- Gene Quinn: It Is Time For Judge Mayer To Step Down From The Federal Circuit
- Jeff Roberts: The FTC Has Some Harsh Words For Patent Trolls
- Joseph Mandour: Father Sues For Copyright Infringement After Live-Streaming Baby’s Birth
- Jon Cohen: Dramatic Twists Could Upend Patent Battle Over CRISPR Genome-Editing Method
- Joseph Herndon: Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec Corp.
Get a Job doing Patent Law
The edits on this thread are plain laughable.
Well guys, looks like the GOP finally stooped to the DNC’s level of political manipulation.
link to twitter.com
Yes anon, but nothing quite so blatant.
Both parties are…
…politicians.
(and all that goes with that)
Gene’s Kids: I see no harm in granting special Law of Nature patents to people like Maxwell, Einstein, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Feynman, Watson, or Crick.
Wow. Setting aside the ridiculousness of “special Law of Nature patents”, what is James Watson doing in the same list as Einstein, Schrodinger and Feynman? I mean … James Watson? Really?
That is truly amusing.
of the 5 physicists I mentioned, only Feyman’s discoveries seem to have been important in the development of products within 20 years of first formulation
Never mind about those molecular biologists, I guess. Aberrations!
And the icing on the cake:
judges like Mayer, whom I suspect of increasing cognitive deficit.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Because Judge Mayer dared to speak the truth about the First Amendment’s relevance to the patent system! And he suggested that software patents should be ineligible!
But Gene’s Kids are super serious! They can name famous people! And “special Law of Nature patents!” Because we don’t have enough patents already. LOL
they are not agreeing with each other
They’re miles apart! One thinks that Mayer is mentally ill and needs to step down, and you think that Mayer is “rogue” and needs to step down or be punished. You think that “law and logic” already says that you can patent any utilitarian “process” and the other thinks that “special Law of Nature patents” would be the cat’s meow.
You’re like matter and anti-matter! Sure you are.
But you’re both super serious people.
you are mischaracterizing things.
The posts are there for everything to see, “anon.” There’s no mischaracterization. Or if there is, it’s peanuts compared to the massive strawmen that you and Gene throw around every other day of the week.
Another one of Gene’s Kids wades out of the shallow end and starts gurgling nonsense about subject matter eligibility:
You have two (legal) logical restraints – and only two:
1) the utility must be that as to belong to the Useful Arts. This is extremely broad and simply means that the Fine Arts are not proper subject matter.
2) the claimed subject matter must (loosely) fit into at least one of four categories.
Well, the Supreme Court has a number of recent, unanimous decisions completely disagreeing with this, and the CAFC, PTO and district courts have tanked thousands of patents (at least) that would be “eligible” in the fantasy world of the quoted commenter. And it goes without saying that the window of eligibliity is shrinking all the time as some of the worst subject matter-expanding CAFC decisions are overturned.
Plus there’s the obvious and indisputable fact that there are other constraints on the patent system besides 101 and the other patent statutes. Maybe there’s one in the Constitution somewhere?
Let’s see how long it takes for super serious Gene Quinn to address this completely fabricated statement about “the law” (and about “logic”, for that matter). Because he’s a s00per d00per honest guy. LOL
Or maybe he’ll just pat his li’l script reciting kid on the head. Good boy!
Again – out of context, as what you refer to is the words of Congress.
Everybody know the Supreme Court has mucked things up trying to hold onto their pre-1952 authority to set the meaning of the word “invention” by way of common law power. In case you missed it, 101 only extends back to 1952.
out of context, as what you refer to is the words of Congress
The context is patent law, you incredibly silly cl0wn.
101 only extends back to 1952.
And George Washington was the first President.
Super deep stuff here, folks.
Maybe you should figure out why….
Their aren’t enough drugs in the world for we mortals to get inside your awesome godlike brain., “anon.”
Maybe you should figure out what “apply” means.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
I know what “apply” means inthe legal sense and convernign the FIrst Amendment.
