Totally off topic, but I learned this morning that growth in IP value was the largest single driver of this last year’s record GDP growth. I hope that we all feel a certain warm satisfaction in knowing that we did our part for the economic recovery this year.
“The increase in nonresidential fixed investment reflected increases in equipment (led by information processing equipment) and in intellectual property products (led by software as well as research and development)…”
12.1.1.1
Yeah I can believe it. What with zoom and everyone needing support machines therefor etc. and everyone trying to shift to working from home.
12.1.1.1.1
Criminy, the filters are STILL active…
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
January 28, 2022 at 8:49 am
But 6, anything “working from home” would need be software related, and thus (according to the usual suspects) NOT be patent eligible.
Does this mean that the large underpinning to this (so-called) GDP growth is but a mirage?
11
So there appears to be a point of inflection around 2012/2013, where the rate of increase of wiki prior art rejections has slowed down after that point as compared to before that point. Not sure what that is telling us about what the PTO examiners are instructed to use as cited prior art in office actions.
My next post will be the purposefully given address that went to Bethesda instead of NH or VA where ever he could have been contacted.
Keep up with my posting.
10.1.1
Sarah, WTF is up with you? I don’t get it.
10.1.1.1
Sarah being Sarah,
Just like:
Malcolm being Malcolm
Greg being Greg
marty being marty
Ben being Ben
Random being Random
MaxDrei being MaxDrei
Paul being Paul
and
Shifty being Shifty
Also somewhat related, if you bros want something to truly blow your mind try this on for size. May just send chills up your spine as you read it. Certainly did mine. And I wouldn’t doubt if it wasn’t tru(ish) at least somewhat.
To my mind, the politically smart play would be for Pres. Biden to put VP Harris in the open SCOTUS slot, to free up the VP slot for a more electorally promising political heir.
9.1.1
I could think of no WORSE position to award a prominent life time role as Supreme Court Justice than Kamala Harris.
That this idea even sees the light of being printed is a travesty of the unthinking and seriously ideology-impaired Liberal Left vacuity.
9.1.1.1
…should read: no worse person…
9.1.1.1.1
Yes.
Do you get paid for corrections too?
You haven’t said how much.
Yet.
9.1.1.1.1.1
Thank$ for your choice of posting a fallacy (hint: “too” is false).
9.1.1.1.2
Personally, we don’t think you should get paid for corrections.
Is there a union?
9.1.1.1.2.1
Thank$ for posting YOUR inanity of attempting to take my meme out of context.
9.1.1.1.2.1.1
So you DO get paid even for “corrections.”
Finally admitted, Snowflake.
…
Double coin for the double false projections.
SWEET !
9.1.1.2
I agree anon. Harris would be the ultimate legislator.
9.1.1.3
“the unthinking and seriously ideology-impaired Liberal Left vacuity”? Could you be any more ob nox ious?
9.1.1.3.1
Meh – don’t shoot the messenger.
9.1.1.3.1.1
I agree, Snowflake. You were paid how much for that?
Be specific.
9.1.1.3.1.1.1
Why are you insisting on asking a question (fallaciously) that not only have I set you straight on, but have reminded you that the answer (to the non-fallacious question) has already been given to you?
Well, we both know the answer to that question, eh?
Hint: you are 0bsessed with me.
…
Focus, Snowflake. It was a simple question.
…
Simple question – and as mentioned – the simple and direct answer as already been given (I do not gat paid for MY posts, but rather, I have enterprised off of your 0bsess10n with me)
Focus indeed.
…
You do not get paid for your posts [lol] after all the admissions.
Name 1 person who believes that, Snowflake. You do not count.
…
You are quite welcome for contributing to my enterprising – as only you can do.
Be that as it may, …
My pal Shifty, it matters not at all – and certainly not coming from you, what “anyone else believes.”
Further – you continue to attempt to misuse the word “admissions.”
Are you running out of tells?
9.1.1.4
Conspiracy theory: The executive branch is still in competition with the judicial branch, and such an appointment would go a long way to kill SCOTUS’s legitimacy (i.e., source of power).
9.1.1.4.1
um, ok I guess – but that thought has nothing at all to do with my view.
9.1.1.5
How would that work? Would Biden them get to pick anyone as his VP, or is it a Conga line where Pelosi (third in line to be president) becomes VP?
9.1.1.5.1
An open VP slot is just like any other opening in the executive branch: the president appoints with the advice and consent of the senate (see, e.g., Gerald Ford’s appointment by Pres. Nixon).
