Patentlyo Bits and Bytes by Anthony McCain

Get a Job doing Patent Law                  

About Anthony McCain

Anthony McCain is a law student at Mizzou where he is focusing on intellectual property; He has a background in mechanical engineering. anthony.mccain@patentlyo.com

167 thoughts on “Patentlyo Bits and Bytes by Anthony McCain

  1. 23

    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

    1. 23.1

      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.

      1. 23.1.1

        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.

  2. 22

    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!

    1. 22.1

      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.

      1. 22.1.1

        out of context, as what you refer to is the words of Congress

        The context is patent law, you incredibly silly cl0wn.

      2. 22.1.2

        101 only extends back to 1952.

        And George Washington was the first President.

        Super deep stuff here, folks.

        1. 22.1.2.1

          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

          1. 22.1.2.1.1

            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.

            1. 22.1.2.1.1.1

              YOU want to get into a battle of transparencies – that did not work out too well when Dr. Noonan

              LOLOLOLOLOL

              Poor Kevin.

    2. 22.2

      You have two (legal) logical restraints – and only two:

      Does the Constitution apply to patent law, “anon”? What about the First Amendment part?

      LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

    1. 21.1

      Yay – just bunch me all together and don’t even bother leaving your litter box here to snipe.

      Yay ecosystem!

      1. 21.1.2

        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

        1. 21.1.2.1

          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….

          1. 21.1.2.1.1

            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.

  3. 20

    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.

  4. 19

    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!

    1. 19.1

      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!

    2. 19.2

      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.

      1. 19.2.1

        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.

      1. 18.1.1

        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

        1. 18.1.1.1

          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.

          1. 18.1.1.1.1

            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

            1. 18.1.1.1.1.1

              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.

    1. 18.2

      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

      1. 18.2.2

        “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.

  5. 17

    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.

    1. 17.1

      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

      1. 17.1.1

        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!

        1. 17.1.1.1

          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.

  6. 16

    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.

  7. 15

    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?

    1. 15.1

      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.”)

  8. 14

    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.

    1. 14.1

      Says the one who willnot clarify what he means by “apply.”

      Ovaries indeed

      More like
      A
      O
      O
      T
      W
      M
      D

      yay ecosystem

  9. 13

    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.

    1. 13.1

      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….?

      1. 13.1.1

        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.

        1. 13.1.1.1

          That does not fall under your First Amendment rights (not that you couldn’t do it a practical matter)

          1. 13.1.1.1.1

            That does not fall under your First Amendment rights

            What does “fall under” mean, “anon”?

            LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

            1. 13.1.1.1.1.1

              “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)

          2. 13.1.1.1.2

            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?

            1. 13.1.1.1.2.1

              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…

              1. 13.1.1.1.2.1.1

                The process is not one that is totally “in the mind” and thus the prohibition does not reach.

                1. 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!

                2. 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.

            2. 13.1.1.1.2.2

              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.

              1. 13.1.1.1.2.2.1

                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.

                1. you mischaracterized Gene on the thread that you linked to.

                  Nobody mischaracterized Gene, except for that comment about him being a drunk.

                  I believe Gene when he says not drunk. I think he’s sober, or maybe he’s on some other drugs. You’d probably know better, “anon”, since you both seem to be plagued by the same set of antis0cial tendencies.

                  Nobody really understands how important you two are, “anon”! Some day we’ll all look back and see you for the visionaries that you know you must be.

                  Sure we will.

      2. 13.1.2

        You do not have a clue as to what falls within your First Amendment Rights.

        Gene’s Kids.

        They’re super serious! If you disagree with them, you’re not an attorney and you’re a liar.

        Just bow down and kiss Gene’s ring and be sure to defend his integrity. After all, look at the awesome results “anon” has achieved by reciting Gene’s script!

          1. 13.1.2.1.1

            your errant portrayal of Gene

            Gene is a hack, an intellectually dish0nest cr eep, and a greedy b@sbag who couldn’t argue his way out of cardboard box.

