The "I know IT when I see IT" meme.
See What Will SCOTUS ‘See’ and Know, in Alice?
(See also the earlier dated, Go Ask Alice )
The sole question presented on Writ for Cert is this:
Whether claims to computer-implemented inventions —including claims to systems and machines, processes, and items of manufacture— are directed to patent-eligible subject matter within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 101 as interpreted by this Court?
Interestingly, the Petitioner is Alice Corp., the owner of the software patent in question. The 5-5 tie at the Federal Circuit left Alice in the limbo state of not having overturned the lower court ruling that all of its claims are patent "ineligible". Alice itself has nothing more to lose by posing the above question to SCOTUS. But what if SCOTUS says no? What if they say ALL computer-implemented invention—including claims are ineligible? It's a game of Russian Roulette where all our heads are lined up in row next to that of the trigger man's.
(still under construction ...)
Them who love to hate patents cheered it on as a New Wave of "Innovative" ProgressArizona Paper Questions "Innovation"[-no more] Act
(still under construction ...)Link to Patently-O take on Goodlatte's bill
In this post-modern patent world,
our judicial truth seekers have cobbled together a new creature.
(the alien cyber-robotized super humanoid who came to this planet in order to pretend to be a meek and mild artisan having "ordinary" skill in his/her specialized field of routine endeavor, but who underneath it all is actually ... Shhh. Don't tell. It's a secret.).
Super-PHOSITA is all knowing and all powerful.
Super-PHOSITA is at the same time meek, mild and ordinary.
Super-PHOSITA spends his/her time engaged in the "routine" activities of his/her "art".
Super-PHOSITA simultaneously spends his/her time ruminating about ALL publications, analogous or in his/her field and ALL possible combinations of these publications in constant look out for recognition of those permutations which are "obvious" and those few which are not.
See, 2013-10-30 12-1611 PATO RANDALL MFG. v. REA [OPINION] Precedential
"In KSR, the Supreme Court criticized a rigid approach to determining obviousness based on the disclosures of individual prior-art references, with little recourse to the knowledge, creativity, and common sense that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have brought to bear when considering combinations or modifications. KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-22. Rejecting a blinkered focus on individual documents, the Court required an analysis that reads the prior art in context, taking account of “demands known to the design community,” “the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art,” and “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418. This “expansive and flexible approach,” id. at 415, is consistent with our own pre-KSR decisions acknowledging that the inquiry “not only permits, but requires, consideration of common knowledge and common sense.”"
"Once it is established that a prevalent, perhaps even predominant, method of stowing a bulkhead panel was to raise it to the ceiling, it is hard [[for us post-modern judges to now ]] .. see why one of skill in the art would not have thought to modify Aquino to include this feature— doing so would allow the designer to achieve the other advantages of the Aquino assembly while using a stowage strategy that was very familiar in the industry."
Most everyone has heard of the US Supreme Court Judge who proudly admitted that he could not define a certain something but nonetheless, he knew "IT" when he saw "IT".
Now comes a new generation of jurisprudential savants
with a similar line about Information Technologies ("IT"):
'If I don't Know "IT" When I see "IT", then Abstract must "IT" be'
First let's peek at the "IT" patent they refer to:
U.S. 7,013,284 ("Component based interface to handle tasks during claim processing ")
Figure 2A of that patent shows a "client" and a "server".
The server hosts a "database".
Here is a small block taken out of the long and complex text of the specification. As can be seen, a "database" involves "records" and "searches" and result retrival issues:
Large Result Set
When retrieving records from a database, if the search criteria is too broad, the amount of data required to be retrieved from the database and passed across the network will affect user perceived performance. Windows requesting such data will be slow to paint and searches will be slow. The ... By designing the controllers that present the database queries intelligently, the queries that are presented to the database server do not return a result set that is large enough to affect user perceived performance. ... The scrolling retrieval of a large result set is the incremental retrieval of a result subset repeated as many times as the user requests or until the entire result set is obtained. Results are retrieved by the Bounded Query Approach where the first record is determined by a where clause with calculated values.
Here is what the majority understands in the subject case of ACCENTURE GLOBAL SERVICES v. GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE
Accenture only points to system claim 1’s inclusion of an insurance claim folder, a task library database, a server component, and a task engine in attempting to show that the system claim is meaningfully different from the ’284 patent’s method claims. However, these software components are all present in the method claims, albeit without a specific reference to those components by name. ... The insurance transaction database of method claim 8 also stores insurance claims in a structured environment and decomposes them into different levels. Thus, the claim folder only provides insignificant activity that does not meaningfully differentiate the system claim from the method claim. ... the task library database is simply a formalized collection of the rules that are present and applied to the insurance transaction information in method claim 8.
Simple is as simple talks.
(Particularly when one sits on the "bench")
The majority doesn't even know how to point to the correct figure (2A):
Further, although the patent’s Figure 1 shows a schematic diagram of the invention, one that includes computer hardware, the schematic’s hardware is merely composed of generic computer components that would be present in any general purpose computer.
And finally, the coupe de grace:
Indeed, in this case “[t]he system claims are [akin] to stating the abstract idea [of the method claim] . . . and adding the words: ‘apply it’ on a computer.” CLS Bank, 717 F.3d at 1291 (plurality opinion) (citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). Because the system claim and method claim contain only “minor differences in terminology ... they rise or fall together.
was asked to
write a business plan
on cleaning out the hen house.
The FOXSE (What is a FOXSE?)
proposed to eliminate the hens
and to pile on more and deeper Sh8 (PhD)
in order to hide the fact that the
real producers (the hens) were gone.
