Ji-Yong (David) Chung is a patent attorney and partner
Ask yourself if the level of intelligence in that cartoon is the kind of intelligence you’d look for in an attorney.
5.1
MM – its a cartoon!
4
Just in case anyone needed further proof that the patent maximalists are the least clever attorneys on the planet. Also apparently incapable of self-reflection.
That’s just painfully unfunny.
We all know you guys are “confused”. And we all know why.
4.1
Do you have a point? Your innuendo fails to reach it.
4.1.1
Thanks for underscoring my point, as if that was necessary.
LOL
4.1.1.1
Again, you have not provided a point.
Innuendo…?
Sure, but that does not reach.
Try again.
4.1.1.1.1
that does not reach
LOL
Whatever you say, Billy! You’re in fine form today.
4.1.1.1.1.1
Laughter is the sound of surprise. These vignettes are just dreary and didactic, without the slightest unexpectedness.
PS, of course logic can fail. If the purpose to which a logical conclusion is put is insufficiently addressed by the chosen logic, that logic, while operating perfectly, has failed to meet the objective, and thus has failed. Logic is a tool, and even perfect tools may still be used to botch a job.
PPS Yes we can explore the world of perfect tools right here on PatentlyO!
4.1.1.1.1.1.1
Logic is a tool, and even perfect tools may still be used to botch a job.
Indeed. If A < B then C doesn't help a whole lot when B=A and you absolutely need to take action D.
But when the tool is defined as logic that achieves the desired function, then you've got a circle made of vapor.
That's one of many great reasons that "do this logic" "on a computer" patents are total junk. There's no technology there. Programming is writing instructions for a programmable computer to follow. That's not "inventing", in the same way that driving a car to your new house isn't "inventing".
But these liz@rd brains will never understand or admit to any of this because they're all about grabbing cash and stuffing it into their pockets. If they weren't ruining the patent system, they'd be chasing ambulances.
…
Accusing other s of “liz@rd brains” while it is you that evidences that trait is just oh so typical of you Malcolm.
Your emotions and feelings about the type of innovation most accessible to the non-wealthy stands in stark contrast to your own rants against the wealthy.
As usual, you are more than welcome to simply not involve yourself with anything that is a “circle of vapor.”
No one it forcing you, and the world of yore, with its non-computer, non-“vapor” “t001s” remains there ready to embrace you (at least until they get to know you).
4.1.1.1.1.2
This is incredibly cryptic. Do you have a particular case in mind?
3
Again, it should be : maybe this will save a few jobs.
“Save few jobs” leans toward not saving very many.
” Save a few jobs” leans toward saving a a significant number of jobs but saying it in an understated way.
2
“Your logic was impeccable Captain, we are in grave danger”
The implication in the clip seems to be that, in the Star Trek Universe, there is an inter-galactic/planetary patent system where participants pay royalties (including aliens).
The particular episode reminds me of the movie “The West World,” except that robots don’t kill people.
Logic? Is that what runs the AI? Is that what you are, logic? Please. The capture should be when “AI Fails.”
1.1
But what happens when all the logic is copyrighted…?
😉
1.2
I disagree. What happened is the attempt to upload, in corporate and process the illogic of Alice et al into and with the logic based systems of the robot caused that logic to fail.
The same sort of thing happened to HAL (conflicting mandates)16 years or so ago, and we all know how that turned out.
1.2.1
Les,
Please do not take this as “arrogance” but you prove the point of Night Writer with your comment of “ caused that logic to fail“.
Logic cannot fail.
It is the AI system that failed because the unfailing logic was interposed with the non-logic of the Supreme Court (you were close).
Even in the self-destructed robot, the logic that is there remains solid and good logic – and is itself without fail.
The failing is the AI.
As I recently noted, this reminds me of the first version of the Matrix:
(the Architect starting at 2:50 – and at 3:29):
Ji-Yong (David) Chung is a patent attorney and partner at Snyder, Clark, Lesch & Chung. David.Chung@snyderllp.
Ji-Yong (David) Chung is a patent attorney and partner
Ask yourself if the level of intelligence in that cartoon is the kind of intelligence you’d look for in an attorney.
MM – its a cartoon!
Just in case anyone needed further proof that the patent maximalists are the least clever attorneys on the planet. Also apparently incapable of self-reflection.