9.1.1.5.1.1
Thanks Greg – Ford is an excellent example, as it came out only later how the Political Party dynamics were in play to put Ford into a position to ascend (unelected) into presidency when he could not even corral even backing to be his party’s representative, but wielded enough power behind the scenes.
So who in the “D” party would be an analogue?
9.1.1.5.1.1.1
6,
Your thoughts here…?
…
I can’t follow what you guys are talking about, looks like near gibberish to me.
9.1.2
“To my mind, the politically smart play would be for Pres. Biden to put VP Harris in the open SCOTUS slot, to free up the VP slot for a more electorally promising political heir.”
I think that if one is willing to state that they’re solely optimizing for goal of the Democratic party winning the presidency in 2024, that the move you describe is close to objectively the best possible move.
9.1.2.1
Right. I am not saying that Harris to SCOTUS is the best move in all possible sense of “best.” My only point in 9.1 is that Harris to SCOTUS, followed by X to VP, it is the best way to achieve victory for the democratic presidential candidate in 2024. Right now my choice for X would Buttigieg, but I could easily be persuaded that there is a better choice (e.g., John Fetterman of PA).
9.1.2.1.1
What (serious question) has Buttigieg ever accomplished?
Blind (truly Lemming-like) following of the Liberal Left scripts really damages the shattered remains of Greg “I Use My Real Name” DeLassus’ credibility.
9.1.2.1.2
Filter again….
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
January 28, 2022 at 8:54 am
What (serious question) has Buttigieg ever accomplished?
Blind (truly Lemming-like) following of the Liberal Left scripts really damages the shattered remains of Greg “I Use My Real Name” DeLassus’ credibility.
9.1.3
Greg, Biden will be too old to run. You can see his advancing cognitive decline almost on a monthly basis.
Harris will just be pushed aside and there will be a new D candidate.
9.1.3.1
“Harris will just be pushed aside and there will be a new D candidate.”
I hope you’re right, but I apparently have less faith in the collective judgement of the Democratic party than you do.
9.1.4
“the politically smart play would be for Pres. Biden to put VP Harris in the open SCOTUS slot”
Not even sure if you’re joking or not right now.
9.1.4.1
Totally serious. I agree with NW that Biden should not run again (in a better world, he would not have run in 2020), which means that 2024 should be an open primary race. Biden cannot hand the nomination to his chosen successor, but he can give any such person a leg up by putting him/her in the spotlight. VP Harris’ turn in the spotlight has not shown her to good electoral effect, so the wise move is to get her out, and put in someone who can make better use of that spotlight.
How to get her out without it becoming an insult to her (an insult that she does not deserve, and which might alienate voters who like her)? By making her the historic first African-American woman on the SCOTUS, he honors her (not insults), while simultaneously clearing the way for a better 2024 candidate. It would be a deft political move. I am not saying that I expect such a move, but I would welcome it.
9.1.4.1.1
The Power position of a life-time role on the nation’s highest court…
… as a way of not insulting one of the most insulting VP’s of all time…?
Talk about
F
A
I
L
I
N
G
upward in glorious style…
9.1.4.1.2
“How to get her out without it becoming an insult to her (an insult that she does not deserve, and which might alienate voters who like her)?”
From what I hear she can’t even run her own office without being basically a workplace bully. So, I mean, maybe she does “deserve” it? I don’t mean to be mean to her but she’s havin’ like real troubles I hear.
In any event, all this is supposedly being done to “not insult” a lady that couldn’t get 1% of the vote in primary times by giving her extraordinary power for life in a position for which she’s probably not even half qualified for (0 judicial experience?). Ridiculous bro.
9.1.4.1.2.1
[S]he’s probably not even half qualified…
Whatever. I am not suggesting that Biden appoint someone obviously unqualified, like myself or Ivanka Trump. I am talking about the former attorney general of California. Whether there is someone out there who is “more qualified” than she is I cannot say. She would be fine.
“If we get behind this awful candidate that a fraction of our voters adore, we’ll win congress and be able to advance our goals!”
“I understand your logic. But the position of President is not a bargaining chip.”
-Likely conversation between Republicans from 2016
9.2
Actually, now that we are into quotas in our society, the next Scotus should be a Hispanic man.
9.2.1
… Asian Non-binary.
9.2.2
I disagree with both of you, they need to be a BLACK transbian at rock bottom bare minimum. Hopefully jewish religion to keep jewish representation on the court super high, and hopefully of hispanic lineage and with at least one muslim recent ancestor and at least 1/4 native american.
