Patently-O Bits and Bytes by Juvan Bonni

Recent Headlines in the IP World:

Commentary and Journal Articles:

New Job Postings on Patently-O:

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

  1. 6

    >>How do you respond to a person skilled in the art saying yes I understand the bounds of that claim? You don’t. You l i e and make things up. I work with real inventors with Ph.D.s from the top schools who discuss this exact issue. They know the boundaries of the claims.

    The core issue is above. People are just making things up about functional claims. People skilled in the art understand the boundaries. I am skilled in the art of EE/CS and I know the boundaries. People just try to skip this issue because it completely destroys their argument.

    1. 6.1

      So what we have are people like Lemley that are just making things up to try and confuse issues. Intellectually dishonest people. Hard stop.

      And they can yap out their nonsense but if they do not agree that if a person skilled in the art says they understand the boundaries of the claim in view of the specification, then they are obviously just propogandists trying to confuse the issues.

      Hard stop.

    2. 6.2

      Notice what they do is they make up these bizarre arguments about electrons and only claim the results, etc. etc. etc.

      But the issue is does a person skilled in the art understand the set of solutions enabled?

      The answer is YES. Notice that not one of these intellectually dishonest propogandist ever deals with this issue. And this issue is all that matters.

    3. 6.3

      Greg, you are just making things up.

      What exactly is it that you think that I am fabricating? Do you think that I “made up” that quote from §112? Do you think that I “made up” that quote from Blonder-Tongue Labs? If so, it should be small work for you to check the actual text and embarrass me by proving the misquote. I invite you to check for yourself the accuracy of the actual legal authorities that I have cited. Please let me know what you find to be inaccurate.

      You see, unlike yourself, I am actually citing evidence for the claims I am making. It is you who are predicating your arguments on nothing more than the bald assertions you pull from your own wishes and imagination. It is true that one of us is just “making up” nonsense, but you have the wrong side of the exchange in mind when you toss around this accusation.

      1. 6.3.1

        Greg >>> You see, unlike yourself, I am actually citing evidence

        Below are a few references. Note that Phillips is the gold standard. You are making things up as any person skilled in the art would never say the things you do about structure and electrons etc. Everything your group says are fabricated statements by people not skilled in the art. Those skilled in the art see the functional terms as encompassing known solutions in view of the specification. Etc.

        112: to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains … to make and use the same ….

        Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F. 3d 1303: We have made clear, moreover, that the ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a >>person of ordinary skill in the art<< in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application.

        Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F. 3d 1303: It is the person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention through whose eyes the claims are construed. Such person is deemed to read the words used in the patent documents with an understanding of their meaning in the field, and to have knowledge of any special meaning and usage in the field. The inventor's words that are used to describe the invention—the inventor's lexicography —must be understood and interpreted by the court as they would be understood and interpreted by a person in that field of technology. Thus the court starts the decisionmaking process by reviewing the same resources as would that person, viz., the patent specification and the prosecution history.

        1. 6.3.1.1

          I certainly agree that—as you rightly note from Philips—both the written description and the claims are to be understood from the point of view of persons of ordinary skill. However, you have quoted only one selected snippet phrase in §112(a) as if that were enough to satisfy all of the statute. There is more to §112 than just enablement. I will cheerfully concede that the knowledge of the skilled artisan can fill a lot of gaps in the enablement inquiry. This is not nearly as true for the written description or clarity inquiries, however.

          To give a concrete, and hopefully clarifying example, imagine that I write and file an application spec all about vulcanizing rubber. Imagine that I then file a continuation, and the CON claims recite “a method of communicating at a distance, the method comprising picking up a telephone receiver, dialing a telephone number, and speaking with the individual who picks up the receiver at the destination alerted in response to the telephone number.”

          We ask a skilled artisan in the rubber vulcanizing field “do you know how to practice the claimed invention without undue experimentation after reading the application text?”. Of course, the answer is “yes.” The skilled artisan here knew how to practice the invention even before reading the application text, so he surely knows how to do so after reading the text.