Really? Then answer the simple question
“Does the First Amendment apply to the patent system”?
And state your assumptions and caveats, if there are any, like a big boy. Or keep up the transparent tr0lling and make your mentor proud.
YOU want to get into a battle of transparencies – that did not work out too well when Dr. Noonan
LOLOLOLOLOL
Poor Kevin.
You have two (legal) logical restraints – and only two:
Does the Constitution apply to patent law, “anon”? What about the First Amendment part?
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
I remember well that volunteered admission
What drugs were you on?
Gene’s Kids: If the claim has defects, it doesn’t issue.
ROTFLMAO
They’re very serious people!
Yay – just bunch me all together and don’t even bother leaving your litter box here to snipe.
Yay ecosystem!
Lol – autocorrect correction: change “me” to ” ’em “
It hasn’t escaped anyone’s attention, “anon”, that the game Gene’s Kids like to play is to froth at the mouth over the tiniest (mostly fabricated) “errors” of others but your own blatant misunderstandings and fabrications are left untouched.
That’s why Gene’s Kiddie Pool is accurately characterized as an Echo Chamber.
Be sure to stay in the shallow end, “anon”! It’s where you belong.
By the way, does the First Amendment apply to the patent system? Your mentor seems just as confused as you are. As for “Curious”, well, it’s hard not to laugh.
LOL
You have your ad hominem stretched out a little (with slight rephrasing), but it is still as empty and mindless as before because all that you rely on are your feelings.
As to the First Amendment, the ball is still in your court to explain what YOU mean by “apply.”
And feel free to drop by Gene’s (if you can handle the norms of proper behavior – unlike this litter box), and actually engage on those items that you feel are “blatant misunderstandings” and “fabrications” so that they are not left “untouched.”
Yes, you will have to be inte11ectually honest, by hey that’s a small price to pay, isn’t it?
Isn’t it?
Malcolm?
Now where did he run away too….
explain what YOU mean by “apply.”
Because super serious “anon” can’t answer a simple question unless it’s all “explained’ to him.
Or Gene’s Kids don’t have their script figured out just yet. Stay tuned, folks! Eventually the question will get answered and it’ll definitely be a super d00per serious answer. What did “anon’s” mentor mumble? Something about how the First Amendment was irrelevant because “patents don’t protect expression, end of inquiry”?
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
The best part: this pack of whining sycophants is the best and the brightest that the defenders of junk s0ftware claims have to offer. Golly, I wonder why they keep losing?
Actually the best part is that they’re Freepers and they’re going down in flames.
Already explained.
And yet another “sycophant”
Yay ecosystem!
“Already explained.”
“End of inquiry!”
LOL
Two peas in one clammy smell pod.
Here’s a funny claim:
link to freepatentsonline.com
1. A method for generating promotions for a service, the method being performed by one or more processors and comprising:
providing, on a display of a computing device, a user interface to enable a promoter to create a promotion for a service, the user interface providing a plurality of parameters for the promotion; [<-LOL]
enabling the promoter to configure at least one of the plurality of parameters for the promotion; [<-LOL]
and providing, on the display, a map interface to enable the promoter to identify a geographic region in which the promotion can be used by one or more customers, wherein the promoter identifies the geographic region by creating a boundary using three or more location points selected on the map interface.
Oh yes. Identifying “a geographic region” on a map “using three or more location points selected on the map “! Wowee zowee!
That’s totally different from “identifying a region on a map”! Because why else would a True Attorney use that extra verbiage and make it soooooo much easier to avoid infringement of this awesome shove-an-ad-in-your-face method? Maybe they’re trying to avoid all those “identify a region on a map using two points” methods out there.
No less than four s00per genius San Franciscans listed as inventors. Probably Bryan came up with the “hey we can let promoters shove ads in people’s faces with a computer” concept and then Ryan came up with the awesomely innovative “target customers by location” concept. This was filed way back in 2013, long before anyone here on this blog was posting indistinguishable claims m0cking the inane “shove an ad in your face” bal0ney that was going to smell so s00per d00per fresh in your r0b0t car.
