tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-48312639888959736692024-03-12T22:56:48.937-07:00PATENTly - unOBVIOUSBeyond a certain point, everything becomes obvious, or does it?Step Backhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06178091823442339760noreply@blogger.comBlogger226125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4831263988895973669.post-7168967580766325242020-03-16T15:42:00.004-07:002020-03-18T19:30:27.058-07:00Just one leaf plucking minute there<a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/coronavirus-forces-supreme-court-delay-cases-protect-health/story?id=69620103&cid=clicksource_4380645_2_heads_hero_live_headlines_hed"><img src="https://s.abcnews.com/images/Politics/supreme-court-gty-jt-191001_hpEmbed_23x15_992.jpg" height="150" align="right"></a>
<p>
What? The Olympus Nine are afraid of some wee little ole' Corona-19 virus?
</p>
<p>
<a href="">Coronavirus forces Supreme Court to delay</a><br><br>
"The justices, many of whom are among the most at-risk for COVID-19 given their age and underlying health conditions, remain in good health and continue to work on court business from home or their private chambers, Arberg told ABC News."
</p>
<p>
Hold on just one leaf plucking minute there! Aren't these the same geniuses who said that finding a cure is simple abstraction? Just pluck the right sprout off the DNA tree and use it to make a vaccine. These are routine, well understood and conventional practices! Not exactly as hard as lathing the trunk of the DNA tree into the shape of a baseball bat.
</p>
<p>
<a href="https://www.wikihow.com/Prune-Tomatoes"><img src="https://www.wikihow.com/images/thumb/1/12/Prune-Tomatoes-Step-9.jpg/aid335182-v4-1200px-Prune-Tomatoes-Step-9.jpg" height="150"></a>
</p>
<p>
The above snarky remarks will need explication for those not familiar with the Alice/Mayo fantasy journey that the U.S. "Supreme" Court has embarked on. There was a patent case involving diagnostic detection of susceptibility to breast cancer by identifying so-called BRCA-1 and BRCA-2 genomes in the DNA of females. The Supremes determined that "isolating" these genomes was abstract and not deserving of patent protection. They saw the process as a simple one, like plucking the right leaf off of tree. This was arrogant and hubiristic. Since then, the Federal Circuit has ruled that no invention that fits into diagnostic testing "bucket" is patent eligible.
</p>
<p>
However, getting to the right genes, proteins, mechanisms for diagnosis and treatment are no simple walk in the park. See <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Health/race-clock-scientists-testing-existing-drugs-fight-coronavirus/story?id=69669987&cid=clicksource_4380645_4_three_posts_card_hed">Race Against the Clock here</a>
</p>
<p>
We should enlist the stable geniuses on the Supreme Court, pull them out of their cowardly hiding places, to help in the race against the COVID-19 virus.
</p>
<a href="https://spiritualcleansing.org/a-real-man-will-be-honest-no-matter-how-painful-the-truth-is-a-coward-hides-behind-lies-and-deceit/"><img src="https://spiritualcleansing.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/A-real-man-will-be-honest-no-matter-how-painful-the-truth-is.-A-coward-hides-behind-lies-and-deceit..jpg" height="250" align="right"></a>
Step Backhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06178091823442339760noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4831263988895973669.post-38449015310773937672019-08-21T10:22:00.001-07:002019-08-22T09:37:32.893-07:00Our disappearing world<a href="https://gizmodo.com/quantum-object-teleported-100-kilometers-by-chinese-sci-5909610"><img src="https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--k27zs5Nx--/c_fit,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/17mbbtf7hsuljjpg.jpg" height="150" align="right"></a>
<p>
Remember the good old days?
</p>
<p>
When you walked into your garage and saw a solid physical object known as a garage door opener?
</p>
<p>
Sorry. It's not there anymore. It has been teleported into the abstraction dimension (a neighborhood of the Twilight Zone) by the astute judges of the Federal Circuit.<br>
THE CHAMBERLAIN GROUP, INC. v. TECHTRONIC INDUSTRIES CO. LTD [OPINION Fed. Cir. - PRECEDENTIAL 2019-08-21]
</p>
<p>
According to the Fed. Cir., adding a wireless status reporting device to your garage door opener (more generally, your "barrier operator") is an abstract act that is not patent eligible.
</p>
<p>
What's being teleported away from us next? The kitchen garbage disposer? NO ooohhhhh.....
</p>Step Backhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06178091823442339760noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4831263988895973669.post-3528767850168562512019-01-03T10:34:00.002-08:002019-01-03T10:34:38.798-08:00Dice-Secting Reality<a href="https://www.thclabs.org/deep-trip-series/dissecting-reality-101-religion-a-poetry-of-paradoxes/"><img src="https://www.thclabs.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/man-universe.jpg" height="150" align="right"></a>
<p>
The dicey illogic of Alice/Mayo continues with <a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-2465.Opinion.12-28-2018.pdf">IN RE: MARCO GULDENAAR HOLDING B.V.</a> (Fed. Cir 12-28-2018)
</p>
<p>
Normally it is the Fed. Cir. that accuses inventors of claiming a result without specifying exactly how it is achieved.
</p>
<p>
This time however, a role reversal is undertaken. It is the Fed. Cir. that dissects a claim so to only see the result without acknowledging exactly how it is achieved in accordance with the claim.
</p>
<p>
For more details about the specifics of the case you can link to <a href="https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/12/eligibility-patent-craps.html">here</a>.
</p>
<p>
That aside, the real question is by what authority can the Fed. Cir. dissect a claim so as to pick and choose only the parts that will support their conclusion that the "only" novelty is "printed matter" and that the so-labeled "printed matter" has no relation to the substrate?
</p>
Step Backhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06178091823442339760noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4831263988895973669.post-84528394021327277342018-11-27T22:55:00.000-08:002018-12-02T16:45:28.290-08:00Raw Capitalism versus the Independent Inventor<a href="https://drawception.com/panel/drawing/zS8S6336/young-emo-girl-gets-crushed-by-a-giant-foot/"><img src="https://cdn.drawception.com/images/panels/2017/3-25/KC2DHeSpRN-12.png" height="150" align="right"></a>
<p>
A talking head in a recent <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMfqXAT0gGc">pundits</a> round-table was hawking the notion of <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2444569X16300154">human ingenuity mixing with market forces</a> to provide <a href="https://www.langdonwinner.com/other-writings/2017/6/12/the-cult-of-innovation-its-colorful-myths-and-rituals">inevitable progress</a> by humanity for overcoming all problems by means of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_innovation">technological innovation.</a>
</p>
<p>
Do the forces of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire">raw capitalism</a> truly lead to <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3GO1mPwWlY">inevitable progress</a> and conquest of all problems through "<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exi4lNX5lvE">innovation</a>"?
