Friday, September 4, 2015

150th Anniversary, Alice in Kool Aid Land

Oh me, oh my!
They're just in time it seems.
The deep divers into
the rabbit hole
of the patent
abstractionating ilk.

To celebrate The 150th year
of Alice in Wonderland

Some had warned that
Alice v. CLS
would be the mouse that
swallows in entirety
the whole of patentability.

Silly girl
Thought you that
detecting noncellular
fetal DNA in maternal
blood was new and useful

No. It's fantasy
and abstract
until this fat cat
says otherwise.

Thursday, August 6, 2015

They "fix" horses don't they? Time to fix patents.

The Economist knows when it's time to
"fix" patents

"In government as in invention, simplicity is strength."
Says The Economist. So let's all get simple.
Cause as Forest Gump's momma used to say,
Simple does as simple is.

"Patents also last too long." they say.
"Protection for 20 years might make sense in the pharmaceutical industry, because to test a drug and bring it to market can take more than a decade.
But in industries like information technology, the time from brain wave to production line, or line of code, is much shorter."

[And short is long as George Orwell used to say. Keep in resonance with the above thought waves. Do not change channels. Critical thinking is for weaklings and wimps. Decider men are resolute and always in tune with the one true party platform!]

"One aim should be to rout the trolls and the blockers." they say.
"Studies have found that 40-90% of patents are never exploited or licensed out by their [evil] owners.
[Can you imagine?]
Patents should come with a blunt “use it or lose it” rule,
[Same applies to certain private sector parts of your body. Bwahaha.]
... so that they expire if the invention is not brought to market.
[Oh behave and bring it Baby.] Patents should also be easier to challenge without the expense of a full-blown court case.
The burden of proof for overturning a patent in court should be lowered." [How low can you go Baby?]

Patently-O also covers The Economist "fix" here.

Monday, July 27, 2015

First they came for the software inventors, and I did not speak out

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Patent Lawyers Worry About Section 101 in ‘Alice’

Sunday, July 26, 2015

Drink Inertiao, It's Got Electrolytes

In the movie, Idiocracy,
due to inbreeding
not only of genes but ideologies,
the leadership class becomes
so dumbed down they start irrigating
the landscape with an energy drink
that kills all growth.

They believe it's got to be good
because it has "electrolytes".

No doubt they wouldn't know an electrolyte
if one hits them in the face.
Nonetheless they are proud of their ignorance and blissful in the basking within it.

Let's think real hard. Where else have we seen something like that?
Is it in them there "generic inertial navigation systems"?
They got Inertiao, don't they?
Your basic and simple Newtonian principles, right?

Friday, July 24, 2015

Slippery Slope's End

It had to happen sooner or later.

A court ruling that real is abstract.

Thales Visionix v. USA wins the prize.

"The parties agree that the ‘159 patent at issue in this case is extraordinarily complicated, ... “standard inertial tracking systems . . . [would] not function correctly if operated on a moving platform ... the “system” is merely a generic, physical application of the mathematical formulae. ... TVI argues that the placement of a second inertial sensor on the moving reference frame is unique, and allowed the inventors to overcome any novelty or obviousness rejections ... Ultimately, the invention requires the inertial trackers to gather orientation data from the moving object and moving reference frame and then apply that data to the navigation equation.

The legal question before the Court is whether this system of generic inertial trackers and a novel navigation equation together form a patentable subject matter. ... The modern test for patent eligibility, derived from Alice, consists of two parts: ... The Court declines to perform any claim construction before ruling on the validity of the claimed subject matter ...

Put simply, the system in Claim 1 appears to be an arrangement of generic data-gathering elements designed to feed orientation data into the navigation equations, which are described in Claim 22.
Here, the Court similarly finds that TVI fails the first prong of the Alice analysis because the independent claims of the ‘159 Patent are directed to mathematical equations for determining the relative position of a moving object to a moving reference frame. Derived from Newtonian principles of motion ... The claims allow for the application of the navigation equation in almost endless environments, and are not limited to a fighter jet and a pilot’s helmet. ... By claiming various generic inertial trackers and receivers for gathering orientation data, the inventors would preempt anyone who sought to use the equations because the only feasible way to gather orientation data from moving objects and reference frames would be from devices like the ones broadly described in the patent. Thus, the claims here are potentially endless in their scope, and would not allow for others to use the mathematical equation at their core.

Plaintiff’s attempt to characterize the patent process as a “transformation of sensor data into helmet-orientation information” belies the scope of the patent’s claims, which are not limited to a helmet’s interface. Instead, the data is entered into a navigation equation and solved to provide the moving object’s position and orientation relative to a moving reference frame. ... The Court finds that solving a mathematical equation incorporating Newtonian principles of motion does not “transform” sensor data in to motion tracking information any more than Einstein’s discovery of the natural law E=mc^2 transforms a mass measurement into energy information. Contrary to Plaintiff’s characterizations, the data is not fed into one side of a machine and pushed out the other as something new. In stead, the tracking information is derived from mathematical calculations based on a combination of the sensor data and natural laws of motion. Plaintiff therefore fails the transformation prong of the machine-or-transformation test."

Yah all think yah gonna fool this country judge with them fancy suits and all them fancy equations, don't yah?

How many yoots at 4 degrees off top dead center? Come again?

Saturday, July 18, 2015

Abacus Finch -To Kill a Computing Bird

35 U.S.C. 101' Inventions patentable not.

Whoever invents or discovers
any new and useful
process, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter,
or any new and useful
improvement thereof,
may not obtain a patent therefor,
except that if said whoever comes up with something unconventional, useless and having no idea behind it such as using a bird brain to perform a computational task on an abacus, then said whoever shall perhaps pass go subject to other daunting conditions and requirements of this title.

Range Rovi'n Chicken v. Flicks Flicker

Wednesday, July 15, 2015

Protect Us Oh Talisman

Protect Us Oh Talisman
From the Apocalyptic Draftsman.
From his Appistric Trickery.
That which fails to convert Thieving Hivery
Into Non-Abstractionsm

We shalt noth be fooled.

Appistry, Inc. v., Inc.

Thou doth course understand of jiggery mockery
inherent in above verse?
How could poetry pondering political "science" majors
a.k.a. judges-sans hard science degrees
understand highly technical disclosures?

System and method for territory-based processing of information 8,200,746

What could be more appealing to their sense of superiority
then to declare the incomprehensible (to them) as mere
gobbledygook abstractionism not deserving of monopoly?

(Elephants can't fly song)

News update: PTAB Death Squad disbanded! (for this case only)