    1. 12.1

      That’s fascinating, 6.

      The past 24 hours I’ve been thinking a lot about a prediction I made regarding Trump’s candidacy and the election coming up. It seemed pretty obvious to me that Trump was going to lose bigtime and that his candidacy and loss was going to do incredibly damage to the Republican brand.

      But I didn’t realize just how much fun it was going to be watching it all unfold. It couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of backw00ds racist misogynist hypocrites.

      1. 12.1.1

        MM > voting for Hillary “it’s a bimbo eruption!” Clinton.
        > Calling Trump a woman hater.

        MM > voting for Hillary “superpredator” Clinton.
        > Calling Trump a RAYCIST.

            1. 12.1.1.1.1.1

              I’m not going to clink on that link because I don’t want my computer to be infected.

              But I’m sure it’s very serious stuff, 6! Hillary’s college roommate says that Hillary had an issue of Playgirl under her mattress! She’s just like Trump!

              Yes, very serious stuff. If only we could just pay attention to all of Trump’s awesome ideas. They’re very popular! Like 40% of the country just loves them! Great people like you, 6. People who are concerned about the important stuff, like how women’s minds make them unfit for certain jobs and like how important it is to know what’s going on in the bathroom stall next to you. You know, the stuff that really matters.

              ROTFLMAO

              1. 12.1.1.1.1.1.1

                “But I’m sure it’s very serious stuff, 6!”

                It’s Yoko telling offhandedly about her affair with your girl back in yall’s day.

                “Great people like you, 6. People who are concerned about the important stuff, like how women’s minds make them unfit for certain jobs and like how important it is to know what’s going on in the bathroom stall next to you.”

                You’re living in a dream from 20+ years ago. Time to wake up old timer.

  10. 11

    So now Gene’s Kids are avoiding the question “Does the First Amendment apply to the patent system” by asking the question “What do you mean “apply”?”

    Try to believe it, folks. This is the same crew of self-proclaimed experts who accuses anyone they disagree with of being “uneducated” or “l y ing about being an attorney.”

    Like I’ve said before, there really is n0thing the s0ftie w0fties won’t do or say when c0nfronted with a question that they don’t like.

    But they’re very serious people! After all, if we take their precious entitlement away, then they won’t innovate new software and we’ll be like the Amish. They told us so!

    1. 11.1

      “anon” “apply” COULD mean any number of things –

      Oh, do tell, “anon.”

      You’re a very serious person! And totally a True Patent Attorney.

      Tell everyone all the possible definitions of apply that totally change your answer to the question. And please let’s pretend that the question was asked in a vacuum! There’s no context for it all. Nope.

      1. 11.1.1

        You are the one that said it first.

        And taking your point for a moment, if this is sooooo easy that there is only one way to take, then WHY have you not shared that one way yet,and you STILL run away from doing so?

        Come man – let’s here it. Let’s not see you dodge with another layer of questions.

        What are you afraid of?

        1. 11.1.1.1

          You are the one that said it first.

          I’m pretty sure I’m not the first one to use the phrase “does the First Amendment apply to X” first.

          But go ahead and pretend otherwise, “anon”! After all, you’ve got to please your mentor. Otherwise he might pull your True Attorney status.

          LOL

          1. 11.1.1.1.1

            In our conversation, you were the one that first said “apply” COULD mean any number of things

            But hey – keep[ playing the games. These only make you look like the arse.

            1. 11.1.1.1.1.1

              “apply” COULD mean any number of things”

              It could mean rubbing some lotion on the infected area!

              Super deep stuff.

  11. 10

    Again, the p a the tic sniveling reaction by the s0ftie w0fties when confroted with the First Amendment issues created by their claims (not all of them, of course, but certainly some of them!) is just a replay of their reaction when confronted with the Mayo problem (that’s not a coincidence of course — the issues are nearly indistinguishable).