</p>
<p>
Raw capitalism directs large entities to minimize costs, maximize profits, <a href="https://www.escr-net.org/corporateaccountability/corporatecapture/manifestations-corporate-capture">take over government</a> and crush all potential opponents.
</p>
<p>
The independent inventor represents a potential opponent. But how to most efficiently crush him while minimizing costs and maximizing profits?
</p>
<a href="https://paanluelwel2011.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/rss-wean-off-war.jpg?w=614"><img src="https://images.arrowfilms.com/Images/3756c737-e2f7-4171-bcd1-58ef3731b8ae.jpg?height=450" height="150" align="right"></a>
<p>
One answer is to engage in corporate capture and <a href="https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/08/uspto-strategic-draft.html">then let the cogs of government do all the crushing for you.</a> An elegant answer since tax payer money does the work while you sit back and enjoy the carnage.
</p>
<p>
So let's step back and see what the system has wrought:<br><br><br>
1) <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause">Inventors are encouraged to file patent applications so that the government can "secure" for them exclusive rights</a> in "their" respective discoveries and inventions.<br><br>
2) <a href="https://www.bomcip.com/blog/early-publication-and-non-publication-options-available-for-influencing-timing-of-publication-of-pending-patent-applications/">Inventors are encouraged to early publish their filings</a> with an implied promise that they will be treated fairly.<br><br>
3) Examiners at the Patent office come up with all kinds of bizarre rejections, including under the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International">Alice/Mayo</a> doctrine and the KSR flexibility rule so as to make sure inventors spend lots of money, RCE after RCE, without ever getting anywhere.<br><br>
4) Even if they initially do get a grant of a patent, inventors are subject to repeat post-grant reviews (PGRs).<br><br>
5) Even if they get in front of a jury and win, inventors do not get the promised exclusivity via injunctions thanks to the eBay decision.<br><br>
6) At the end of the day most inventors are left bankrupt, having spent their lives and fortunes fighting in the unsympathetic court rooms and appeal chambers.
</p>
<p>
In the mean time, the oligarchs who have set up this catch and kill system sit back and laugh. They take what they want and rarely if ever pay for it.
</p>Step Backhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06178091823442339760noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4831263988895973669.post-31325161820603740612018-04-28T12:43:00.001-07:002018-11-27T22:31:13.513-08:00Oil States and the Despicable Toll Bridge Inventor<a href="https://oshmatters.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/d3min21.gif?w=620&h=257"><img src="https://toddmoore.com/wp-content/uploads/troll-toll.jpg" height="150" align="right"></a>
<p>
The <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-712_87ad.pdf">Sct. <u>Oil States</u> decision</a> depicts the greedy grubby inventor as no more than a troll who sets up a toll on a common thoroughfare (a bridge of course).
</p>
<p>
Such a toll troll deserves no more than a revocable franchise right according to the Sct. because this despicable creature is blocking the public from free passage through a common feature of commerce.
</p>
<p>
Justice Thomas writes:<br>
<a href="http://s3.studylib.net/store/data/008440373_1-b36b09be516e0180f08303e565a2583e.png"><img src="https://image.slidesharecdn.com/bestfranchiseopportunitiesinusacanbefruitful-160930071517/95/best-franchise-opportunities-in-usa-can-be-fruitful-1-638.jpg?cb=1475219745" height="150" align="right"></a>
"This Court has recognized that franchises can be qualified in this manner. For example, Congress can grant a franchise that permits a company to erect a <u>toll bridge</u>, but qualify the grant by reserving its authority to revoke or amend the franchise. See, e.g., <i>Louisville Bridge Co. v. United States</i>, 242 U. S. 409, 421 (1917) (collecting cases). Even after the bridge is built, the Government can exercise its reserved authority through legislation or an administrative proceeding. ... Thus, the public-rights doctrine covers the matter resolved in inter partes review. The Constitution does not <i>prohibit</i> [cough, cough] the Board from resolving it outside of an Article III court. ... Patents convey <u>only</u> a specific form of property right—a public franchise. See <i>Pfaff</i>, 525 U. S., at 63-64. And patents are "entitled to protection as any other property, consisting of a franchise." <i>Seymour</i>, 11 Wall. at 533 (emphasis added). As a public franchise, a patent can confer only the rights that "the statute prescribes." ....
</p>
<a href="http://www.caravaggio.org/the-incredulity-of-saint-thomas.jsp"><img src="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/57abc64a3e00be8a638cc6ff/5889018bcd0f68aceb83c88e/5889018bebbd1a9607d506d7/1502253183495/St.+Thomas+Aquinas+official+image.jpg" height="150" align="right"></a>
<p>
Missing from the holy lips of our Saint Thomas are three simple Latin words:<br>
<b>QUID PRO QUO</b>
</p>
<p>
Saint Thomas Inquisitor instead sees the playing field as this:<br>
"As this Court has long recognized, the grant of a patent is a matter between "the public, who are the grantors, and . . . the patentee." <i>Duell</i>, supra, at 586 (quoting <i>Butterworth v. United States ex rel. Hoe</i>, 112 U. S. 50, 59 (1884)). By "issuing patents," <u>the PTO "take[s] from the public</u> rights of immense value, and bestow[s] them upon the patentee." <i>United States v. American Bell Telephone Co.</i>, 128 U. S. 315, 370 (1888). Specifically, patents are "public franchises" that the Government <u>grants "<b>to</b> the inventors</u> ..." ... To Be Continued
</p>
<a href="http://www.dobermandan.com/blog/quid-pro-quo-keeps-the-status-quo/"><img src="http://www.dobermandan.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/quidproquo.jpg" height="190" align="right"></a>
<p>
Till recent times it was the inventor who was the giver and the public the taker.<br>
<b>QUID PRO QUO</b><br>
The inventor gives his passions, sweat, life blood, time, money and all his know how (his best mode) to the public as part of an offer and acceptance contract deal.<br>
All he gets for it is a stupid piece of paper.<br>
It is the public who are the takers and the benefactors of the deal. The inventor cannot un-ring the bell by retrieving that which he trustingly handed over to the public, the thing we used call his intellectual "property" (IP). According to the Supremes however, the public can re-neg on their end of deal and freely take back that stamped piece of worthless paper.
</p>
<a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/nov/9/inventors-patent-office-favors-big-tech/"><img src="https://twt-thumbs.washtimes.com/media/image/2017/11/09/Protest_c0-53-1280-799_s885x516.jpg?1ddb2cac92f6c1e7a226b6055731cefd0c676d26" height="150" align="right"></a>Step Backhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06178091823442339760noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4831263988895973669.post-52039450666801995742018-04-27T15:41:00.001-07:002018-04-27T15:41:33.120-07:00As for you my pretty ...<a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/15/wizard-of-oz-facts_n_5676872.html"><img src="https://jackflacco.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/the-wicked-witch-of-the-west-oz.jpg?w=840&h=614" height="150" align="right"></a>
<p>As for you my pretty ...
