Patents that incentivize broader communication actually chill free speech? Really?
Let's put on our clown thinker caps, step back a bit, and ponder on that.
Before there was the telegraph.
(Thank you Samuel F. Morse.)
Before there was the telephone.
(Thank you Alexander G. Bell --or Elisha Gray?)
Before there were emails via Internet and cell phone.
(Thank you unappreciated many others.)
One had to rely on snail mail (rush shipped by pony express).
Or face to face, if perchance such meeting ever happened.
Then a bunch of miracles happened.
Long distance real time communications!
All spurred by patents.
But Creepy Clown No. 1 at the Fed wants you to believe the opposite.
That inventions "directed to" improving communications should NOT be patent eligible.
'Cause you see, cause ipso logistico absurdum, patents that incentivize improving real time collaborative communications stifle at least one clown's First Amendment rights to fool everyone else!
"This is not entirely a nation of clowns, though it feels like that lately." --Kunstler
Speak for yourself, James. Speak for yourself. From this corner, yes it is.
Patent Docs opines on IV v. Symatec here
"In terms of determining what is conventional, it seems that the Court can characterize the claims in a way to achieve a desired outcome."
"Judge Mayer’s concurrence is worth reading in full because he delves into the political and philosophical arguments that are behind every patent-eligibility decision, but that are often not openly discussed." --swip_report