen eric computers are sold, identical to one another. Which one infringes the claim to a programmed computer?
Ned,
I have outlined Frederico for you in a clear manner, undoing the attempted twists and machinations that you want to impart.
My version is the the correct version.
Read and learn.
Stop your attempted dissembling between patent eligibility and patentability.
Accept what Congress did in 1952.
“Which one infringes the claim to a programmed computer?”
Is this why the one case wherein the difference was solely programming escaped your capability of understanding for so long?
And somehow, you wish to paint me as the one that does not understand the law, when it is you and your avowed “I don’t understand” that echoes time and again on this topic.
To refresh your somewhat (well, more than somewhat) selective memory, Ned:
link to patentlyo.com
Are you still struggling with your personal lack of understanding of that case?
Also, I would remind you of the Grand Hall experiment (which Nazomi exemplifies) and the holding (yes, Ned, the holding) of Alappat, as well as remind you of the quotes from both Benson and Flook that you like to omit in your parsed and twisted Ned-IMHO-version of law.
Let’s be honest here anon, in all the years you’ve been trumpeting the “holding” and Alappat, in all that time, not once, never, have you ever actually quoted what you contend to be the holding.
Can you be so bold as to today actually quote what you think the Alappat holding is?
Completely untrue Ned – I have done so many times.
Visit the archives (they have been restored).
Will you trade a simple answer for me? Why did Congress create a limited defense to business method patents for something that you have states as being non-statutory (and thus, no defense would have been needed)?
Do you recognize that your view on this runs directly into the Markey quote by your view necessitating making the words of Congress a nullity?
Why did congress create a prior user defense for business methods?
We were trying to create a broad prior user right. universities in small inventors would not agree. However they would agree to eliminate exception for so-called business methods because of State Street Bank.
I was intimately involved in the negotiations so I can tell you for a fact that this is what happened.
“so-called business methods because of State Street Bank”
Completely False.
As I pointed out Ned – no defense is needed to be created if -a s you have posited – business methods simply were not statutory.
All Congress need to have done is repeat what you now scream: NOT STATUTORY.
They did not.
You need to figure out why.
“I was intimately involved in the negotiations so I can tell you for a fact that this is what happened.”
Sounds like it was YOU that really screwed up if you missed the plain and simple path of reiterating that business methods were not statutory and thus no defense was needed.
You STILL have failed to adequately account for the words of Congress in this regard.
And in your explanation, you should address the FACT that the judicially activist Justices (as noted by an independent source) – the 3 of Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor, which comprise the “new 4” of Bilski “fame” STILL is not 5.
Do you recognize what this phrase means? It very much has to do with the words of Congress.
Completely false, he says to one who was there and was involved in the negotiations.
You do realize, anon, that you are full of it?
Some of the editing done today is rather bizarre.
Ned’s “being there” is in no way a vouching for the veracity of his position.
My noting that his “being there” as potentially being a reason why the system is Fd up is not only plausible on its face, but would also explain much of Ned’s venom and blindness to the topic (he is undoubtedly biased – if not as much, perhaps even more so than his object of venom Judge Rich).
Why exactly a comment – true on its face (albeit negative in its – just – implications) is removed, is beyond me.
C’est la vie.
“A 1 has no structure.”
A space has no structure.
Morse claim 5 – as contrasted with claim 6.
As claimed, the space between groups of marks on a scroll defines structure.
What? Then how does a 1 compared with a 0 not have structure?
(And, please try to keep in mind the MOST important law of physics: The Conservation of Information!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
I’ll add two more !! just for MM the smelly @pe.
Ned – you trap yourself with “as claimed” – show me a claim to a “1” as you are attempting to use that in an argument here and honestly try to differentiate Morse claim 5.
Remember Morse claim 5 was to a system WITHOUT physicalities (as contrasted with claim6).
If you are honest, you will see that you cannot win this argument.
Still waiting for your honest treatment of these discussion points Ned.
Cryptography?
How many times do we have to go through this?
Cryptography provides secure communications between machines. It improves machines.
We have to go through as many times as necessary for you to realize that cryptography does not in fact need (or if “use,” need not change) machines.
In a way, it’s a lot like Morse 5 – a system without the physicalities.
I’m sorry, anon, but mathematics alone is not eligible subject matter. If you do not tied mathematics to a system of machines, you don’t even begin to describe eligible subject matter.
Distinguish Ned, between pure math and applied math.
They are not the same.
“Stop trying to spin the Court’s view.”
Stop ignoring the statute and Federico.
>New or improved machines that facilitate the transformation of >numbers are eligible.
All the information processing methods define new machines. They are really special purposes machines. We all know that.
You know your view that this is all just processing numbers is getting very antiquated 10’s of millions of people being replaced by the new information processing methods. The information processing methods are projected to overcome human intelligence.
Seriously Ned. Not eligible for patentability? You say what structure does a 1 have. You tell me. Conservation of information is the most important law of physics. How could it be that the represented information doesn’t have structure? It cannot be.
And information processing takes space, time, and energy. I can make a special purpose machine for each information processing method. And, the conservation of information tells us there is structure in those 1’s and 0’s.
Macro: 10’s of millions of people being replaced by these machines.