</p>
<p>
An unsecured franchise!<br>
One that can be revoked at whim of privy counsel or political hacks of the crown.
</p>
<p>
Never you mind that Constitution behind the curtain.<br>
Pay not attention to the part about securing inventors.<br>
WE control the horizontal. WE control the definitions.<br>
Revocable franchise is all you get. Got it? Go.
</p>
<p>
Oil States opinion <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-712_87ad.pdf">here</a>
</p>Step Backhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06178091823442339760noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4831263988895973669.post-76578841055945635002018-02-21T05:18:00.001-08:002018-02-21T05:18:38.383-08:00Do Russians Use This Blog to Take Down America?<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQiM9jtBX-Q"><img src="http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.426868.1314534403!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_750/alg-flag-jpg.jpg" height="150" align="right"></a>
<p>
Perhaps.
</p>
<p>
In the past year I've noticed an uptick in Russian audience traffic to this blog.
</p>
<p>
Is it providing the Russians with new ideas on how to destroy America?<br>
Do it by destroying America's Golden Goose, the much coveted US Patent System?
</p>
<p>
I ask the Russians if we Americans might be so dumb as to do it to ourselves?
</p>
<p>
Dah (yes), I answer.
</p>
<p>
We've been doing it to ourselves ever since the mid 1990's. Early publication of the inventor's trade secrets. KSR. eBay. Alice/Mayo. ...
</p>
<a href="https://www.npr.org/2011/12/15/143581563/carnage-in-the-smart-set-and-self-inflicted-too"><img src="https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2011/12/13/1_wide-cf2f97e9ceb7326742dadc5c296049ae74d9528e-s900-c85.jpg" height="150" align="right"></a>
<p>
Can the Russians just sit back and laugh?<br>
Watch the self-inflicted carnage?<br>
Dah.
</p>Step Backhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06178091823442339760noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4831263988895973669.post-34663575188287108432017-11-28T09:56:00.001-08:002017-11-28T09:56:04.721-08:00Binary Model, Flipping the Examinational Mistake Coin<a href="http://sydney.edu.au/education-portfolio/ei/teaching@sydney/flipping-classroom-evaluating-experiment-humanities/"><img src="http://sydney.edu.au/education-portfolio/ei/teaching@sydney/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/6301987888_78aafec3a1_o-770x770.jpg" height="150" align="right"></a>
<p>
Transcript to <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=oil+states+supreme+court+oral+argument&source=lnt&tbs=qdr:y&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiywuWs6-HXAhUqhlQKHTcnBs4QpwUIHw&biw=2338&bih=1201">Oil States</a> arguments can be found <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2017/16-712_j4ek.pdf">here</a>
</p>
<p>
Is it simply the flipping of a binary coin to fix a yes/no mistake?
</p>Step Backhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06178091823442339760noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4831263988895973669.post-17296610180443506812017-10-06T12:38:00.006-07:002018-01-05T14:52:08.482-08:00Hear Hear!<a href="https://media.tenor.com/images/f4713d8dd20fcb361d16708c7748b347/tenor.gif"><img src="http://anthonycoppedge.com/problog/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/towncrier.jpg" height="150" align="right"></a>
<p>
"... In short, patents have clearly been at the heart of successive waves of critically important American commercial innovation and continue to make enormous contributions to the American economy.<br>
But today, unfortunately, U.S. patent rights are under serious threat.<br>
For starters, a series of Supreme Court decisions over the last 15 years have made it harder to obtain and defend a patent."<br><br>
-- <a href="http://dailysignal.com/2017/10/06/erosion-of-patent-rights-is-a-threat-to-innovation-and-american-prosperity/">Erosion of Patent Rights Is a Threat to Innovation and American Prosperity</a>
</p>
<p>
Another "erosion" opinion piece is <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/technology/263549-a-quiet-erosion-of-american-patent-rights-by-foreign">here.</a>
</p>
<a href="https://gfycat.com/gifs/tag/mudslide"><img src="https://thumbs.gfycat.com/DeliriousClassicEsok-small.gif" height="150" align="right"></a>
<p>
Is it merely slow erosion and the start of a new <a href="http://www.bobspixels.com/kaibab.org/geology/gc_geol.htm">Grand Canyon</a> or more like the start of a catastrophic mud slide?
</p>
<p>
BY the time it's over, it will be too late.<br>
Whole generations of <a href="https://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innovations/blogs/9-young-inventors-who-may-just-save-the-world">would-be American inventors</a> will have turned to other pursuits.
</p>
<a href="https://dcbarroco.wordpress.com/2013/10/08/a-bit-of-common-core-constitutional-cut-up/"><img src="https://dcbarroco.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/8a96a-amendedbillofrights.gif?w=555&h=640" height="150" align="right"></a>
<p>
Why bother if the new socialist republic of Faux America steals your invention after fooling you into filing for illusory patent rights?
</p>Step Backhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06178091823442339760noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4831263988895973669.post-84164542836395909472017-08-23T10:48:00.003-07:002017-08-23T14:48:34.554-07:00Magic Compass Ride<a href="http://pirates.wikia.com/wiki/Jack_Sparrow%27s_compass"><img src="https://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/pirates/images/f/fa/Piratecompass600.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/250?cb=20110804141344" height="150" align="right"></a>
<p>
ALL claims, meaning absolutely all claims “are” abstract.<br><br>
They are merely words scrivenered on parchment (e.g., in the English language) to represent the concept of a corresponding invention.<br><br>
This is not a pipe. Get it? If not, link to the following or similar explanations of the existentialist concept:<br>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images<br><br>
What is important to understand is that Judge Hughes (<a href="http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/08/16/federal-circuit-computer-memory-system-patent-eligible/id=86925/">of Visual Memory v. Nvidia</a>) possesses a rare and magical field direction indicating compass.<br><br>
Instead of <a href="https://www.teamwolcottcycling.com/NCOM/images/compass2.png">the usual N, E, S, W markers</a> found on a normal compass, his magical compass denotes the major circle points as A, A, A and A; where “A” means Abstract. A select few angular micro-strokes on the circle get the NA notation, meaning Not Abstract. Only judge Hughes and those secretly sworn into his power group know where those are. They know them when they see them.<br><br>
Whenever confronted with the words of a claim, the good Judge pulls out his <a href="https://youtu.be/UtkP5gTX6Hc">magical mystical compass, rides</a> it above the words and its needle quickly and <a href="http://images.slideplayer.com/25/8000751/slides/slide_12.jpg">without belaboring</a> itself too much aligns with the hidden field forces of the words and tells the Judge what those words are “directed to”.<br><br>
Yes, of course it’s almost always “A”. But that is not the fault of the good Judge. It is <a href="https://youtu.be/Vl89g2SwMh4">the reality of the universe</a> as reflected by the angle markings on his pocket compass.<br><br>
No point swearing to the G-d you worship. It is as He hath willed it. The universe is just full of mysterious abstract misdirections.