          We next ask the same artisan, however, “do you recognize in the application text that the inventor invented the claimed invention?”. Now the answer is surely “no.” There is not a word in my application about dialing phones. Nothing about the claimed invention is described in the application, even though the claimed invention is entirely enabled as of the filing date.

          Described and enabled are, in short, different requirements. The mere fact that a skilled artisan can practice the full scope of the claim is not—by itself—enough to make the patent statutorily compliant.

          Let us agree that Philips means that we read the specification and we construe the claims according to the understanding that one of skill brings to the reading. Well and good. We must still then ask “can the skilled person—who has ex hypothesi read the spec and claims—agree that the spec not only enables the invention, but also describes it, and that the claims ‘particularly point[] out and distinctly claim’ the invention?”.

          Where the claims recite nothing more particular than “a processor configured to [X]” no honest skilled person could answer those additional questions in the affirmative in the case of any more than ~1% of actual patents currently in force. To claim “a processor configured to [X]” is a general gesture in the direction of what the inventor has invented, but not a particular delineation of the invention (which is what the statute—by its plain words—requires). “General” is the opposite of “particular,” so a mere general description does not satisfy all of §112.

          1. 6.3.1.1.1

            Where the claims recite nothing more particular than “a processor configured to [X]” no honest skilled person could answer those additional questions in the affirmative in the case of any more than ~1% of actual patents currently in force.

            From one who has provided evidence that he does NOT understand this Art, this statement is pure crock.

            Way to try to play the “high road” with the insertion of “no honest skilled person” when YOU are not being honest here Greg.

  2. 5

    It is funny to think that J. Stevens was so ignorant of STEM and patents that he probably didn’t even realize that there are machines that he would exclude from patent eligibility that are likely going to do the same job or types of jobs that he did as a Scotus justice.

    It illustrates that the anti-patent judicial activists do not have a consistent ideas.

    1. 5.1

      How are those thing inconsistent? I welcome that things that will end up taking my job are not patent eligible.

      1. 5.1.1

        How very Luddite of you.

        Do you have your sabots ready?

        1. 5.1.1.1

          Oh noes! Bildo is calling people “luddites” again because they are opposed to patenting legal reasoning! He’s so serious!

          1. 5.1.1.1.1

            Your mindless and misaimed ad hominem is noted.

        2. 5.1.1.2

          Heck yeah I do. Until the wealth created by technological progress can be more evenly distributed, I say smash the machines. If I lose my job to the machine and don’t benefit from the machine, why should I encourage the machine to exist?

          1. 5.1.1.2.1

            It is rather humorous that your reply is directly in line with what a Luddite would say (even as Malcolm attempts to denigrate my very accurate description).

            So, in a sense, thank you OSitA for proving my point.

              1. 5.1.1.2.1.1.1

                Again – thank you for making my point for me.

                1. What point are you trying to make? You call me a Luddite. I say being a Luddite is good.

                  Fundamentally, the story of the Luddites is not anti-technology; rather, it is a story of the failure of society to share the wealth created by the increases in productivity caused by advances in technology.

                  This is especially, true when technology causes one party to gain wealth at the expense of another party. Had the textile mill owners more equitably distributed the productivity gains to the workers, there would have been no destroyed machines. As it was, because of the severe imbalance of power (see the owners able to get Parliament to change the law to make destroying machines a capital offense), destroying the machines was the only leverage the workers had. The textile mill owners won because they turned to state sponsored violence to crush a protest movement.

                  On a macro level, it may be true that technological advances tend to create more jobs than they displace. However, on a micro level, this is meaningless to the person whose job is replaced.

                2. Whether or not you consider being a Luddite to be a good thing is besides the point that you ARE a Luddite.

                  That’s the point.

                3. You are responding exactly as a Luddite would respond.

                  You seem “ok” with this, even as you seem uncomfortable agreeing with me.

      2. 5.1.2

        Particularly ineligible processes like “using logic” and “evaluating the relevance of facts in view of the law.”