    Breyer had his dissent in Metabolite Labs which gave an authoritative voice to what many of us had been saying for years. The s0ftie w0fties went hysterical and shrieked up and down the halls insulting everybody but never adderessing the issue. A couple years later: the 9-0 hammer.

    Now the hammer’s been raised again, exactly as we predicted it would be. Run, z0mbies, run! The “Can’t Be An Attorneys” are back with their flashlights and torches! It’s just like Salem!

    LOLOLOLOLOLOL

    It’s going to be another sad year for the patent s0ftware luvvers. Good news for the kleenex industry, though. They can’t move fast enough to sop up the river of tears.

    1. 10.1

      the issues are nearly indistinguishable

      and yet, you are STILL having trouble with the corroboration….

      Hmmm.

        1. 10.1.1.1

          Yet again Malcolm – the ball is in your court – what do you mean precisely by “apply”…?

          1. 10.1.1.1.1

            the ball is in your court

            There is no court, “anon.”

            There’s just me asking you a straighforward question and you pretending that you don’t know what “apply” means.

            As I’ve said before: you’re a j0ke.

            But mabye Dennis will show up to defend you! I’d like to see that.

            1. 10.1.1.1.1.1

              It is NOT that I don’t know what “apply” means.

              Not at all.

              I want to know what YOU mean by it in you sentence.

              How come YOU are having such a difficult time with that?

            2. 10.1.1.1.1.2

              But mabye Dennis will show up to defend you!

              LOL – wow, are your feelings still THAT hurt for when your CRPfest was flushed down the drain…?

              Buy that puppy for yourself, man.

              1. 10.1.1.1.1.2.1

                My feelings weren’t hurt at all, “anon.” Dennis and I dont agree on everything and one of the things we don’t agree on is keeping intelletually dishonest axxxh0les like you around just because once every six months you say something that makes a tiny bit of sense if you squint your eyes really hard.

                And my feelings wouldn’t be hurt at all if Dennis showed up to defend you either.

                I have to say I’d be a tad surprised if Dennis believed that the First Amendment didn’t apply to the patent system but, hey, anything is possible. And who doesn’t love a big surprise?

                Go ahead, Dennis. Surprise me.

  12. 8

    Other s00per d00per winner arguments by Gene’s Kids:

    “The First Amendment argument is bad because I can’t remember anyone making it before!”

    That deep “argument” was left untouched by the s00per serious people who chose instead to attack the banal proposition that “longer claims are not always harder to enforce.” (when in doubt, always create a sideshow)

    And here comes “anon” to defend the awesomeness of it all. Good boy!

    LOL

    1. 8.1

      Less of any type of “defend the awesomeness of it all” but just a note that I had asked you fro some corroboration – which you simply could not provide.

      Maybe – just maybe – there is some fire in that smoke, occurring independently in two places (and so nice of you to mention it, too).

      Let me guess – you still have not found any corroboration, even as you had boasted as to how widespread that was….?

      Yep, thought so.

      1. 8.1.1

        I had asked you fro some corroboration

        “What’s the frequency, Kenneth?! What’s the frequency, Kenneth?!”

        Keep the laughs coming, “anon.” You’re a s00per serious person!

        And you’re totally not defending the bal0ney “argument” referred to you in my comment. Nope. Not you. And you’re not creating a sideshow and trying to avoid the issue. Nope. Not you. You’re all about “the corroboration.” Because you’re a True Attorney. Sure you are.

        And every True Attorney knows that the First Amendment doesn’t apply to the patent system. Because nobody handed you “corroboration” on a silver plate.

        Super serious stuff! We all forgot about the “corroboration” exception to the First Amendment I guess.

        Someone punish that rogue Judge Mayer!

        LOL

        1. 8.1.1.1

          Egads – digging deep for the Kenneth remark…?

          Wow you are desperate.

          Maybe next time, you don’t boast so much, eh?

  13. 7

    The hysterical reaction of the s0ftie w0fties to the First Amendment reminds me exactly of the way they reacted to the simple hypotheticals that illustrated the problems with Mayo’s claims.