Heckuva job, Disgraced Judge Rader. But have fun collecting checks from that Chinese smartphone company you’re “advising.” It’s time for you to shine.
wow “to enable.” That’s bad.
6 whines about “bad patent attorney behavior.”
How about some high profile bad patent attorney behavior?
How about the behavior of a hyp0critical bloviating cl0wn who can’t even keep his own opinions straight and who runs an echo chamber filled to the brim with fellow travelling stone-ign0rant sycophants demanding that a Federal Judge step down or be “punished” because (try to believe this) the judge is (allegedly) a senile and/or demented l ying “h@ter” who’s lost his mind.
And what’s the big issue here that got these j0kers so riled up? Approving of laws that target minority voters for disenfranchisement? Approving of laws that remove women’s access to health care? Approving of laws that make it easier for the government to execute its own citizens?
Nope: the judge dared to suggest that the First Amendment applies to the patent system and that software shouldn’t be eligible for patenting. Oh noes! The Republic is collapsing!
The “bad behavior” is the behavior of patent attorneys and academics and anyone else who continues to provide cover for this p ath etic has-been and his script-reciting crew of Internet tr0lls.
But let the games continue! This particular boys club has deep roots. I’m sure some super serious “expert” out there has already linked to Gene’s article and called it a “tour de force” of scholarship. And besides, as Gene has already told everyone, if you don’t like his awesome ideas then you can’t possibly a patent attorney and you can’t possibly know anything about “innovation.” After all, he’s a very serious and important person!
Because patents that restrict my ability to communicate certain kinds of information using prior art communication devices are just like a guy on a blog who points out the idi0tic cr@p that comes of Gene Quinn’s mouth.
His little poodle “anon” think so!
And they’re very serious people. Plus “anon” is the world’s expert on irony! He’s really sensitive about “irony.” Sure he is!
You are one hateful nasty puppy. Amazing that a “professor” actually allows post after post on his “professional” site from such an unhinged malevolent man.
You are one hateful nasty puppy.
Oh, please cry me a river when you’re done polishing Gene’s shoes. He’s soooo civilized! Why, anyone reading the comment thread at the link can see how super awesomely reasonable he is. He’s a paragon of quality argumentation! The very, very best.
By the way, tour, does the First Amendment apply to the patent system?
Simple question. Yes or no.
Or you can continue crying that river for everyone. The West could use the water.
That wasn’t me brah MM. Someone is named 8 now.
My bad. Apologies.
Seven comments out of 127 that aren’t a flamewar? Patent attorneys behaving badly…
Sorry, ten.
A simple request that simply won’t be met
LOL
Question: “Does the First Amendment apply to the patent system?”
Simple: “I’m not going to answer but I will pretend I was born yesterday!”
Question: “Why don’t you just answer the question and let us know your assumptions and caveats?”
Simple: “You’re running away, c0ward.”
Some “flamewar.”
LOLOLOLOLOL
you have spent so very much more energy dodging the clarification
I”m dodging the clarification! Yes, that must be it.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Once again: Does the First Amendment apply to the patent system, “anon”?
Yes or no. Feel free to state any caveats or assumptions when you respond. It’s a simple question.
I don’t want to state @ssumptions.
“Wah! Answering straightforward questions about the First Amendment is teh hard, especially when Gene hasn’t handed out the script yet. Maybe if I pretend that I don’t know what ‘apply’ means I can buy some time.”
Too freaking funny.
Has Mayer resigned in shame yet?
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Be sure to tell everyone the date on which you stopped beating your wife, “anon.” You’re a very serious person, after all! You’re totally not playing games.
Flamewar?
I’m asking one of Gene Kid’s to tell us whether the First Amendment applies to the patent system.
Their response is to dissemble and pretend they don’t understand the question. Well, I guess there was that one guy who said that it doesn’t apply because the First isn’t listed as a defense to patent infringement.
But these are very serious people, 6! You know that.