        But please keep telling judges how d—b they are for not allowing legal reasoning to be patented! It’s a very serious argument, Night Wiper. Classic maximalist stuff.

    2. 5.2

      The mere fact that some class of human activity is “valuable” or “important” does not mean that it should be eligible for patenting.

      You’re a f——ing idjit for suggesting otherwise. But we knew that already.

      1. 5.2.1

        If that “class” can be claimed in at least one of the statutory categories and provides utility (aka, its value) within the Useful Arts, then on what possible basis would you deny patent eligibility?

  3. 4

    “The only valid patent is the one I haven’t yet gotten my hands on.”

    “Everything which can be invented has been.”

    — Justice Stevens

    1. 4.1

      #4 is just bizarre. The first quote there is not even a real quote, but a slantwise paraphrase of a line from Justice Jackson. The second is a real quote, but also not a quote of Justice Stevens. Why would you present those two lines—in quotations—and attribute them to the late Justice? You are better than this.

      Justice Stevens’ patent law work was not his best work. Still and all, his patent law work was also an infinitesimally small portion of his overall opus. His Chevron opinion, for example, has proved controversial in recent years, but in terms of doctrinal intelligibility and practical workability, it has held up remarkably well. Similarly, his Cardoza-Fonseca follow-on to Chevron has held up well.

      There is much of good that we can say about the late Justice. There is little useful purpose served in making up fake quotes about him in order to nurse a grievance about a few of his egregious mistakes (most of which came in the form of dissents or concurrences, which have no legal force).

      1. 4.1.1

        Greg @ 4.1 — in retrospect, I do see your point. To be sure, everyone (I would expect) on this board knows and appreciates that these are the (modified) quotes of others.

        I would not have posted such on a general interest, or even a non-IP, site. I apologize to anyone who believed otherwise.

        My intent, of course, was merely to point out that Justice Stevens was no friend of IP; including having an apparent deep disdain for patents.

        Though his opinions were too-often incorrect, he was clearly a good man who believed he was doing what was best for our country and humanity in general.

        Even in those cases when he veered from our Constitution.

        1. 4.1.1.1

          Judicial activists that ignore the Constitution to achieve their ends are not good people.

          I think everyone got it Pro Say. We all know those quotes. We all know that Stevens did his best to legislate out patents from the bench.

          1. 4.1.1.1.1

            I include in those “judicial activists that ignore the Constitution” the people who have read out the phrase “A well regulated Militia” from the text of the 2nd Amendment.

            If you are referring to Alice/Mayo etc, those are not issues there the Court ignored the Constitution. At best, the Court ignored the statutory text. Some argue that they did so in service to the Constitution.

            1. 4.1.1.1.1.1

              Exactly correct. And the statutory text wasn’t ignored by the Justices who wrote those decisions. Those Justices were following precedent that had existed for a long time, and applying doctrines that were older than that.

            2. 4.1.1.1.1.2

              Exactly incorrect.

              The hortatory phrases are just that: hortatory.

              You are free to want a different law than what we have.

              You are not free to be wrong and claim to be right in thinking that the law that we have IS some different law.

            3. 4.1.1.1.1.3

              Some argue that they did so in service to the Constitution.

              They would of course be wrong.

              One does not serve the Constitution by trampling on the Separation of Powers, by scrivening Common Law that is Void for Vagueness, and by providing advisory opinions and what MAY merely happen.

              These three key counterpoints (and there are others) cannot be ignored in ANY consideration of the actions of the Supreme Court in view of patent eligibility jurisprudence.

        2. 4.1.1.2

          Justice Stevens was no friend of IP…

          Fair enough, of course. I agree with this much. I do think, however, that it is not really fair to evaluate Justice Stevens based on a myopic focus on his IP jurisprudence. IP cases are a small, small percentage of the SCotUS’ work, and they make up a small, small percentage of Justice Stevens’ contribution to the law.

