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. anthony.mccain@patentlyo.com

13 thoughts on “Patentlyo Bits and Bytes by Anthony McCain

  1. Manny Schecter is inherently one of the most influential “stakeholders” in the patent system. Too bad he has no actual position on how Subject Matter Eligibility should be reformed. He can’t, because rational reform would whack a few hundred thousand of his patents.

    Irrational reform is always on the table.

    1. Manny wants more “certainty.” Well, more certainty in the ineligibility of logic is easy to obtain. You just use … logic.

      You begin with the fundamental proposition that logic isn’t eligible subject matter. And you work outwards from there, without creating massive system-corroding absurdist “exceptions” that exist for reason except to make Manny Scheckter and his junk peddlers happy.

      1. Are protons eligible subject matter?
        Are neutrons eligible subject matter?
        Are electrons eligible subject matter?

        Hmmm, when you move from these to configurations (much like moving from ‘math’ to applied math) you “all of a sudden” have a very different analysis, now don’t you? Your “working outward” required MORE than just aiming for your desired Ends.

        But hey, you have only been guided and have had your hand held on this for just a couple of years…

        1. when you move from these to configurations (much like moving from ‘math’ to applied math)

          And that right there is why you should stay off d r u g s, kids.

          1. Gee, Malcolm snidely provides baseless ad hominem – and nothing more.

            Shockers.

            1. baseless

              Oh, there’s more than enough “base” to justify my response.

              Remember: your premise (and your conclusion — surprise!) is that synthesizing a novel molecule from atomic particles and then claiming that novel molecule in objective structural terms that distinguish it from prior art molecules is (trying not to laugh here) “much like” applying math to data.

              That’s an absurd premise. You’re lucky you got any response at all. At least not you can take the knowledge that you’re (correctly) perceived to be daft and try to rectify your malfunction.

              1. Where are you getting this (unjustified) idea that a certain optional claim format is not only NOT optional, but somehow must be a part of MY position?

                Clearly, I am not the one with the malfunction.

              2. Also – you seem to forget (again) that the Big Box is a jab at YOU and the “logic” that YOU want to use.

                Try to keep up, son.

      2. begin with the fundamental proposition that logic isn’t eligible subject matter

        Which makes the copyright project comment BE directly on point as you continue to dissemble as to the fundamental nature of software.

        According to your spin, software should not be able to obtain copyright protection either.

        Of course, you do not defend this neccessary outcome of your feelings – pretty much because there is no meaningful, inte11ectually honest defense, but hey, we both know that, eh?

        1. Which makes the copyright project comment BE directly on point

          Nobody has any idea what you’re talking about.

          1. Sure – keep on telling yourself that.

            (your number one meme of Accuse Others applies)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 Notify me of followup comments via e-mail.

You can click here to Subscribe without commenting