By the way, it’s really awesome to see how Trump has cut through all that bad ol’ “PC” censorship that. He’s just telling us everyone how it is … in his world. Why can’t people just leave him alone?
Maybe the “non-partisans” at SCOTUSblog can hurry up and write a few more articles about how awesome Justice Scalia was. Everybody misses him! Like Trump, he didn’t are about all this “PC’ stuff. We need more entitled white guys like that!
LOLOLOLOLOLOL
8 is not me brah. You know I love me a good flamewar.
link to cdn.playbuzz.com
But D isn’t a huge fan, so I’d tone it down all the same.
“Maybe the “non-partisans” at SCOTUSblog can hurry up and write a few more articles about how awesome Justice Scalia was. Everybody misses him!”
Come on, they’ll do the same thing for notorious when she finally kicks the bucket.
An interesting question about software is whether attorneys are changing their claim language and what it directed to, or as appears to be the case with certain prominent commentators, yelling into the wind.
An interesting question about software is whether attorneys are changing their claim language and what it directed to,
If all you’ve “innovated” is using a programmable computer to process “received data” using some basic logical rules (“determine this”, “determine that”), then what “changes to claim language” are going to shield the claim from a subject matter eligibility challenge?
I suppose you could try folding some legal rebuttal right into the claim (“”wherein said method improves the functioning of said computer”) but every attorney knows that additional words make the claim easier to infringe. Nobody would ever put words like that in a claim just to create a sideshow.
Nope. Especially not the super serious folks who claim computer readable instructions and then turn around and tell you that their s0ftie w0ftie claims don’t protect code (Gene Quinn, at his very best!), or that software isn’t instructions. They’re super serious! Only an “intelletually dishonest” person would dare suggest that these people are hypcrites who will do and say literally anything when they are called out on their b.s.
link to patft.uspto.gov <– one example out of thousands, but it must have been written by a non-PHOSITA … because some bl0gtr0ll who's wrong about evertything told us so! ROTFLMAO
but every attorney knows that additional words make the claim easier to infringe.
Should be “easier to avoid”. And by attorney, of course, I mean “True Attorney.” You know, the True Attorneys who never heard of using a plurality of linked together and congitively associated non-diminutive verbs, nouns, adjectives and/or adverbs when the identical concept can be articulated using alternative pluralities of verbs, nouns, adjectives and/or adverbs which are relatively diminuitive in nature in comparison to the first-mentioned erbs, nouns adjectives and/or adverbs.
Those kind of True Attorneys. The really smart ones!
My “rant”?
LOL
I’m just having a long laugh at your mentor and hero’s complete ign0rance. And by long I mean that I’m just getting started. That comment thread at the link is one of those gifts that’s going to keep giving pretty much forever.
Kinda like you and your “mailroom screening” method for avoiding prior art, and your high fiving of your bff (and fellow Quinnbot) NWPA when he compared critics of software patents to “fundamentalist terrorists killing people in Iraq.”
You guys can’t help yourselves and it’s so easy to expose your for blind hapless hypocrites that you are. So I’m going to keep on doing it.
As Dennis knows very well, you’re an incredibly useful id i0t to have around sometimes.
What exactly does a “s0ftie w0ftie patent luvver” mean
Gene’s Kids.
You know, those super serious patent attorneys who “dont’ understand” why subject matter eligibility is more than just a drafting formality. The super serious patent attorneys who will do and say pretty much anything to defend patents on information and “do this logic on a computer.” The super serious patent attorneys who believe only people who agree with them are True Attorneys (everyone else is a techn0-ign0rant l i ar who can’t possibly be a patent attorney). The super serious paent attorneys who pretend they were born yesterday and who pretend that logic patents and “do it on a computer” patents are “exactly like” patents on new molecules or structurally distinguished new devices.
Any other questions?
I have an easy question: Does the First Amendment apply to the patent system?
The answer, of course, is yes. But go ahead, s0ftie w0fties, and pretend to be offended because “ovaries”.
This, by the way, is hilarious: no one – including Malcolm — argues against the fact that a claim can properly contain as a part of the claim an element that includes a mental stop.