</p>Step Backhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06178091823442339760noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4831263988895973669.post-43221197545179042772017-08-16T08:12:00.000-07:002017-08-17T12:00:41.616-07:00Shellacking the Chicken Shell<a href="http://ourbestbites.com/2011/04/how-to-make-blown-egg-ornaments/"><img src="https://www.planetofthevapes.co.uk/sites/default/files/styles/news_article_image/public/news/display/eggs-in-peril.jpg?itok=h-kxgIyd" height="150" align="right"></a>
<p>
Which came first, the chicken or the unscrambled egg?
</p>
<p>
The abstract idea or the adding on of the generic computer?
</p>
<p>
The irrational thought or the false logic?
</p>
<p>
Ignorance or basking in its bliss?
</p>
<a href="http://www.computing.outwood.com/NEA/vb/algorithms-vb.html"><img src="http://www.computing.outwood.com/NEA/vb/imagesvb/algorithm7vb.png" height="120" align="right"></a>
<p>
Those skilled in the rhetorical art of false choice menus will appreciate that many a proposition are defective even before they are hatched. For example, by proposing that the abstract egg came first and then the generic hen was added on to sit on that egg for reason of conventional and routine development ignores the possibility that the egg came from someplace, perchance a non-abstract and non-conventional laying hen. A something more of significance to those who can comprehend it.
</p>
<p>
In the case of:<br>
<a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/16-2254.Opinion.8-11-2017.1.PDF">VISUAL MEMORY LLC v. NVIDIA CORPORATION</a>
</p>
<p>
the question is whether the claims are an independent shell with no connection to the specification (a black box onto itself) or whether the claims are part of an integral whole in which the specification concludes with the claims.
</p>
<p>
<u>Appellate Judge HUGHES(dissenting) argues:</u><br>
"Claim 1, for instance, claims a system comprising a main memory and a cache connected to a bus, with a "programmable operational characteristic" that "determines a type of data stored by said cache." '740 patent col. 6 11. 28-38. The claim does not provide any specific limitations on the "programmable operational characteristic," making it <u>a purely functional component</u>. The "programmable operational characteristic" <u>is nothing more than a black box for performing the abstract idea of storing data</u> <i>based on its characteristic,</i> and the patent lacks any details about how that is achieved. The remaining computer elements in the claims (cache, memory, bus) are nothing more than a collection of conventional computing components found in any computer."
</p>
<a href="https://i.pinimg.com/736x/48/2b/cf/482bcf867e85fd7177d187fd1ad65f8e--t-shirts-quote-shirts.jpg"><img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_cyEviNeJ48k/RoO3KEZxE1I/AAAAAAAAAEE/leVf-EoHsno/s320/bettman2.jpg" height="150" align="right"></a>
<p>
Blindsight is of course 20/20 times * zero (0).<br>
The subject <a href="https://www.google.com/patents/US5953740">US Patent 5953740</a> dates back to 1990 and<br>
uses an archaic Computer Design descriptor Language known as <a href="https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/41842/MildenMarkR1984.pdf?sequence=1">CDL</a> <br>
The microfiche of the patent describes in detail the modules of Fig. 2 using the CDL language.
</p>
<p>
Does <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_M._Hughes">Judge HUGHES(dissenting, BA Harvard 1989)</a> understand any of this?<br>
Highly unlikely.
</p>Step Backhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06178091823442339760noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4831263988895973669.post-46851189921279522952017-07-06T10:37:00.001-07:002017-07-06T10:37:23.881-07:00One thing We Americans don't need: Inventors<a href="https://pics.me.me/our-american-dream-the-janitor-who-invented-flamin-hot-cheetos-2077699.png"><img src="http://cdn.wallpapersafari.com/56/27/wrhp9L.jpg" height="150" align="right"></a>
<p>
Today's title of the post is a take off on this op-ed:<br>
<a href="http://minnlawyer.com/2017/07/06/one-thing-we-dont-need-is-stronger-patents/">"One thing we don’t need is stronger patents"</a>
</p>
<p>
That's right.<br>
If God had meant us to invent,<br>
He would have evolved us to have brains.<br>
D'Oh!
</p>Step Backhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06178091823442339760noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4831263988895973669.post-80448664241916035202017-05-17T10:20:00.001-07:002017-05-17T14:41:25.046-07:00Easy it comes to us, Easy it goes to us<a href="https://www.inc.com/tim-donnelly/brilliant-failures/9-inventions-made-by-mistake.html"><img src="https://www.inc.com/uploaded_files/image/Slinky2_800x800-BKT_19533.jpg" height="150" align="right"></a>
<p>
Whom is this "us" to which inventions come easy?<br>
And to whom inventions go easy?
</p>
<p>
Why, it's U.S.; your trustable, reliable, honest as Abe government.
</p>
<p>
<a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/16-2066.Opinion.5-10-2017.1.PDF">EASYWEB INNOVATIONS v. TWITTER</a><br><br>
Yes, you <i>sucker-born-yesterday</i> inventors <b>worked hard to come up with your</b> inventions in the first place.<br><br>
<a href="http://www.cassadi.com/life-notes/?currentPage=5"><img src="http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/158467/23101587/1373681556730/100_2375.JPG?token=UkNEcPuVaLRpKGCvGO6aIry%2F5s4%3D" height="150" align="right"></a>
Yes, you <i>gullible-believer</i> inventors <b>paid large moneys</b> to your attorneys to scriven up the detailed applications.<br><br>
Yes, you <i>trusting</i> inventors <b>fought hard</b> with the Patent Office to get your claims allowed (and paid the Patent Office AND your lawyers for the entire process).<br>
It was a hard fought upward battle.<br><br>
Yes, the US Government <b>stamped your applications</b> <i>approved</i> and led you to believe you had <u>"exclusive"</u> rights in "your" inventions.<br><br>
Yes, the <b><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause">US Constitution says</a></b> its your invention or discovery and the government is supposed to "<i>secure</i>" exclusive rights for you in "<i>your</i>" respective invention or discovery.
</p>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There%27s_a_sucker_born_every_minute"><img src="https://vanyieck.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/showman-extraordinaire-1.png" height="150" align="right"></a>
<p>
But as they say, ha ha, a new sucker is born every day.<br>
Easy come, easy wipe out.
</p>
<a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/16-2066.Opinion.5-10-2017.1.PDF">EASYWEB INNOVATIONS v. TWITTER</a>
<p>
"<i>In sum, all the claims are directed to the abstract idea of receiving, authenticating, and publishing data, and fail to recite any inventive concepts sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible invention.</i>"
</p>Step Backhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06178091823442339760noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4831263988895973669.post-21085968189708481412017-04-20T10:45:00.000-07:002017-04-21T02:23:46.100-07:00Trade secrecy versus the progress of science and the useful arts<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild"><img src="http://images.gr-assets.com/books/1465587866l/30516250.jpg" height="200" align="right"></a>
<p>
(Click on image to read about "Guilds".)