          I am sure that there is some part of your job that amounts to no more than ~2% of what you do. If you did that part (which is by no means the central focus of your job description) poorly, while simultaneously doing a solid job on your more central tasks that take up ~75% of your time, I dare say that you would think it unfair if all of your performance review concerned that 2% to the exclusion of the 75%. The same applies here.

          1. 4.1.1.2.1

            The same does NOT apply here.

            THIS is a patent law blog, and the focus here is NOT “2% on patents.”

          2. 4.1.1.2.2

            The issue is Greg that he was arrogant and tried to be a leader in patent law.

            Another quote, “A man has to know his limitations.”

            Stevens should have known that his education was based on 19th century philosophy and that he had no idea about anything to do with STEM. He should have written, “I am completely ignorant on these issues and therefore will not recuse myself as a complete ignoramus that still believes that my spirit does the thinking for me in the ether.”

        3. 4.1.1.3

          Sony Corp. of Amer. v. Universal City Studios, Inc. is probably on of the best IP decisions from the Supreme Court. It may be classified as “not friendly to IP,” but it is the day Justice Stevens saved the entertainment industry from themselves.

        4. 4.1.1.4

          “My intent, of course, was merely to point out that Justice Stevens was no friend of IP; including having an apparent deep disdain for patents.”

          So you point that out by misattributing quotes to him? At which law school did you learn this approach to making a point? At mine, they called this “libel.”

          It seems to me that if it were truly “apparent” that Justice Stevens had a “deep disdain for patents,” you could point that out with quotes of things he actually said.

      2. 4.1.2

        Tell everyone the source of the “real” quote, Greg.

        You’re a very serious person! Totally not a hack shilling for his employer.

  4. 3

    Good riddance!

    A man with a mind trained in the 19th century trying to rule our country in the 21st century. I am fine with him finding a porch somewhere to pontificate about his ridiculous views on science and patent law, but to try and make a country’s innovation policy when he didn’t understand the very basics of science is criminal.

    A terrible, terrible human being.

    1. 3.1

      Of course many of his other opinions regarding human rights and the rights’ of the oppressed were dead on.

      1. 3.1.1

        “rights’ of the oppressed”

        I wonder if NWPA can tell that he now is the one with the “old mind” trained in the “20th” century who will be trying to rule a portion of our country in the 21st century. And that such is only going to increase.

    2. 3.2

      It’s pretty clear from Stevens dissent in Diehr that he understood the science and the fundamental aspects of the patent system far better than his peers.

      1. 3.2.1

        You mean the part where he alludes to maths being part of the spirit world that we shouldn’t try to monopolize? Or the part where he talks about information processing like it is carried out by angels? You know where he talks about information processing as if it is not a physical process that takes time, energy, and space to perform. You know the part where he talks about information processing inventions as if they are magic and not machines.

        1. 3.2.1.1

          “…maths being part of the spirit world that we shouldn’t try to monopolize? ”

          Yes.

          “Or the part where he talks about information processing like it is carried out by angels?”

          The machines for carrying out the information processing are patentable if novel and non-obvious. The methods used for information processing are, like math, discoveries, and no more patentable than quantum chromodynamics.

          “You know where he talks about information processing as if it is not a physical process that takes time, energy, and space to perform.”

          The physical process is limited to passing and storing electrons amongst transistors in patterns that could be easily avoided if physically described, and thus are claimed only in terms of the results that they produce. Any physical manner in which you describe information I can avoid by using a different medium and/or encoding. The information itself is not “physical” without the understanding of a human being.

          “You know the part where he talks about information processing inventions as if they are magic and not machines.”

          They are machines. But the information and information processing steps are not. Take human thought, throw it on a stock machine to perform it more rapidly and fewer errors. Totally obvious extension of unpatentable human thought processes.

          1. 3.2.1.1.1

            Tell me about traffic lights….

            (your views fall to the same fallacies of Marty)

          2. 3.2.1.1.2

            The physical process is limited to passing and storing electrons amongst transistors in patterns that could be easily avoided if physically described, and thus are claimed only in terms of the results that they produce.