    They just run away, spewing insults and accusing everyone who disagrees with them of being some kind of “h@ter” who couldn’t possibly be an attorney.

    But they’re very serious people! We all have to pay attention to them, just like we have pay attention to ign0ramus racists stuck on “brown people are animals!” after the entire world has moved on. After all, these brilliant people understand “innovation” and nobody else does! They’re super important and they’ll take their football away if their precious entitlements are threatened. They told us so!

    Seriously, you guys are a j0ke and stain upon the profession. Grow up already.

    1. 7.1

      They just run away, spewing insults and accusing everyone who disagrees with them of being some kind of “h@ter” who couldn’t possibly be an attorney.

      Sounds an awfully lot like you, Malcolm.

      Is that why you have an 0bsess10n over Gene?

      1. 7.1.1

        Sounds an awfully lot like you

        LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

        I’ve answered more questions from the likes of you and Gene’s Kids and provided more clear and defensible explanations of my positions than any commenter here. Everybody knows that.

        Nice try, though. Got anything else?

        1. 7.1.1.1

          What you call “answered” or “addressed” is not the same as any type of actual inte11ectually honest answer or addressing.

          Your “count” does not count. The ad nuseum ad infinitum short script is a bug, not a feature.

          And everybody knows THAT.

          1. 7.1.1.1.1

            Does the First Amendment apply to the patent system, “anon”?

            Yes or no.

            Simple question. Kinda odd that you insist on running away from it.

            1. 7.1.1.1.1.1

              I have already asked you to clarify “apply”…..

              Where is my answer so that I can give you yours…?

              1. 7.1.1.1.1.1.1

                I have already asked you to clarify “apply”…..

                Because it’s really a hard question to answer. After all, “apply” could mean so many things. It would be irresponsible to just state the definition you’re using and provide the answer.

                Yes, folks, he’s a very serious person! Totally not evasive. The parag0in of intellectual h0nesty! We all have to pay attention to him.

                1. Still waiting for you, Malcolm.

                  And yes, “apply” COULD mean any number of things – so yes, your question is not as simple as you are pretending – if it were so simple, then you would have already said what you mean by a”apply” instead of dodging that question (yet again).

                  How about it, eh?

                2. By the way, I’m loving this gaming from you. It’s the absolute worst thing that you could be doing. You are just s c r e w in g yourself. If it was easy, any sane person would have done it by now. If it is not as simple as you pretend, my case is made. By playing this odd game you show BOTH the lack of sanity and give me my point.

                  But I really think that you just cannot help yourself. Truly.

                3. if it were so simple, then you would have already said what you mean by a”apply”

                  LOL

                  Stay away from drugs, kids, or you’ll end making arguments like Billy here.

                  Good grief.

                4. The “Folks” can believe it – it’s right here in black and white. You being afraid to actually clarify what you mean.

                  Maybe Quinn was right and you are not an attorney. You seem lost at what you claim to be the simplest of things.

                5. Maybe Quinn was right and you are not an attorney.

                  Except Quinn isn’t right and his “you can’t be an attorney” shtick is just his habitual and p a the tic response to anyone who disagrees with him about the awesomeness of logic patents, or who calls him out on his inane b.s. and strawman beating.

                  You to do make an awesomely cute couple, after all.

  14. 6

    Gene Quinn: It Is Time For Judge Mayer To Step Down From The Federal Circuit

    I’d love to hear Anthony McCain’s take on this, since he found it noteworthy.

    Should Judge Mayer step down, Anthony? Should he be punished?

    And does the First Amendment apply to the patent laws?

    Put on your raincoat, read that comment thread, weigh the argument, and share your opinion with everyone.

      1. 6.1.1

        If he is going to wade through your CRPfest, it is not a raincoat that he will need

        Does the First Amendment apply to the patent system, “anon”?

        Simple question. Yes or no.

        1. 6.1.1.2

          btw, your “apply to” makes it far less of a “simple question” than you indicate.

