Patentlyo Bits and Bytes by Anthony McCain

Get a Job doing Patent Law                  

Anthony McCain

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.

229 thoughts on “Patentlyo Bits and Bytes by Anthony McCain

  1. Pence said, “We’re going to have a president again who will never say what we’ll never do.”

    Yay! The President can crush innocent children’s tes ticles again! So awesome!

    I can only imagine how powerful that makes some really insecure people feel.

    1. The irony of Malcolm’s post (with his own select choice of imagery) is most assuredly lost on Malcolm, who remains the Trump of this blog (except winning any competition save perhaps “arse of the year” and the like).

          1. You are doing that under-objecting to maniacs and fascists thing again.

            Speaking of which:

            [Leading alt-right ideologue Richard Spencer] railed against Jews and, with a smile, quoted N a z i propaganda in the original German. America, he said, belonged to white people, whom he called the “children of the sun,” a race of conquerors and creators who had been marginalized but now, in the era of President-elect Donald J. Trump, were “awakening to their own identity.”

            As he finished, several audience members had their arms outstretched in a N a z i salute. When Mr. Spencer, or perhaps another person standing near him at the front of the room — it was not clear who — shouted, “Heil the people! Heil victory,” the room shouted it back.

            And the major platform for white supremacists? It’s run by Trump’s chief strategist.

            But … more jobs! And stronger patents! Yay!

              1. Remember last week when 6 got himself all lathered up thinking about the origin of the word “feminism”?

                I do.

                So … who popularized the term “alt-right”? Answer: Richard Spencer. The N a z i.

                Nobody could have predicted that.

                1. “So … who popularized the term “alt-right”? Answer: Richard Spencer. The N a z i.”

                  Ok? Who cares? I can tell you’re all worked up about the alt-right MM, at your media’s behest no doubt, but I personally don’t really care about them. There’s like 10k of them in the whole world, tops. More like 1k is more realistic. That’s probably less than the other fringe “nazi” groups, neonazis etc. They’re like the nicer softer lite version of a supremacist group. We just want white people safe spaces” < actual paraphrase of the alt-right. Just because Breitbart was the first one to give them literally any mainstream recognition (after they already existed for like a decade+ without anyone even noticing them) doesn't mean much, they're an actual news organization that collects you know, "news" about stuff happening. I note also that NPR looks like it's hot on Breitbart's tail of covering them.

                  Tell you what MM, if you will join me in taking down the millions of feminazis then when we are done I will join you in squelching the few rooms full as hats at alt right conferences. Sound like a deal? Or did the "really smert womens" you've known (been gynocentrically brainwashed by) since you were 9 foreclose that opportunity for you?

                  Also, here's a little something up your alley I saw the other day, it's about what is apparently the biggest bubble in the world atm. You like big bubbles in economics. (be sure to shout RAYCIST during the vid)

                  link to

                2. Here’s a nice vid for you M of the big heart M. Here’s what happens when you have an open borders policy that’s super nice to “immigrants”. These are african migrants in the video, they are doing as a lot of migrants do around coast guard ships sinking their own boat to get a ferry service to the EU mainland. Except, opps, this isn’t a coastguard boat, it’s just a Arabic fishing boat that isn’t going to help them (probably can’t even if they wanted to). So they all drown.

                  link to

            1. Let me know the intersection with patent law, Malcolm.

              There are plenty of other sites for what seems to possess you. May I suggest that you spend your time there. Everyone would be better off.

  2. I had to read a zillion comments on this blog about Obama being responsible for “anti patent” judges and corrupt PTO directors who were bought and paid for by giant corporations.

    Now the rightwing money grubbers have elected a misogynist white supremacist fraud who whines and moans about “political correctness” out of one side of his moutth while tweeting that we shouldn’t boo his soci 0path vice president. And the guy this fraud nominated as an attorney general is a racist slimeb@g.

    And apparently we aren’t allowed to talk about this. Really? LOL

    Place your bets, folks.

    1. Both can be true. Maybe you need to grow and understand that everything you just wrote about Obama can be true and everything you just wrote about Trump can be true. Or do they not allow you to have mature opinions at your paid blogging job?

      Pretty sad state of affairs. We have become Rome in the falling years. The realty is that Obama was a terrible president. The intellectual left sure thinks so. I don’t know of any intellectual that has anything good to say about Trump other than he knows how to play the new reality game of win the presidency.

      1. NWPA I don’t know of any intellectual that has anything good to say about Trump other than he knows how to play the new reality game of win the presidency.

        But I know at least one m0 uthbreather commenting here who was super excited about Trump’s judicial nominees.

        Any memories of that, NWPA?

          1. Everybody following along?

            NWPA: I don’t know of any intellectual that has anything good to say about Trump

            NWPA: The justices we are likely to get from Trump are likely going to be better

            Of course, we already that NPWA wasn’t an intellectual. Most underperforming kindergartners aren’t.

            1. Empty ad hominem with zero connection to patents, patent law, or anything even remotely related to either.

              Prof. Crouch, maybe a better muzzle is in order.

    2. But may MM you will rethink your defense of the likes of Lemley and the anti-patent judicial activists. I have been saying for years now that this is not going to turn out well if people like Lemley are allowed to write papers with bad cites and that intentionally misrepresent facts and the law.

      It is a race to the bottom with the means and at this point the ends seem to be all hidden agendas.

      Want the country back? Condemn the SCOTUS for Alice (which is clearly unconstitutional). Condemn the anti-patent judicial activist not for their ends, but their means.

      Lemley and the like created Trump. I have been saying for years that this was going to happen unless the means were policed.

      1. “It is a race to the bottom with the means and at this point the ends seem to be all hidden agendas.”

        I wouldn’t say it’s all that hidden brasef. The corporate “progressive” agenda has been well and truly seen and “exposed” over the last few years.

    3. Malcolm,

      You STILL are not getting that this is a patent blog.

      You disdain comments about politics which have patent connections, and rail ad nauseum on things politic with no patent connections.

      Talk about your false equivalencies….

      1. At the very end where the alt right dude in a white tee is trying to look cool and is talking about using pepe (a meme) and “meme magic” aka the spreading/changing/etc of symbols (here pepe) to promote (and accomplish) the changing of a society by literally changing the thoughts in people’s heads. If they do a new meme (symbols, images etc) to intentionally change people’s thoughts and mold society intentionally should it be patent eligible?