            This is, of course, exactly correct, and succinctly explains why many (not all, but many, probably most) software claims should be invalidated as they are currently written. However, this point does not sound in §101. Claiming more broadly than you have described, enabled, or claiming in a manner that does not distinctly identify the scope of your invention are all §112 problems. The courts—or Congress—would do everyone a real favor if they were to explain that Alice reached the right outcome but for the wrong reason, and that these sorts of patent law claim failures should rest on §112 grounds rather than §101.

            1. 3.2.1.1.2.1

              Greg is clearly out of his element here, as he neglects the important aspect of what a Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art would take as to these claiming techniques.

              Maybe go back to your Pharma proselytizing Greg…

            2. 3.2.1.1.2.2

              Greg, you are so full of crxp. You know what you are saying is wrong and you say it anyway. You are just like Lemley. A person with a depraved heart.

              Any invention if it had to be described at the level of electrons would be easy to avoid. Plus–the whole premise of your post is ridiculous. The whole point of claims is to captured what was enabled. Just disgusting to even put your vi le thoughts in my head. It is like cleaning the to ilet talking to you. You being, of course, the ex cre ment that has to be scrubbed out.

              As one example, you low character vi le POS, if fiber optic cables had to be described at a level of photon then one could never make a claim that would be infringed.

              But you go on with creating ex cre ment.

              1. 3.2.1.1.2.2.1

                The whole point of claims is to captured what was enabled.

                Then why not just write: “Claim 1. The invention as described and enabled in the preceding text”? Our law used to allow that, after all.

                The Congress deliberately amended the law to cut off such “omnibus” claiming, by requiring that “[t]he specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention” (§ 112(b), emphases added).

                In other words, “to capture[] what was enabled” is a purpose of the claims, but it not the “whole point” (emphasis added). The claims also exist to put the regulated public on notice of the clear boundaries of the invention. If I invent a machine to perform function X, and then claim “any machine that accomplishes [function X],” I have not particularly pointed out my invention. I have merely gestured generally in the direction of my invention. “General” is the opposite of “particular.” Therefore, claims that claim as broadly as the application has enabled but more broadly than the application has described trespass against the plain words of the statute, and against the policy balance that Congress meant to achieve by drafting the statute as it did.

                Any invention if it had to be described at the level of electrons would be easy to avoid.

                Possibly. What of it? “A patent by its very nature is… an exception to the general rule against monopolies… .” Blonder-Tongue Labs. v. Univ. of Ill., 402 U.S. 313, 343 (1971). As any law school graduate knows “an exception
                to the common law… must of course be construed narrowly… .” D’Amico v. Christie, 71 N.Y. 2d 76, 83 (1987). In other words, the law is supposed to constrain the patent monopoly fairly narrowly. That is the way that the system is supposed to work.

                Notice, none of the above is merely my personal opinion. Unlike yourself, I am citing actual legal authority (not mere ad hominem vituperation) to make my case. If you are proceeding in the argument you are making from premises that conflict with the above, that is as much as to say that you are arguing based on your own idiosyncratic view of what the law should be, rather than what the law is and always has been.

                1. Incidentally, for full clarity’s sake, I do not really think that claims—to be valid—must speak in terms of electron spins and suchlike. For computer functions, for example, it would be perfectly fine to describe the circuit that accomplishes a given function, or the code that the processor runs. To note that a “processor configured to [X]” is not compliant with § 112(a) or (b) is not the same as to require a precise account of particles and wave forms. Despite the rhetorical flourish I indulge above about electron spins, I am happy to concede that there is an acceptable middle ground that comes into statutory compliance without reaching all the way down to the microscopic level.

                2. Greg >>>To note that a “processor configured to [X]” is not compliant with § 112(a) or (b) is not the same as to require a precise account of particles and wave forms.

                  What do you base this on? You have just made up ridiculous things. And you don’t respond to actual substantive responses to your nonsense.

                  As someone that can build a circuit down to the gate level and can write a software program that perform the function of the claim, I am sure that these claims are compliant with 112. I am sure that what is happening is they are capturing the set of enabled solutions and solutions that comply with the WD.