It’s the ONLY WAY bruhs!
Though I think personally the judge that stepped down should have waited until the next admin in a couple years :).
9.2.2.1
The rest of your intersectionalities I can countenance, but black just won’t cut it as you already have Thomas, and there are no Asians represented.
9.2.2.1.1
Yes but BLM was going on and all anon, gotta throw his base a lil somethin.
9.2.2.1.1.1
LOL – 6, do YOU really want to get into a “I’m the most victim” contest?
That’s not how intersectionality works, now is it?
BLM already has a rep – no rep for Asian.
End of story.
8
OT: breaking news is that Breyer has retired.
8.1
I as you know did not file a bankruptcy appeal in Massachusetts either. Now I know that Patrick put my IP in the TOOL Patent for all of them. Mann joined in and is now in their circle.
8.1.1
From the Federal Circuit, I think Judge Kathleen O’Malley would be a fine candidate. District Court and Appellate Court experience.
8.1.1.1
Wholeheartedly agree CA. Problem is we can’t afford to lose her from the CAFC.
8.1.1.1.1
Pro Say – she is already lost to the CAFC, as she is retiring as of March 11, 2022.
At 64 years, she would be bear the oldest nominee ever. Average age of nominees is 53.
8.1.1.1.1.1
Thanks. Forgot about the retirement.
On her being 64, though . . . much different than electing a 78 year old to be pres (ha — like that would ever happen).
Heck. If the dems had their way, they’d probably love to vote in a healthy 25 year year young super-lib.
Who promised to live to be 100.
8.1.1.1.1.1.1
If the dems had their way, they’d probably love to vote in a healthy 25 year year young super-lib.
This touches on a good point. As Jon Chait wrote today, “[t]he absurd actuarial logic of lifetime appointments incentivizes both parties to find the youngest possible nominee who can be plausibly sold to the public as having cleared the qualification bar.”
I offer a modest suggestion as to how to fix this: instead of having nine-permanent justices on the SCOTUS, the Chief Justice should be a permanent position, and then the other 8 seats should be filled by a rotating cast of circuit judges from the various federal courts of appeal. They can take it in turns to serve for a year as judges on the supreme court, before they return to service in their respective circuit courts. In this way, no single judge will serve all that long, so there will be no need to select them on the basis of longevity.
This will also end the tedious business of SCOTUS confirmation hearings. The only person who will ever be appointed to the SCOTUS will be the Chief, so such hearings will only arrive once every two to three decades.
Totally off topic, but I learned this morning that growth in IP value was the largest single driver of this last year’s record GDP growth. I hope that we all feel a certain warm satisfaction in knowing that we did our part for the economic recovery this year.
link to bea.gov
From pharma and related?
“The increase in nonresidential fixed investment reflected increases in equipment (led by information processing equipment) and in intellectual property products (led by software as well as research and development)…”
Yeah I can believe it. What with zoom and everyone needing support machines therefor etc. and everyone trying to shift to working from home.
Criminy, the filters are STILL active…
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
January 28, 2022 at 8:49 am
But 6, anything “working from home” would need be software related, and thus (according to the usual suspects) NOT be patent eligible.
Does this mean that the large underpinning to this (so-called) GDP growth is but a mirage?
So there appears to be a point of inflection around 2012/2013, where the rate of increase of wiki prior art rejections has slowed down after that point as compared to before that point. Not sure what that is telling us about what the PTO examiners are instructed to use as cited prior art in office actions.
Looks like it might be good.
link to ipwatchdog.com
My next post will be the purposefully given address that went to Bethesda instead of NH or VA where ever he could have been contacted.
Keep up with my posting.
Sarah, WTF is up with you? I don’t get it.
Sarah being Sarah,
Just like:
Malcolm being Malcolm
Greg being Greg
marty being marty
Ben being Ben
Random being Random
MaxDrei being MaxDrei
Paul being Paul
and
Shifty being Shifty
link to en.wikipedia.org
Learn the symptoms bro
Also somewhat related, if you bros want something to truly blow your mind try this on for size. May just send chills up your spine as you read it. Certainly did mine. And I wouldn’t doubt if it wasn’t tru(ish) at least somewhat.
link to en.wikipedia.org
Also if you bros want something crazy to ponder on with might just be truish.
link to en.wikipedia.org
Off topic, but I see that CAFC Judge Tiffany Cunningham’s name is in the short list of replacement candidates for retiring Justice Breyer.
link to jabberwocking.com
To my mind, the politically smart play would be for Pres. Biden to put VP Harris in the open SCOTUS slot, to free up the VP slot for a more electorally promising political heir.