All the King's men
and all the full of Sh8 rears of horses
loved the "innovative" new idea.
If you shovel enough of the stuff
it will bury the truth.
(That the real producers are gone and
the facility is now 100% filled with PhD stuff.)
(What is a "FOXSE"?)
A FOXSE is a Full Of Xtra-Sh8 Entity
One that likes to make up Tall Troll Tales
instead of dealing with truth ...
One truth is that many a FOXSE don't
even know what a "patent" is.
(Click "More" for details)
A big tent
Consider the legal scholar
to the right, or more
precisely, his position paper
on abolishing software patents.
"[For] pharmaceutical and biotech companies, ... patents are clearly necessary to encourage innovation,... [The] exclusion [of "software patents"] from the patent system would [yes,] discourage some software innovations, but the saving from litigation costs over disputed patent rights would more than compensate the economy for that cost. Moreover, some software innovations would be encouraged because the inability to patent software will eliminate uncertainty over whether someone else with a similar patent will sue and do battle [with the copyists]in the courts."
Compensate "THE ECONOMY"?
What about the inventor?
What venture doesn't have uncertainty?
Maybe first we wipe out all the "judges" (and then the lawyers ala Shakespeare)?
the ever inventive
theorists of "econumbnics"
have embarked on a witch and troll hunt.
And at last they have found their scape goat ...
the software inventor.
The objective number crushers have even come up with an emotion packed pack of lies to support their Inquisition. There are no patents in the food industry? Seriously?
Give us all a popcorn-popping Ron Popeil break! This is what you call objective rationalism? Ayn Rand roasts and rotates in her graveyard rotisserie over this kind of fantasy fiction. Some of these so-called econo-numb-nuts pull convenient, but unsupportable "facts" out of their dismal derrieres.
"I have been a professor of organic chemistry for nine years ... I cannot accept a Supreme Court decision that trivializes chemistry and elevates [misunderstood] biological ”information” over [the real science of] chemical structure in patent law, and that usurps the role of Congress and creates a new class of patent-ineligible subject matter by judicial fiat."
So writes one scientist in his
Chemist's View of the Supreme Court's Gene Patent Decision
(Pictured above is Galileo's Recant)
"Innovation" is an anonymizing, impersonal "thing".
There is no human inventor behind or inside the closed box that frames the "Innovation" concept.
The "inventor" is not left as invisible or even marginalized outside the box, but rather vaporized (vay-pooh-rized) as if he or she never existed.
Indeed no person breathes, bleeds, sweats and strains within the totally-automated factory that we think of as being modern "innovation" per se.
Consider for example this article:
Why The Patent System Is Not Fit
How often does the word "inventor" appear?
Pray tell us,
is it more like strolling through the Garden of Eden and plucking a leaf off the Tree of Knowledge?
Or are we standing in the machine shop and whittling down the trunk until only cellulose in the form of a baseball bat remains?
Which rings more poetically true in the biochemistry quiz that vexes us?
Surely the gods will inform us of the correct answer by meme of the harmonically resonating spheres if only we carefully circle competing narratives and listen for the vibrations of the truer truth.
Ours is not to truly understand but rather to appear as if song-speaking from Olympian quarters.
This has always been the Herculean task of a Supreme.
Appearance is perception.
Perception is Truth.
We know an ultimate truth when we hear it.
The mortals beneath can bank on our sound logic.
If you are not in tune with the split metaphor way of thinking of English major Supremes, here is how the divide in AMP v. Myriad came into being:
The molecular composition known as "cDNA" appears to have been synthetically milled on the lathe of the life scientists and hence it is machine-shop "eligible".
However, the molecular composition known as "BRCAx" appears to have been naturally and simply plucked from Nature's Tree of Life and thus it is not a product of machine shop synthesis but rather a natural drop out from Mother Nature's loins, hence "ineligible".
(1) Transcript of Oral Hearings 4-15-2014
(2) The European view (not an Idiocracy?)
(3) Blood, Sweat & Isolataion? --too bad
(4) Debbie Does Disease Tech
(5) The Curious Concurrence of Justice Antonin Scalia
(6) The "Hercules Unchained" Metaphor
(7) If you patent a molecule, you sir are a "troll"
(8) Patent Docs looks back at Myriad Reactions
(9) More ... here, here, here, here, here,
(10) Recent blog posts ...
"[Admittedly, I don't grasp the] fine details of molecular biology. [Even though] I am unable to affirm those details on my own knowledge or even my own belief [it] suffices for me to affirm [their idiocracies], having studied the opinions below and the expert briefs presented here, that the portion of DNA isolated from its natural state sought to be patented is identical [...IDENTICAL...] to that portion of the DNA in its natural state; ..."
During a tour of the set of the popular TV show "Big Bang Theory",
The music begins to blast.
With no warning, it all transforms into an image of a spinning compass needle, "directing" its aim to all manner of targets, real and abstract.
Then it deforms once more, into to a top view of a Wizard of Oz tornado.
The witch on broomstick begins her hideous screech.
With a thunk,
The mayor steps forward.
"Welcome to the County of Go Ask Alice,"
"Here in Go Ask Alice County, all is not as it seems.
A machine is not a machine, a process is not a process.
They are mere words; "tools" if you must.
Tools in an abstract twisty worded world.
Fundamentals of a fundamentally defunded mentality.
We hold these truths to be self evident:
Claims should not be coextensive with a natural law, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea
They should be violative of "science"
and of all mode of rational ideation!
Only "nonabstract" ideas (no such thing) are allowed.
Heads you lose. Tails means patent haters win.
Don't believe me?
Go ask Alice (v. CLS)