          What exactly do you mean by “apply to”…?

          1. 6.1.1.2.1

            What exactly do you mean by “apply to”…?

            Try to believe it, folks.

            But he’s a very serious person! Totally not an evasive dissembling cl0wn who can do little except recite the vapid scripts handed down from his bloviating mentor.

            1. 6.1.1.2.1.1

              ???

              No evasion at all – Are you having difficulty figuring out what you mean by “apply”….?

              1. 6.1.1.2.1.1.1

                What do you mean by “having”?

                LOL

                Fun game, Mr. Bl0g tr0ll. And you’re totally not an evasive hyp0crite! Nope. Not you.

                1. I mean by “having” that it is you that the apparent difficulty is manifesting itself in.

                  Your turn – maybe you want to be a little more forthcoming, eh? Sort of like your empty boast that you could not locate a single independent corroboration, you have no idea what you are talking about here, do you?

                2. I mean by “having” that it is you that the apparent difficulty is manifesting itself in.

                  What do you mean by “in”? “apparent”? What do you mean by “manifesting”?

                  This is a fun game.

                  By the way, are you ready to tell everyone whether you believe that the First Amendment applies to the patent system? It’s a pretty simple yes or no question.

                  You behave as if you know a lot about the First. Kinda weird that answering this question is so difficult for you.

                3. I have answered you twice already, and you have yet to answer me in the first instance.

                  It’s your turn “Billy-Bob”

  15. 5

    Gene Quinn: It Is Time For Judge Mayer To Step Down From The Federal Circuit

    Be sure to copy these comments for posterity. If anyone else out there ever doubted the intimate “intellectual” relationship between our resident tr0ll and his mentor, look no further. Gene spins and spins and then falls flat on his face, soiling himself, and cursing the world. Everybody who thinks software shouldn’t be eligible for patenting is an ign0rant non-attorney! Sure, Gene. Maybe down the road he’ll excuse himself because of a drinking problem. He had a chance to do that in the thread at the link but, sadly, he declined.

    Is the highlight the part where he tars every software coder who disagrees with software patenting as a lazy copyist? Or is it the part where he asserts as an absolute truth (without irony) that “longer claims are harder to enforce”?

    The guy’s been a j0ke for a long time, obviously, but until I read that comment thread I didn’t realize how stale and disgusting the j0ke had become.

    But he’s your leader, software patent luvvers! Keep that echo chamber hummin’ with your “A-game” arguments.

    LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

    1. 5.1

      Forgot to mention the other priceless bit: the First Amendment doesnt apply to patents because “it’s not listed as a defense in the statute.”

      That was offered by “Curious” and unrebutted by his mentor, the noted “expert” and totally serious (LOL) patent attorney Gene “You Can’t Be A Patent Attorney Because You Disagree With Me, Wah!” Quinn.

      Get rid of the junky information and logic patents, and most of these ignoramus “patent attorneys” are going to be chasing ambulances or staking out funeral homes, which is exactly where they belong.

      1. 5.1.1

        You really know how to take things out of context, eh?

        It was not the “disagree with Gene” that got you the label as a non-attorney.

        But hey, at least this time you ventured outside your usual litter box – so that’s a step up for you.

        1. 5.1.1.1

          Oh, here comes Gene’s li’l p00dle, right on cue.

          Yap, yap, yap! Yap, yap, yap!

          Everyone can read the thread, “anon.” Just keep shining his shoes. If your tongue gets dry, there’s always that npuddle in the gutter where you usually refwesh yourself.

          Oh, but hey: we didn’t give you a chance to make a positive statement other than “leave Gene alooooooooooone”!

          Are you here to tell everyone that the First Amendment doesn’t apply to the patent laws? Go ahead. Say it.

          1. 5.1.1.1.1

            My post accurately reflected the fact that your description here falsely made an attribution to Gene.

            But instead of correcting yourself, you doubled down with the baseless ad hominem.

            Yay ecosystem – Prof. Crouch and your mommy must be so proud of you.

