Friday, December 4, 2015

Judge L. Lets Loose his Laws re Laws of Nature and Abstarctitude

Like Prometheus bound to his rock and pecked at by dark demons, Judge L. of the Court of Appeals feels himself sentenced to an equal fate by the 9 Demigods of our Mount Olympus. He quails:

"I find no principled basis to distinguish this case from Mayo [v. Prometheus], by which we are bound. I write separately to express some thoughts concerning laws of nature and abstract ideas" --ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. SEQUENOM, INC. (Fed. Cir Dec. 2, 2015 -another of infamy's dates) [For more discussion, check out IPWatchDog here.]

Based on rock solid rationale, he proclaims:

"Laws of nature are exact statements of physical relationships, deduced from scientific observations of natural phenomena. They are often represented by equations, and include such laws as the relationship between energy and mass (E=mc2), the relationship between current and resistance (Ohm's Law), that between force, mass, and acceleration (F=ma), Maxwell's equations, Newton's laws of motion, and many more."

He enlightens we the blind ones with this flash of genius:

"Abstract steps are, axiomatically, the opposite of tangible steps; that which is not tangible is abstract. But steps that involve machines, which are tangible, steps that involve transformation of tangible subject matter, or tangible implementations of ideas or abstractions should not be considered to be abstract ideas."

What's wrong with Judge L.'s ideas?

Let's start with one of his simpler "laws". Ohm's Law.
This so-called “Law” (and don't forget Moore's) cannot logically be part of the kit when Mother Nature finally comes down from the mountain top with holographic clay tablets clutched to bosom to declare her Universal absolutes. Rather it is merely one of our current delusions and illusions as seen through human eyes. Mass? Energy? E=mc^2? Is that “truly” how the Universe is put together or just our current projection onto Plato’s allegorical cave wall?
Clearly V=I*R (Ohm’s “law”) is a delusion because in the real world there is no homogeneous R device that has linear conversion of “current” to “voltage” over all ranges and all temperatures. It is merely a model, an idealistic or abstract model. Not a “law” that Mother would approve of.

Judge L.'s wrong headed notions about Laws "of Nature" (meaning proclaimed by Mother herself) are just a tip of the iceberg example of judges gone wild and bouncing off the walls of Plato's Cave.

First and foremost are the Royal Nine feeding us LSD-laced Mayo-naise about how response to dosage by humans with unique DNA combinations is totally predictable based on their own invented Law "of Nature" (their unspecified "correlations").

"The case before us lies at the intersection of these basic principles. It concerns patent claims covering processes that help doctors who use thiopurine drugs to treat patients with autoimmune diseases determine whether a given dosage level is too low or too high [[for each of uniquely assembled human patients]]. The claims purport to apply natural laws describing [[for each of uniquely assembled human patients]] the relationships between the concentration in the blood of certain thiopurine metabolites and the likelihood that the drug dosage will be ineffective or induce harmful side-effects [[for each of uniquely assembled human patients]]. We [[the Royal Nine]] must determine whether the claimed processes have transformed these unpatentable natural laws into patent-eligible applications of those laws. We conclude that they have not done so and that therefore the processes are not patentable." -- MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES v. PROMETHEUS LABORATORIES, INC.

"... the District Court ultimately granted summary judgment in Mayo's favor. The court reasoned that the patents effectively claim natural laws or natural phenomena — namely the correlations between thiopurine metabolite levels and the toxicity and efficacy of thiopurine drug dosages — and so are not patentable."

... we take as typical claim 1 of the `623 Patent, which describes one of the claimed processes as follows:
"A method of optimizing therapeutic efficacy for treatment of an immune-mediated gastrointestinal disorder, comprising:
"(a) administering a drug providing 6-thioguanine to a subject having said immune-mediated gastrointestinal disorder; and
"(b) determining the level of 6-thioguanine in said subject having said immune-mediated gastrointestinal disorder,
"wherein the level of 6-thioguanine less than about 230 pmol per 8x108 red blood cells indicates a need to increase the amount of said drug subsequently administered to said subject and
"wherein the level of 6-thioguanine greater than about 400 pmol per 8x108 red blood cells indicates a need to decrease the amount of said drug subsequently administered to said subject."

Why are the Royal 9 of Mount Olympus straight out of Medieval times?
Let's start with the "Law of Nature" that correlates blood letting with recovering from the toxic humours of a disease.
Scientists understand that Math is not Science.
Although many times scientists use (apply it) math to explain the observations and theories that flow out of their research.
Supreme Court Justices are no scientists.
They prove it with inane proclamations like the ones in Mayo (above) regarding correlation, laws of nature, natural laws and natural phenomenon.

One can look at randomly picked spots of big data and see whatever correlation one wants to see just like one can stare at pictures of the planet Mars and see all manner of creature including faces, rodents, aliens,etc.

Correlation is not part of Mother Nature.
It is no more than another rabid idea that often rots our monkey like brains.
Evolution has fashioned us to see patterns even when there is none there.
We laugh these off as being optical illusions.
But it's not funny when the Supreme 9 start frothing at the mouth and proclaiming correaltion as science, as an inherent part of natural phenomenon and of Mother Nature herself and then slashing and burning away the life works of true inventors and discoverers.

No comments: