Patently-O Bits and Bytes by Juvan Bonni

Recent Headlines in the IP World:

Commentary and Journal Articles:

New Job Postings on Patently-O:


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

  1. 8

    Bob Barr and Ken Starr should both be hung from a tree until dead. Total pieces of sh it excuses for human beings.

    1. 8.1

      Please find an appropriate forum for your poli-rants untethered to patent law issues.

  2. 7

    In a serious tone, Mr. Moore said he would like to see more preteens working.

    “I’m a radical on this,” he said. “I’d get rid of a lot of these child labor laws. I want people starting to work at 11, 12.”

    Great idea, Trumpkin! Especially nice for your buddies if you can get those young girls learning how to give more of those expert massages to Jeff Epstein and your boss. Once you’ve separated them from their families, they’ll appreciate the kindness.

    1. 7.1

      Please find an appropriate forum for you poli-rants untethered to patent law issues.

      1. 7.1.1

        Every aspect of this s c u mmy profession is tethered to every other aspect, Bildo. How old are you, anyway?


          Your “tether” is not appropriate.

          This is a patent law blog. This is not a Malcom-fee-fee-fest blog.

    1. 6.1

      Anon has slowly lost his grip on reality over the last 15 years. He now believes that he knows all and may judge all on every issue. Men tal.

    2. 6.2

      Wow is your ego in the way of your own rationality.

      P00r little Night Writer gets taken to task for his legal point being shown to be banal and continues his melt down in yet another sub-thread.

      Any time that you want to engage on the substantive points behind your hurt feelings, Night Writer, you are welcome to put away the Malcolm rhetoric and, you know, actually engage.

      Until you do so, ALL of these whiny posts of yours are just that, and only that: whiny posts.

      (It’s amazing the amount of energy that you have spent feeling sorry for yourself)

      1. 6.2.1

        This theme you are trying to develop that I am whining is ridiculous.

        And over and over, you claim that I have run from your arguments. Do you get that I did address your positions. That you evaluated my arguments as insufficient and then make your little private conclusion that you have won and that I am running. That is men tal anon.

        Totally men tal. I addressed your positions. I get you don’t like my arguments. Move on.

        You are totally men tal.

        And you over and over and over again describe your arguments in these hyperbolic terms but never actually state your position but refer to one of your posts as if it is some ki ll er post. Men tal.


            Boy, I have engaged you on the merits. You just don’t like what I had to say. So F**** O***!! You are f’ing men tal.


              You have done nothing of the sort as to the merits.

              Not an iota.

              This is easy for you to fix. Yet, you only whine.


              The last time i engaged anom on the merits, he just run and hid. I don’t know what men tal means but one must maybe have enough competence to appreciate one’s incompetence? or they never understand why they’re wrong and just keep going on and on. and on.


                Ah, my fluid historical pseudonym friend weighs in with his Malcolm-like Accuse Others “it’s Opposite Day” mantra.

                My dear friend, what possible topic would I run away from that you would bring? Why would I run away when you are so evidently challenged on basic principles that you often choose pseudonyms that the actual historical reference is in opposition to your beliefs?


                The last time [I] engaged ano[n] on the merits, he just r[a]n and hid.

                I suppose that anything is possible, but that does not sound like the anon that I know. I have known anon to repeat the same vacuous nonsense a dozen times over the in the face of witheringly conclusive refutation, but I have never known anon to shy from a fight.

                Probably what you experienced was just a fluke of the admin filter. Anon probably wrote a ten-point reply to your posts, but none of the submissions were allowed to post. That happens on this board with distressing frequency. Some of my best work never makes it through the admin filter, and I am sure that the same happens to others, including anon.

                1. in the face of witheringly conclusive refutation

                  Except for that nonsense, you are much closer to reality.

                  But then again, my fluid historical pseudonym friend has never been overly concerned with reality.

                2. Repeating the same vacuous nonsense a dozen times over (or supplying randomly generated word salad ad hominems) in the face of witheringly conclusive refutation is running and hiding. In fact, shying from a fight.

