A Novel and Useful System for Ruling Middle Earth…

25 thoughts on “A Novel and Useful System for Ruling Middle Earth…

  1. 3

    Problem is there is only one Person of Skill in the Art this patent is directed to. And he is not available to testify.

    1. 3.1

      Either Celebrimbor and his elves are PHOSITAs, OR they don’t count because they’re dead, and under that standard Sauron also doesn’t count.

  2. 2

    You know I am so tired of the misinformation being pushed by the anti-patent forces.

    This claim seems like one of those that are equated to information processing claims.

    Facts: (1) 112 for information processing claims means that one skilled in the art can build an actual machine of the claims. (2) Information processing is necessarily a physical process. (3) There can’t be new functions without new structure.

    It is like dealing with mischievous children that enjoy destroying, lying, and stealing.

    1. 2.1

      Reality–the anti-patent crowd (e.g., Lemley and Chien) lie about these facts.

      They can’t refute these and do their best to blow as much smoke to obscure the issues.

      Dishonesty is thy name.

    2. 2.2

      Facts: (1) 112 for information processing claims means that one skilled in the art can build an actual machine of the claims. (2) Information processing is necessarily a physical process. (3) There can’t be new functions without new structure.

      (1) 112 has more requirements than enablement including definiteness and written description. (2) You have switched topics from information processing claims to information processing embodiments. Unless the “physical process” is reflected in the claims, this is a non sequitur. (3) Huh? A flat head screwdriver can function as a chisel without new structure. Are you simply treating the holding of Alappat as a fact? If so, you are assuming your conclusion.

      1. 2.2.1

        Oh boy NS II, you are definitely fit the description above of an anti-patent person.

        (1) So either it is enabled or not.

        (2) I can’t make any sense out of your comment. You have claims either they are enabled or not.

        (3) Such a cheap little shot. The flat headed screw drive is being used for a new function by a human. The invention in this case is the combination of the human and the flat headed screw driver and there would have to be new structure in the motion of the human being for the new function as a chisel to be performed.

        Be nice to once have an intellectually honest dialogue with you. Do you write your nonsense to try and confuse those less well education in patent law and science? That is my guess. Patent attorneys read your comments and roll their eyes and move on.

      2. 2.2.2

        Be nice NS II that rather than fabricating nonsense to refute facts that you dealt with them fairly and understood the consequences of the facts.

        You twisty little nonsense about new functions possible without new structure illustrates very well your character or lack thereof.

      3. 2.2.3

        Are you simply treating the holding of Alappat as a fact?

        Tell me, NS II, what is your understanding of the Alappat case and what is fact, what is holding, and what is the difference?

    3. 2.3

      (3) There can’t be new functions without new structure.

      And a new use for a known drug is what?

      All information is abstract. Some information could be subject to the patent system. Some information should not be. You know what comes next.

      1. 2.3.1

        Martin, the new function of “new use” is being done with new structure from a person.

        This is a typical mistake whether intentional or not from the anti-patent people where structure that is part of a human is attempted to be ignore.


            Martin, the structure was already there? Really? So if you go to school and get a Ph.D., then your brain is no different than before you got the Ph.D. because somehow all the structure was already magically there.

            Guess what? If someone uses drug for a new therapy use, their brain must be changed in ordered to do this. New structure.

      2. 2.3.2

        “All information is abstract.”

        This statement is just a general statement that has no meaning in the field of patent law. (Or shouldn’t.)

        The fact is that within the structure of an information processing machine information processing machine there is nothing abstract or intangible about information.



          You may actually be able to get Marty to agree with you, given that Marty has distinguished “information” by the “consumer” of the information (as opposed to the information itself).

          1) information as information itself

          2) same information, consumed by a machine.

          3) same information, consumed by a human.

          While in each of these, the “sum total” is the same, in Marty’s scheme, 2) is not the same and is patent eligible.

          Distinctly, Marty’s problem with his scheme and with patent law remains the same: a lack of understanding of the nature of utility.

          In patent law, that nature of utility is at its core, the utility as measured by the consumption of a human.

          ANY end item utility divorced from an impact measurable on a human consumption is a “patent sense” empty utility and not eligible.

          For any example of an innovation that most all would agree meets eligibility, one can easily show human consumption of utility in the patent sense.

          Creates two sets for a Venn diagram: items that have no patent sense of utility of being measured by a sense of human consumption and items that have a patent sense of human consumption.

          Mutually exclusive sets.

          Marty “attempts” to insert some type of “relative” consumption as an innovation eligibility litmus test. Such has no bearing in law. Such has no bearing in regards to innovation.


            You are wrong that all utility is the same anon.

            Some is immediate, and some is remote. Some accrues to some users, and not other users. Some requires more or less skill in operation and some is inherent.

            The immediate and proximate utility of information is either tied to human meaning or machine function. It is irrelevant that the ultimate utility of the system to which the machine applies has human value. A better shovel digs a bigger hole with less effort. The utility is not a human meaning. The utility is the mechanical effect of a hole in the ground, which would occur with or without persons. The utility is not that of the prospective building which will sit in the hole, because the utility of the building is not a proximate result of the invention.


              Martin, I understand your arguments. But–look–human innovation is about creating structure that has utility. Full stop.

              Your arguments are policy oriented why some innovation should be excluded. Maybe you are right. Maybe you have good policy reasons. But–they are policy arguments and not grounded in the fundamental principles of innovation and patents.

              (I note too that you don’t respond to my other points.)


            anon, yes Martin’s attempt to exclude information consumed by humans ignores utility as the driver of patents.

            Probably the way to think of the human is just another part of the machine. Is your part of the machine providing utility to the human part of the machine?

            People just don’t seem to get information processing and can’t seem to see themselves as information processors.

      1. 1.1.1

        I didn’t peesonally see any connection when I was reading the post. I think you were triggered because your “information processing” applications typically provide detail at the same level of Tolkein’a description of ring-craft.


          So you didn’t see the similarity, but then after thinking about it you did see the similarity. OK. Sure.


              Pretty sad really. These people just blast the comment section with misrepresentations to try and confuse the issues. Pretty sad people.

              I guess with role models like Mark Lemley what can you expect.

Comments are closed.