Patently-O Bits and Bytes by Juvan Bonni

Recent Headlines in the IP World:

Commentary and Journal Articles:

New Job Postings on Patently-O:

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

  1. 3

    Our organization, the International Refugee Assistance Project, was among the groups that filed the first challenge to the executive order, and we won a series of injunctions temporarily blocking the ban from being enforced. But in June the Supreme Court upheld a modified version of the ban in a 5-to-4 decision. The majority sided with the Department of Justice, which had claimed that a “robust” waiver process would allow citizens from the blacklisted countries to enter the United States if they met certain reasonable criteria. The Trump administration had cited this as evidence that the travel ban was rooted in national security concerns and not in the discriminatory intent to ban people on the basis of their religion.

    This assurance was a key rationale for the court’s decision. Chief Justice John Roberts’s majority opinion argued that a waiver process would provide humanitarian exceptions to the ban and thus supported “the government’s claim of a legitimate national security interest.” However, in their separate dissents, Justice Stephen Breyer raised serious concerns about the waiver process, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that it was a “sham.”

    It turns out they were right. The waiver process is opaque, arbitrary and unreasonably harsh, and it has not mitigated the ban’s effects on thousands of families in dire circumstances. It makes a mockery of the rule of law.

    And this is why court packing will be on the top of the list when the Re pu k k ke s are buried in their graves where they belong.

    1. 3.1

      “We have no way of knowing how many people have tried to obtain a waiver”

      In other words they don’t know that it’s a sham, they just want to pronounce it to be one and move on. Hurrah!

      Why don’t you actually read the leftist articles you’re trumpeting MM? Then you can idk, post all the relevant details and facts. Oh, but wait, the NY times didn’t bother to do reporting on that crucial fact! Selective reporting of the facts, wonder where I’ve heard about that before? “oh oh oh there’s no way for us to know how many people got the waiver (EXCEPT DOING SOME OLD FASHIONED REPORTING WORK LOL WHICH WE’RE NOT GOING TO DO LOL)”, but literally three people didn’t get one and another hundred seem negatively affected and we’re not going to tell you anything about the context of their cases!

      “and it has not mitigated the ban’s effects on thousands of families in dire circumstances.”

      Okay, so what? I’m unclear why having any yemeni/syrian families (save perhaps a few) in the country is in the national interest even one small amount. Though I can think of about a hundred reasons why having no more than we have is in fact in the national interest. It is no wonder why they cannot even meet the first prong, presuming people even are having a hard time doing so. Israel is right beside them, they can go there and let the israelis bask in the warm glow of those refugees etc. benefiting their national interest. Further it should be noted that ‘Merica is not a dumping ground. And it definitely is not a dumping ground for muslims from nations full of actively hostile towards us individuals simply on the basis that those individuals are muslimlol.

      “roughly 98 percent of people who applied for a visa did not receive a waiver.”

      Seems about right. Most people don’t need one. It’s like 7 (now less) out of a hundred some nations that are even banned at all, and they aren’t countries with the largest pops.

      “Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, we know that the State Department will not even consider an applicant’s home country conditions when evaluating whether the travel ban imposes undue hardship. What this means in practice is that a Yemeni woman whose husband is in the United States cannot cite atrocities against her family or hometown as evidence of undue hardship.”

      That’s because that’s not what they’re referring to when they want to know about undue hardship caused by the travel ban itself, rather than extraneous factors (like the condition of their country, murders against their fam etc.). That’s just a basic of what they’re talking about in the waiver application, and isn’t even news.

      “However, in their separate dissents, Justice Stephen Breyer raised serious concerns about the waiver process, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that it was a “sham.””

      Muh victims are concerned and called it a sham. Wowezoowee, who’da thunk it?

      All in all just fake news and muh victims everyday nonsense masquerading as something important and worth anyone’s time.

      MM bruh, are you ready for the declaration o’ state o’ mergency re dems being unwilling to prevent many hundreds of thousands of se xy time assaults on the border?

  2. 2

    Hey, I just invented an app that puts an icon on my “home screen” when a new comment appears here on this blog. In some embodiments, the icon appears when a commenter identified by me writes a new comment. In some embodiments, the icon appears when someone posts about a new app. In some embodiments, the app automatically inserts a random string of characters into the comment when the icon is pressed so that the last part of the comment is rendered CK)*&)DJS*LJl3-%&$*0

  3. 1

    That Apple patent is a total piece of sh. t.

    Infringe away. Basement level of the basement level. Shame on everyone involved.