                3. That you v0m1t forth your “feelings” that I have not engaged on merits provided, or that my posts are “word salad” or even feeling that what I state is “vacuous” just does not make it so.

                  I suggest that you actually learn patent law fundamentals and you will not be so lost when I speak to them.

                4. O Tay, pumpkin.

                  (that phrase does not fit here, but hey, you think it does and that’s all that’s important)

                5. Clearly, anom never went to law school. Strike that, never graduated law school. A paid hack by the russians to destroy our patent system. Because they think we’re that stupid.



              “Wah, I am pro-patent so any particular legal point should get a free pass and no critical thinking should be applied to what I say”

              And you throw ad hominem at me…

      2. 6.2.2

        And the only way to end it with you is let you have the last word.

        And then you follow me around and comment on my posts as if you are some al pha male in charge of all posts. Men tal.

        Check your ego. Have you even done litigation? I bet not.

        What you are is a dis grace to the pro patent movement. There are some arguments that are made by the anti-patent movement that are outrageous l ies and need to be treated as such. But you have moved all your opinions into the category of being absolutely right and you being the arbiter of what is right and wrong. Men tal.

        Take a vacation and rethink. Stop dis gracing the pro patent movement.


          And the only way to end it with you is let you have the last word.

          Your empty fallacies are clearly wrong.

          As I have already told you, this is not about me “having the last word.”

          This is about me trying to get YOU to have words that are actually on point to the multi-prong counter points presented to your pet legal theory.

          Your rhetoric has drowned out any reason that you may have wanted to pretend to have. I am actually embarrassed FOR you.


          [T]he only way to end it with you is let you have the last word.

          Correct. Now that you have realized this fact, presumably the next step is clear. Walk away from the discussion. There is no satisfactory resolution that will emerge from continued engagement, no more than you might reasonably expect the surf to stop pounding against a cliff if you simply persist in shouting at it to cease.


            Yet again Greg, you show that you have not bothered to follow along.

            Not surprising really, as you too have engaged in that “nursing of hurt feelings rather than engage on a point of law that rains on your parade.”


            Greg, it sounds like you ran out of popcorn. I have a giant bag and I’m happy to share.

            Buttery, salty goodness. YUM.

  3. 5

    Are there any patent maximalists out there who are sooooo “serious” about expanding the scope of patents and making them easier to enforce that they would vote Re pu k k k e, regardless of who the candidate is, with the hope that a more anti-democratic and more authoritarian regime would have more success in implementing the maximalist dream?

    That’s a rhetorical question. Of course those people exist. They always have.

    1. 5.1


      LOTS of different types of people exist.

      Your “one-bucketing” is noted, as is your lack of any real cogent point.

      1. 5.1.1

        White s u prema cist reciting the same rightwing scripts recited by the “fine people” that the Rep u k k kes are in bed with:

        “In case you haven’t noticed we are running out of time,” he wrote. “If this revolution doesn’t happen soon, we won’t have the numbers to win it. The goal is for the US government to start confiscating guns. People will defend their right to own a firearm—civil war has just started. Stop the slow boil of the frog—prevent the Jew from using incrementalism. Make the Jew play all of his cards to make it apparent to more people how their rights are being taken away right before their eyes.”

        But, hey, Hillary gave a speech to some bankers so “both sides”. Bildo got on his high horse and filed a “protest vote” because the choice was so difficult.


            “Derp derp my name is marsher derp derp and I recite scripts I get from chatrooms where sexually frustrated white boys hang out derp.”


              Malcolm, what is it with you and such pre-occupations?

              It’s not like you have not had MORE posts (than ALL others combined) expunged for being inappropriate)…


                The reality of white supremacy is brought to you by Yeti Publes (R) and his g00n squad (also R’s). I didn’t vote for this rotten timeline, Bildo. I railed against it, vociferously. And you didn’t. On the contrary, you chose to fret about “political correctness,” you toxic pile of worthless dogshirt.

                1. Your reply has nothing at all to do with the point at hand.

                  So, besides noting your “one-bucketing,” let’s also note that you are not addressing the comment that you responded to.

