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.
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?
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?
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.
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. Amazon.com, 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?
News update: PTAB Death Squad disbanded! (for this case only)
Breathe deeply my child.
"Direct" your thoughts to inner
beauty and abstraction.
Dream my child.
Perchance mediate on the simplicity of the universe.
One need only to float over to yonder coffee shop, find some equally meditative and de-stressed nerds sipping on their mocha-java, give onto them your abstract idea; utter the magic Star Trek words, "Make it so"; and jiggery pokery dock, it shall be done in just a few turns of the clock.
Genric computers abound.
Generic "coders" are all around.
Conventional is as convention doth.
Fundamentals are always off the cuff.
Hard it cannot be.
The Olympus nine have insightfully channeled that to me.
Oh for what does a techno-knowledgeable man forsake,
by giving up on science, hard work and 90% perspiration?
And embracing 'stead,
the abstractly spanding Spandex Inquisition?
Round and round we go.
No stopping now.
A tissue. A tissue.
We all fall down.
(Thanks to the Mount Olympus clowns.)
VERSATA DEVELOPMENT GROUP v. SAP AMERICA, INC. [OPINION]
The term "logical" appears in one of our favorite "buzzzz" words of the 21st century: technological.
So exactly how "logical" are our adjudicative and legislative bodies (PTAB, CAFC, SCOTUS, Congress) in dealing with all the latest "technological" innovations?
Forrest Gump's mamma, she knew.
David Hrcik's "rant" over at PO shows he knows.
That kid in the "Sixth Sense" movie, he knew.
It's called the Dunning–Kruger effect.
People who think they are supremely smart are often supremely ignorant of their supreme incompetence.
post script: Patent Docs take on VERSTA
INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL
No harm in asking.
What's in your walrus?
Or are you yourself, abstractly speaking of course, "the" walrus?
We are not saying that in end of day, all the IV patents are "good" in terms of 102, 103 112.
However, when an Article III "appeals" court of limited jurisdiction gets to pontificate as a "matter of law" on "abstract ideas", quartering and drawing of claims, "generic computer elements" and "meaningfully significantly more" alchemy, jabberwhocky and jiggery-pokery; something has gone terribly wrong with due process and rational decision making. What's in your walrus? Are you the egg man?
SOURCE SEARCH TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. KAYAK.COM., INC.
No. 1:2011cv03388 - Document 280 (D.N.J. 2015)
It is left to the reader to click on the above link and download a PDF copy of the DC (Article III court) decision.
But as you do, you might want to answer for yourselves some questions:
1) Does an Article III court have jurisdictional authority to decide as a matter of law so many questions "rooted" in technology and thus the facts of the technology>
