Saturday, April 28, 2018

Oil States and the Despicable Toll Bridge Inventor

The Sct. Oil States decision depicts the greedy grubby inventor as no more than a troll who sets up a toll on a common thoroughfare (a bridge of course).

Such a toll troll deserves no more than a revocable franchise right according to the Sct. because this despicable creature is blocking the public from free passage through a common feature of commerce.

Justice Thomas writes:
"This Court has recognized that franchises can be qualified in this manner. For example, Congress can grant a franchise that permits a company to erect a toll bridge, but qualify the grant by reserving its authority to revoke or amend the franchise. See, e.g., Louisville Bridge Co. v. United States, 242 U. S. 409, 421 (1917) (collecting cases). Even after the bridge is built, the Government can exercise its reserved authority through legislation or an administrative proceeding. ... Thus, the public-rights doctrine covers the matter resolved in inter partes review. The Constitution does not prohibit [cough, cough] the Board from resolving it outside of an Article III court. ... Patents convey only a specific form of property right—a public franchise. See Pfaff, 525 U. S., at 63-64. And patents are "entitled to protection as any other property, consisting of a franchise." Seymour, 11 Wall. at 533 (emphasis added). As a public franchise, a patent can confer only the rights that "the statute prescribes." ....

Missing from the holy lips of our Saint Thomas are three simple Latin words:
QUID PRO QUO

Saint Thomas Inquisitor instead sees the playing field as this:
"As this Court has long recognized, the grant of a patent is a matter between "the public, who are the grantors, and . . . the patentee." Duell, supra, at 586 (quoting Butterworth v. United States ex rel. Hoe, 112 U. S. 50, 59 (1884)). By "issuing patents," the PTO "take[s] from the public rights of immense value, and bestow[s] them upon the patentee." United States v. American Bell Telephone Co., 128 U. S. 315, 370 (1888). Specifically, patents are "public franchises" that the Government grants "to the inventors ..." ... To Be Continued

Till recent times it was the inventor who was the giver and the public the taker.
QUID PRO QUO
The inventor gives his passions, sweat, life blood, time, money and all his know how (his best mode) to the public as part of an offer and acceptance contract deal.
All he gets for it is a stupid piece of paper.
It is the public who are the takers and the benefactors of the deal. The inventor cannot un-ring the bell by retrieving that which he trustingly handed over to the public, the thing we used call his intellectual "property" (IP). According to the Supremes however, the public can re-neg on their end of deal and freely take back that stamped piece of worthless paper.

Friday, April 27, 2018

As for you my pretty ...

As for you my pretty ...

An unsecured franchise!
One that can be revoked at whim of privy counsel or political hacks of the crown.

Never you mind that Constitution behind the curtain.
Pay not attention to the part about securing inventors.
WE control the horizontal. WE control the definitions.
Revocable franchise is all you get. Got it? Go.

Oil States opinion here

Wednesday, February 21, 2018

Do Russians Use This Blog to Take Down America?

Perhaps.

In the past year I've noticed an uptick in Russian audience traffic to this blog.

Is it providing the Russians with new ideas on how to destroy America?
Do it by destroying America's Golden Goose, the much coveted US Patent System?

I ask the Russians if we Americans might be so dumb as to do it to ourselves?

Dah (yes), I answer.

We've been doing it to ourselves ever since the mid 1990's. Early publication of the inventor's trade secrets. KSR. eBay. Alice/Mayo. ...

Can the Russians just sit back and laugh?
Watch the self-inflicted carnage?
Dah.

Tuesday, November 28, 2017

Binary Model, Flipping the Examinational Mistake Coin

Transcript to Oil States arguments can be found here

Is it simply the flipping of a binary coin to fix a yes/no mistake?

Friday, October 6, 2017

Hear Hear!

"... In short, patents have clearly been at the heart of successive waves of critically important American commercial innovation and continue to make enormous contributions to the American economy.
But today, unfortunately, U.S. patent rights are under serious threat.
For starters, a series of Supreme Court decisions over the last 15 years have made it harder to obtain and defend a patent."

-- Erosion of Patent Rights Is a Threat to Innovation and American Prosperity

Another "erosion" opinion piece is here.

Is it merely slow erosion and the start of a new Grand Canyon or more like the start of a catastrophic mud slide?

BY the time it's over, it will be too late.
Whole generations of would-be American inventors will have turned to other pursuits.

Why bother if the new socialist republic of Faux America steals your invention after fooling you into filing for illusory patent rights?

Wednesday, August 23, 2017

Magic Compass Ride

ALL claims, meaning absolutely all claims “are” abstract.

They are merely words scrivenered on parchment (e.g., in the English language) to represent the concept of a corresponding invention.

This is not a pipe. Get it? If not, link to the following or similar explanations of the existentialist concept:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images

What is important to understand is that Judge Hughes (of Visual Memory v. Nvidia) possesses a rare and magical field direction indicating compass.

Instead of the usual N, E, S, W markers found on a normal compass, his magical compass denotes the major circle points as A, A, A and A; where “A” means Abstract. A select few angular micro-strokes on the circle get the NA notation, meaning Not Abstract. Only judge Hughes and those secretly sworn into his power group know where those are. They know them when they see them.

Whenever confronted with the words of a claim, the good Judge pulls out his magical mystical compass, rides it above the words and its needle quickly and without belaboring itself too much aligns with the hidden field forces of the words and tells the Judge what those words are “directed to”.

Yes, of course it’s almost always “A”. But that is not the fault of the good Judge. It is the reality of the universe as reflected by the angle markings on his pocket compass.

No point swearing to the G-d you worship. It is as He hath willed it. The universe is just full of mysterious abstract misdirections.

Wednesday, August 16, 2017

Shellacking the Chicken Shell

Which came first, the chicken or the unscrambled egg?

The abstract idea or the adding on of the generic computer?

The irrational thought or the false logic?

Ignorance or basking in its bliss?

Those skilled in the rhetorical art of false choice menus will appreciate that many a proposition are defective even before they are hatched. For example, by proposing that the abstract egg came first and then the generic hen was added on to sit on that egg for reason of conventional and routine development ignores the possibility that the egg came from someplace, perchance a non-abstract and non-conventional laying hen. A something more of significance to those who can comprehend it.

In the case of:
VISUAL MEMORY LLC v. NVIDIA CORPORATION

the question is whether the claims are an independent shell with no connection to the specification (a black box onto itself) or whether the claims are part of an integral whole in which the specification concludes with the claims.

Appellate Judge HUGHES(dissenting) argues:
"Claim 1, for instance, claims a system comprising a main memory and a cache connected to a bus, with a "programmable operational characteristic" that "determines a type of data stored by said cache." '740 patent col. 6 11. 28-38. The claim does not provide any specific limitations on the "programmable operational characteristic," making it a purely functional component. The "programmable operational characteristic" is nothing more than a black box for performing the abstract idea of storing data based on its characteristic, and the patent lacks any details about how that is achieved. The remaining computer elements in the claims (cache, memory, bus) are nothing more than a collection of conventional computing components found in any computer."

Blindsight is of course 20/20 times * zero (0).
The subject US Patent 5953740 dates back to 1990 and
uses an archaic Computer Design descriptor Language known as CDL
The microfiche of the patent describes in detail the modules of Fig. 2 using the CDL language.

Does Judge HUGHES(dissenting, BA Harvard 1989) understand any of this?
Highly unlikely.