                2. …but hey, Malcolm, you have Night Writer’s pity (even if it only a self-serving ruse and a pitiful attempt by him to yet again actually engaging on the merits)

                3. oops – left out a phrase, that last comment should read:

                  … pitiful attempt by him to yet again to avoid actually engaging on the merits.


              So, you approve of the NYT’s horribly anti-Semitic cartoon?

              Go figure.


                Malcolm’s myopia is merely reflected in his “one-bucket” nature.

                If anything happens to align with his feelings, then that thing is OK. If something does not happen to align, then it goes into the “one bucket,” and all those who “feel” differently than Malcolm are in that one bucket.

  4. 4

    Any news about the revolt in the coding community after the CAFC equated instructions with code?


    That must be really surprising to Bildo.

    1. 4.1

      Lol – you want to get lost in the weeds with one case that does not carry as you imply to the entire domain of software innovation?

      Have fun.

  5. 3

    Can I patent a method of executing a baby after it’s born? Seems to be a trendy thing (or so I heard) so I figured I might as well stop complaining about patent maximalism and try to make some money.

    I’ve already got a patent pending on the app for deciding whether to execute the baby (or fetus). So don’t even think about trying to get in on this.

    1. 3.1

      Night Writer, please feel free to be the first to apply this to Malcolm’s non-patent law rants:

      I think there needs to be more balance in the arguments against MM.

      I am looking forward to learning this nice, polite, and effective means of focusing on substantive patent law and the various opinions of such (and remember, ignoring someone is NOT included as being polite).

      1. 3.1.1

        Hey, when the President starts talking about important new trends in medicine, I assume this is an opportunity for the market to step in and improve things.

        Maybe you think it doesn’t matter he says? That’s your choice. But you don’t need to be antipatent.


          Oh, make no mistake, I added those terms to your own rather bland “call” for some type of “more balance.”

          Since your “call” came up only as a ruse to your wanting some salve for the wounds of your own doing in pushing your inane and uninformed opinion, feel free to add any terms you want – or to take up yet another invitation from me for you to do something more than seek to gratify your own ego.

  6. 2

    anon >Night Writer, If you want a license to be vapid and post uninformed opinions in a Public forum, you have that license.

    Seriously? So you are such a great interpreter of the Scotus that you can evaluate my arguments and determine that they are as you characterize above.

    Absurd. Get an ego check. It is also ironic that you keep accusing me of unfairly attacking you and ad hominin attacks, but the core of the problem here is your ego. You feel you are so right that you have the right to follow me around and harass me over this issue.

    And, yet, when we go one on one on predicting the Scotus I win. But someone how you have superior knowledge that just doesn’t pan out in making predictions.

    You also seem to be continually confused about the difference between me writing descriptive statements of what I believe the Scotus is holding and thinking vs. what I think should be the holdings.

    Check your ego anon.

    1. 2.1

      And you go on and on. And you make it clear that you are going to continue to follow me around and harass me each time I write what I believe the direction of and the holding of Alice is.

      Just ridiculous anon. You hold a very high opinion of yourself, which is obvious far beyond what it should be.

      1. 2.1.1

        and you go on and on

        Says the guy going on and on…

        Give Malcolm his Accuse Others meme back.

      2. 2.1.2

        which is obvious far beyond what it should be.

        As YOU take yet another opportunity to do nothing but whine and NOT address the multi-prong counterpoints in any substantive manner, your protest proves the opposite of your assertion and that it is obvious just who holds themselves to a too high level of legal knowledge.

        I have indicated the path for you to “back up” what you are saying: engage on the merits.

        Yet it is you that — yet again — do not do so.

        Why DO you bother setting yourself up to be such a whiner?

    2. 2.2

      You want me to “check my ego” while you AGAIN pursue your own ego-gratification with posting on yet another thread all the while the ball remains in your court on the underlying substantive matter?

      You can alleviate all of this by doing what I asked of you in the very first instance.