        1. As I understand your explanation, you have not left the “TOTALLY in the mind” realm and thus you have not worked yourself into the type of utility (the Useful Arts) that you need for patent eligibility.

          Perhaps though if you have invented “molding tools” you may have something (much like playing a violin is not eligible, but the process of making, or the innovation of a new instrument would both be eligible).

          Does that answer your question?

          1. ““TOTALLY in the mind” realm ”

            “Pepe” is a cartoon frog, with thousands or millions of pics drawn of him, statues made of him, etc. But memes come in many physical forms. And, let’s just presume that it becomes “common knowledge” to “one skilled in the meme art” that indeed x y or z meme did in fact shape the culture or society a b or c way and nobody doubts this as a factual matter. Are shaping culture/society not a “utility” under the patent lawls?

            “Does that answer your question?”

            Not really.

            Observe one of many thousands or millions of pepe’s embodiments (he’s the green one next to trump):


              1. The links are a digital picture of pepe and a statute of pepe (or a frog that looks like pepe which kids are attributing to being pepe).

                It’s just two links, just click them, takes like 5 sec.

  3. Question for the Republican patent maximalists:

    Should the black people you want to keep from voting be allowed to apply for patents without first presenting a voter ID to the PTO? There are arguments on both sides. So let’s discuss them! Because you’re s00per serious people and we don’t have to worry about “political correctness” anymore. Right?

    Also, what do you Republican patent maximalists propose that we do with women examiners at the PTO who are “crazy” because they are menstruating or they are on birth control? Should we require that they put their cycle information in their Office Actions? It seems there are arguments on both sides so let’s have a sooper serious discussion about it.

    Yes, my rich patent attorney Republican peers: this is the awesome “change” you voted for when you elected a white supremacist misogynist maniac. Enjoy the tax break!

    1. What does voting have to do with applying for patents…

      a) given the number of foreign filers, and

      b) the excessively thin veneer being used to (yet again) whine about things politic?

      Isn’t enough enough Prof. Crouch?

      1. What does voting have to do with applying for patents…

        It’s about fraud and the people most likely to engage in fraud. Republicans have identified those people with surgical precision (<-exact words used by Federal judge) and they are (surprise!) poor minorities. You missed that somehow?

        This is about protecting the PTO from fraudsters — as identified by the Republican party.

        What's the matter, "anon"? Don't you care about fraud on the patent office? Have you no respect for our institutions?

        I don't see why you don't want to have this discussion. Is it somehow not "politically correct" to dicuss this, "anon"? If black people are rigging elections and committing voter fraud, it seems reasonable to conclude they would also seek to defraud the PTO. Why don't you want to talk about this? It was important enough for Republicans to pass legislation all across the country. But we can't talk about black people and their fraudulent ways here? Really?

        Seems kind of hypocritical, "anon." What's your position on black people and their s00per fraudy ways anyway? Step up and proclaim your beliefs. Nothing's stopping you.

        1. I absolutely did miss it Malcolm as I look here for discussions of patent law instead of focusing (as you do obviously) on non patent law politics.

          Fraud on the patent office is one thing – your continued political rants under thin veneer are quite another.

          Hence the call to Prof. Crouch.

          You really have gotten out of hand with your whining (no matter how anyone feels about race issues).

    2. MM, unfortunately, I think your views are reflective of where the Democratic Party is today. Otherwise we could dismiss your deranged rants out of hand.

    3. Question for you anti-patent judicial activists.

      The inventors that you want to take their inventions from, is it because you want them to be poor so you can bugger them?

  4. Because patent law is an aspect of the law:

    [Jeff Sessions, t]he man who President-elect Donald Trump will nominate as the 84th attorney general of the United States was once rejected as a federal judge over allegations he called a black attorney “boy,” suggested a white lawyer working for black clients was a race traitor, joked that the only issue he had with the Ku Klux Klan was their drug use, and referred to civil rights groups as “un-American” organizations trying to “force civil rights down the throats of people who were trying to put problems behind them.”

    Sessions has been normalized by his two decades of service in the Senate (such an outsider!), but his views are more than a little bit outside the mainstream. Just in the last several years, he opposed the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, efforts to remove the Confederate battle flag from display on state property, and the repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law.

    Sessions defended Trump on his “grab them by the p-ssy” comments in a way that speaks directly to his qualifications as attorney general: “I don’t characterize that as sexual assault,” Sessions told The Weekly Standard in the spin room after Sunday night’s presidential debate.

    If you voted for the mis0gynist white supermacist maniac, then you own all of this. Because it was all perfectly predictable. But enjoy stuffing that money into your pockets, all you s00per serious s0ftware patent loving patent attorneys! And it’s so “uncivilized” to keep pointing this stuff out to people. After all, you make the world go around. You told us so!

    1. Oh, and lest anyone doubts the intimate relationship between the patent maximalists and the “policies” of the mis0gynist white supremacist maniac who’s leading the Republican party, just walk over to Quinn’s blog and read the comments.

        1. Tell everyone what you believe, “anon.”

          And try to do it honestly. Nobody believes you supported Bernie Sanders for 1 second so you don’t have to waste your time with that silliness.

          Pretty much everything you say and do here is entirely consistent with you supporting the white supremacist elect and his policies, except to the extent that he isn’t going far enough for you. You act just like the guy, with your path0logical l y ing and false equivalence bal 0ney, all in behalf of the effort to line your own pocket.

          Do you want to whine about “political correctness” some more, “anon”? Because gosh knows you’re a s00per persecuted guy. I remember when you spent two solid years in these comment threads accusing me of being a racist. Remember that, “anon”? Good times.

          1. Your wanting to speak for anyone else is a preposterous way to start your whining rant Malcolm.

            Especially as you are the cite’s least honest person EVER.

          2. Further, what I “accused you” of was nothing more than the factual matter that only two people ever used the “N” word, that being 6 and you. I then (as you conveniently forget) modified that to 6 being the one to use the “N” word and you being the one that defended 6’s use (as it turned out that those of us more vocal in being pro-patent were the ones aghast at 6’s use on these boards – and your defense was likely just a knee-JE RK reaction against those not having the same feelings as you).

            But such facts only get in the way of your rants (as usual).

            So yes, I remember that situation quite well, thank you.