            1. 5.1.1.1.1.1

              Does the First Amendment apply to the patent system, “anon”?

              Tell everyone. Yes or no.

                1. You still didn’t answer the question, “anon.”

                  This is the like the twentieth time it’s been asked.

                  It’s a pretty straightforward question.

                2. See above- the ball is in your court.

                  What’s taking you so long?

                  Man. this is like getting you to find a simple corroboration to one of your boasts….

    2. 5.2

      The Big Q, at his best: As for your insisting that the First Amendment applies to innovations, you are wrong. If you were a patent attorney you’d know that. The First Amendment protects expression. Patents do not protect expression, period. End of inquiry.

      Deep, deep stuff! Yes, he’s a True Attorney. You can smell the awesomeness.

      Please be careful not to choke on that delicious steak, Gene! Take your time. Don’t forget that next year there will be another Kiss Our Own B0ttom Feeding A$$es Convention where you and your fellow “innovators” can celebrate yourselves all over again.

      1. 5.2.1

        Instead of “smell,” maybe you can say something “legal like” and on point…?

        (Chances are not, but hey, it’s Friday, so give it a shot)

          1. 5.2.1.1.1

            What makes you think I agreed? My post used direct and simple English. Which big word tripped you up?

              1. 5.2.1.1.1.1.1

                Serious question: how much bullcr@p would Gene have to cover himself in to make it impossible for “anon” to like him clean?

                I’m pretty sure the answer is “an infinite amount” and the linked comment thread is rock solid proof of that. It’s also archived and I’m not going to stop quoting from it. Well, I guess I’ll stop quoting from it if Gene apologizes to everybody and admits that he wasn’t really himself.

                But that’s never going to happen.

              2. 5.2.1.1.1.1.2

                Not sure why you are laughing – did my post make you feel insecure, scared, and you are compensating? It was a direct and simple enough post – Why are you running away from it?

                1. Why are you running away from it?

                  I’m right here, “anon”, and your evasive behavior is on display for everyone to see.

                  Nice try, though. Next time ask me why I’m putting a gun in my mouth and pulling the trigger. That’ll show everybody!

                  Or just accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being a liar and “not an atttorney.” You know, like your mentor Gene and his little crew of sycophants.

                2. You are “right here” but again – empty handed.

                  That “running away” is figurative – like I told you last time.

                  You having trouble with these simple and direct English words there, Malcolm?

        1. 5.2.1.2

          maybe you can say something “legal like” and on point…?

          I already did that on two separate threads and your response was to dissemble and hurl insults.

          Exactly like you’re hero and mentor.

          Except here you can’t threaten to ban me for putting your feet to the fire, like your super serious hero does to everyone who disagrees with him.

          You’re a j0ke, “anon.” And so is Gene.

          That’s why you guys keep losing. And it’s only going to get worse for you.

          [shrugs]

          1. 5.2.1.2.1

            Except here you can’t threaten to ban me for putting your feet to the fire,

            LOL – that’s a doozy of a
            A
            O
            O
            T
            W
            M
            D

            As here, I am the one constantly putting your feet to the fire – and you are the one constantly running away.

            But that’s just your usual dissembling, now isn’t it, pumpkin?

            1. 5.2.1.2.1.1

              I am the one constantly putting your feet to the fire –

              Those aren’t my feet and that’s not fire.

              But when you’re doing playing with your dog’s shxt, please go wash your hands. Thanks.

              1. 5.2.1.2.1.1.1

                They sure the hack are.

                Or have you forgotten about [Old Box], the exceptions to the judicial doctrine of printed matter, the meaning of the word “effectively” or any of a dozen or more items that you habitually run away from?

  16. 4

    The second oral arguments re 101 in the wake of McRo took place yesterday (I wrote about the first arguments here: link to patentlyo.com).