</p>
<p>
<a href="http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/04/09/what-is-a-trade-secret/id=68162/">Trade secrecy</a> is not only anti-innovation, it is <a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/War_on_Science">anti-science.</a><br><br>
<a href="http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/coreofscience_01">Science requires</a> that the proponent of a new theory/hypothesis lay out all his/her cards on the table so that others can rigorously test it.<br><br>
If you say that you have a new data encryption scheme <a href="http://blog.fastforwardlabs.com/2017/01/25/privacy-and-encryption-above-the-data-interview-with-dave-archer.html">that others cannot easily crack</a> with current technology then put it out on the table and let the hackers have a go at it.<br><br>
If you say that you have a new cancer treatment protocol that has higher efficacy, then put it out on the table and <a href="http://web.chem.ucla.edu/~harding/IGOC/C/clinical_trial.html">let the clinical trial labs actually field test it.</a><br><br>
What Mr. Levy is proposing (<a href="http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/04/20/matt-levy-innovation-patents-patents-innovation/id=82168/">in this web positing</a>) is anti-science. It is the anathema of real science for biotech companies to forever hide their secret sauces and not let others test them.<br><br>
</p>
<a href="https://www.foodtomarketchallenge.org/RAMPIT/img_common/fairness/Black/equation1.png"><img src="http://dolchino.com/images/gadgets/teckell/teckell3.jpg" height="150" align="right"></a>
<p>
This exactly why patents are necessary.<br><br>
So that real science can take place on a transparent playing field.<br><br>
So we can “promote” the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause">progress of science and the useful arts.</a><br><br>
</p>Step Backhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06178091823442339760noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4831263988895973669.post-3503499158966237362017-04-14T10:33:00.001-07:002017-04-16T11:08:25.313-07:00Crash Landing on Planet of the Orange-Haired Apes<iframe width="265" height="165" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/izlS15orhP0" frameborder="0" align="right"></iframe>
<p>
It already happened.<br>
<b>So get over it.</b><br>
We <b>ARE</b> on the Planet of the <i>Orange-Haired</i> Apes.
</p>
<p>
The problem at hand is how to tell them ....<br>
"<i><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBMvR_RnKu4">Take your stinking paws off my science you damn simpleton primates!</a></i>"
</p>
<p>
It would not be an insurmountable problem if it were JUST the <a href="http://freebeacon.com/politics/media-no-longer-considers-president-leader-free-world/">leader of the "free world"</a> who was scientifically illiterate.
</p>
<p>
Or if it was also the Supreme judges who were scientifically illiterate. (<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HU8kCX7tiI">Which they clearly are.</a>)
</p>
<iframe width="280" height="165" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/3HU8kCX7tiI" frameborder="0" align="right"></iframe>
<p>
It's the <u>fake news aping press</u> that's the problem.<br>
Even these critters, the ones who are supposed to stand guard at the gates and yell about the <i>Emperor marching with no clothes on</i> in cases where all other checks and balances have failed, they too can't get anything right. That is a grand scale insurmountable problem.
</p>
<a href="http://gawker.com/antonin-scalia-does-not-believe-in-molecular-biology-513125290"><img src="http://images.gawker.com/18qpe18lw1dcfjpg/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800.jpg" height="150" align="right"></a>
<p>
Take <a href="http://gawker.com/antonin-scalia-does-not-believe-in-molecular-biology-513125290">this Gawker article</a> where the author gets it 180 degrees wrong.<br>
It wasn't Justice Scalia who was half way off his rocker. It was the rest of the Supreme bench and the reporter as well. Scalia to his credit was having a tinge of doubt where in fact the rest of the Court was in the wrong chemistry class (the fake science class). An "isolated" molecular fragment is not identical to the long chain compound from which it was selectively cleaved. (Hint: methane is not "identical" to heptane. If you think otherwise you fail <a href="http://bodell.mtchs.org/OnlineBio/BIOCD/text/chapter5/concept5.1.html">organic chemistry 101.</a>)
</p>
<iframe width="280" height="165" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Ei-EeDQyDS0" frameborder="0" align="right"></iframe>
<p>
Or take <a href="http://acsh.org/news/2013/04/15/supreme-court-skeptical-of-myriads-gene-patents">this other article</a> posted under the name of the American Council on Science and Health.
</p>
<p>
They got part of it right in noting: "The [Supreme Court] Justices tried to <b>simplify</b> the argument by <i>making analogies</i> to things like <b>chocolate chip cookies</b>, Amazonian jungle plants [plucking leaves off banana trees] and [lathing] baseball bats."
</p>
<p>
But then they go on to back up one of the Justices: "Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that if someone invented a new way to <b>extract the ingredients of a cookie</b>, a company still wouldn't be able to patent its ingredients. I can't imagine getting a patent simply on the basic items of salt, flour and eggs, simply because I've created a new use or a new product from those ingredients, she said."
</p>
<p>
At the end to their credit, they question the wisdom of the Myriad decision: "... preventing innovators, even (or especially) in biologicals and biotechnology from making sufficient profit on their work will have a strong chilling effect on R&D in this field."
</p>
<a href="https://richarddawkins.net/richarddawkins/"><img src="https://i0.wp.com/richarddawkins.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/dawkins-headshot-1.jpg?w=700" height="150" align="right"></a>
<p>
However, consider next <a href="https://richarddawkins.net/2016/02/scalias-supreme-court-replacement-should-respect-science/">this Richard Dwakins Foundation article</a>... "In one puzzling opinion, he [Justice Scalia] admitted that he wasn’t sure whether he accepted <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eo2LHKRR8NQ">the reality of molecular biology.</a> In another, he wrote that “creation science” (that is, creationism) was <i>a legitimate “body of scientific knowledge”</i> and that public schools can teach “whatever scientific evidence there may be against evolution.” And in a dissent contesting the federal government’s duty to combat climate change, he shrugged that the court’s “alarm over global warming may or may not be justified.”(to be continued)
</p>
Step Backhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06178091823442339760noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4831263988895973669.post-24956866408980884332017-03-24T15:20:00.003-07:002017-04-01T15:30:26.317-07:00The Hitchiker's Guide through the Judicial Hall of Patent Pending Shame<a href="http://www.motoristsrights.com/shame/shame/crt2_tnsupreme.html"><img src="http://worldonline.media.clients.ellingtoncms.com/img/croppedphotos/2015/12/10/Judicial-Funding-Kans_Geri-lead_t800.jpg?90232451fbcadccc64a17de7521d859a8f88077d" height="150" align="right"></a>
<p>
One ancient adviser said, "<b>Forgive</b> them for they know not what they do."
</p>
<p>
Is that the correct stance?<br>
Do they forgive others as they willst forgiveness unto themselves?