    2. So let’s see, back in the day Sessions made racially insensitive remarks (like Clinton and her hordes did as well), talked not entirely hostilely to the Klan (like Clinton and her hordes did as well), referred to the use of gubmit power/arms to implement civil rights laws as literally what they were/are, attempts to force the implementation of civil rights on those that don’t want them (because those that did want them didn’t need the law to force them to do anything), noting at the time that as of that time such nonsense was certainly fundamentally un Merican (a fact about the culture of the time). And he has since gone nigh the mainstream flow of tots not being RAYCIST. But he’s still a RAYCIST while Hillary and her hordes are now totally NOT RAYCIST (they’re tots reformed). This being because they wear a liberal pin on their lapel that makes an “I’M NOT A RAYCIST” field.

      “. Just in the last several years, he opposed the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, efforts to remove the Confederate battle flag from display on state property, and the repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law”

      Further he opposed [insert se xist act here] so he’s totally a MISOGYNISM, and efforts on behalf of the federal gov to tell state govs what they can put on their property (again SO RAYCIST), and he opposed the repeal of the “if you’re gay just don’t tell us and we won’t ask and nobody will care” law for the military which makes him TOTS AF EARED OF HOM OS (So he’s a HOM OP HOBICISM).

      Further, he is an actual lawlyer who does not characterize grabbing women that allow you to grab them by their ho ha as s ex ual assault (which again makes him a total SEXIT IME ISMIST and MYSOGYN ISM IST).

      And, if we voted for Trump we have to “own” all of this guy’s past deeds.

      We’re loling at you MM. And we lol at your ID politics. But do keep “reminding” us how how funny you are while the rest of us concentrate on MAGAing.

  5. I still think the patent maximalists around here are thinking too small when it comes to Trump’s pick for PTO Director.

    Why not Peter Corcoran, or Erich Spengenberg, or Jay Mack Rust, or Nathan Myrvhold? I mean, just go for it. What could go wrong? The worst that happens is that in four years the system is fubar’d so completely beyond recognition that Congress pulls the plug and does a complete reb00t.

    But in the meantime, think of all the cash that the patent attorneys and the b0ttom feeders can make! It’ll make the previous ten years look like peanxts! And when Congress rewrites the statutes, the remaining guys I listed above who weren’t named Director can help write the statutes.

    It’s just power and money, after all. None of this affects ordinary people who have to buy stuff, or people who would like to program their own programmable computers to process information using rules and logic in some particular context (like running a business). And who really cares about those people anyway? If they’re not on board, then they’re just lazy copyists who don’t understand techn0logy. Or they’re Amish.

    Special note to Ned Heller: has Trump appointed enough cronies and professional DC vermin for you yet? Sk-mbag big0t Jeff Sessions for AG? Michael “Muslims are Scary!” Flynn for National Security Adviser? When’s the tipping point, Ned?

    1. You do realize that some of us have been pointing out the problems with the system already – quite apart from your “everyone in the same bucket” rants…

  6. While he is overqualified for the job, I recommend Adam Mossoff as the next PTO Director. He supported the petitions of Cooper and MCM with briefs arguing that patents were property and not public rights. This is the kind of guy I want in the government advising on patent policy.

    link to

      1. What does he think of 101? If it is like Ned, then no way. Ned still talks about witches and other abstractions in his head rather than patent law.

        Note that MM’s brains are evi1 and mine are good.

        1. Well, Night, I had no idea that I and the Supreme Court of the United States are practicers of witchcraft for following the law. I wonder what it would be like if witches were not so law abiding?

          But, go and find out what Mossoff’s position is?

          1. It is NOT “following the law” that make you a practitioner of the dark arts.

            Clearly Ned, what is being referred to is the LACK of respect for the separation of powers and the broken score board that the judicial branch has rendered to the statutory law that was written expressly by Congress.

          2. Ned, you recommended him. So, you should know his position on 101. I seem to remember that his views are not metaphysical as yours are.

            And, Ned, just because you are a lot scary looking than me doesn’t mean you can order me about. We are a blog of laws.

    1. He supported the petitions of Cooper and MCM with briefs arguing that patents were property and not public rights

      Is that what those poor persecuted unemployed white rust belt Republicans want? More money and power to lawyers and other wealthy elites?

      Fascinating to watch this play out. And so unpredictable!

      1. MM, you might want to consider that it is you who side with the rich, wealthy and largely white elites, sneering, as you do, at common folk who shop at Walmart because they are out of a j0b or live hand to mouth.

        The individual inventor, the startup, the university cannot afford a patent examination/grant system that today costs upwards on $million just to get a patent into a “bullet-proof” condition to be enforced in a court of law. The system you advocate is a system where only the very wealthy can play. You sneer at those who are trying to protect their inventions and stand up to such enormous power by calling these small fry rich, white and probably racist. This is grotesque.

        MM, you have no idea how this mantra of yours sounds to others.

        1. I have pointed out to him that his mantra against software is a mantra against the form of innovation MOST accessible by the non-wealthy.

          All he does is the same thing he has done for a full decade now.

          Happy Decade of Decadence

          1. And your approach for keeping that form of innovation accessible is for wealthy individuals and companies to lock everything away under patents so nobody can do anything in software without coughing up some licensing fees.

            Brilliant. Simply brilliant.

            1. Ah yes, Count Dobu weighs in with nonsense.

              Given that your comment applies to all patents, it is clearly – and merely – an anti-patent anti-reward an innovator statement.

              1. To wit: my view does not limit the form of innovation, and in truth sets to properly reward users of that form.

                You seem to want the results of using the form to go unprotected – as if the property created by innovation should somehow belong to the commune.

                1. And there’s anon, crowing “It’s accessible!” from one side of his mouth, and “Lock it all down!” from the other.

                  The point you’re missing is that locking down something so (otherwise) accessible inhibits progress, in violation of the Constitutional mandate that permits the conditional, limited exclusions.

                2. Except your “logic” is purely anti-patent. Again you seem to want to confuse someone’s particular innovation with the entire class.

        2. Ironically, our patent system already has tons of low quality patents, which can be used to extort businesses that can’t afford to defend themselves (often to the benefit of the rich, white, elite), and you advocate getting rid of the IPR system, only to have a new system that creates even more billable hours for lawyers (mostly rich, white, elites).

                1. An interesting statement, coming as it does from one who is doing the examinations…

                  Or is it “only the other examiners” breaking the law?

                2. Some SPEs tell examiners to allow if independent has >2 refs; some older SPEs/examiners are afraid of KSR rationales besides TSM; some SPEs/examiners have never actually read the case law on what is and isn’t obvious.

