Patently-O Bits and Bytes by Juvan Bonni

Recent Headlines in the IP World:

Commentary and Journal Articles:

New Job Postings on Patently-O:

17 thoughts on “Patently-O Bits and Bytes by Juvan Bonni

  1. 3

    ‘We’ve never seen lines so long,’ air travelers say as shutdown grinds on

    Thanks, Rep u k k k es!

    1. 3.1

      Is that magic boy posting again? Magic boy tell us how to get new functions with no new structure. We all want these magical machines.

  2. 2

    IBM’s latest patent haul, which topped the 9,043 it received last year, includes a growing number of inventions related to artificial intelligence and quantum computing …. In an interview with Fortune, Welser added that quantum computing will start having a real world impact in the next few years

    But thankfully the PTO is granting patents on junk that has zero impact on the real world now. That’s the important thing! Grant tons of junk patents now so people can tr0ll with them later when the “tech” is (LOL) “critical.”

    1. 2.1

      Magic boy tell us the one about no functional claiming in chemical arts.

  3. 1

    Among 1,600 A.I.-related patents awarded to IBM, one is for Project Debater, a tool that uses machine learning techniques to simulate real life debates on a wide for variety of topics. According to IBM research Jeff Welser, Project Debater is capable of understanding how two identical sentences can convey different meanings depending on the context

    Wow! Using context to interpret data! What will these geniuses think of next? Is there a v0 mit bucket big enough to safely allow reasonable attorneys to look at the claim?

    Would love to see the prior art that Examiner’s are looking at when they analyze these g@ rb@ge. The “debate arts” are going to really see some progress! Probably by next year!

    LOL

      1. 1.1.1

        Let’s see the claims on this Master Debater Simulator g@rbage and then you can discuss who is engaging in impermissible (LOL) “anthropromof0rnication” (LOLOL). Mkay, Billy?

        1. 1.1.1.1

          O’tay – but my comment was to your portrayal here (you admit that this was stuff a machine was doing).

          Do you need someone to hold you hand and explain the XKCD cartoon for you?

          1. 1.1.1.1.1

            this was stuff a machine was doing

            You mean there are instructable machines capable of analyzing data, using logic, according to instructions given to that machine by a human being? Really? Wow. Who knew? I thought such machines were the stuff of fantasy.

            Next thing you know you’ll tell me that they’ve been around for fifty years already. How did the government keep them secret, I wonder?

            1. 1.1.1.1.1.1

              Like I said – do you need someone to hold your hand and explain the XKCD cartoon to you?

              1. 1.1.1.1.1.1.1

                Like I said – do you need someone to hold your hand and explain the XKCD cartoon to you?

                The real problem is, of course, not whether you “need a research team and five years” but whether you actually, you know, disclose what the research team came up with; or whether you’re like the guy on the left, saying that he wants a machine that performs a function.

                The problem is that 90%+ of patents that issue are the guy on the left, plus some b.s. handwaving that “one of ordinary skill is enabled to achieve the full breadth of the scope” when in reality the truth is that you’d need a team and five years. That disconnect, and the inability of the office to appropriately corral it, is the reason none of us can have nice things.

                That cartoon is very relevant.

                1. That is NOT the problem that Makcolm has.

                  Wrong. But it is just one of many “real problems” with logic patenting.

                  Still waiting for those s00per d00per techno Master Debater claims ….

                2. Looking at patent claims isn’t “diving into the weeds.”

                  I guess it might seem that way, though, for someone like you who totally s cks at it.

                3. It IS diving into the weeds – especially for you as you seem adverse to actually understanding any concept of law, and would much rather relish “bad claims.”

                  I chalk that up to you active (over-active) cognitive dissonance and your inability to control your feelings about patenting being a good thing.

          2. 1.1.1.1.2

            And let’s see those claims, Billy. They must be incredibly technical!

Leave a Reply

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

You can click here to Subscribe without commenting

Add a picture