      Instead of trying to elevate your opinion (as uninformed as it is) above having an informed opinion, you want to whine that I have called you out for not addressing counter points presented to you (and yes, “address” means more than merely dismissing those points based on nothing more than your own say-so — talk about “ego”…).

      You have attempted all manner of response, including ad hominem, and most everything EXCEPT the simple and direct thing I have asked if you all along: engage on the merits.

      Do you really think that here – on yet another thread – that I am “following you” when you post ONLY to whine and — yet again — fai1 to actually engage on the merits?

      Your non-sequitur of “predicting” and confusing what “predicting” entails with descriptive/prescriptive very much misses the point of my replying to a new post of yours with your old baseline position when that position has had counterpoints presented to it that show your baseline position to be uninformed.

      As I have stated: you are free to vapid and uninformed. You are not free to do so in a public forum with preventing anyone from calling you out for being vapid and uninformed.

      This is not about — and has never been about — any type of “predicting.” Such is a non-sequitor. This being a non-sequitur has also been pointed out to you as a vapid reply. Again, you have all the power to be as vapid as you want to be. But such does not – and cannot – change the underlying basis of our exchange.

      The ball remains in your court to engage on the substantive points put to your repeated legal position of “tying.”

      Maybe one of these days you will actually stop whining and start engaging on the merits.

      That is not his day.


      1. 2.2.2


        You are just going on and on about some imaginary response that I am not giving. I did respond to you. You just don’t like the response.

        And the going “on and on” is clearly you as you are the one that won’t let this go. You respond to everyone of my posts with these delusions that your arguments are so superior to mine that you can ridicule for maintaining my position.

        Check your ego anon.


          Your “response” did not engage on the merits.

          Plain and simple.

          And easy enough for you to fix.

          Yet, you CONTINUE to choose to whine.

      2. 2.2.3


        You are just offensive. You are acting like my position is so absurd that you can just ridicule me and every time I state my position you respond to it with insults.

        And you continue with this imaginary post of yours as being so good that nothing could ever dent it. Check your ego. I responded to you. Your response to me was—frankly—at about the level of a first year associate.


          You are acting like my position is so absurd that you can just ridicule me

          You are the one being absurd.

          Your position is absurd, and I provided a detailed, substantive, multi-prong counterpoints showing exactly why – on the merits.

          YOU are the one trying to use mere insults in return, while NOT addressing the item ON THE MERITS.

          I am insulting YOU for attempting to pass off what you are doing as anything BUT what it is that you are doing.

          ALSO something easy enough for you to fix.

          You just choose to whine instead.


          Sorry Night Writer – it is you that continues to destroy your credibility.

          This is easy to see.

          You are the one doing nothing but whining, as I am the one constantly asking you to engage on the merits.

          Here – on yet ANOTHER thread – you have done nothing but whine.

          Why are you insisting on such whining?

      3. 2.2.5

        anon, you go on endlessly about some imaginary argument of yours that I did not respond to. And remarkably you don’t even repeat it. Instead you describe the attributes of the argument rather than repeating the argument.

        It is like an infomercial or one of those terrible documentaries about aliens. What else could it be?


          LOL – it’s not imaginary as I have posted links to it both on this blog and on the other blog.

          That you continue to expend effort in any way possible EXCEPT discuss the counter points on the merit, the ball remains in your court.

          What else could it be? That’s plain to see: you are afraid of actually engaging on the merits and exposing just how ludicrous you have been with this little ego trip of yours.


              LOL – I will “go away” if you desist in NOT going away, or if you do not persist in attempting to pass off a mere uninformed opinion as some type of informed opinion (without addressing direct counter points that you seem to find inconvenient), or (preferably) you actually do as I have asked all along and engage on the merits.

              What you will NOT get is some type of capitulation because you whined.

      1. 1.1.2

        Interesting –

        I wonder…. if the drone is close enough to the landing spot to blow the marker away, can’t it just land where the marker was?

        Also, if getting my delivery involves printing a marker, punching 40 holes in it and then practicing some origami, I’ll just wait for UPS.

Comments are closed.