I could think of no WORSE position to award a prominent life time role as Supreme Court Justice than Kamala Harris.
That this idea even sees the light of being printed is a travesty of the unthinking and seriously ideology-impaired Liberal Left vacuity.
…should read: no worse person…
Yes.
Do you get paid for corrections too?
You haven’t said how much.
Yet.
Thank$ for your choice of posting a fallacy (hint: “too” is false).
Personally, we don’t think you should get paid for corrections.
Is there a union?
Thank$ for posting YOUR inanity of attempting to take my meme out of context.
So you DO get paid even for “corrections.”
Finally admitted, Snowflake.
Double coin for the double false projections.
SWEET !
I agree anon. Harris would be the ultimate legislator.
“the unthinking and seriously ideology-impaired Liberal Left vacuity”? Could you be any more ob nox ious?
Meh – don’t shoot the messenger.
I agree, Snowflake. You were paid how much for that?
Be specific.
Why are you insisting on asking a question (fallaciously) that not only have I set you straight on, but have reminded you that the answer (to the non-fallacious question) has already been given to you?
Well, we both know the answer to that question, eh?
Hint: you are 0bsessed with me.
Focus, Snowflake. It was a simple question.
Simple question – and as mentioned – the simple and direct answer as already been given (I do not gat paid for MY posts, but rather, I have enterprised off of your 0bsess10n with me)
Focus indeed.
You do not get paid for your posts [lol] after all the admissions.
Name 1 person who believes that, Snowflake. You do not count.
You are quite welcome for contributing to my enterprising – as only you can do.
Be that as it may, …
My pal Shifty, it matters not at all – and certainly not coming from you, what “anyone else believes.”
Further – you continue to attempt to misuse the word “admissions.”
Are you running out of tells?
Conspiracy theory: The executive branch is still in competition with the judicial branch, and such an appointment would go a long way to kill SCOTUS’s legitimacy (i.e., source of power).
um, ok I guess – but that thought has nothing at all to do with my view.
How would that work? Would Biden them get to pick anyone as his VP, or is it a Conga line where Pelosi (third in line to be president) becomes VP?
An open VP slot is just like any other opening in the executive branch: the president appoints with the advice and consent of the senate (see, e.g., Gerald Ford’s appointment by Pres. Nixon).
Thanks Greg – Ford is an excellent example, as it came out only later how the Political Party dynamics were in play to put Ford into a position to ascend (unelected) into presidency when he could not even corral even backing to be his party’s representative, but wielded enough power behind the scenes.
So who in the “D” party would be an analogue?
6,
Your thoughts here…?
I can’t follow what you guys are talking about, looks like near gibberish to me.
“To my mind, the politically smart play would be for Pres. Biden to put VP Harris in the open SCOTUS slot, to free up the VP slot for a more electorally promising political heir.”
I think that if one is willing to state that they’re solely optimizing for goal of the Democratic party winning the presidency in 2024, that the move you describe is close to objectively the best possible move.
Right. I am not saying that Harris to SCOTUS is the best move in all possible sense of “best.” My only point in 9.1 is that Harris to SCOTUS, followed by X to VP, it is the best way to achieve victory for the democratic presidential candidate in 2024. Right now my choice for X would Buttigieg, but I could easily be persuaded that there is a better choice (e.g., John Fetterman of PA).
What (serious question) has Buttigieg ever accomplished?
Blind (truly Lemming-like) following of the Liberal Left scripts really damages the shattered remains of Greg “I Use My Real Name” DeLassus’ credibility.
Filter again….
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
January 28, 2022 at 8:54 am
What (serious question) has Buttigieg ever accomplished?
Blind (truly Lemming-like) following of the Liberal Left scripts really damages the shattered remains of Greg “I Use My Real Name” DeLassus’ credibility.
Greg, Biden will be too old to run. You can see his advancing cognitive decline almost on a monthly basis.
Harris will just be pushed aside and there will be a new D candidate.
“Harris will just be pushed aside and there will be a new D candidate.”
I hope you’re right, but I apparently have less faith in the collective judgement of the Democratic party than you do.
“the politically smart play would be for Pres. Biden to put VP Harris in the open SCOTUS slot”
Not even sure if you’re joking or not right now.
Totally serious. I agree with NW that Biden should not run again (in a better world, he would not have run in 2020), which means that 2024 should be an open primary race. Biden cannot hand the nomination to his chosen successor, but he can give any such person a leg up by putting him/her in the spotlight. VP Harris’ turn in the spotlight has not shown her to good electoral effect, so the wise move is to get her out, and put in someone who can make better use of that spotlight.