    1. 1.1

      Brushing aside your internet tough guy routine for a moment, it is interesting to note that the Apple patent article is concerned with a child continuation of application 12/170,295; filed on July 9, 2008 and now patent 10,079,375; issued October 9, 2018.

      More than a decade to get this “total piece of sh. t.” issued.

      While RCEs were required (which stopped PTA), this stoppage did not become in effect until after 1,008 days of A delay, 425 days of B delays and 575 days of C delays.

      The B and C delays apparently are directly related to a successful appeal, while the first 474 days of the A delay appears to be the time past the guaranteed time to the applicant for first picking up the application.

      The appeal occurred after three RCEs (instead of a fourth).

      No matter how you “feel” about the end item of the patent, you should be far more upset about the patent examination.

      1. 1.1.1

        you should be far more upset about the patent examination.

        Yes, Iancu is a fraud.

        1. 1.1.1.1

          The ten year span (obviously) has nothing to do with Iancu. Try to stay focused and not let your emotions and feelings carry you away.

          1. 1.1.1.1.1

            The ten year span (obviously) has nothing to do with Iancu.

            But the issuance certainly has something to do with Fraud Iancu.

            The ten year span until issuance is the result of Apple’s corrupt unethical internal IP policies.

            This g@ rbage is indefensible. It’s a sick, sad j0ke.

            1. 1.1.1.1.1.1

              The issuance has to do with the Office not being able to examine to a “Reject Reject Reject” level and find a legitimate way of doing what you merely desire. Note that I have not evaluated whether the claims should have passed to issue or not, and quite frankly, your desire to be in those weeds blinds you to the real travesty here that a solid rejection did not put this application down sooner (let alone the YEARS of Office delay with the PTA, and losing the appeal).

              All you see is what you want to see and you just don’t want to see an example of horrible examination quality (or want to address that horrible examination quality).

              Instead you cast ad hominem to those who jobs it is to procure patents and call them “corrupt” and “unethical” with no evidence of such.

              If the Office cannot make a proper rejection, the job of the applicant’s attorney – at the desire of the client – is to fight the poor rejections. There is ZERO unethical about that scenario and in fact, your view leads to the unethical aspect of the attorney violating his duty to the client.

              You should really know these things before you let your feelings get out of control.

              1. 1.1.1.1.1.1.1

                “examine to a “Reject Reject Reject” level”

                Still the Best Way, oh Dudas, where art thee?

                1. Best way?

                  Perhaps for something.

                  For a strong patent system and to promote innovation?

                  Most assuredly not.

                  Not sure what you have in mind 6, but it is not innovation principles.

                2. U.m.

                  O.k.

                  I guess.

                  Maybe you want to actually engage on the merits now that you are done pleasuring yourself….

                  (admitting to tr011ing is more of a “gotcha” on you than it is on me, by the by)

      2. 1.1.2

        internet tough guy

        Nothing “tough” about it. This patent is so junky it pretty much tanks itself. Like Facebook and Google, Apple files reams of indefensible sh t.

        1. 1.1.2.1

          The Internet tough guy remark has nothing to do with what others do and everything to do with how YOU respond to what others do.

          I know it is difficult for you, but your own behavior is the flaw identified here. Your immediate deflection to others is part and parcel of that problem. It is a very Trump-like attribute that you show.

          1. 1.1.2.1.1

            It is a very Trump-like attribute

            LOL

            So says the guy who mysteriously leaps to squelch any discussion of Perznit Cheet0hstain’s sick policies at every opportunity.

            Keep projecting, Billy! You already got M@ngo’s pa th 0 l 0gical l y ing habit down.

            1. 1.1.2.1.1.1

              Your Accuse Others meme is rather infamous, Malcolm.

              Your behavior — here in relation to your posting on a patent blog — is much more on point than any of your non-patent law rants of uncontrolled feelings.

              Don’t like the comparison? That’s entirely within your power to change.

      3. 1.1.3

        “The appeal occurred after three RCEs (instead of a fourth).”

        That’s just sh!tty practice.

        I’m looking for a new job. Maybe I’ll give Apple a call. They obviously need somebody who knows how to deal with examiner shenanigans.

        Of course, if they wanna pay me endlessly to dump more words into the claim RCE after RCE in an attempt to “work with the examiner” I can do that too. It goes against everything I do, but for the right price I can be flexible.

        Hey Apple, have D give you my email address and get in touch with me. I will teach you bibles of truth about patent prosecution.

        Later for you, Luke.

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