                  IMO the primary system is a larger problem.

                  Plus generation incompetence.

                3. So patentcat, you would agree with me that the biggest problem is the examiners (including SPEs) in the current system, then, right?

                4. As for cases that are allowed that shouldn’t have been, probably 33/33/33 lazy primaries/incompetent primaries/incompetent SPEs.

                  Of course, the latter two stem from bad mgmt/lack of good legal and scientific training/background.

            1. No wonder the angst and cognitive dissonance emanating constantly from Malcolm – supposedly, he is in the business of obtaining these things that so clearly he despises.

        3. Ned Heller: sneering, as you do, at common folk who shop at Walmart because they are out of a j0b or live hand to mouth.

          Excuse me? What are you referring to? I volunteer my time and money every week helping homeless people and jobless people and people working for peanuts who can’t even afford the cost of a trip to WalMart. I don’t sneer at them. Those are some of my favorite people on the planet. They’re also white, black, Muslims and Latino and, by and large, they get along with each other and they get along with me.

          The system you advocate is a system where only the very wealthy can play.

          Not at all. If it were up to me, IPR filing fees would be a fraction of what they are. If it were up to me, a fraction of all damages and awarded attorney fees would go to the PTO to subsidize microentity filers. There are all kinds of things that can done to so that the less wealthy can play.

          But the fact is — and absent some massive out-of-the-blue structural changes to our society, to our legal system and the patent system — the patent system is always going to be dominated by the wealthiest people in our society, exactly as it now, and exactly as it always has been.

          calling these small fry rich, white and probably racist.

          The fact is that your “small fry” — the NPE’s who buy patents and pay b0ttom feeding attorneys to file a 100 lawuits in East Texas — are rich and white. I don’t know if they are racist but, hey, if you voted for a racist misogynist maniac to run the country because you think it’ll make junky patents easier to get and enforce, then that’s plenty close enough. Trump could probably wear a Klan hood and these “small fry” would still run to pull the lever for him if he promised to enshrine software patents in the Constitution. And, yes, I’m talking about you Ned because everything you say and do is perfectly consistent with this.

          You voted for this maniac. He’s a racist. He’s a soc i0path. He’s a misogynist. We all know what he has said and we all know what he has done and we can all see the filth that he surrounds himself with. Own it.

          1. Also, lest we forget: Ned Heller also defended the Repukkke tactic of doing everything in its power to prevent the people it was intending to screw the hardest from v0ting.

            Enjoy the money, Ned! White supremacy never felt so good.

            1. MM, yeah sure.

              I did and still do rip the Democratic Party for its systematic use voter fraud. Look at the Governor’s race in North Carolina. And, let us not forget, that the KKK was for a very long time entirely an engine to maintain Democrats in power in the South

              Senator Robert Byrd, KKK leader and Senate Democratic leader until 2010, was heavily praised by Hillary Clinton. (link to Even Bill Clinton defended Byrd’s KKK membership.

              Democratic Senator U.S. Senator J. William Fulbright, who sponsored Bill Clinton and for whom Bill interned, signed the Southern Manifesto and filibustered both the Civil Rights and Voting rights act.

              Now you castigate Sessions who, as US attorney and state attorney general, helped desegregate Alabama schools and who prosecuted the head of the KKK, as a racist?

              This, accusing any and all Republicans as racist, all seems to the casual observer who knows something about history, as an effort to divert attention. It also looks like and exercise in the Big Lie, used for effect by you know who and by Joseph Goebbels.

              This is not to say that Trump did not say a number of things that seemed borderline. But when he did, he lost support of a large number of Republicans and he was forced to back off, and he did.

              1. Ned,

                Maybe it’s about time that you recognize the tactics that Malcolm has habitually engaged in for over a decade now (and NOT just on the one issue that he is showing his “swagger” to you about).

          2. MM, why help the poor to get patents if they can never get the financing to develop their products because they cannot protect their invention against piracy even if they have a patent?

              1. anon, I am not so sure given his post about blacks wanting to file patents.

                Poor people have inventive ideas like everyone else, but literally have no access at all to the patent system without the likes of MM providing pro bono services. If that is what he does, he is to be applauded.

                1. …try to remember his particular art field – it is a field that ONLY the mega-Corps are involved in.

                  Further – as has been amply pointed out – he shares your disdain for the single most accessible form of innovation available to the NON-wealthy.

    2. Ned, he might be OK. I don’t know where he stands on 101, though, and your views are right out of the metaphysical witch hunting Benson.

  7. Hi MM!

    So it is not logic so much as logic applied to information? Is this then a fair statement of your ideas?

    The use of logic to transform information is inherently an abstract idea. If part of your claim is logic transforming information then we must look to the rest of your claim for something more. If your claim is all logic transforming information (McRo) then it does not have anything more and is not 101 eligible.

    Under this rule we would lose patents on one table databases and data compression algorithms since these clearly use logic to process information. I think Diehr also is no longer valid since what is ‘something more’ beyond the (now) abstract idea of transforming temperature using logic (on a computer).

    What we gain is clarity and a bright line rule.

    Sorry about top posting, it’s getting cluttered down there.

      1. Lol / there is no legal basis for what Malcolm wants

        The basis is the statute and the judicial exceptions which prohibit the patenting of information and logic.

        From there, we use reason and common sense to arrive at the legal conclusion, just as we use reason and common sense to conclude that you can’t patent a “new” piece of paper with “new” instructions written on it.

        This entire farce, you’ll recall, rests to a large extent on a decision that authorized the patenting of a game (!) consisting of an old belt with “new” numbers printed on it.

        1. The alternative, of course, is to look at the desired ends (we have to patent software or else we’ll be like the Amish!) and working backwards (including bending over backwards) to create the ‘legal basis’ for patenting logic and information “on a computer” out of thin air.

          And we all know that you’re vehemently opposed to that, “anon” … except when you aren’t.

          1. You do realize that software is not logic, right?

            You do realize that software is not information, right?

            Check the copyright angle (like I keep asking you)

                1. (you appear to not appreciate the fact that you are moving into the philosophical MathS area – please understand the terrain from which you speak – if you are going to go all Tegmark on me, you might confuse others, and yourself)

                2. Try googling “software definition”, Anonileo.

                  Spoiler: “the programs and other operating information used by a computer.” [emphasis added].