Right. And I also don’t pretend that the sky isn’t blue. That’s because I don’t need to behave like an ign0ramus. That’s the kind of thing that the s0fties w0fties do (“software isn’t logic!”, “what does apply mean?” <–LOL).
The problems with the First arise when the only elements distinguishing the claim from prior art communication technology are ineligle data-descriptive elements (e.g., snowplow data).
Of course, if you pretend that the First doesn't even apply the patent system, you can avoid this basic reasoning. And avoiding basic reasoning is what the s0ftie w0fties are all about. As everyone knows, we saw the same bizarre behavior when the facts in Mayo were put under the softie w0fties noses.
Speaking of copyright, anyone know how Amazon can play music you purchased from Amazon using their Echo device? I can ask the Echo to play music I previously purchased from Amazon. But Amazon has no idea where the Echo is (I could have it in a store, at a party, etc.). So, how does copyright law allow Amazon to replay this music?
Furthermore, even if Amazon can legally play this music (or if Amazon cannot), shouldn’t it be paying the musicians for each time one of their songs is played?
how does copyright law allow Amazon to replay this music
I bet in your terms of use you agreed that you’re only using it for personal use, and to indemnify Amazon if you didn’t. More broadly, this has always been an issue. What prevented you from bringing your boombox to the beach and playing your cassette?
shouldn’t it be paying the musicians for each time one of their songs is played
What makes you think Amazon doesn’t have all the necessary licenses? For the question of what licenses it actually needs, take a look at Cartoon Network v CSC Holdings (usually referred to as “Cablevision.”)
Question for any other s0ftie w0ftie patent luvver out there besides your beloved super serious spokesperson “anon” (because he refuses to answer):
Does the First Amendment apply to the patent system?
Surely there’s a s0ftie w0ftie patent luvver out there who has the ovaries to tackle this one.
C’mon boys and girls, step up. You’re super serious people! You’re the True Attorneys. Show everyone what you got.
Says the one who willnot clarify what he means by “apply.”
Ovaries indeed
More like
A
O
O
T
W
M
D
yay ecosystem
This post is offensive.
Malcolm
Does
Not
Care
And never has.
He literally is the Trump of this board.
He literally is the Trump of this board.
Priceless comedy.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
I certainly have a first amendment to gather real time location and weather information information from snowplows, use it to produce an improved plan for utilizing snowplow resources and send the plan back to the drivers. (If nothing else, I can publish the plan on the internet and tell the drivers to read it which makes me a publisher!).
To make my life easier, I would like to use a computer and wireless network for my first amendment gathering and publishing.
Have I infringed on the following ( from 7714705):
A method, comprising:
(a) receiving over a wireless cellular network, from a plurality of snow maintenance vehicles and by a server, a plurality of sets of collected information, each of the collected sets of information comprising a snow maintenance vehicle physical location and at least one of weather and road conditions in an area of the respective snow maintenance vehicle;
(b) processing, by the server, the received collected information to (i) provide a map associated with a physical location of a selected snow maintenance vehicle and (ii) determine an instruction for an operator of the selected snow maintenance vehicle; and
(c) providing, over the wireless cellular network, the map and an operator instruction to the selected snow maintenance vehicle of the plurality of snow maintenance vehicles, wherein the map is visually displayed, by a touch screen monitor, to the operator and wherein the operator instruction to the selected snow maintenance vehicle operator comprises one or more of a dispatch command, an alarm based on a temporal trend in weather conditions, an alarm based on a difference in weather conditions, an alarm based on a temporal trend in road conditions, an alarm based on a difference in road conditions, a snow plow setting, a mixture of materials being applied to a road surface, and an amount of materials being applied to the road surface.
SR,
You do not have a clue as to what falls within your First Amendment Rights.
You really think that making a plan for resources falls into that right….?
Absolutely. Imagine a citizen concerned about corruption in the New Jersey Snowplow Authority. They would need to do exactly this to verify that the resources were being used efficiently.