                  You on the other hand just make n ak ed statements and build these fantasy explanations. You have absolutely no support for what you are saying.

                  I’ve given examples before on patentlyo of actual circuits and actual software.

                3. Again Greg, you are just making things up. Someone like me that is a person skilled in the art knows the set of solutions.

                  And you don’t respond to that, but rather make things up and just say, gee I don’t think that is precise enough ’cause I want to cause problems with that art field.

                  Again–no substance to your post.

                  How do you respond to a person skilled in the art saying yes I understand the bounds of that claim? You don’t. You l i e and make things up. I work with real inventors with Ph.D.s from the top schools who discuss this exact issue. They know the boundaries of the claims.

                  I get you don’t know the boundary of the claims because you don’t understand the art field.

                4. [Y]ou don’t respond to actual substantive responses to your nonsense.

                  To which particular substantive assertion(s) would you like me to respond? I believe that I have addressed that which was put to me, but if you feel that something was left unaddressed, I will do my best to respond if you can direct me to the omitted argument.

                5. Someone like me that is a person skilled in the art knows the set of solutions.

                  Good. In that case it should be small work for you to set them out in the application text, so that the regulated public can easily see that this “know[n]… set of solutions” is contemplated as part of the invention.

          3. 3.2.1.1.3

            Totally obvious extension of unpatentable human thought processes.

            LOL – time for my favorite word:

            Anthropomorphication

            Machines do NOT think and the view that a machine is only a proxy for human thought is an egregious fallacy.

            You only advertise your ig n0r ance on the subject matter here, DRJlaw (as well as inviting the inanity of those like Greg who have no knowledge on the matter).

            1. 3.2.1.1.3.1

              “Machines do NOT think and the view that a machine is only a proxy for human thought is an egregious fallacy.”

              Thank you for conceding the point. Machines that contain “contract data representing at least one offered contract in at least one predetermined phenomenon,” contain only a representation of human thought, where the representation is “physically” bits stored in the same manner in which the they have been since at least the 1970s.

              You neither want to patent the physical object nor the physical process. You want to patent the “meaning” of bits arranged in a certain way so as to capture an ordinary and expected way of accelerating and regularizing human thought.

              Most software patents simply represent printed matter-like instructions at higher capacity and faster versions of computers available for the last 50 years. Printer matter representing human thought is not patentable.
              link to patentlyo.com
              link to patentlyo.com

              Automating human thought using a computer is simply “[u]se of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way” (KSR).

              I don’t particularly care whether you consider Greg and I to have knowledge of the matter. Alice is the law, data processing inventions are generally unpatentable, and there are no realistic legislative attempts to change that state of affairs. We don’t need to convince you. We merely need to convince enough people to oppose you.

              FYI, arguing that a WWII cryptographer doesn’t understand the basics of science, particularly in connection with automating information processes, shows just how poorly reasoned your critique of Stevens truly is.

              1. 3.2.1.1.3.1.1

                Substantive reply caught in filter.

              2. 3.2.1.1.3.1.2

                Let’s see if this salvages the post….

                DRJlaw

                How odd your response in thinking that my statement is a concession of any point that supports your views.

                You continue the fallacy even as you state that I have made a point, pointing out YOUR fallacy.

                Now, if you want to get into a discussion of printed matter, you notably must also “concede” the exceptions to the judicial doctrine of printed matter.

                You mantra of “it’s just automation” is a false siren song.

                See also, the Grand Hall experiment that provides the reality that a machine changed and configured differently with different software is exactly the type of thing that patent law was written to protect (patent law as written by Congress, rather than the broken scoreboard of Common Law law writing from the Court).

                Sorry, but your KSR argument does NOT hold because while the mechanism may be similar, the actual effects – the actual configurations – ARE different, as witness the fact that different software can do radically different things (go ahead and reformat your hard drive with a Britney Spear CD to understand that).