                3. LOL. And what “context” would that be? The “context” of “habitually conflating the message with the medium so Anonileo can keep tricking the PTO into patenting abstract functionality”?

                4. As I have indicated to you previously (and quite independent of your offering of “Anonileo,”:

                  applied math

                  Each have different contexts.

        2. You need to once again visit my very easy to understand Set Theory Malcolm.

          It should be easy for you, given that you have volunteered admissions against your interests as to controlling law and the exceptions to the judicial doctrine of written matter.

          (Your attempt here at dissembling notwithstanding)

        3. You mention the game patent, but forget the measuring cup patent.

          Note that neither of these draw from your curse-ade against software per se.

          1. You also dissemble about the printing on the belt, as it was not just mere printing, but rather, the printing had a functional relationship (and that functional relationship was not TOTALLY in the mind).

    1. Under this rule we would lose patents on one table databases and data compression algorithms since these clearly use logic to process information.

      Correct. Logic to process generic data is just as ineligible as logic for processing adjectified data (e.g., “accounting data”, “available real estate data”, “cartoon mouth data”). Data compression patents are a j0ke.

      I think Diehr also is no longer valid since what is ‘something more’ beyond the (now) abstract idea of transforming temperature using logic (on a computer).

      Diehr remains valid for the holding that the mere presence of ineligible subject matter somewhere in a claim does not automatically mean that the claim is ineligible. Note Diehr’s patent claims were always a pile of obvious junk, but the Supreme’s appeared to have believed (or they have now decided that they once believed) that the combination of a thermocoupler, computer circuit, and rubber curing vat was a non-obvious structural combination.

  8. Slashdot Reader:

    First separate the superfine flour from the meal flour.
    Then separate the impurities from the meal flour
    Then process the meal flour into pure white flour.
    Finally add the original superfine flour back in to the pure white flour.

    This looks like logic to me

    That’s a series of process steps wherein physical acts are applied to physical objects with objective meaning. That isn’t logic applied to data, i.e., “if data X matches table Y, then use rule Z to determine what do to with data X”, where X is just a bunch of ones and zeroes with some abstract meaning layered over them.

    Seriously: if you lack the intelligence to see the fundamental distinction between a series of steps for “processing flour” and logic for data processing, then you’re at least forty years behind the discussion of this topic.

    Logic isn’t eligible for patenting. It never was. It got shoved into the system by short-sighted activist judges. And because some entitled rich people got richer as a result of that, we’re all supposed to look the other way while the system melts down into a farce before our eyes.

    1. Why is it we don’t want to encourage improvements in processing information but we do want to encourage improvements in processing grain? Why is it ok for entitled grain mill owners to get richer but not software mill owners?

      Since this milling operation can be carried out with pencil and paper, why do you find it patent eligible?

      1. Why is it we don’t want to encourage improvements in processing information

        This kind of question is what I shall refer to as “idling patent maximalism.” There’s a built in and incorrect assumption in that question.

        News flash: just because a category of endeavor is ineligible for patenting doesn’t mean “we don’t want to encourage improvements” in that category.

        For instance, it can mean that the benefits of granting patents within that category are outweighed by the costs. It can also mean that the patent system isn’t designed or capable of properly examining the subject matter of the patent. This list goes on …

            1. I am more than sure that you do not want to bring up your own failings in a past discussion as some type of “answer” to the immediate question put to you.

              Try something different (like an honest to gosh real answer).

              1. I am more than sure you are a clinical narcissist and a path 0l0gical li ar who has nothing to contribute to this discussion or any other discussion. Please return to playing with the small brown sticks you discovered in your sandbox. And, yes, that’s a “category of endeavor” in case you’re still confused.

                1. You have not actually answered the question put to you Malcolm.

                  Remove the ad hominem and you have said nothing.

                  Try to explain what you mean. Use those short declarative sentences that you are always on about. As a bonus, try to distinguish your “per se” ban in relation to the Useful Arts (that would be a helpful step for you to give more than just your feelings).

          1. Where is it written that work pieces have to be within a statutory category?

            What about a process for processing bananas? Is that non-statutory because bananas are products of nature?

            What about a process for processing rubber tree sap? Rubber tree sap is a product of nature, so a method or processing it is not statutory?

            1. Les,

              You have in the past taken Ned behind the woodshed with his misapplication of eligibility towards workpieces.

              This is nothing more than Ned partaking in the “logic” that my Big Box of Protons, Neutrons and Electrons makes fun of.

              At the most fundamental level, ALL patents make use of or comprise ineligible “work pieces.”

              Eligibility simply is not determined at the “work piece” level.

      2. this milling operation can be carried out with pencil and paper

        I have no idea what you’re referring to but I am 99% certain that you’re acting like you were b0rn yesterday because you are incapable of addressing the issues directly. See, e.g., the Robert K S behavior pattern.

          1. LOL

            Do you know what Les is talking about, PB? If you do, then tell everyone. “Milling flour” with a pencil and paper … ? Relevant to using logic to process data how …?

            It’s not like this is the first time Les made some nonsensical argument. Just like it’s not the first time that you’ve popped up with some whining pi-sy pants complaint when you also don’t know what you’re talking about.

            1. Les was making fun of the “pencil and paper” test for whether something is abstract or not.

              You are (or should be) aware of the difference between machines, machine components, and manufactures and what can be “done with” such items. Les’s point was that the “pencil and paper” can be utilized differently than perhaps expected and the example from Slashdot Reader turned into “using” pencil and paper for a non-abstract result.

              It is a bit silly.

              But in truth, no more silly than trying to pretend that computers are not machines (a statutory category) or that the machine component known as software is not a manufacture (another statutory category).

              Hence Les’s joke is on those so pretending (including you).

              1. trying to pretend that computers are not machines

                Nobody is pretending that computers are not machines.

                Likewise, nobody is pretending that you know what you’re talking about, because you don’t. You’re just creating a sideshow because if you talk about the issues, you l0se.

                This the Robert K S tactic, by the way. It’s transparent.


                1. Quite the opposite, Malcolm. I provided you with exactly what you asked of PatentBob.

                  You are the one now moving the goalposts. And THAT is transparent.

                2. You seemed to have stopped reading and did not finish quoting what I stated.

                  Here, let me help you:

                  or that the machine component known as software is not a manufacture (another statutory category).

                  You are welcome.