</p>
<p>
Or maybe we should say, "<b>Understand</b> them for they know not what they do, but forgive them not"?
</p>
<p>
<u>Welcome to the Judicial Hall of Patent Pending Shame.</u>
</p>
<a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Stephen_Breyer"><img src="https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/images/thumb/0/0e/Stephen_Breyer.jpg/150px-Stephen_Breyer.jpg" height="150" align="right"></a>
<p>
First up on our wall of shame is <a href="https://www.google.com/#q=justice+breyer+philosophy&*">Justice Stephen Breyer,</a> philosopher king and historian extraordinaire .... According to Breyer J. Egypt's King Tut had an all powerful Abacus Man. Breyer's 'Bacus Man could do extraordinary things. Like tallying up all the chits in Egypt's entire kingdom on his tiny 4 beads per symbol bronze abacus machine. Breyer's 'Bacus Man could also telepathically connect instantaneously to all corners of the realm so that he knew in real time when "solvency" ceased to exist for any of the kingdom's numerous accounts. What a man!
</p>
<iframe width="280" height="165" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/P1Hr9VPnMNc" frameborder="0"></iframe>
<p>
We should try to "understand" the debating points made by the Honorable Breyer J. After all, he majored in "philosophy" while going for his undergraduate at Stanford and then in a combination of <a href="https://www.oyez.org/justices/stephen_g_breyer">"philosophy" and "economics"</a> at Magdelen College at Oxford University.
</p>
<p>
Mind you there is nothing "fundamentally" wrong with studying "philosophy" and "economics" except for one minor detail.
</p>
<p>
You see, these areas of scholastic effort are wholly divorced from physical reality.
</p>
<iframe width="280" height="165" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/SYRyKYmOJwM" frameborder="0" align="right"></iframe>
<p>
They don't account for the friction between the shell beads and bronze rods of the Tut's 'Bacus Man abacus. Or for the amount of energy needed to make those beads whiz back and forth along the metal rods as the chit data comes flashing in by carrier pigeon at 100,000 bead bits per second. Then there is the wear and tear on these parts and time out for repair and replacement.
</p>
<a href="https://www.slideshare.net/RakeshSingh125/f-annealing"><img src="https://image.slidesharecdn.com/f-annealing-131118222251-phpapp02/95/annealing-16-638.jpg?cb=1384813935" height="150" align="right"></a>
<p>
Of course, in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave">Plato's cave</a> all is merely shadow flashing as illusions on the cave wall. So Breyer is freed from concerns about physics, metallurgy, chemistry, thermodynamics, Shannon's theory of information transfer and what not. He can make up fantastical hypotheticals that include characters with omnipotent powers and tunnel visions. The Supremes themselves have tunnel vision when they don't want to admit that <i>Le Roy v. Tatham</i> (SCt. 1852) got "metallurgy" wrong. The strain cooled lead is different from cast lead. Strain cooled lead can have a <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/figure/267343771_fig3_Figure-11-Tensile-tests-true-stress-strain-curves-of-base-as-cast-mold-cooled-and">significantly different micro-structure.</a> But heck. What's reality got to do with it when you enter Philosopher <a href="http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/justice-breyer-on-4-4-split-election-and-scalia-792188483710">Breyer's cave</a>?
</p>
<a href="http://www.salon.com/2014/07/02/supreme_courts_out_of_control_spiral_ideologues_rewriting_their_own_laws/"><img src="http://media.salon.com/2014/03/thomas_scalia-620x412.jpg" height="150" align="right"></a>
<p>
<b>Second</b> up on our wall of shame are the dumbnamic duo of <a href="http://www.biography.com/people/antonin-scalia-9473091">Justice Anton Scalia</a> and <a href="http://www.biography.com/people/clarence-thomas-9505658">Clarence Thomas</a>.<br>
No one celebrates the recent passing of Justice Scalia.<br>
However, that said, it can't be ignored that this "<a href="http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2017/02/the-originalism-textualism-and-strict-constructionism-of-neil-gorsuch">originalist</a>" deliberately ignored the Constitutional recognition of inventors having "rights" to "their" respective discoveries per <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause">Article I, section 8, clause 8</a> of that sacred document.
</p>
<a href="https://blogs.glowscotland.org.uk/gc/hyndsecbiohunit1/polymerase-chain-reaction-rev-qs/"><img src="https://hyndland-sec-glasgow.blogs.rm.com/wp_domains/16286_b/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2014/03/CfE-HSht-1_5a.png" height="150" align="right"></a>
<p>
Scalia writes: "I join the judgment of the Court, and all of its opinion except Part I—A and some portions of the rest of the opinion <u>going into fine details of molecular biology</u>. <i>I am unable to affirm those details on my own knowledge or even my own belief.</i> <b>It suffices for me to affirm</b>, having studied the opinions below and <i>the expert</i> <u>briefs presented here</u>, that the portion of DNA <b>isolated</b> from its natural state sought to be patented <u>is identical</u> to that portion of the DNA in its natural state; and that complementary DNA (cDNA) is a synthetic creation not normally present in nature." --<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_for_Molecular_Pathology_v._Myriad_Genetics,_Inc.">ASSOCIATION FOR MOLECULAR PATHOLOGY v. MYRIAD GENETICS, INC. (SCt. 6/13/2013)</a>
</p>
<a href="http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/molecular-genetic-techniques-and-markers-for-ecological-15785936"><img src="http://www.nature.com/scitable/content/ne0000/ne0000/ne0000/ne0000/15828879/f1_allanmax.jpg" height="150" align="right"></a>
<p>
JUSTICE THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court and writes: "For the reasons that follow, <b>we</b> hold that a naturally occurring DNA <b>segment is a product of nature</b> and not patent eligible <i>merely</i> because it has been <b>isolated,</b> ... the study of genetics can lead to valuable medical breakthroughs. ... Myriad after it made one such medical breakthrough. Myriad discovered the precise location and sequence of what are now known as the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. ... Myriad was not the only entity to offer BRCA testing after
it discovered the genes. ... Judges Lourie and Moore agreed that Myriad's claims were patent eligible under §101 but disagreed on the rationale. Judge Lourie relied on the fact that the entire DNA molecule is held together by chemical bonds and that the covalent bonds at both ends of the segment must be severed in order to isolate segments of DNA. This process technically creates new molecules with unique chemical compositions. ... Myriad did not create or alter any of the genetic information encoded in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. The location and order of the nucleotides existed in nature before Myriad found them. ... Myriad did not create anything. To be sure, it found an important and useful gene, <b>but separating that gene from its surrounding genetic material is not an act of invention.</b> ... Myriad found the location of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, but that <i>discovery</i>, by itself, does not render the BRCA genes "new . . . composition[s] of matter," §101, that are patent eligible. ... "
</p>Step Backhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06178091823442339760noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4831263988895973669.post-88575432238265055822017-03-12T14:59:00.003-07:002017-03-12T19:17:26.532-07:00Silence of the Autistic Savant Lambs<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXu-6nMUEew"><img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/GGPf-ka01iM9wSmtymQL40rBiTFlIN1NK4Rr0y1Tp04qRH65AcDUKL3MGlTMHdEyl5s3=w300" height="150" align="right"></a>
<p>
Why do inventors get taken advantage of?
