Comments on: Is it Patent Eligible? America's leading patent law blog Wed, 21 Feb 2018 04:43:24 +0000 hourly 1 By: anon Sat, 17 Feb 2018 14:46:49 +0000 This thread is a little old in the tooth (especially for the anti-patent drive-by monologue “sAme one” “contributors, but the title fits the topic of the link:

link to

From the link:

The researchers think the particles might flit from one nearby atom to another as they pass through the rubidium cloud—like bees in a field of flowers. These passing photons can could form “polaritons”—part photon, part atom hybrids. If more than one photons pass by the same atom at the same time, they might form polaritons that are linked. As they leave the atom, they could stay together as a pair, or even a triplet.

In other words, the nature of the “intangible” “wavelength” of a photon, through the dual nature of particle/wavelength is now even more so becoming clear that tangible particles can be CONFIGURED.

Someday the reality of the universe will be caught up to by the legal chicanery of such decisions such as In re Nuitjen

By: anon Wed, 14 Feb 2018 03:39:14 +0000 LOL – as the Accuse Others meme is being worn clear through…

A break already? How about your 12 years of documented blight?

By: anon Wed, 14 Feb 2018 03:36:11 +0000 Projection, folks. It’s a thing with these people. They can’t help themselves.

Says the absolute Queen of Accuse Others Of That Which Malcolm Does…


By: anon Wed, 14 Feb 2018 03:35:18 +0000 …except for the fact that you are wrong, continue to be wrong and the only thing that you can do is to spout your usual stream of mindless and pointless ad hominem.

Try a little substantive arguments on point instead of the ad hominem.

You won’t.
You can’t.

By: anon Wed, 14 Feb 2018 03:33:22 +0000 Bowers….?

What are you sniffing?

By: anon Wed, 14 Feb 2018 03:32:18 +0000 in objective structural terms

Yet again you trot out your optional claim format as if that were anything but an option.

Software is not logic – as you well know, so you might as well stop that dissembling.

Game. Set. Match.

Not in your favor, so your continuing to [shrug] remains most odd.

By: anon Wed, 14 Feb 2018 03:30:09 +0000 You’re taking the result of a legal analysis of a patent claim and confusing it with a non-legal statement about an object.“:

You are being entirely dishonest.

What exactly about the intersection of “non-legal statement about an object.” AND “the result of a legal analysis of a patent claim” are you having difficulty with, Malcolm?

Other than your feelings getting in the way?

By: anon Wed, 14 Feb 2018 03:27:47 +0000 LOL – except for the fact, “Billy” that the only reason why you refuse to “have that work” is because of your antics would cease to exist.

I am sure that shocks no one.

By: anon Wed, 14 Feb 2018 03:26:30 +0000 Your comments here are simply and rather unsurprisingly untrue.

Noting you put “debate” in quotes, as it is no wonder that you refuse to reply what Night Writer actually wrote: real debate.

Such would include inte11ectual honesty – of which you are bereft.

And again, your 0bsess10n with Quinn surfaces, and you are clearly not correct about what it takes to get banned there. Unlike this blog which puts up with your L I E S for a full dozen years now, engaging in the tactics that are your forte are what will get you banned.

By the way, did you see this:
link to

Ya silly hypocrite. Grow up already.

says the site’s biggest hypocrite and one needing most to grow-up….

Not surprising, since your number one meme has long been Accuse Others Of That Which You Do.

By: MM Wed, 14 Feb 2018 03:01:51 +0000 Night Wiper: They ignore anything that doesn’t fit their agenda.

Projection, folks. It’s a thing with these people. They can’t help themselves.