Sunday, December 20, 2015

Astute Alice/Mayo Judges, Rise of the Juggernaut

According to one recent article:
"Judges across the country are striking down software patents in the name of a U.S. Supreme Court decision [Alice] that is changing how some tech companies protect their ideas.

... In her reasoning [in the Cleveland Clinic Foundation case], U.S. District Court Judge Patricia Gaughan cited Alice in an opinion that questioned whether the patent would pass validity standards set by both Alice and a 2012 Supreme Court decision called Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories Inc.

... The same judge ruled on the Datatrak and MacroPoint cases. In short, she ruled that the companies were using software to do things that humans have done for ages: Datatrak, she said, was organizing data; MacroPoint was relaying it. ... MacroPoint put out a news release .. [Alice/Mayo are hurting] innovative companies like MacroPoint that are the original inventors of a credible and viable product"

Off with their heads.

You might think that StanaCard (introduced below with its Lassie adoring law giver) is a one off. Not so. As the article points out, all too many district court judges and administrative agency bureaucrats are beyond eager to join up with the Medieval Minded Justices of Mount Olympus.

But first back to StanaCard and what its claim actually recited.

1. A method comprising
[a] detecting an identity of a caller;
[b] receiving an assigned incoming telephone number;
[c] identifying a recipient associated with the assigned incoming telephone number and the identity;
[d] connecting the caller and the recipient;
[e] wherein said caller has a plurality of assigned incoming telephone numbers to choose from, at least one of said plurality of assigned incoming telephone numbers being associated with said recipient,

[f] wherein each assigned incoming telephone number is associated with multiple recipient telephone numbers, a particular telephone number of a recipient being determined solely by a particular assigned incoming telephone number used by a particular identified caller and without input of further data by said caller,
[f] whereby said caller is not required to be within a particular network for making calls.

As you might recall, the judge said this exactly like what happens in Lassie's network.

No comments: