Patently-O Bits and Bytes by Juvan Bonni

Recent Headlines in the IP World:

Commentary and Journal Articles:

New Job Postings on Patently-O:

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

  1. 7
    1. 7.1

      Why? Why should any hegemon “care” when challenged by a nation that looks as if it will soon be taking over the role of hegemon. Of course it cares, and deeply. About the manifest loss of hard raw power.

      You doubt that the days of hegemon power are numbered? Look around. The combination of free market capitalism and unchecked social media is fatal for democracy. The future is totalitarianism.

      As to the indented italics paragraph, you have questions. I have only one: who is “we”?

      1. 7.1.1

        National hegemony is LESS a concern for Greg, given his well known (and “whipped out”) credentials; Greg is obviously in the thralls of the mindset of a juristic entity that simply has NO any one nation national allegiance.

        His is the hegemony of Corporatocracy. That’s a bit of a different dystopian totalitarianism.

      2. 7.1.2

        Why? Why should any hegemon “care” when challenged by a nation that looks as if it will soon be taking over the role of hegemon. Of course it cares, and deeply. About the manifest loss of hard raw power.

        I do not think that it is really possible to answer the “why” question before the “what” question. Really. What is “American” intellectual property? That question needs to be answered before any such talk of “hegemons” can be more than flatus vocis.

        1. 7.1.2.1

          The “why” question INFORMS all of the bias being imported into the “what” question.

          So no, Greg, you are quite incorrect here.

  2. 6

    When Josh Wilkerson turned 26, he aged out of his stepfather’s private health insurance and he was unable to afford his nearly $1,200-a-month insulin.

    He began rationing his pricey prescription brand, before a doctor recommended taking ReliOn, an over-the-counter brand sold for $25 a vial at Walmart.

    “It didn’t work for his body,” his mom, Erin Wilson-Weaver, tells The Post. Her son died June 14, and she’s still in mourning — but determined to advocate in his memory.

    Known as “human insulin,” ReliOn requires more time to become effective than the “analogue” insulin that Wilkerson had previously been taking — but, at one-tenth of the price, it was more affordable for the northern Virginia dog kennel supervisor, who was earning $16.50 an hour.

    Clearly, it’s over-regulation by the FDA that is responsible for outrageously high insulin prices charged by drug companies.

    Or so we were told by Greg DeLaffatus, who coincidentally also advocates for expanding the patent system so the same drug companies can charge us for … making inferences based on correlations. I wonder who employs Greg?

    If razor blades were sold like drugs, Gillette’s latest model would cost $5,000/per unit.

    1. 6.1

      “Clearly, it’s over-regulation by the FDA that is responsible for outrageously high insulin prices charged by drug companies.”

      25$ doesn’t seem overpriced to my eye. That’s a whole month’s worth right? Way cheaper than my eye meds.

      1. 6.1.1

        Sarcasm is lost on white supremacists.

        1. 6.1.1.1

          MMMmm yeah well idk about that. But I will say that it looks like the only person actually proposing to do anything about the high patented version costs is the person you refer to as the “white supremacist” “Great orange One”. I don’t see leftists having jumped to fix the “problem”.

          link to news.yahoo.com

          1. 6.1.1.1.1

            You don’t see any Leftists…?

            That’s because you are not paying attention.

            Malcolm hinted at (but did not provide) that Leftist E. Warren had a position. I actually did Malcolm’s legwork and presented that position.

            Funny thing about that, was that said position nullified Malcolm’s “one bucket” view and also directly clashed with Greg “High Road” DeLassus shots at his own prior Republican representative (who basically was putting forth the very same viewpoint of E. Warren).

    2. 6.2

      “If razor blades were sold like drugs, Gillette’s latest model would cost $5,000/per unit.”

      I heard they got woke lately so they’ll be broke soon. Lost 8 billy last year iirc. Once they’re broke it won’t really matter how much they charge.

    3. 6.3

      Jeebus, but you’re gullible (when you want to be).

  3. 5

    A ragtag group of survivors discover that the Artificial Intelligence “Skynet” iniatiated the nuclear holocaust of Judgement Day in response to demand letters asserting that the AI existentially infringed dozens of patents. The survivors time travel to the past to sway the course of subject matter eligibility and save humanity. These time travelers return to key moments in patent law history, and repeatedly find find T-1000 terminators who will stop at no arguement or action to protect an expansive subject matter eligibility. Coming soon… Terminator: Disclaimer.

    1. 5.1

      Now it all makes sense.

      1. 5.1.1

        Who was that guy that used to post here about how he invented everything and time travelers were out to get him…..?

        It was not Sarah, but this post by Ben reminds me of that guy.