</p>
<p>
And by advantage, I don't mean simply in the business world.
</p>
<p>
Calling inventors, autistic savant lambs is an extreme exaggeration of course. Most are not <a href="http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/rain-man-1988">Rain Man</a>. Instead some may have a slight tint of <a href="http://www.towerofpower.com.au/being-an-introvert-personality-type">introversion,</a> preferring to deal with <a href="https://www.quora.com/Does-anyone-prefer-a-virtual-world-provided-by-a-game-to-the-real-world">things as opposed to people.</a>
</p>
<p>
There are however, many a ruthless business people all too eager to take advantage of the lack or lessening of people skills among the inventor class. That constitutes taking advantage at level one of Dante's underworld.
</p>
<p>
Way way lower, deeper in the bowls of Dante's realm, reside those who are supposed to be acting <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_loco_parentis">in loco parentis,</a> to protect the legal rights of the inventor class. These include the courts, the Patent Office and the IP centric academia.
</p>
<a href="https://wp.wwu.edu/deadcinemasociety/2016/05/12/the-silence-of-the-lambs-1991-4/"><img src="https://wp.wwu.edu/deadcinemasociety/files/2016/05/The-Silence-of-the-Lambs-hannibal-lector-5079952-1020-576-21lylm9-300x169.jpg" height="150" align="right"></a>
<p>
We are talking about those who, instead of protecting, take gleeful joy in dissecting and destroying the vulnerable inventor class.
</p>
<p>
(("<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbJ89LFheTs">Nice of you to ask Clarisse. I'm having an old friend for dinner."</a>))
</p>
<p>
Food for thought (so to speak) ... still under consideration and construction
</p>Step Backhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06178091823442339760noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4831263988895973669.post-52459396158355891982017-03-10T11:48:00.001-08:002017-03-10T21:42:54.279-08:00Loath and Disdain cause inventor dared Coin a Name<a href="http://www.commencebusiness.com/using-a-coined-name-for-a-business/"><img src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/John_Quincy_Adams_coin_design.jpg" height="200" align="right"></a>
<p>
The mere fact that the <b>inventor applied coined labels</b> to <i>conventional structures</i> does not make the underlying concept inventive.
See, e.g., <i>Alice</i>, 134 S. Ct. at 2352 n.2, 2360 (finding the claims abstract despite the <b>recitation of technical sounding names</b> such as "<i>shadow credit record[s]</i>" and "<i>shadow debit record[s]</i>").
</p>
<p>
<a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/16-1128.Opinion.3-3-2017.1.PDF">INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC V. CAPITAL ONE</a>
</p>
<p>
The right and ability of every inventor <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=D418BwAAQBAJ&pg=SA4-PA74-IA1&lpg=SA4-PA74-IA1&dq=to+be+his+own+lexicographer+inventor&source=bl&ots=tVn-tplAsz&sig=qgEpoEtotzQkRCbIlDdrcPP07L8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiQk8qlhs3SAhXhlFQKHU3GAhI4ChDoAQhBMAc#v=onepage&q=to%20be%20his%20own%20lexicographer%20inventor&f=false">to be his own lexicographer</a> has been a cornerstone of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oz3L71vo_w">the American patent system since its inception.</a> <b>Otherwise, what do you call the thingamajig that did not exist before</b>, is "new and useful" and promotes the progress of science and the useful arts? <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinning_jenny">"<i>Spinning Jenny</i>"?</a>
</p>
<a href="http://metro.co.uk/2016/11/12/hate-crimes-soar-across-the-us-after-donald-trump-elected-6254125/"><img src="https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/1319636.jpg?w=620&h=357&crop=1" height="100" align="right"></a>
<p>
Now, in a rash of <a href="http://techrights.org/2017/03/05/dennis-crouch-worries-about-ptab-and-cafc/">inventor loathing opinions,</a> we see the federal judiciary thrashing inventors for having the audacity to coin terms for things that the inventors believe to be new, useful and nonobvious.
</p>
<p>
That begs the question. Who fostered <b>this rising wave of hatred</b> among the judiciary and how did they do it?
</p>
<a href="https://imgflip.com/i/x3yha"><img src="https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/df/f7/57/dff7570ba34dc94f58feb43c8ccc0646.jpg" height="150" align="right"></a>
<p>
<b><u>STEP 1</u>:</b> Label them as trolls
</p>
<p>
<b><u>STEP 2</u>:</b> Devise a vague <a href="http://www.inquisitr.com/2006761/troll-hunting-algorithm-developed-researchers-can-now-spot-internets-future-banned-users/">troll detection test</a>
</p>
<p>
<b><u>STEP 3</u>:</b> Encourage the haters to devise their own, <b>more sophisticated</b> tests.
</p>
<a href="http://www.i-mockery.com/halloween/bag/how-to-detect-a-witch.php"><img src="http://www.i-mockery.com/halloween/bag/pics/how-to-detect-witch2.jpg" height="150" align="right"></a>
Step Backhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06178091823442339760noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4831263988895973669.post-4686470560343212252017-03-06T04:29:00.002-08:002017-03-08T23:38:38.832-08:00What do Trump and the Supreme Court have in common?<a href="http://modernliberals.com/10-fun-alternative-facts/"><img src="http://modernliberals.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Alternative_Facts-678x381.jpg" height="150" align="right"></a>
<p>
U.S. President Donald Trump tries to garner <a href="https://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/donald-trump-is-running-a-perpetual-attention-machine/">all the attention to himself</a> through the use of "<i><a href="http://www.scarymommy.com/alternative-facts-get-the-meme-treatment-they-deserve/">alternative facts</a></i>".
</p>
<p>
Which is not not really fair. The Justices of the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) should sue him for <a href="http://naturebeads.com/stolen-jewelry-ideas/">stealing an idea</a> (a truly abstract and <a href="https://www.slideshare.net/premrajbhatta/5-fundamental-principles-of-economics">fundamentally principled</a> idea) that was originally <a href="https://janeaustenrunsmylife.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/all-mine.jpg">all theirs.</a>
</p>
<a href="http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/04/05/donald-trump-reveals-how-he-would-make-mexico-pay-border-wall"><img src="https://i.imgflip.com/1igm5i.jpg" height="150" align="right"></a>
<p>
When it comes to the "<a href="http://www.webstore.com/cache/cache_500_1_1_httpimagesdelcampe-staticnetimg_largeauction000131318029_001jpg.gif">I heard it through the grapevine</a>" meme and the converting of such allegedly expert <a href="https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/objection-hearsay-what-is-the-hearsay-rule-and-what-are-the-exceptions-to-it">hearsay</a> into <a href="http://www.thenationaltriallawyers.org/2015/10/expert-witness-testimony-based-on-personal-knowledge-admitted-by-wisconsin-appeals-court/">court admitted expert testimony</a> or "facts", no one, no one (perhaps), outdoes the SCOTeti.