                  (I also have a great and easy to understand Set Theory explication of why certain written matter has patent eligible weight while other written matter does not)

        1. You have no idea, really?

          You didn’t see my post at and decide to answer Slashdot’s post at all the way up here at 10.0 so you could pretend not to see it?


          1. Take the paper and poke super fine hold in it with the pencil. use the paper to filter out the super fine flour.

            Try to believe it, folks.

  9. It appears that there is a very strong likelihood of the CAFC convening an en banc reconsideration of Achates in view of the Supreme Court’s <i.Cuozzo decision.

    See Click-to-Call opinion here:

    link to

    on remand after Cuozzo.

    Per curium opinion by O’Malley, Taranto and District Court Judge Stark (holding that the PTAB’s decision to institute IPR was unreviewable). “[W]e are bound by the holdings of Wi-Fi One and Achates as to the scope of § 314(d)”.

  10. A bit off thread but I have for readers a question about AI and consciousness.

    We all know cogito ergo sum. But who knows the fuller version: Dubito, ergo cogito. Cogito ergo sum. For me, it alone gets to the heart of the matter.

    “I doubt, therefore I think. I think, therefore I am.”

    My point is, every conscious human has doubts, but until now no computer ever has.

    Or not?

    Is this by now well-trodden ground? Readers?

    1. “My point is, every conscious human has doubts, but until now no computer ever has.”

      Perhaps you are not familiar with our President Elect.

      As for computers, I think those that implement “fussy logic” could be characterized has having doubts. Also, much cellular communication is based on Viterbi algorithms and related probabilities. Additionally, there are “quantum computers”…. and you know how that can work out for the odd cat….

      1. Heisenberg’s Doubt Principle, you mean Les. Are you saying that doubt = uncertainty, that to be uncertain what the outcome will be is to doubt the outcome? Electrons are fraught with uncertainty but I doubt they are plagued by doubts.

        1. I don’t think electrons are fraught with uncertainty. I think we are uncertain about what electrons are upto, and yes, another way to say that is we have doubts about what an electron will do next.

    2. Well trodden.

      AI specialists have a full lexicon in their quest for true artificial intelligence (including “the singularity”).

      1. I think we need a Trekkie to join us here in this debate. I mean, did the fictional character Mr Spock have doubts. Presumably what Spock, HAL and C3PO have in common is that they are all abstract ideas trying to illuminate the mystery that is consciousness. If you know you have doubts, you know you are conscious. There are no existing computers or alien beings we know of so far, that doubt the veracity of their data processing workings. Whether there ever will be remains, for all of us here, in doubt.

        1. At your service. Spock was a living breathing Vulcan, not a computer. Mr. Data on the other hand, was an android and as I recall, only had doubts when there was something wrong with his positronic matrix.

        2. I can see where doubts might be evidence of consciousness. But, are you saying that if your are conscious, you must have doubts?….’cause as near as I can tell, anon don’t pass that test…..

  11. I read in this thread the attempts of Slashdot Reader to extract from other readers an answer to his question what makes the Cochrane flour milling invention eligible, other exercises in logic ineligible, and McRo poised on the knife edge between eligibility and ineligibility.

    This prompts me to suggest that it is not unknown for jurisdictions facing difficult legal questions to borrow idea from each other, and so it is, for example, in the 38 sovereign States that are members of the European Patent Organisation. They each use the established jurisprudence of the EPO Boards of Appeal whenever it is helpful. England in particular.

    Thus, England rejects a claim as ineligible when it fails to make a contribution to the art which has technical character. Inventions susceptible to patenting are those which employ technical means to solve a technical problem.

    Of course, that begs the question “What is technical?” But that’s no different in difficulty than asking “Is the contribution within the ambit of the useful arts?”

    I see that question as one that has to be faced, by any court that is mindful of the constraint which the US Constitution puts on patenting. But so far, the Justices are making every effort to avert their eyes from the Elephant in the Room.

    Fair enough, I say. Europe (very sensibly) also declines to define such irreducibly fundamental concepts as “invention” and “technical”. We have learned the hard way what perils that brings.

    But just as the courts in England ask themselves the test question: is the contribution technical, so too, I fancy, do judges in the USA. Even while they fit their written decisions into the “is it more than an abstract idea?” rubric imposed on them by the Supreme Court.

    As many here have pointed out, the way forward is to draft cases which demonstrate that the claim recites a combination of technical features which, in combination, solve a technical problem (as opposed to merely stating the problem to be solved).

    Back to McRo. I think also in Europe this is right on the borderline. And hard cases make bad law.

    1. This prompts me to suggest that it is not unknown for jurisdictions facing difficult legal questions to borrow idea from each other

      Your lack of understanding of the difference between statutory law and common law is noted.

      (as is your usual tendency to disregard the differences between sovereigns and attempt to misuse comparative law. again.)

    Panel: Prost, Reyna, Chen

    CAFC unanimously upholds district court finding that claims are ineligible under 101.

    The claims are a scriveners delight, packed with nonsense about “generating plans” and “extracting settings.” The preamble describes a “method in a computer system for preparing configuration settings for transfer from a source computing system to a target computing system” and we can pretty much rest assured that what follows from there is going to be pure unadulterated junk. “Preparing” information prior to transfer! Wowee zowee! Using a plan! Deep, deep stuff. Want to take a guess as to the s00per techn0 “steps” in that plan? How about “identifying configuration settings to be extracted”. Who0h00! Rocket science, folks.

    Here’s the core of the CAFC’s analysis:

    Tranxition argues that the claims containan inventive concept because a manual process would not necessarily capture all the configuration settings in a computer and that there is no record evidence showing that the automated transition process operates in the same way as a manual process. These arguments miss the mark. Though a computer could potentially have dozens, if not hundreds of settings across numerous applications, the claim language only requires one or more configuration settings. It does not provide a maximum number of settings.

    A couple things are remarkable about this passage. First, this problem of junky logic claims that judges like Judge Moore think are “cool” because they allegedly allow for ten zillion logic operations to be carried out in 2 microseconds are pretty much always written so broadly as to cover a single logic operation. The same argument could have made to tank the junk claims in McWrong.

    Second, what in the heck difference would the recitation of a “maximum number of settings” make? Reciting a maximum limit still leaves the lower bound at “one or more.”

    Oh, and in classic fashion, the CAFC marks this decision as “non-precedential.” Just another big sloppy kiss to the logic patenteers. After all, we wouldn’t want to confuse those deep thinkers at the PTO who are hustling to figure out how to ignore Alice and please their favorite “stakeholders.”