                I don’t particularly care whether you consider Greg and I to have knowledge of the matter

                You should – speaking about things that you don’t understand just won’t end up well for you.

                data processing inventions are generally unpatentable

                What do you mean “generally?”

                and there are no realistic legislative attempts to change that state of affairs

                Wow are you in denial – did you happen to sleep through the Tillis Congressional hearings?

                We merely need to convince enough people to oppose you.

                LOL – now why would you want to do that?

                As for Stevens, I argue against him directly from his writings on patent law. Whether or not he was a WWII cryptographer is NOT reflected in his PHILOSOPHICALLY driven patent law writing.

                By the way, I know more than just a little about cryptography, and my father as well was a post-WWII cryptographer. Your “appeal to authority” falls more than just a little flat here. Of course, if YOU had bothered to actually try to have knowledge yourself of this area, then YOU might have been able to avoid the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. As it is, you only show your lack of understanding.

              3. 3.2.1.1.3.1.3

                “The physical process is limited to passing and storing electrons amongst transistors in patterns that could be easily avoided if physically described, and thus are claimed only in terms of the results that they produce.”

                So what invention is this not true for? I’ll give you a hint–none. What you wrote is true of all inventions in all areas of patent law. If the claims had to actually describe the physical processes down to the level of the electrons and atoms, then it would be easy to avoid infringement.

                Why do you little tiny tiny wan kies that are obviously doing this for money think that anything you have to say is worthwhile? It is not. You are nothing but a blight on the field of rational modern thought. Filth in the toi let.

                1. “What you wrote is true of all inventions in all areas of patent law.”

                  Hardly. Most inventions involve physical materials, structures, operations on objects — or even electromagnetic signals — and the like.

                  Most information processing inventions simply claim the information, and processing it on a pre-existing computational device. It’s either an attempt to patent unpatentable information, or an attempt to patent obvious means of processing such information using known devices. I agree with Greg that the hybrid 101/102/103/112 issue is a mess, but you’d have to resort to 101 or 101-like printed matter doctrine to explain why, e.g., a new climate model software package is obvious.

                2. It’s either an attempt to patent unpatentable information, or an attempt to patent obvious means of processing such information using known devices.

                  Pure crock – and entirely outside of any cogent legal argument as to patent eligibility.

                  This position has been debunked countless times. It is ONLY by the internet-shout down mechanism of merely repeating the position without taking into account any of the counter points presented over the years that this type of propaganda seeks to gain any traction whatsoever.

                  This reflects a bias against a form of innovation. A bias with ZERO cogent legal standing to the laws as written by Congress.

                  DRJlaw would do well to heed his own advice to me and actually read that one case ( See link to cafc.uscourts.gov ) ALL THE WAY THROUGH to see exactly why.

                  As it is, he seems perfectly fine to expound on a topic that he does not understand in order to advocate for a philosophical position that he feels should be controlling.

                  Not only is he wrong, but he reveals that he his wrong and reveals why he does not even recognize that he is wrong.

          4. 3.2.1.1.4

            DRJlaw, I’d rate your intellectual development at about the 13th century. You have some work to do.

      2. 3.2.2

        Its pretty clear from Steven’s dissent in Diehr and his lost majority position in Alice (and the subsequent dissent dressed as a concurrence) that Stevens not only did NOT understand the science and fundamental aspects of patent law, but he was willing to create a Constitutional crisis by overtly writing over the words of Congress in order to advance his own philosophical agenda.

        That alone will earn him infamy (no matter what other decisions he may have been involved with outside of patent law).

        That you think the opposite is merely your cognitive dissonance shining through.

        1. 3.2.2.1

          “That you think the opposite is merely your cognitive dissonance shining through.”

          Methinks that you describe yourself. Mere information processing systems are and will remain unpatentable. See, e.g., Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc. (Fed. Cir. July 20, 2018).

          1. 3.2.2.1.1

            Do not confuse the broken scoreboard with the underlying reality of that which I speak.

          2. 3.2.2.1.2

            ..and I have to laugh here at the “bringing his own rope” effect of DRJlaw and the very case he provides as to WHY the scoreboard is broken.

