Patently-O Software Law Bits & Bytes: Do Not Track Act of 2019 by Grant Harrison

Do Not Track Act of 2019: Click Here to View

Overview: Do Not Track Act of 2019 is, in its simplest form, a way to regulate data collected by big tech companies. The bill would require the FTC to create a program that, upon request by the user, sends a “Do Not Track Signal” to websites and online applications. The Do Not Track Act of 2019 is an adaptation of its formers, with the new add on of regulating this for all of the internet activity, not just web browsers. The bill would require the FTC to create a program that, upon request by the user, sends a “Do Not Track Signal” to websites and online applications

Recent Articles:

Send your Software Law updates to


16 thoughts on “Patently-O Software Law Bits & Bytes: Do Not Track Act of 2019 by Grant Harrison

  1. 2

    To the actual point of the thread, I am reminded of coverage of the topic on the popular television show “60 Minutes” and the evasive non-response of a Big Tech CEO when asked a direct question as to who owns the personal data that has become the modern underlying currency that Big Tech (especially US Big Tech) takes for granted as being untethered to any single person’s rights.

    This of course reflects true cultural differences NOT ONLY between US and Europe along such things as “right to be forgotten” and other GDPR and its related Privacy Rights, but (and perhaps sharper cultural differences) within the US, for example, between older generations and Generation Z (who have been raised with a very different expectation and treatment of privacy).

  2. 1

    Finally seeing more action on a front I’ve long advocated for: boycott the disgusting Federalist Society and shun its members and all who participate in their “events.”

    I’ve been throwing resumes in the trash for the past decade if they so much as mention this appalling collection of dominionist gun-fetishizing anti-democratic hacks and white supremacy apologists. And the first thing I do when looking at a potential candidate is see if they were ever a member. If so: kiss the job opportunity goodbye.

    Life is about choices. Make better ones. That requires not being a repy00k @ h0le. Figure it out, axwipes, or get used to being correctly labeled as an axwipe.

    1. 1.1

      Your rant is noted.

      I’m curious – do you have an addiction for expungements? Do you implode (or feel that you have not pushed the envelope enough) if you go a month or two without having something of yours removed for being inappropriate?

      1. 1.1.1

        A response to Les’ question on the eligibility thread:

        “Inventive” abstract ideas are not patentable.

        After a claim has been found to recite an ineligible abstraction (or it seems to be directed at that abstraction, by virtue of the specification teaching that the “invention” is the abstraction that is recited in the claim), there is one additional chance for the claim to survive 101. Specifically, a problematic claim can still survive 101 if the claim happens to recite some other invention (i.e., some non-obvious subject matter) that is also eligible on its own terms (i.e., not an abstraction).

        This is nothing more than basic logic applied to the existing patent statutes. You can obtain and enforce an eligible claim in the form “A kit comprising instructions, wherein …”, in spite of the fact that the instructions themselves are surely ineligible, if the kit itself is non-obvious and eligible (i.e., non-abstract) on its own terms, as recited in the claim. That’s the crucial (and painfully obvious) holding of Diehr which survives to this day (it’s also the implicit holding in Mayo v. Prometheus). If the kit is not inventive, then the claim goes up in flames, regardless of how “non-obvious” the instructions are.

        Note that it matters not one whit if the “kit” in this example was in “widespread use” or “conventional.” If the kit was disclosed in the prior one day before the application filing and nobody in the world had ever used it before, you still can’t re-patent the same kit “with instructions.” Is anybody still confused? Dennis? Anyone? If so, it’s likely that the confusion is willful at this point because this is pretty easy to follow and my co-workers and my clients don’t have a problem understanding it.


          A response to Les’ question on the eligibility thread:


          Nothing at all to do with me or my post pointing out your (yet again) highj@cking of a patent law forum for you non-patent law rants.

          Find an appropriate forum.


            Stop the disease from spreading:

            link to

            It might take a magic bullet. Either way, the desperation smells and the stink is all over these miserable excuses for human beings. If you’re a part of it, then you stink just as bad. It’s the smell of pig sh-t, when the pig is dying.


              That seems like a better forum for you and your non-patent law rants. Why not constrain yourself and control your feelings enough to post there?


              MM can’t stand to have his federal gubmit’s powers stopped in any way. Why, he should totally be able to demand that someone 2000 miles away from him do something through his “muh lected congress critter”! Thankfully now the supremes are backing off of that nonsense.

              Worried about gerrymandering? Maybe instead you and dems could just stop shting on white people mr. bigot. Perhaps then you won’t have to worry quite so much about how much mandering is goin on because you can simply get those ebil whites to vote for your party through normal means. I mean, it could happen.

              I liked the rest of hilariously backwards piece on muh voting rights act. Lol.


                There is a certain “Tyranny of the Majority” that both political parties try to use for their own philosophical advancements.

                1. In a majority white country I would hope both major parties, or many of smaller parties, would be. I know this is news to you and all, but there’s still a lot of ebil whites running around. Why was it that dems ditched the white working class anyway? Them being ra cist?

                2. Majority whir, sure. Last time I checked it was not “majority white @ h0le”, however. Your kind is going extinct, 6. And I’m here to bury you.

                3. “Majority whir, sure. Last time I checked it was not “majority white @ h0le”, however. Your kind is going extinct, 6. And I’m here to bury you.”

                  62% (non-hispanic, which personally I have no trouble accepting all hispanics that want to be in whiteness as we all know that is evil) seems like a majority to me. Can you not do math? Is that why you think you don’t need white people to win elections?

                  And I’m not white you bigot.

    2. 1.2

      Sometimes I wonder if you’ve had an aneurysm, MM. I would be happy to kiss a job opportunity goodbye if it meant working for someone who writes rants like that.

      1. 1.2.1


        When was the last Malcolm post that was not either of:
        a) a non-patent law rant,
        b) a denigrating non-substantive blight, or
        c) some combination of the two?

        When was the last time that Malcolm actually contributed a cogent legal point to an actual Intellectual Property Law discussion?

      2. 1.2.2

        Well, you know what to do then. Just signal your affiliation and be shunned. Of course, there’s plenty of great patent attorney jobs in Wyoming, Idaho and Alabama.

Comments are closed.