Sunday, October 16, 2016

Subject to ... legislative whims of judges gone wild

Actually, the statute 35 USC Section 101 ends with “subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
But one would never know that in reading from the latest of the firestorm ignited by Bilski, Alice and Mayo.

Real legislation takes years to perfect. Debates and hearings are held over the years. Experts are consulted. Affected parties are listened to. Amendments are proposed and adopted or not after further debate. Those responsible understand that new legislation can impact the lives of millions of people. They do not lightly tread into passage of new laws.

Not so in the judicial branch.
New laws can be promulgated without notice or hearings. They can be based on the arbitrary and capricious whims of the judiciary and on the ignorance and arrogance of same with respect various matters of complex feed waters and socioeconomic ecological systems.

So what if it takes the best and the brightest of our students years of post-graduate study to understand subtle facets of molecular biology and computer engineering? Our uber-super judiciary can come to grips with the same subject matter in just a few hours. Isolating a medicinally relevant gene sequence? Why that is the same as hiking through the jungle, spotting a banana tree ripe with fruit and plucking off one of the bananas. Mere child's play.

Configuring a complex computer system to operate correctly? That too is mere child's play. Just walk into any ole' coffee shop and grab hold of any 2nd year engineering student. One weekend is more than enough time to "code" it up. Simple as grandma's apple pie and King Tut's accounting system. Why all the fuss?

Have no fear. Uber judges are here.

Friday, October 7, 2016

Creepy Clowns Lurking in the Fed

Another creepy clown has been spotted, this time at the Fed. Cir. (to complement our old friend, Clarence the SCOTUS Clown):

Patents that incentivize broader communication actually chill free speech? Really?

Let's put on our clown thinker caps, step back a bit, and ponder on that.

Before there was the telegraph.
(Thank you Samuel F. Morse.)
Before there was the telephone.
(Thank you Alexander G. Bell --or Elisha Gray?)
Before there were emails via Internet and cell phone.
(Thank you unappreciated many others.)
One had to rely on snail mail (rush shipped by pony express).
Or face to face, if perchance such meeting ever happened.

Then a bunch of miracles happened.
Long distance real time communications!
All spurred by patents.

But Creepy Clown No. 1 at the Fed wants you to believe the opposite.
That inventions "directed to" improving communications should NOT be patent eligible.

'Cause you see, cause ipso logistico absurdum, patents that incentivize improving real time collaborative communications stifle at least one clown's First Amendment rights to fool everyone else!


Post Scripts:

"This is not entirely a nation of clowns, though it feels like that lately." --Kunstler
Speak for yourself, James. Speak for yourself. From this corner, yes it is.

Patent Docs opines on IV v. Symatec here
"In terms of determining what is conventional, it seems that the Court can characterize the claims in a way to achieve a desired outcome."

"Judge Mayer’s concurrence is worth reading in full because he delves into the political and philosophical arguments that are behind every patent-eligibility decision, but that are often not openly discussed." --swip_report

The Reason You’re Afraid Of Clowns

Thursday, September 29, 2016

And cancer, yes we beat you (in our moonbeam minds)

"We" won!
Did another triumphant "Moonshot".
And beat that there cancer stuff for good.

USPTO Announces Cancer Moonshot Challenge Winners

Gotta hand it to us.
"We" are brilliant as moonbeams in our own deluded minds.

(** This post probably needs a bit of historical background to understand. There are a bunch of hubiristic, "Cancer we will beat you" commercials on TV as well as the Biden/Obama "Moonshot" project. It is a lot of celebrity and politician PR without substance. As if chanting, singing, running and wearing colored bracelets is going to do the trick. And now we have the US Patent Office joining the flash mob with announcements about "winners". Yeah us! We won. Right?)

Wednesday, September 14, 2016

Sanity pokes its tiny head up above ocean of insanity

At long last, a sign of hope.

In a break from a constant stream of insanities, the Fed. Cir. steps back and takes a more detailed look at preemption and specificity in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai

"It is the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that “improved [the] existing technological process” by allowing the automation of further tasks. ....

"Further, the automation goes beyond merely "organizing [existing] information into a new form" or carrying out a fundamental economic practice. Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1351; see also Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356. The claimed process uses a combined order of specific rules that renders information into a specific format that is then used and applied to create desired results: a sequence of synchronized, animated characters. While the result may not be tangible, there is nothing that requires a method "be tied to a machine or transform an article" to be patentable. Bilski, 561 U.S. at 603 (discussing 35 U.S.C. § 100(b)). The concern underlying the exceptions to § 101 is not tangibility, but preemption. Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301.

Friday, August 19, 2016

SciAm editors decry Anti-AmSci Politics

In a recent editorial (We hold these ___ to be self-Evident), the editors of the Scientific "American" noted the horrifying future that the "American" nation faces on account of our political climate changing to become ever more anti-American-Science.

They home attention on the twit-err following population.
But what about the Judiciously Anti-Science Judiciary?

What about the fact that our Supreme Court makes up its Medieval "mind" not on the basis of scientific "evidence" but rather on the basis of peeling banana tree stories out of the unsworn/ un-peer-reviewed profferings of amicus briefs? (See top of pg. 20 here.)

What about that our Supreme Court has self-anointed themselves as the Spiritual Guardians of the Lego tGruth "building blocks" of scientific understanding, progress and unassailable Laws "of Nature"?

What about that our Supreme Court has self-devined themselves as the premiere finders of the witchcraft in claims "directed to" the abstractitude and ultimate keepers of the "something more" balance scale?

Yes they tread carefully amongst us while stealthily destroying what little may be left of American Science.

Post Scripts:
Despite US Constitution saying Government should "secure" rights for inventors (Art. 1, Sect. 8, Clause 8), inventor hate site says there is "Great News: Government screws inventors coming and going"

Study shows PTO is of two minds re software patents (here)

Thursday, August 11, 2016

How many ineligible dancing trolls? My count same as your count.

How many ineligible dancing trolls are on the head of your pin?

That is the question.

According to the Appistry II judge, his count is the same as that of the Appistry I judge.

Bird brains of a feather coo together.

That is so reassuring.

Sunday, July 31, 2016

Reciting Reality is a 'Dirty Trick'

"Watch out for these dirty tricks," warns
this anti-patents site.

Apparently, if a computer is used to control an industrial process (e.g. curing rubber) then such a "computer implemented" (CII) reality-transforming process is a "dirty trick".

Apparently, if a computer is used to convert ultrasonic echoes into human recognizable information (e.g. baby's first image) then such a "computer implemented" (CII) reality-revealing process is a "dirty trick".

Apparently, if a computer is used to determine if a vehicle operator is impaired (e.g. Vehicle Intelligence and Safety v. Mercedes-Benz) then such a "computer implemented" (CII) reality-revealing process is a "dirty trick".

Apparently, if a computer is used to determine real time reliability of a complex electric power grid (e.g. ELECTRIC POWER GROUP, LLC v. ALSTOM S.A ) then such a mere "computer implemented" (CII) reality-revealing process is a "dirty trick".

Remember. Don't let them fool you with facts and reality.
Inventing is an evil Satanic ritual and must be stopped.
Support your local AWWAIE (American Witches, Warlocks and Inventors Eradication) club!
Let's make America Salem again. Vote your fears not your rational mind.