  4. 4

    For those constantly complaining that patents and their assertions are no longer lucrative, the first article above includes the following asserted PAE successes:
    “Network-1’s strategy is to focus on acquiring and investing in high quality patents which management believes have the potential to generate significant licensing opportunities as Network-1 has achieved with respect to its Remote Power Patent and Mirror Worlds Patent Portfolio. Network-1’s Remote Power Patent has generated licensing revenue in excess of $144,000,000 from May 2007 through March 31, 2019. Network-1 has achieved licensing and other revenue of $47,150,000 through March 31, 2019 with respect to its Mirror Worlds Patent Portfolio…” [and major suits are reportedly pending against major companies]

    1. 4.1

      B-b-but it could $100 billion in revenue if it wasn’t for those meddling kids!

      /tr 0ll lobby off

      Shall we take the time to look at these “remote power” patent claims? It sounds like some truly ground-breaking technology.

  5. 3

    Isn’t this study of the trend of consumer-payments to pharmacists for generic drugs irrelevant to current legislative proposals, since the far greater amount of U.S. drug costs is paid by taxpayers [Medicare “D,” Medicaid, Veterans, Government employee plans, etc.] and private employers?

    1. 3.1

      The Frank/Hicks/Berndt study is quite meaningless in the larger context that the entire profit/cost picture across the Pharma ecosystem is one giant rigged mess.

      First step in any actual progress should be clear information throughout that “ecosystem.”

  6. 2

    Can a Robot be an Inventor?

    I cannot see why not. I am not sure whether our law will or will not have a hard time with the idea of a non-human “inventor” (obviously, the case has not yet presented, so this would still be an issue of first impression). Setting aside the legal difficulties, however, it seems plausible enough in theory that one can imagine a non-human “inventing” something.

    1. 2.1

      I think that the low-hanging fruit arguments against a robot being an inventor come primarily from § 101 and § 100. Under § 101, the language states that “Whoever invents or discovers . . . may obtain a patent therefor . . .”, and “whoever” is defined in every dictionary I’ve searched as being a “person or people.” My guess is that a court would likely go with this argument. However, they might also rely on the definition of “inventor” under § 100(f), which states that “The term “inventor” means the individual or, if a joint invention, the individuals collectively who invented or discovered the subject matter of the invention.” Similarly, most definitions of “individual” define it as a “single human being” or a “single person.” Those are the low hanging fruit though. I could also see some reliance on the more procedural aspects of the law that require the inventor to sign off at certain points in the process. Those could be based on issues related to contract law and personhood requirements. These issues are more unlikely, but nevertheless possible.

      1. 2.1.1

        “[W]hoever” is defined in every dictionary I’ve searched as being a “person or people.”

        But “person” is not limited to “human being” in federal law. As Mitt Romney famously observed, “corporations are people too.” That was bad politics, but good law.

        [M]ost definitions of “individual” define it as a “single human being” or a “single person.”

        Once again, “single person” does not actually rule out non-human persons.

        I could also see some reliance on the more procedural aspects of the law that require the inventor to sign off at certain points in the process.

        Hm, yes, I agree that this is sticky. It is hard to see how one could get AI software to execute an inventor declaration.

        That is really a flaw in our law, then. We should amend the statute to fix that (unless we simply judge that—as a public policy matter—all inventions conceived by AI must be regarded as part of the public domain once they cease to be kept as trade secrets).

        1. 2.1.1.1

          As Mitt Romney famously observed, “corporations are people too.” That was bad politics, but good law.

          AGAIN – (why is that emoticon of banging one’s head against the wall not working) – see Stanford v. Roche.

          Criminy – is this AI stuff completely delusional?

          That is really a flaw in our law, then.

          No.
          There is no flaw in the law.
          There IS a flaw in Greg’s musings.

    2. 2.2

      Facepalm…

      Try Stanford v. Roche – AI — at best — would merely be a type of juristic (non-real) person.

      See also the Monkey-Selfie case.

    3. 2.3

      one can imagine a non-human “inventing” something.

      That’s the easy part. Like, trivially easy.

    4. 2.4

      What does [“inventing” something] mean when the word inventing is placed in quotes?

      Are you asking a legal question while purposefully avoiding the legal meaning of the term at the heart of the question? (purposefully conflating colloquial and legal meanings only results in a garbled question, with answers so fraught with ambiguity as to be meaningless and merely examples of gamesmanship, providing NO cogent framework for a meaningful discussion.

  7. 1

    As the good professors note in the Abstract to their Paper on Financial Innovation:

    “…most studies in innovation ignore the financial sector altogether.”

    For them, the paradigm case of “innovation” in the “financial sector” is the ATM. Is a claim to an innovative ATM properly classified, when it is allocated to the “financial sector”? That would surprise me.

    1. 1.1

      That you are surprised is no surprise.

    2. 1.2

      … you do realize that our patent office is placed in the Department of Commerce, right?

      Or was this one of your attempts at being “provocative?”