Please try to be real.
Night, “Real.”
OK.
What is information?
1. A machine?
2. A manufacture?
3. A composition of matter?
May I suggest that “information” is not a thing, but a state?
So, a machine that is configured to change the state of the universe is not eligible?
“May I suggest that “information” is not a thing, but a state?”
May I suggest that software is not “information.”
May I suggest that software is not “math.”
May I suggest that software is equivalent to firmware and equivalent to hardware and is a manufacture and machine component.
Lovely suggestions all.
What anon said about software!
But, also, why are you conflating the machine that operates on represented information with information?
Is it your contention that whatever the machine operates on must also be patent eligible?
Ned will not follow that path NWPA.
That path leads to the evisceration of everything, as I have mentioned, only God works from scratch.
Ask Ned what Frederico said about that.
“The hypothesis of the so-called “conservation of information” seems to have originated in certain arguments in the 1975 “The Arrow of Time” by American astrophysicist David Layzer, who using a rather backward and inane blend of statistical mechanics and information theory, concludes:
“Entropy and information are related by a simple conservation law, which states that the sum of the information and the entropy is constant and equal to the system’s maximum attainable information or entropy under the given conditions.”
But, the Theory is questioned:
“[I]nformation is anthropomorphic conception and is not something defined in the inherent structure of the composition of the universe.”
link to eoht.info
It is also self evident that information and entropy are related. So, if one can claim something that increases information, one can claim something that decrease entropy.
But such systems are entirely abstract mathematical arguments. The patent system exists for machines, manufactures, compositions and not mathematics.
Lol the wingnut “theory” that NWPA <3's to post about all the time is exposed for what it is.
Good find Ned.
For someone who exhorts “purity” to the statutory categories, you have (once again) denigrated one of the four categories.
to wit: “The patent system exists for machines, manufactures, compositions and not mathematics.”
You left out process – which is not a handmaiden (or subcategory to the hard goods categories) AND you have apparently started up your latest carpet bombing of an incomplete and erroneous thought (here on math – ignoring the fact that pure math and applied math are not the same).
And this, while you have ignored the proper treatment given to you of your very own favorite reference Frederico, which, as I have demonstrated, supports my views – and not yours.
What rot Ned. See the discussion on black holes.
Mathematical. What? The genius of Newton was realizing that you didn’t have to understand something to model it in math. That doesn’t mean it is not real.
And math is what? Where is that math you speak of? Could it be in the same thing that those machines are trying to replace?
And Ned, the person I quoted on here before saying the conservation of information was the most important law of physics is Prof. Susskind one of the most respected physicist alive. I posted a youtube video on here where he explained this to you and its relation to black holes.
link to en.wikipedia.org
Goodness leave the blog for a couple of days and the nxt cases and @pes take over.
And, Ned, can we remember that you are using what to formulate your arguments? Can you say information processing (your brain)?
Your arguments are so medieval that they are not worth responding to. They are intellectually dishonest too. And, they clearly are intended to throw a monkey wrench into the works.
“What rot Ned. See the discussion on black holes.”
Because because because black holes (only ever indirectly observed) makes everything he says totally true! Discussions on black holes mean information is patentable!
Or something like that.
NWPA brosef, just let your wingnut theory go. Just let it go man. And maybe try talking to the prof that gave the black hole lecture about what “conservation of information” even means.
“Mathematical. What? The genius of Newton was realizing that you didn’t have to understand something to model it in math. That doesn’t mean it is not real.”
The whole point of making a model is to make something that is not the real thing to study a real thing that isn’t the model. Duh. And Newton wasn’t the first to come up with this. There were plenty of people trying to come up with the model he himself came up with. All of them trying, gasp, to do it in “math”.
You should check out the new “Cosmos” it is on amazon for like 3 dollars an ep. It will help set you straight about Newton. They even made part a cartoon so that it’ll be on your level.
“And Ned, the person I quoted on here before saying the conservation of information was the most important law of physics is Prof. Susskind one of the most respected physicist alive. I posted a youtube video on here where he explained this to you and its relation to black holes.”
Yes, and if you actually watch his video explaining about this all of a sudden NWPA’s wingnut theory fades into the distance.
“And, they clearly are intended to throw a monkey wrench into the works.”
Yes, the only reason to point out that you are ascribing to a wingnut theory version of a theory (note not a lawl) that physicists actually do use from time to time in their theorizing is to throw a wrench into “the works”. Riiiiight.
My post: 8.1.2.1.2.1.2, “May I suggest that “information” is not a thing, but a state?”
Professor Suskind: “Proper laws of physics are reversible and therefore preserve the distinctions between states – i.e. information. In this sense, the conservation of information is more fundamental that other physical quantities such as temperature or energy.” link to theoreticalminimum.com
Information describes the state of the universe. The state itself is not physical, but a mathematical relationship.
Information in the way you use it is not congruent with the state of the universe, but simple facts and simple mathematical relationships.
Regardless, that the information state of the universe is conserved is irrelevant to whether mathematics is patentable, as information is not physical, but a relationship, a state.
anon, regarding Federico: you really do not have a clue, cannot think logically, and exist in a fantasy world.
At times, I think 6 is entirely correct in his diagnosis.