That’s just painfully unfunny.
We all know you guys are “confused”. And we all know why.
Do you have a point? Your innuendo fails to reach it.
Thanks for underscoring my point, as if that was necessary.
LOL
Again, you have not provided a point.
Innuendo…?
Sure, but that does not reach.
Try again.
that does not reach
LOL
Whatever you say, Billy! You’re in fine form today.
Laughter is the sound of surprise. These vignettes are just dreary and didactic, without the slightest unexpectedness.
PS, of course logic can fail. If the purpose to which a logical conclusion is put is insufficiently addressed by the chosen logic, that logic, while operating perfectly, has failed to meet the objective, and thus has failed. Logic is a tool, and even perfect tools may still be used to botch a job.
PPS Yes we can explore the world of perfect tools right here on PatentlyO!
Logic is a tool, and even perfect tools may still be used to botch a job.
Indeed. If A < B then C doesn't help a whole lot when B=A and you absolutely need to take action D.
But when the tool is defined as logic that achieves the desired function, then you've got a circle made of vapor.
That's one of many great reasons that "do this logic" "on a computer" patents are total junk. There's no technology there. Programming is writing instructions for a programmable computer to follow. That's not "inventing", in the same way that driving a car to your new house isn't "inventing".
But these liz@rd brains will never understand or admit to any of this because they're all about grabbing cash and stuffing it into their pockets. If they weren't ruining the patent system, they'd be chasing ambulances.
Accusing other s of “liz@rd brains” while it is you that evidences that trait is just oh so typical of you Malcolm.
Your emotions and feelings about the type of innovation most accessible to the non-wealthy stands in stark contrast to your own rants against the wealthy.
As usual, you are more than welcome to simply not involve yourself with anything that is a “circle of vapor.”
No one it forcing you, and the world of yore, with its non-computer, non-“vapor” “t001s” remains there ready to embrace you (at least until they get to know you).
This is incredibly cryptic. Do you have a particular case in mind?
Again, it should be : maybe this will save a few jobs.
“Save few jobs” leans toward not saving very many.
” Save a few jobs” leans toward saving a a significant number of jobs but saying it in an understated way.
“Your logic was impeccable Captain, we are in grave danger”
link to youtu.be
Another link to youtube. link to youtube.com
BTW, in the episode, Harry Mudd was illegally selling patents.
Its been a long time since I watched that episode. I remember the robots, but not patents. Can you find a clip?
Also…. In Space, can anyone see you infringe?
Here is a somewhat distorted clip with Harry Mudd and Spock talking about patents.
link to youtube.com
The implication in the clip seems to be that, in the Star Trek Universe, there is an inter-galactic/planetary patent system where participants pay royalties (including aliens).
The particular episode reminds me of the movie “The West World,” except that robots don’t kill people.
The M5 on the other hand:
link to youtu.be
Logic? Is that what runs the AI? Is that what you are, logic? Please. The capture should be when “AI Fails.”
But what happens when all the logic is copyrighted…?
😉
I disagree. What happened is the attempt to upload, in corporate and process the illogic of Alice et al into and with the logic based systems of the robot caused that logic to fail.
The same sort of thing happened to HAL (conflicting mandates)16 years or so ago, and we all know how that turned out.
Les,
Please do not take this as “arrogance” but you prove the point of Night Writer with your comment of “ caused that logic to fail“.
Logic cannot fail.
It is the AI system that failed because the unfailing logic was interposed with the non-logic of the Supreme Court (you were close).
Even in the self-destructed robot, the logic that is there remains solid and good logic – and is itself without fail.
The failing is the AI.
As I recently noted, this reminds me of the first version of the Matrix:
(the Architect starting at 2:50 – and at 3:29):
link to youtube.com
Logic cannot fail.
Thank you for the admission.
Um sure, you are welcome…
(that’s an odd way of saying: “anon is right and I agree with him”)
Clearly you have never wired together even any 74HC02s.
Logic fails all the time. Get over yourself.
There is nothing for me to get over.
You remain in error on how you are using the term and what is actually failing.
Oh? Has Congress redefined “logic” too?
Looks like I need more popcorn.
What a bunch of ridiculous cl 0wns.
Comments are closed.