- DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 2014 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (eligibility)
- Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 2014 772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (eligibility)
- Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (eligibility)
- buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (eligibility)
- Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (means-plus-function)
- OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (eligibility)
- Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility)
- Digitech Image Technologies, LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (eligibility)
- Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 757 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (several issues, including means-plus-function)
- In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC, 793 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (PTAB procedures; affirmed by SCOTUS)
- Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (indefiniteness)
- Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (eligibility)
The list above provides the most cited Federal Circuit patent decisions that have been issued by the Court since January 1, 2014. You’ll note that 8 of the top 12 are eligibility cases with three others essentially focusing on MPF/Indefiniteness issues.
MM seems to believe that building self-driving cars is easy. No it isn’t. AI is very hard. This is part of the propaganda that the anti-patent group push.
“AI is very hard. This is part of the propaganda that the anti-patent group push.”
link to xkcd.com
And then there’s the public. It’s an open question about whether the public is ready to adopt robotic cars. Even if they’re open to the idea — and Waymo’s data suggests about half of them are — they’re likely to have plenty of questions about how they will use such cars, how they will work, and how they will handle particular driving scenarios.
Well, the answer is that they work like cr @p and for any use other than the most simple uses these “self-driving cars” don’t work at all.
A few points to keep in mind: ]
(1) patents on using logic to drive a car are a j 0 ke and everyone associated with those patents should be ashamed of themselves. Seriously. G e t a l i fe, people.
(2) until it’s required by law that humans can not drive on roads with robot cars and all cars need to have a certain type of software and all roads need to be configured for that software, “self-driving cars” are going to be a major fail. Investors in this technology are either complete id i0ts or they are banking on the ability of corporations to simply shove this stuff down everybody’s throats regardless of how poorly it works. One might expect the snivelers in the patent bar who never stop whining about “big corp this” and “big corp that” to be on top of this situation but of course they aren’t. And we all know why (hint: ticks don’t complain deer having too much power).
(3) The replacement of perfectly good analog technology with perfectly cr@ ppy digital technology is going to ruin driving for everyone. One of the great things about knobs and levers and sliders is that you don’t need good near-sighted vision or a healthy voice to do stuff. You can do stuff by tactile memory without ever taking your eyes off the e ff ing road. That’s not true of a five by seven inch screen. Also the analog stuff doesn’t need to be constantly upgraded to interface with your fingers.
(4) Car companies who partner with computer companies to create car-controlling software that is “compatible” with handheld devices are basically throwing their brand down the t 0 ilet. Sure, feel free to add a cable input and some signal receptivity for stuff coming from a smartphone. But don’t throw out the perfectly good analog technology. That’s just kicking your customer in the face and giving the vehicle over to the computer companies whose main expertise is in selling people g@ rb @ge that’s obsolete by design in 2-5 years.
Just the basics here. There’s tons of other important issues but this also touches on the issue that Greg raised last week about why he can’t pay for his bus with a credit card (hint: it ain’t for lack of patents).
Oops, I forgot to address the issue that inspired the comment: (5) really basic accident-prevention technology is the exception in terms of what should be included in new cars. I’m talking about logic that keeps the car from ramming another car, or a human-size object, or going the wrong way down a one way street. The kind of really basic logic that would prevent, e.g., a te rr 0 rist or arrogant grandpa from mowing down a bunch of people with his death machine.
Speaking of accidents, did you hear about the recent Diversity Lottery (literally that’s the name of the lawl) caused diversity accident in New York?
“Investors in this technology are either complete id i0ts or they are banking on the ability of corporations to simply shove this stuff down everybody’s throats regardless of how poorly it works.”
Because that’s never happened before.
MM, with posts like these, it seems clear that you do not work for Google. The next time Night accuses you of being a lobbyist, you might want to point this out.
Oh come on Ned. A misdirection now and then is always in the playbook.
“A misdirection now and then is always in the playbook.”
[A reflection of blog commentator adoption of K street ethics?’
I always find it amusing when “ethics” gets brought up in a discussion of how Malcolm posts.
Hey “anon”: the mailroom called. They’d like you screen some registered mail and throw out the letters that mention prior art.
Lol
Lovely dust kicking.
As if anything else would be expected..
The way it will work is there will be lanes that only robot cars can use during rush hours (because they are more efficient) and the insurance rates will be lower.
They will force us all to convert little by little.
You mean special lanes for buses, right?
And “force us”? Oh, smell the freedom to subsidize the rich commuters so they can read the WSJ in their luxury robot car in special lanes just for them. Progress! Clearly we need more “how to drive” patents for more rich people.
what is your obsession with self driving cars? who cares about this? I have no opinion (or interest) on this technology, but if you’re so sure about the oncoming failure of it then why don’t you sell TSLA stock short?
It’s likely something his firm works on as a side business to their Pharma work. And it seems to irritate him to no end.
Youre entitled to have no opinion on important topics with far reaching effects. Enjoy the darkness.
if this technology is “going nowhere” then how can there be far reaching effects?!
His “feelings” are not required to be logically consistent.
Why can’t humans drive on the roads with robot cars on it?
There’s no reason why you can’t have a mix of “analog” and “digital” MM, just as nearly all cars have today.
people already do drive on roads with robot cars.
people already do drive on roads with robot cars
LOL
Which people? Which roads? Which cars?
Be specific, Ed. YOu’re a very serious person! I’m sure you’ve thought a lot about this topic. You’re totally not just another apologist for whatever junky tech is being peddled this week by the Silly Con Valley Bros you worship.
I don’t understand why you think self-driving cars won’t work. It’s just some simple software and logic that can be coded up in weekend. We already have the cars and sensors. Just the programming left. It’s not sooper dooper technological stuff. It should be done by next week if I ask some sophomore computer programming major to do it.
MM’s comment above also tells us about how serious to take him when it comes to this type of technology.
I don’t understand why you think self-driving cars won’t work. It’s just some simple software and logic that can be coded up in weekend.
LOL
It should be done by next week if I ask some sophomore computer programming major
Because sophomore computer programming majors know so much about driving.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Just write LOL, then you win the debate!
“The most cited decisions relating to any part of the patent act should be very very rare, regardless of what else is going on!” — The Very Serious People
Thanks Dennis!
With so many D.C. 101 motion decisions and application 101 rejections, I’m surprised not to see these three more recent 101-defense-rejection [eligible subject matter] decisions on this list with the other eight: McRO, Inc. dba Planet Blue v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2016); BASCOM Global Internet Services v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F .3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., (Fed. Cir. Nov. 1, 2016)
If being cited by the USPTO you can be certain that no matter what your claim limitations recite, your claims would NOT be like 1 and 7, but would most definitely WOULD be like those in 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, and 12.
Most cited by or in what?
Same question. Most cited in CAFC briefs? Other CAFC decisions? Court decisions generally? Everything Westlaw/LEXIS counts?
This sort of statistical pronouncement is relatively useless … we don’t know what the information means and therefor cannot draw any conclusions from it whatever.
Dennis has a point and goal motivating posting this, but that point or goal is simply not made nor reached by something which is almost but not quite comprehensible.
Dennis please make the point, most cited by whom or in what?
“The list above provides the most cited Federal Circuit patent decisions that have been issued by the Court since January 1, 2014.”
My take is that where something is cited is not a driver, but rather these are the items from the Federal Circuit that are seeing the most “use” in subsequent court cases (at whatever levels).
I think that you are correct that this could be much more meaningful (as well as interesting; for example, is the PTAB citing something with far more frequency than district courts?)
Comments are closed.