Patently-O Bits and Bytes by Juvan Bonni

Recent Headlines in the IP World:

Commentary and Journal Articles:

New Job Postings on Patently-O:

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

  1. 9

    Carter says that as he was driving north on Route 1 with his hands on the steering wheel, the car turned to the right, sending him into the median. He says that he was able to slightly correct the turn and avoid hitting a road sign head-on.

    But Tesla’s website states that autopilot “is intended for use only with a fully attentive driver who has their hands on the wheel and is prepared to take over at any time…it does not turn a Tesla into an autonomous vehicle, and it does not allow the driver to abdicate responsibility….The driver can override any of Autopilot’s features at any time.”

    S00per techno! If only we had MORE patents on how to use logic applied to data to keep a car from driving off the freeway nobody would ever need to put their hands on a steering wheel ever again. Calling David Stein! David Stein to the rescue!

    But those Tesla “investors” are really smart! Just like the people who buy them. The smartest people ever.

    1. 9.2

      “Autonomous” vehicles on the streets? In a country (NL) where the government is fully supportive?

      One problem: cyclists!

      link to

      Any computer-driven vehicle can co-operate with other computer-dreiven vehicles. But heck, what computer will ever be able to anticipate what a cyclist will do next?

      1. 9.2.1

        But heck, what computer will ever be able to anticipate what a cyclist will do next?

        Maybe we should promote innovation in that area…


            Not at all – any machine built to be capable of recognizing agent action (outside of its own domain) would STILL be a machine, nicht wahr?

            And such would obviously (at least I hope that you would think it obvious) be squarely within the Useful Arts.


              Not every machine is patentable. Not every process is patentable. Copyright protects not the medium (the piece of paper) but the message. Patentability is judged on what the inventor contributes. Unless the contribution is within the useful arts there is nothing patentable. That the contribution is manifested in machine language and machine hardwear might render a machine claim eligible in Europe but isn’t by itself enough to render it (at least in Europe) a patentable machine.

              But, fair do’s, yes I can envisage the argument that your claimed machine can rerasonably be said to use technical means to solve a technical problem (how to reduce collisions between autonomous vehicles and cyclists) in a non-obvious way and so is indeed patentable under the EPC.

              Personally, I am unable to anticipate what any given cyclist will do next. But who dares to say that AI helped by Big Data will never be able to crack that problem in a way that is not obvious.

                1. Ah nicely done:

                  “Up to a point, Lord Copper.” Lord Copper, proprietor of the Daily Beast is a man to whom one never says ‘No’ directly. This is what one says instead.

                  If you do not mind then, rephrasing your answer such that it is clear in the first instance which parts at least lead to the “no,” as you have parts that in contrast clearly lead to a “yes,” and on insisting on including both, you say neither “no” nor “yes.”

                  That being said, I like these from your link:

                  “His courtesy was somewhat extravagant. He would write and thank people who wrote to thank him for wedding presents and when he encountered anyone as punctilious as himself the correspondence ended only with death. As quoted in LIFE magazine (8 April 1946)”

                  There is a great deal to be said for the Arts. For one thing they offer the only career in which commercial failure is not necessarily discreditable. “The Way to Fame”

                  The trouble with modern education is you never know how ignorant they are Part 1, Chapter 3

                  Instead of this absurd division into sexes they ought to class people as static and dynamic.

  2. 8

    I’ve worked with startups. One recently I fast tracked their patent applications to get them patents on their innovations and they got millions in start-up money. My patents were deemed as high-quality by the VCs.

    Frankly, The patents were very fair. They were targeted on exactly the difference between what they were doing and what was out there. I’ve been part of getting funding for maybe 10 startups.

    What you do see is that startups are not sued from what I’ve seen until they do have significant revenue as it is not worth the effort. Another thing I see is that some attorneys that represent the startups I think cause the problems. I think sometimes that the startups are infringing and the best solution is to give some money for the patents. Instead there is more money for the attorney to get involved in a lawsuit. I’ve done some litigation and been counter to some of the posters on patentlyo.

    I just don’t trust anything large corporate advocate Chien writes. Who knows if she is fudging the numbers. People like Chien are just e vil. You can’t trust what they doing without spending 10 hours looking through all their data and who has that time.

    I think there are some problems. But people like Chien are part of the problem. We need people that have the time to look at things and try to come up with creative solutions and really characterize what is going on. We don’t need faux academics with an agenda creating deceptive papers to push their agenda. Just f i l t h y human beings that do that. We in the real world are working our f ‘ing a ss es off and you f i l t h y m o t h e r i n g p i e c e s o f s h i t are making our lives miserable and trying to burn down the greatest innovation engine ever created.

    1. 8.1

      We in the real world are working our f ‘ing a ss es off

      Dreaming up “apps”, writing patent applications and pitching your b.s. to investors? Man, that sounds back-breaking.

      News flash: people who work in the “real world” work harder than you do. You’re hustling and you don’t know what work is.

      1. 8.1.1

        MM, you do not care about facts or reality. You just get paid to get on here and trash the patent right.

        Never mind that there are more people in A.I. with higher IQs than have ever been in any field. Never mind that all the top scientists in every field agree that information processing is probably the hardest field of science.

        But tell us magic boy the one about the magic structure and the chemical claims with no functional claiming.


          I really doubt that he is getting paid.

          IF he is getting paid, then those paying him should demand their money back (given as his posts only bring disdain for the views that he espouses).

      2. 8.1.2

        So you know the companies I work with, MM? No you don’t. You just feel it is fine to trash any and everything associated with patents. What a f’ing P O S you are.

  3. 7

    In my museum of the future, people will be able to experience what it’s like to use apps that haven’t yet been created. You can have s e x with a robot! Except it won’t be a robot, it’ll just be a person pretending to be a robot. But you won’t be able to tell the difference. HOW FUTURISTIC IS THAT?????