    1. Hi MM,

      When I read McRo, my understanding was that the innovation was the use of sequences of phonemes to map to a morph shape. There was no abstract idea to be found, it was in the concrete field of ‘show business – animated movies production technology’

      Instead of always mapping the ‘hoo’ sound to the same round lips, you would have slightly different round lips depending on if the word was ‘woohoo’ or ‘boohoo’ (ie the sequence was different).

      So there is an actual innovation in the field of ‘hoo woo boo’ mapping to mouth shapes. The doing-it-on-a-computer part is somewhat incidental (but required, I believe, by the current state of scrivening. Maybe it was also obvious but that is a different kettle of fish.)

      Tranxition on the other hand has a claim with an abstract idea: A system which transfers settings from one computer to another. For Tranxition there is nothing beyond that in their claim and so they failed.

      1. Here’s the correct analysis:

        The use of logic to decide how to “realistically” draw an object is ancient. The use of logic to decide how to “realistically” draw an animated object at an instant point of time is also ancient. The use of logic to decide how to animate 3D objects is ancient. The use of logic to decide how to animate 3D objects “on a computer” is very old (and obvious). The use of logic to decide how to “realistically” draw a 3D animated object at a given point of time “on a computer” is very old (and obvious).

        The concept that events prior to and after a given moment of time can influence how one chooses to render the appearance of the object at that moment in time is an ancient concept.

        Logic is ineligible for patenting because (in part) logic is a fundamental building block for the acquisition and use of knowledge.

        Claiming the automation of logic “on a computer” that was built for the purpose of performing the task of logic automation does not make the logic eligible for patent protection “on a computer.”

        SD: there is an actual innovation in the field of ‘hoo woo boo’ mapping to mouth shapes

        And eye shapes. And nose shapes. And eyelid shapes. And nose hair shapes. And leaf in the wind shapes. And leaf in the wind in the fog shapes. And nose hairs in the wind shapes. And eyelids in the foggy wind shapes. And eyebrow shapes in the rain. And eyebrow shapes in the wind. And eyebrow shapes while singing in the rain. And nose hair shapes while crying in the rain. So much innovation! And it’s all ineligible cr@p.

        This is a farce. It’s a metaphysical j0ke and it’s being peddled by people who don’t even know what metaphysics is. It’s being peddled by people who run around screeching that software isn’t logic, and software isn’t instructions. Those people are absurd, and so is the patenting of “rules” for computers to follow, in any context.

        1. Just to clarify, your argument is ‘Logic is not patentable’.

          In Cochrane vs Deener ***, the specification describes the following process :

          First separate the superfine flour from the meal flour.
          Then separate the impurities from the meal flour
          Then process the meal flour into pure white flour.
          Finally add the original superfine flour back in to the pure white flour.

          This looks like logic to me, steps applied in order to things.
          I compare it to McRo:

          First arrange the phonemes into sequences.
          Then calculate the morph weights based on the sequences.

          This also looks like logic to me, steps applied in order to things.

          Can you expand on the difference between these two? What makes one set of steps logic and the other set of steps not logic? Because to me of these look like statements of logic about things in the real world.

          *** Here is the quote from Cochrane v. Deener 94 U.S. 780 (1876)

          The object of my invention was to increase the production of the best quality of flour, and my improvement consisted in separating from the meal first the superfine flour, and then the pulverulent impurities mingled with the flour-producing portions of the middlings meal, so as to make ‘white’ or ‘purified’ middlings, which, when reground and rebolted, would yield pure white flour, which, when added to the superfine, would improve the quality of the flour resulting from their union, instead of deteriorating its quality, as had heretofore been the case when the middlings flour was mingled with the superfine.”

          1. Malcolm’s “argument” concerning logic is itself illogical.

            It would be like outlawing anything engineered, since all engineering really is, is using logic.

          2. I believe MM would say, if he were to answer you, that the milling operation is also not eligible subject matter. His reasoning would be that you could do it with pencil and paper.

            Take the paper and poke super fine hold in it with the pencil. use the paper to filter out the super fine flour.

            Then, break the tip off the pencil and grind the meal flower using the blunt end of the pencil. Finish off by using the eraser end.

            Then fold the paper into a funnel and use the funnel to mix the flour and the super fine flower..

            so, pencil and paper…. abstract idea…. not eligible.

          3. First separate the superfine flour from the meal flour.
            Then separate the impurities from the meal flour
            Then process the meal flour into pure white flour.
            Finally add the original superfine flour back in to the pure white flour.

            This looks like logic to me, steps applied in order to things.

            Actually, you have provided a list of steps to be applied in a particular order. In the context of software/logic, I believe you are confusing a list of instructions and performance of the instructions contained in a list. By itself, software doesn’t do anything. If executed, a computer will presumably perform software instructions in the manner specified in the software. However, it is the computer that would be doing something, just as it would be the people or machines processing the flour in your example.

            Can you expand on the difference between these two? What makes one set of steps logic and the other set of steps not logic?

            If followed, one set of steps would result in processed flour, and the other set of steps would result in processed data. Obviously, the Federal Circuit did not consider this distinction important, but the difference is patent.

        2. The use of logic to decide how to “realistically” draw an object is ancient.

          Same logic as:

          The use of [protons, neutrons, and electrons] to [construct any matter] is ancient.

          It’s a good thing though that software is not logic.

            1. The applied logic within software is reflected in the statutory categories of machine (typically) or manufacture.

              Attempting a “desired Ends” without conscientiously being aware that such scrivening voids the words of Congress is what the broken score board problem is all about.

              When the exception so clearly swallows the rule, the exception has been stretched beyond the breaking point.

              1. Further, applying logic – as in the execution of software – belongs to the statutory category of Process.

                In 1952 Congress made clear that Process was a co-equal category (and not a mere handmaiden of the “hard goods” categories). See 35 USC 100(b).

                What Malcolm attempts to do with his purposeful dissembling is to zombify the old Mental Steps doctrine and re-animate that doctrine such that ANY “proxy” even sounding in (and here, my favorite word of anthropomorphication comes in) “mental steps” is somehow automatically not patent eligible.

                It is nothing more than a particular desired End which can only be reached through improper Means.

