Sunday, March 27, 2016

Alice in Bark Bytes Land --the full story

Moments of tail waggin' clarity in the Alice v. CLS oral hearings are found for example at 2:32/1:00:13 where Kennedy J. begins his hypothetical on the 2nd year engineer programming "the" computer as an over the weekend homework project. Here is my "idea". Make it so.

Bryer's "King Tut" dance is at 3:23/1:00:00 where abacus man stops the whole thing when more gold given away than total in account. --You see the point? (Don't dare say no.)

"Apply it" through the computer per Bryer's Tut-n'-stop example at at 5:12/1:00:00

Scalia "cotton gin" sarcasm at 6:56/1:00:00 --it too can be done instead by hand

Kennedy's Scene II Take 1 in A Coffee Shop Somewhere in Silicon Valley kicks back in at 9:55/1:00:00


Claim 33 of US Pat. 5,970,479:

33. A method of exchanging obligations as between parties, each party holding a credit record and a debit record with an exchange institution, the credit records and debit records for exchange of predetermined obligations, the method comprising the steps of:

(a) creating a shadow credit record and a shadow debit record for each stakeholder party to be held independently by a supervisory institution from the exchange institutions;

(b) obtaining from each exchange institution a start-of-day balance for each shadow credit record and shadow debit record;

(c) for every transaction resulting in an exchange obligation, the supervisory institution adjusting each respective party's shadow credit record or shadow debit record, allowing only these transactions that do not result in the value of the shadow debit record being less than the value of the shadow credit record at any time, each said adjustment taking place in chronological order; and

(d) at the end-of-day, the supervisory institution instructing ones of the exchange institutions to exchange credits or debits to the credit record and debit record of the respective parties in accordance with the adjustments of the said permitted transactions, the credits and debits being irrevocable, time invariant obligations placed on the exchange institutions.

See also US Pat 6,912,510; 7,149,720 and 7,725,375

Thursday, March 24, 2016

It ain't no fair that someone wins that race

In the competition for alternate world outcomes there are at least two races.

One seeks to come up with the ultimate in hypocrisy: Stop competition in order to promote competition.

The other one ...

... was established over 200 years ago ...

... to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to .. Inventors the exclusive Right to their .. Discoveries

by granting them patents as quid quo pro for their being first in a race to un-cover (dis-cover) that which they had found ...

so long as what they un-cover is any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof

However this opinion piece, "Patent law is holding back scientific advancement" would like us to believe that competition and winner take all is not the way to go if the 2nd runner up was close.

It would like us to believe that the publishing of patents hides and keeps secret that which the published patents dis-close.

In part it argues, "Unlike the informal system that scientists use for sharing intellectual credit, the patent system is winner take all. Whoever gets his or her application approved first gets all the money. That creates an incentive for secrecy -- if scientists' ideas leak out, someone else could file the patent more quickly."


Obviously that paradox sounds logical to some people.

Tuesday, March 22, 2016

Kill Our Mind Spawn? Never!

Others might refer to it as a "brain child".

Neither of those words can be used here however because they concede to reality-based biology (i.e., the brain is a biological organ) and to evolution (meaning we --the royal we, a.k.a. the SCOTUS-- are mere children, descendants from slightly less intelligent protozoa).

One opinion (here) suggests that the Supremes would be willing to give up their mind spawn: namely the Mayo v. Prometheus patent decision.
Give up our mind spawn? Never !!!

Give up our beliefs in Medieval myths, mindsets and magic?
Never !!!

Not only do we intimately know and understand all the "Laws of Nature,"
WE ARE the Laws of Nature.
We KNOW that medical testing is mere data gathering and mere plucking of leaves off the banana tree.
Therefore no new discovery and novel useful application thereof is possible.

Tuesday, March 15, 2016

The Brags of Berkeley

Bragging rites

According to this Berkeley brag rag:

"... and Federal Circuit upheld 1 patent and invalidated 16 patents. These findings resulted in [Alice] invalidation rates of 90.8%, 69.7% and 94.1%, respectively."

In other words by their count, millions of flies can't be wrong.

And the beat goes on, the beat goes on

Thursday, March 3, 2016

"Innovating" our way forward into the Idiocracy

It's all so simple,

Kill patents.
Unleash the corporate hounds of "innovation".

According to this Wash Po opinion piece:
"What is best for innovation is a thriving ecosystem in which companies build on each other's ideas and constantly reinvent themselves-instead of trying to slow each other down in the courts."

"... patents are only useful when they deliver innovation to consumers that they would not otherwise get."

Another opinionated hack job: Hacking off the Neck of the Patent System