    In the Café Room of the Future, there will also be a simulation of an app where you can order freshly baked banana bread for delivery by a flying drone robot (this will be done with invisible wires, for safety reasons).

      1. 7.1.1

        While your second sentence may be self-evident, unfortunately, your first sentence is not correct.

        There IS a market for Malcolm’s C R P.

        This is evident in the fact that people (like Ned Heller) CHEERED on Malcolm and implored people to simple “enjoy his swagger” (until Ned himself ended up in Malcolm’s cross-hairs, of course). Other people who “enjoy that swagger” are those that bath themselves in confirmation bias, and look to ANY posting on a patent law blog to be an affirmation of their own (twisted) views.

        IF in fact no one DID care, then the opportunity to rebut Malcolm’s nonsense could be reasonably left to be not taken.

        Alas, letting that propaganda have an unfettered forum is akin to promoting that propaganda.

        On a recent thread, a person bemoaned how “it would be nice” to not see “bickering.” That person was c1ue1ess as to WHY Malcolm engages in his drive-by monologuing propaganda machine — and more importantly, why rebutting that nonsense IS important.

    1. 6.2

      I’ll just go ahead and say what we’re all thinking: patents are demons.

      6, I recommend that you look at some of what Director Iancu first said when he became Director (specifically, the need to change the narrative that YOU here represent).

      Bottom line folks: the mantra that “patents are bad” needs to be retired.

      Help do that, or get the F out of the way.

      1. 6.2.1

        Bad patents are bad.

        Fraud Iancu wants to churn out more of them.

        This is a problem. Thankfully he won’t be around much longer.


          I note that you have never answered the challenge put to you by me (and others) to list a patent that you did not deem “bad.”

          Given your “perspective,” you are most definitely part of the problem with the narrative about “patents are bad.”

          Get the F out of the way.

  4. 5

    “Demonizing patents demonizes startup culture.”


    21st century “start-up culture” is a cessp0 0l. And that’s coming from someone who was spent years working with a LOT of start-ups.

    Patents aren’t even the worst aspect of it. Heck, the attorneys are usually the only people involved who have any experience beyond hustling.

    1. 5.1

      And that’s coming from someone who was spent years working with a LOT of start-ups.

      your cognitive dissonance is noted.

  5. 4

    The linked Farooq article is wild. I wonder, however, if the authors really understand how this industry works. Patents are only one barrier to entry in the drug market, and not even the most important. FDA approval is at least as stiff a barrier to market entry in the large markets. Unless their is a radical change to the way that the FDA approaches its assessment of bioequivalence, I am not sure how the ability to design around patent claims will have all that much effect.

    1. 4.1

      Indeed, there are some small pharma where this is their business model. The “fast-follower” approach….

      1. 4.1.1

        there are some small pharma where this is their business model. The “fast-follower” approach….

        Like 99.99% of Silly Con Valley ventures.

  6. 2

    From the Farooq article:

    In the global industry, some of the best kept secrets are those necessary to make life-saving medication and other pharmaceutical products.

    To be contrasted with comments on a recent thread…

  7. 1

    The abstract for the Article on “Startups and Patent Trolls” focusses on startups being the targets of patent trolls ans seems to ignore the fact that failed startups are the source of the patents asserted by so-called patent trolls.

    When a startup starts up, they seek to occupy a new niche market, with the niche status hopefully prolonged by a patent. If the company fails for whatever reason (lousy management, bad timing, predatory incumbents) the patent they obtained becomes an asset in bankruptcy or other distressed situation, available for acquisition by a PAE.

    The niche that they saw may well have been seen by another, who becomes more successful (perhaps because it was the incumbent who killed the startup) and becomes the target of the PAE. If the target had been first, it could have been the patent owner, but instead they have to suffer the competitive disadvantage of being not first.

    Bear in mind that the failed startup needed to attract some venture or angel funding, and attracted that funding, in part, because of its patent position. Without the patent, there is less chance that the funding would have been available, hastening the startup’s failure. The funder may well be the party that took control of the patent and sold it to the PAE (or became the PAE) so that it could minimize its losses and live to fund another startup.

    Demonizing patents demonizes startup culture.

    1. 1.2

      Demonizing patents demonizes startup culture.

      Part and Parcel of the well-known Efficient Infringer mantra.

      It bears repeating that a closer look at just who coined (and propagated) the term “Patent Tr011” were all about their own agenda (and could not care less about anyone but themselves being “hurt”).

      1. 1.2.1

        a closer look at just who coined (and propagated) the term “Patent Tr011”


        Let’s take a closer look at the l0w-lifes who spend all their energy complaining about the term.

        What do we find when we do that?

        Hypocritical gilbert@rian / wingnut @h0les of the first rank.


          Your mindless (and off-kilter) name-calling is noted.

          Funny how you do not address the point of my post, isn’t it?

    2. 1.3

      These are fine points, which is why Prof Chien’s article includes them.

      Small companies can also benefit from a robust market in patents, both as sellers and buyers. An estimated 50% of NPE patents come from companies with less than $200M in revenue. Patent sales can support the ongoing business, and 4% of survey responders said they had monetized their patents, and another 20% said that they had considered it. Yet while the conditions of a majority of sales is unknown, they often take place when the company is in distress or transition, as growing young companies often lack the inclination, time, or extra patents to monetize their intellectual property. When patents are sold under firesale conditions, investors, creditors, and patent focused companies share in the profits, reducing the direct returns to the inventive entity. Growing companies can also benefit from the patent marketplace as buyers, buying patents from the marketplace “on-demand” and overcoming some of the advantages of incumbents.

Comments are closed.