                1. Further, applying logic – as in the execution of software – belongs to the statutory category of Process.

                  You are assuming what you are trying to prove. Technically, thinking about the letter “P” followed by thinking about the letter “U” is a process. Assuming you will respond with “under the sun” as an implicit qualification to statutory processes, why not other implicit limitations?

              1. …and yet, Malcolm, even after this attempt to clarify what you mean, you continue to dissemble and try to make it so that software IS logic (as opposed to using logic).

                This dissembling is exactly why my jab at you with the Big Box of Protons, Neutrons, and Electrons remains so potent.

                Maybe if you tried some inte11ectual honesty and not try to dissemble about what software IS, you might be more successful converting your expressions of your feelings into actual legal points. Of course, you will still remain outside of the facts of this particular art (and that is why ALL that we ever see from you is the table pounding of feelings).

              2. Above Malcolm quips: “Nobody is pretending that computers are not machines.

                But that is exactly what he turns around and tries to do with machines improved by being reconfigured with the manufacture of software.

                Note how he runs away from his own meme of [Old Box] when a pertinent counter point is presented (his view requiring ALL future improvements to [Old Box] to be “already in there” when the issue is viewed through the patent doctrine of inherency.

  13. It sure would be nice to have a PTO Leader who fights back against the anti-patent crowd instead of chanting along with them. Is Kappos available?

    1. Because rich entitled lawyers and the b0tt0m feeders they represent don’t enough money already! So we need more junky patents, and we need to make easier to enforce.

      That’s what everybody wants! Save us, o Kappos! Save us from the commies! You issued more junk than any other Director in the history of the PTO! You can do it again!

      Yes, folks: be sure to listen to your friendly neighborhood patent maximalists. You can trust them! Super credible people.

      Like Robert KS. He doesn’t know what Mayo was about but he knows he doesn’t like it. He won’t talk about the facts of the case, or the easy issues presented by the case. Nope. But he sure knows how to whine and cry. Maybe he needs another convertible, or a nicer vacation home.

        1. Yes, Robert K S is definitely one of those tr0lling types who whines and cries about not being able to understand the Supreme Court’s 101 jurisprudence.

          Then, when he’s given the chance to take a step-by-step walk through the facts and issues presented in one of the most straightforward cases imaginable (Mayo) he scampers away (but not before whining some more about a “machine” that correlates pencils and dog disease simply has to be eligible — because!).

          None of that behavior is surprising, of course. We’ve seen it before. And we’ll see it again. Someday maybe we’ll see some video of a similar exercise. That will be most amusing. Because Robert K S is a very serious person! Just like you, “anon”.

            1. LOL – you really think that matters, Robert K S?

              Mr. Quinn doesn’t even post here and yet is routinely denigrated by Malcolm.

              The better thing to do is shove a stick into his eye, post a simple counter point that he cannot handle (in an inte11ectually honest manner), and enjoy watching him go all apoplectic.

  14. Did you read Tom Casano: How Trademark Law Harms Peoples’ Lives And Wealth? It is an incoherent mess, gives zero examples of harm, spends most of the time talking about patents and copyright, and then calls for some unspecified reform. Frankly, it reads like a collection of phrases from other articles that might actually have a meaningful discussion of IP issues.

    It might be high quality commentary for Huffington Post, but it isn’t worth a link from PatentlyO.

      1. But you know, since patents protect expression, and expression is protected by the First Amendment, there simply “must be” a Fair Use doctrine lurking around here somewhere…


      1. In fact, it’s so bad that it caused my own post about it to be a bit incoherent. I meant to say that it does not seem worthy of a link on PatentlyO.

  15. “Other than that, it’s difficult to predict even the background of Lee’s successor, given that no specific industry, other than real estate, significantly contributed to Trump’s campaign.”


  16. Arun Kumar & Chetan Sharma: Patents Driving Autonomous Car Technology

    This ridiculous puff piece appears to have been written by a ten year old … or a computer.

    Autonomous cars is a new Technological leap in the field of transportation.

    In fact, driverless cars are old and there is no “leap” whatsoever. Faster computers just allows for more information to be processed more quickly. That means you can use more sensors and other information sources. Hence: more automation. This is not a “leap.”

    Imagine millions of cars, heavy duty vehicles, ships etc. being driven without drivers which will save a lot of human labor.

    Yay! No human labor means even fewer jobs! Plus the already wealthy patent owners can charge people more and get even richer! Yay!

    Also, if such technology makes commuting safe and makes you reach your destination in time with 100% safety,

    ROTFLMAO Meanwhile, back on earth ….

    Maybe after the robot car companies force all the human drivers off the road, we’ll see something resembling “100% safety”. But that’s not going to improve commuting time.

    Of course, if nobody has anywhere to go because everything’s going to be done by computers in 20 years, then commuting will be beside the point. Right, Greg? What happened to Greg?

      1. Nothing “Luddite” about it.

        Just reflecting on the reality of a relentless BigCorp-fueled propaganda campaign to get everyone excited about this “driverless car” utopia …. that will require massive subsidization by a public …. who will be put out of work by the subsidization.

        I understand perfectly why patent maximalists like yourself would be all for this, of course. It’s a win-win. There’s probably hundreds, if not thousands, of tr0lls out there just smacking their lips over the possibility of asserting the junkiest “drive a car … with sensors!” patents imaginable. But best to wait until these robot cars become really popular, of course ….

        1. But best to wait until these robot cars become really popular, of course

          An interesting comment, and perhaps germane to the previous “laches” thread.

          Be that as it may, you are (or at least should be) aware that the Quid Pro Quo simply does not (and in truth cannot easily) have any type of positive “must make” requirement.

          The function of the patent office in one aspect of the meaning of the word “promote” (think advertising promotion) is best served by making it so that people WANT to keep up to date with patent and application publications. Taking away the stick from the power of patents is just not the way to go, and only falls in line with the Efficient Infringer position (which is an anti-patent position).

          Do try to remember some of the basics of patent law such as Quid Pro Quo and the nature of a negative right as well as the US system geared to “or any improvement thereof.”

        2. It’s a win-win.


          Just not in the smarmy way that you want to spin it.

          (maybe look up the actual Latin for Quid Pro Quo)

        3. The editing out of Malcolm’s need to check into the meaning and history of the Luddites is most odd.

          His whine here is most definitely reflective of the concerns of the Luddites.

          If there is any offense, it is with the original post, and not my correct reflection of an accurate historical item.

Comments are closed.