    GT Nexus, Inc. v. INTTRA, Inc.
    Judges: Newman, Lourie, & Dyk

    McRo was not discussed by the panel at all.

    link to courtlistener.com

    The “highlight” of the arguments, I suppose, was that Judge Newman again revealed the habitual willful ignorance engaged in by certain judges on the CAFC. She asserts with absolutely no basis (because there can be no basis) that 15 years ago “technology did not exist” to combine basic, generically stated and functionally claimed logical steps and computers. That wasn’t the case 15 years ago, and it wasn’t the case 50 years ago.

    There is a gigantic legal gulf between between “technical problems” and “commercially feasibility”. The fact that, at the time of the patent filing, “nobody” had built a computer that could, e.g., handle a million requests per minute from different computers, doesn’t mean that computers couldn’t communicate with one another. The lack of a commercially popular computerized platform to use for shipping stuff was not a “technical problem” that logicians were incapable of addressing. It was an investor vision problem. The solution to this latter problem is not to grant a million functional junky logic claims on, e.g., “translate this data with a translator, in this context, on a computer.”

    The patentee managed to liken his claims to Enfish, McRo and BASCOM in the space of thirty seconds. Nobody could have predicted that! The response from the panel was pretty much all crickets, except for Newman’s desperate coddling.

    Here’s the claim:

    1. A system for creating

    booking requests pertaining to information relating to the transport of a container, said information including at least one of a carrier name, departure date, departure time, departure location, arrival date, arrival time, arrival location, origin, and destination, [<– content descriptive junk]

    the system comprising:

    a plurality of entities registered [LOL] with the system, each entity having a computer storage, each of the entities configured to communicate with users over a first communication pathway

    to establish a shipping rate pertaining to the shipment of containers using a given entity and generate a contract reference [<–more content descriptive junk]; and

    a server at a second entity that is configured to

    [take a deep breath before inhaling this toxic g@rbage]

    receive information from said computer storage of said plurality of entities over a second communication pathway and provide a computer user interface for display on a user's computer over a third communication pathway, the computer user interface including a field configured to receive the contract reference, said server configured to receive from a user over the third communication pathway an electronic booking request including the information relating to the transport of a container, said server including a storage configured to store templates of electronic booking requests and provide one of said templates based on a search of templates performed by said user, said electronic booking request received over the third communication pathway having been created from one of said stored templates,

    said server further configured to transmit said electronic booking request including the contract reference to at least a first entity of said plurality of entities over the second communication pathway, wherein the contract reference pertains to the established shipping rate between at least the first entity and the user.

    Does anybody see in this claim the “technical solution” to this sooper dooper “technical” problem of translating data from different computers? Me neither. I see the term “configured to do this thing” over and over and over but I don’t see the structure of this magical “configuration”. Guess what’s in the spec? “Rectangle 105 translates stuff”.

    Maybe the super secret sauce to eligibility is “shipping.” Because that changes everything. Shipping data is totally different from other types of data that needs to be “translated”.

    Great job by the defendant’s attorney here, by the way. He made a couple of pointless admissions but he did a great job responding to Newman’s “born yesterday” shpeel.

    This might end up as an actual opinion with a worthless Newman dissent (unless she decides it’s not worth it). But INTRTA’s patents will remain tanked.

    1. 4.1

      I haven’t bothered actually reading your comment; but just by the outline of it, it looks to be a simple cut-n-paste of your comment from yesterday.

  17. 3

    Re Apple v. Samsung, the majority’s eminently reversible decision couldn’t have been written by a better born-yesterday jurist than Judge “My Kids Love This Technology!” Moore.

    1. 3.1

      Just curious, ( ;-) ) but what exactly makes this “eminently reversible”…?

      (and please, things are not “eminently reversible” based on feelings, so maybe a little actual legal though in your answer would be swell)

      1. 3.1.1

        what exactly makes this “eminently reversible”…?

        The dissents do a good job of explaining that, I think.

  18. 2

    “Jennifer Martinez: Obama Signs, Touts Patent Reform Law”?? Throwback Thursday was yesterday.

Comments are closed.