17 thoughts on “Happy New Year

    1. 5.1

      All my posts are being filtered in the eligibility discussion. Maybe I hit a number limit.

      1. 5.1.1

        Quite likely.

        An oddity for sure, but the “general” outcome of the filter based on counts is a stifling of actual conversations – and thus is, inherently, a promotion of the mindless drive-by comments of the likes of Malcolm.

        I have noted this for a while now, and even dubbed the filter as being the “conversations are not allowed” filter.

        You may also note that it is in the longer developed conversations that the narrative turns decidedly PRO-patent, as those with an anti-patent agenda simply cannot hold a conversation on the merits as the issues are delved into.

        There certainly are better ways to enforce a blog dedicated to the development of legal issues. For example, those who merely engage in drive-by sniping and refuse to engage (with inte11ectual honesty) issues put on the table for discussion could easily be shunted to another portion of the blog.

        Back in the DISQUS days, one could even see ALL of the posts by any particular poster, gathered together in one place. It was (painfully) obvious from that feature exactly who was engaging in an internet style “shout down” by NOT engaging on the merits. In fact, when this very feature was pointed out, a very certain subset of posters opted for a MAXIMUM security setting, whose only purpose was to block this feature.

        Instead of pursuing a path down this avenue of making the blog a better place for actual conversation, DISQUS was dropped, and (eventually) this narrative-controlling feature of a “count” was installed.


          It is certainly frustrating when we finally had a real conversation going for it to be moderated out.


            As happens again – the APPLICATION of the “conversations are not allowed” filter happens to be biased.

            On the latest thread, I have been capped.
            My usual moniker is associated with 7 posts.
            My secondary moniker (which I try to save for “conversations” with Ned) has also been capped with 7 posts.

            On the other hand, the person who does NOT engage in ANY conversation on the merits, and is the Queen of blight, Malcolm, has TWENTY posts on the new thread.

            At a nearly THREE to ONE ratio (per log-in), the single one person that provides the most blight on this blog – and the same one that has done this for nearly twelve years now – runs amuck.

            This type of agenda pushing, narrative shaping editorial-assisted C R P does not go unnoticed.


          I think Ned’s last comment is interesting as I think it reflects what is actually happening with many judge.

          But, I think the whole iron age logic (as Rader called it) is a artifice of Google. I think they needed some way to kill patents and the iron age thinking does kill all the patent that would be a threat to Google.

          R. Stern is really the one that developed those arguments in Benson and has pushed them ever since. But, I think he did it to try to get rid of information processing at the PTO and because I think he honestly believed that information processing was not worthy of a patent.

          But, he made up a lot of stuff to try to get the desired result.

          And, big picture–the whole thing is crazy. The information processing (maths as they think of it) is to replace 10’s and 10’s of millions of human jobs. How can that not be eligible?

  1. 4

    Happy New Year to the Crouch clan and everybody else. It’s hard to believe 2018 could be worse than 2017 but this year and I’m fully prepared to be surprised.

    Love the picture, by the way.

    1. 4.1

      Meant to say: but this year I’m fully prepared to be surprised.

      My resolution is to make fewer typos.

    2. 4.2

      As you know an optimist is a person who goes through life receiving a sequence of nasty shocks. A pessimist goes through life receiving pleasant surprises.

      Mr resolution for the new year is to regress to the mean.

      1. 4.2.1

        I would amend your post in a small – but substantial manner, Paul.

        The optimist does NOT view the series of nasty shocks as impeding his will to be positive.

        The pessimist does NOT view the series of pleasant surprises as pleasant, and already is thinking of even more negative “results” that must happen.

        I hope that you reconsider losing any sense of true optimism.

  2. 1

    As I said before, a patent-eligible new year to Dennis, Jason and all contributors, commentators and readers of this excellent blog.

    And if others read this comment, PLEASE pass on your good wishes as well. It is a very small repayment for much hard work that benefits us all.

    TRUMP that anyone!

    1. 1.1

      Echoing Paul Cole, cheers to the host team for this fine blog. 2017 was a year done well. Here’s hoping for more such excellence in 2018.

Comments are closed.