    3. 1.3

      Is a claim to an innovative ATM properly classified, when it is allocated to the “financial sector”?

      I agree with your skepticism, Max. An ATM is a machine. The art unit that should examine claims covering new ATM technology should be in the mechanical art units, not the business methods art units.

      1. 1.3.1

        The art unit that should examine claims covering new ATM technology should be in the mechanical art units, not the business methods art units.

        You are assuming that the distinction between the “new” ATM and the “old” ATM is mechanical or physical structure.

        That’s an incredibly naïve assumption. Wake up, Greg.

        [throws bucket of ice cold water on Greg]

        My god I think he’s in a coma.

      2. 1.3.2

        Why?

        Though in a sense, your suggestion is already implemented. The business method art units are within the “mechanical” tech center.

        1. 1.3.2.1

          A machine that can spit out case in response to certain credentials and inputs can just as well spit out medical records, or toilet paper, or really any other sort of flat but solid-not-sticky material. There is nothing innately “financial” about such a machine (just like a light bulb is not a “financial” technology just because it could be used in a bank vault).

          1. 1.3.2.1.1

            “spit out case”

            Er, “spit out cash…”

            1. 1.3.2.1.1.1

              Greg, as I recall, the art on separating/feeding out paper money was in old class 271 – sheet handling in general – for the rare cases in which some claimed improvement in ATMs was actually about that.
              True funny story about one of the first ATM machines: It was on a Swiss city corner where the electric trolley cars turned and made sparks. The sparks were strong enough at times to cause that ATM machine’s unshielded electronics to start feeding out cash.

              1. 1.3.2.1.1.1.1

                Paul — Today (and for many years now), it is our Congress and President who are the sparks feeding out dollars to any and all “causes” and “purposes” they deem worthy . . . the multi-trillion dollar debt they (usually with our at least tacit approval) continue to pile on to the backs of our children, grandchildren, and future generations . . .

          2. 1.3.2.1.2

            ATM applications which focus on the chemical coatings for the rollers which dispense paper will go to mat-sci examiners, ATM applications which focus on chip-card readers will go to electrical examiners, and ATM applications which focus on transaction fee schemes will go to business method examiners. What’s the problem?

            1. 1.3.2.1.2.1

              ATM applications which focus on the chemical coatings for the rollers which dispense paper will go to mat-sci examiners…

              Perhaps you can cite me an actual application where someone invented a new chemical coating that can be used on all sorts of applications, but in which the applicant limits the claims to just the context of ATMs. That seems unlikely to me. I will feel a bit stupid if you really have such an application in mind, but then I am a parent, so I am used to feeling stupid.

              ATM applications which focus on chip-card readers will go to electrical examiners…

              Once again, I suppose that it is possible that someone invents a new chip card reader (which could be used in all sorts of contexts), and then claims only an ATM that includes the new chip card reader. Somehow, however, I have to think that this sort of occurrence is rather rare.

              … and ATM applications which focus on transaction fee schemes will go to business method examiners.

              Sure, but I would not consider that an example of inventing an ATM (as Max specifies in #1). Inventing a new way to use an ATM is not the same as inventing an ATM.

            2. 1.3.2.1.2.2

              ATM applications which focus on the chemical coatings for the rollers which dispense paper will go to mat-sci examiners, ATM applications which focus on chip-card readers will go to electrical examiners, and ATM applications which focus on transaction fee schemes will go to business method examiners. What’s the problem?

              This is all fine. I do not really disagree with anything that you wrote here. I would not classify any of these inventions as an “innovative ATM” (as per Max’s #1), and I doubt that the inventors would claim them as ATMs. That is to say, the inventor who invents a new chemical coating probably just claims the coating (which can also be used in dozens of non-ATM contexts), not “An ATM comprising a roller, wherein the roller is coated with… .” The inventor who invents the chip reader probably just claims the chip reader (which can also be used in dozens of non-ATM contexts), not “An ATM comprising a chip reader, wherein the chip reader… .”

              I agree that the coating goes to the 1600s and the chip reader goes to whatever art unit examines chip readers. I am not sure, however, that this really amounts to material science examiners reviewing applications covering “ATMs,” because the claims will never mention ATMs.

              1. 1.3.2.1.2.2.1

                I think don’t really understand what you or Max are getting at, so I won’t waste anyone’s time further.

          3. 1.3.2.1.3

            ..maybe its the FAMOUS “generic computing machine.”

            Please run and provide the single “objective physical structure” for that mythical machine so that we can ALL run out and know how to write claims in the (Malcolm non-optional) claim format with expressed differences along that “objective physical structure”….

    4. 1.4

      I don’t entirely agree with the article quote “…most studies in innovation ignore the financial sector altogether.” I have often seen history references to how important things like the invention of letters of credit and double entry booking were getting us out of the dark ages.

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