            Truly Epic.

  5. 2

    R.I.P., John Paul Stevens. Probably the last great Justice to be nominated by a member of the diseased party of gaping r@ cyst @h0les.

    1. 2.1

      One of the worst judges ever – leastwise in relation to patent law.

      I reserve a different view on other aspects of law.

    2. 2.2

      He and Sandra Day used to play tennis in the Arlington Y. What is your favorite or least favorite opinion JPS authored on an IP case? What is your favorite or least favorite dissent he authored on an IP case?

      1. 2.2.1

        Stevens’ majority opinions and his dissents in every subject matter eligibility case are spot on. The Diehr dissent in particular should have been the majority opinion (the majority opinion is probably the worst written Supreme IP decision ever, with the possible exception of Tam). It would have saved everyone a lot of time.

        1. 2.2.1.1

          So sometimes the diseased party of gaping r@ cyst @h0les gets it right. Ain’t that America.

          1. 2.2.1.1.1

            The Republican Party has been the party of white supremacists and dominionists for the entirety of most of our lives. Pretending otherwise is something that only gaping @ h0 les (like you) do.

            1. 2.2.1.1.1.1

              Oops, my shifty historical friend as tripped himself into Malcolm’s One Bucket…

            2. 2.2.1.1.1.2

              I had to ask my mother what “a gaping @ h0 le” is. She wouldn’t tell me but says I’m not one.

              1. 2.2.1.1.1.2.1

                I can neither confirm nor deny that Malcolm’s mother would be more than willing to show you exactly what that is.

        2. 2.2.1.2

          The younguns do not know that Richard Nixon nominated Harry Blackmun to the Supremes. Confirmed 94-0. The party of Lincoln, i.e., the diseased party of gaping r@ cyst @h0les.

          1. 2.2.1.2.1

            Yes A. Lincoln the Republicans and Democrats used to both be fairly reasonable. The whole country has gone mad. I remember Johnson before Nixon. Nixon was a bit crazy, but he uppermost in Nixon’s mind was still that he wanted to be a good person and a law abiding person. Nixon seems rational and fair minded compared to Trump.

            1. 2.2.1.2.1.1

              “Both siderism” is the position of a true m-o-r-o-n.

              1. 2.2.1.2.1.1.1

                Actually, your “put-downs” of “both siderISM” only exhibits your own faults.

                How very Trump of you.

              2. 2.2.1.2.1.1.2

                MM, nah. It is just what has happened. Both the D’s and R’s have gone mad. I think it is the old saw of pick your enemies well as they are the ones you are going to end up like.

                Plus I think it is bigger than the D’s and R’s. It is the structure of our media and the structure of our campaign financing laws. And the demographic changes. I also think a lot of this is because the Scotus keeps making up laws rather than forcing the USA to amend the Constitution for things like guns and abortion and gay rights.

          2. 2.2.1.2.2

            News flash: political parties adopt different platforms at different times as they struggle to put together a majority. That fact doesn’t excuse the Republican Party from its current state. Now go f—- off and die.

            1. 2.2.1.2.2.1

              Nor does it excuse the other side.

              There are no angels in politics – only politicians.

            2. 2.2.1.2.2.2

              Of course the Republican Party is not excused for its ra cism.

              1. 2.2.1.2.2.2.1

                “Of course the Republican Party is not excused for its ra cism.”

                Yeah. Abraham Lincoln. What a ra cist.

          3. 2.2.1.2.3

            Interesting that you note Justice Blackmum here, but also note the Supreme Court case of Sony v Universal City Studios (in which Blackmum penned a dissent).

            1. 2.2.1.2.3.1

              Oops – my apologies, as that was the squirrel that noted the Sony case…

    3. 2.3

      Good riddance! A man that had a mind for the 19th century.

  6. 1

    The idea that US drug prices would go down if TRIPs were rescinded is mostly wishful thinking. The effect of TRIPs and related USTR actions is but a fart in a hurricane relative to the effects of US tax law and FDA law.

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