How to get her out without it becoming an insult to her (an insult that she does not deserve, and which might alienate voters who like her)? By making her the historic first African-American woman on the SCOTUS, he honors her (not insults), while simultaneously clearing the way for a better 2024 candidate. It would be a deft political move. I am not saying that I expect such a move, but I would welcome it.
The Power position of a life-time role on the nation’s highest court…
… as a way of not insulting one of the most insulting VP’s of all time…?
Talk about
F
A
I
L
I
N
G
upward in glorious style…
“How to get her out without it becoming an insult to her (an insult that she does not deserve, and which might alienate voters who like her)?”
From what I hear she can’t even run her own office without being basically a workplace bully. So, I mean, maybe she does “deserve” it? I don’t mean to be mean to her but she’s havin’ like real troubles I hear.
In any event, all this is supposedly being done to “not insult” a lady that couldn’t get 1% of the vote in primary times by giving her extraordinary power for life in a position for which she’s probably not even half qualified for (0 judicial experience?). Ridiculous bro.
[S]he’s probably not even half qualified…
Whatever. I am not suggesting that Biden appoint someone obviously unqualified, like myself or Ivanka Trump. I am talking about the former attorney general of California. Whether there is someone out there who is “more qualified” than she is I cannot say. She would be fine.
“Whatever”
She would be fine.”
Because “Greg said so.”
See: link to patentlyo.com
Greg, I understand your logic.
But the position of Supreme Court Justice is not a bargaining chip.
[T]he position of Supreme Court Justice is not a bargaining chip.
Since when?
“If we get behind this awful candidate that a fraction of our voters adore, we’ll win congress and be able to advance our goals!”
“I understand your logic. But the position of President is not a bargaining chip.”
-Likely conversation between Republicans from 2016
Actually, now that we are into quotas in our society, the next Scotus should be a Hispanic man.
… Asian Non-binary.
I disagree with both of you, they need to be a BLACK transbian at rock bottom bare minimum. Hopefully jewish religion to keep jewish representation on the court super high, and hopefully of hispanic lineage and with at least one muslim recent ancestor and at least 1/4 native american.
It’s the ONLY WAY bruhs!
Though I think personally the judge that stepped down should have waited until the next admin in a couple years :).
The rest of your intersectionalities I can countenance, but black just won’t cut it as you already have Thomas, and there are no Asians represented.
Yes but BLM was going on and all anon, gotta throw his base a lil somethin.
LOL – 6, do YOU really want to get into a “I’m the most victim” contest?
That’s not how intersectionality works, now is it?
BLM already has a rep – no rep for Asian.
End of story.
OT: breaking news is that Breyer has retired.
I as you know did not file a bankruptcy appeal in Massachusetts either. Now I know that Patrick put my IP in the TOOL Patent for all of them. Mann joined in and is now in their circle.
From the Federal Circuit, I think Judge Kathleen O’Malley would be a fine candidate. District Court and Appellate Court experience.
Wholeheartedly agree CA. Problem is we can’t afford to lose her from the CAFC.
Pro Say – she is already lost to the CAFC, as she is retiring as of March 11, 2022.
At 64 years, she would be bear the oldest nominee ever. Average age of nominees is 53.
Thanks. Forgot about the retirement.
On her being 64, though . . . much different than electing a 78 year old to be pres (ha — like that would ever happen).
Heck. If the dems had their way, they’d probably love to vote in a healthy 25 year year young super-lib.
Who promised to live to be 100.
If the dems had their way, they’d probably love to vote in a healthy 25 year year young super-lib.
This touches on a good point. As Jon Chait wrote today, “[t]he absurd actuarial logic of lifetime appointments incentivizes both parties to find the youngest possible nominee who can be plausibly sold to the public as having cleared the qualification bar.”
I offer a modest suggestion as to how to fix this: instead of having nine-permanent justices on the SCOTUS, the Chief Justice should be a permanent position, and then the other 8 seats should be filled by a rotating cast of circuit judges from the various federal courts of appeal. They can take it in turns to serve for a year as judges on the supreme court, before they return to service in their respective circuit courts. In this way, no single judge will serve all that long, so there will be no need to select them on the basis of longevity.
This will also end the tedious business of SCOTUS confirmation hearings. The only person who will ever be appointed to the SCOTUS will be the Chief, so such hearings will only arrive once every two to three decades.