Now if the holder of the patent is a ‘close friend’ of the governor of New Jersey, can he stop me from using my computer to help with the investigation? Can he get an injunction to stop me from publishing my results on patent grounds? This sounds alot like prior restraint.
This was the judge’s point, this kind of claim has First Amendment implications.
That does not fall under your First Amendment rights (not that you couldn’t do it a practical matter)
That does not fall under your First Amendment rights
What does “fall under” mean, “anon”?
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
“fall under” means that the item he is talking about is contained with the umbrella of rights that the First Amendment provides.
Your turn.
Again.
(but more like:
Still)
Think of it as a government granted monopoly on a certain kind of speech: Instructions to snowplow drivers based on data received from operating snowplows. How does that not implicate the first amendment? What other kinds speech can the government grant a monopoly on?
Notice too that this is not a universal feature of all patents, it only applies to patents where a process conveys information which can also be considered speech. Diehr probably escapes unscathed…
The process is not one that is totally “in the mind” and thus the prohibition does not reach.
To explicate further, no one – including Malcolm (when the point is phrased precisely) argues against the fact that a claim can properly contain as a part of the claim an element that includes a mental stop.
At least no one who knows and appreciates what the law actually states.
The emphasis then of “totally in the mind” has become common on these boards because in past conversations, Malcolm has attempted to obfuscate the issue and move the goal posts of the issue being discussed from a mere part of a claim to some made-up claim that DOES occur totally in the mind.
Maintaining clarity of the point under discussion requires that such obfuscation be rejected.
The path to this obfuscation is the lack of emphasis on “claim as a whole.”
This too is why it is important to recognize that the “Gist” portion of the Supreme Court’s “Gist/Abstract” sword violates what Congress has written, removes the power granted by Congress to the rightful person that determines exactly what the invention is (hint: it is not the Court), and is used by the Court to arrive at their desired end by “magically” making things “Abstract” (however undefined) that are not abstract, that are not even at issue before the Court (as in Alice).
As a non-attorney, I might cut you more slack on your writing, because you may not understand the law and its nuances here.
But Malcolm professes to be an attorney and SHOULD understand this. That he still seeks to obfuscate given this supposed ability based on his supposed profession, only makes his ardent and misbegotten pursuit of a specific Ends all the more loathsome because he is willing to use <I<any means possible – even subverting what the law is, the history of that law, what the factual predicates are concerning computers and software, and what others post.
It is not that Malcolm “has an opinion” about patents for software related innovation – it is the complete lack of ethics in the means he uses in order to see his own personal desired Ends be put into place that is reprehensible.
All of this was explained personally to Prof. Crouch (through these boards as I refused to have any “behind the scenes” discussions) some five years ago or so, in a then attempt to “clean up the ecosystem.”
In the last attempt to clean up the ecosystem, we all learned that Malcolm has been the exact same type of blight, playing the exact same type of games dating back to way before I ever posted here – dating back for more than TEN AND A HALF YEARS now.
This too is a plain fact for all to see.
Malcolm remains Malcolm, and the “same efforts” in the past are only resulting in the same Malcolm games.
Something else needs to be done.
And it is not as if I have not provided several workable solutions, mind you!
The emphasis then of “totally in the mind” has become common on these boards
LOL
You’re the one emphasizing “totally in the mind”.
Beat that strawman, “anon”! Beat it until your arms fall off.
But it is NOT a government granted monopoly on a certain kind of speech.
That is your disconnect.
Inanimate objects do not carry the same rights as humans.
Inanimate objects do not carry the same rights as humans.
Really, really deep stuff but completely irrelevant to the issue which is patent claims that prevent me (or anyone else) from using existing (and “inanimate”) communications channels to communicate whatever the heck I want to communicate.
your errant portrayal of Gene….
Anybody who can read the comments at the link knows that I’m not portraying your habitually dissembling ment0r “errantly.” He’s a j0ke. You’re a j0ke.
you are portraying Gene errantly
No, I’m not. He’s a bloviating f00l.