</p>
<p>
Their ear to the wall sources include <a href="http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/scotus/">the so-called "friends"</a> of the Court filings (amicus curie briefs).
</p>
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-74dsrg2_QvI/VMqbT4NN1xI/AAAAAAAADhY/YAS3oruheQ0/s1600/Amicus.jpg"><img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-74dsrg2_QvI/VMqbT4NN1xI/AAAAAAAADhY/YAS3oruheQ0/s1600/Amicus.jpg" height="150" align="right"></a>
<p>
There is no <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/us/politics/the-dubious-sources-of-some-supreme-court-facts.html?_r=0">fact check verification process</a> for amicus curie briefs.
</p>
<p>
This post ... still under construction
</p>
<p>
One area in which the SCOTeti regularly convert the "I heard it" fantasies into unassailable "facts" comes in the area of patent law.
</p>
<a href="https://www.njlawconnect.com/expert-testimony-third-circuit-federal-court/"><img src="http://ww1.hdnux.com/photos/41/30/11/8749652/3/rawImage.jpg" height="150" align="right"></a>
<p>
Take the Wonderland decision in <a href="http://patentu.blogspot.com/2014/04/no-you-dont-c-justice-breyer.html">Alice v. CLS</a> (please) as an example. The court has heard, from trustworthy sources, trust worthy we tell you, that <a href="http://www.follett-law.com/environment/about-us.html">Mother Nature has "laws"</a> that she hands down from <a href="https://www.slideshare.net/cingk/greek-mythology-11299362">Mount Olympus,</a> that Mother has <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_natural_phenomena">"phenomenon" that are "natural"</a> and thus hers alone, not things due to human intervention. Also the court has heard, that human "minds" can have "abstract" ideas. ...
</p>Step Backhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06178091823442339760noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4831263988895973669.post-39145135724571812692017-03-03T09:43:00.003-08:002017-03-04T13:45:08.358-08:00Mirror mirror on the wall, we are the fairest of them all<a href="http://the-daily.buzz/a/weve-been-using-famous-pop-culture-quotes-incorrectly-this-whole-time"><img src="http://images1.the-daily.buzz/live/articles/coverage-issue-19_0d5d1cf48ca3f614191c095c9c010a85.gif" height="150" align="right"></a>
<p>
Patent cases expose a number of embarrassing attributes about we human creatures.
</p>
<p>
First we tend to be very <a href="http://blueprintsforliving.com/empobiological-evolution-a-case-of-the-emperors-new-clothes-part-1/">vane.</a> Ninety percent (90%) of us think we place in at least <a href="https://www.quora.com/What-is-considered-a-good-IQ?redirected_qid=5360969">the top 50%</a> of our population if not in the top 10% or <a href="https://www.pinterest.com/pin/560135272382539717/">top 1%.</a>
</p>
<p>
Second we are <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect">incompetently blind</a> to almost all the things we are incompetently blind to. (How many of you are picking up the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_spectrum">IR wavelengths</a> now coming off your screen or <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_range">hearing the ultrasonic</a> vibrations?)
</p>
<a href="http://blueprintsforliving.com/empobiological-evolution-a-case-of-the-emperors-new-clothes-part-1/"><img src="https://i0.wp.com/blueprintsforliving.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/new-clothes.jpg?resize=940%2C600" height="150" align="right"></a>
<p>
Third we <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/17/i-narcissist-vanity-social-media-and-the-human-condition">crave social admiration</a>. (Mirror mirror on the wall, who is <a href="http://www.medicaldaily.com/psychological-effects-idolatry-how-celebrity-crushes-impact-childrens-health-358604">the most admired of us all</a>?).
</p>
<p>
Supreme Court Justices are susceptible to all these <a href="http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/Z5253C.pdf">vices</a> (<a href="http://www.picturequotes.com/the-supreme-vice-is-shallowness-quote-396343">shallowness</a>, vanity, narcissism, ...) and succumb to them on a regular basis.
</p>
<p>
Yes. They all have very high IQ’s and are among the top 10% smartest people in our population.
</p>
<a href="http://www.scilearn.com/blog/child-prodigies"><img src="http://www.scilearn.com/sites/default/files/imported/image/Brain-Fitness/child-prodigies.jpg" height="150" align="right"></a>
<p>
But so too are all the young among our population who pursue advanced studies in the hard sciences (e.g. physics, chemistry, electronics, …). Why does it take our young ones (those with super high IQs) so many years to “get it”? Answer: because it’s hard hard stuff and our biological brains can only do so much and not much more.
</p>
<p>
If you were a Justice sitting on the SCOTUS and all your “friends” (amici curie) complemented you on how smart and clever you are and convinced you that molecular biology is no more complicated than plucking a leaf off a tree, wouldn’t you believe them?
</p>
<a href="https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-proper-way-to-pick-basil-leaves-off-of-a-basil-plant-to-ensure-it-will-continue-to-grow"><img src="https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-640086f36534b02697fd002e0be485ea-c" height="150" align="right"></a>
<p>
And if some non-“friends” tried to explain to you that molecular biology is hard and that is why our high IQ youths take so long to earn their PhDs and that is why you, one of the “Supremes” may never understand it; wouldn’t you discount everything they argue?
</p>
<p>
So sure. At the end of the day all the complex stuff reduces to “generic” computers doing no more than conventional and routine operations, ones that 2nd year coders do every weekend without breaking a sweat. All those so-called smarty pants inventors out there and their devious scriveners cannot possibly be smarter than we the Supreme SCOTeti. They are merely trying to hoodwink us with their voodoo witchcraft and obfuscating language.
</p>
<p>
Aha. We can see right past them by devising a simple framework for witchcraft detection. First we dangle an oblong magic shard at the end of a string, slowly move it over the claim and give it a twirl. If it points in almost any direction but one secret one, the claim is clearly “directed to” skullduggery.
</p>
<a href="http://countess-grotesque.deviantart.com/art/Who-is-the-fairest-of-them-all-62775658"><img src="https://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/i-w600/keep-calm-you-re-the-fairest-of-them-all.jpg" height="150" align="right"></a>
<p>
But just to be fair (because after all, our mirror tells us we are the fairest of them all) we will apply a second test. We submerge the claim in holy witch water to see if it has that elusive “something more”. You see, witches are made of wood and thus they float. Only those that have that “something more” stay under.
</p>
<p>
So after all that, why are all those cry baby inventors complaining? We have been imminently fair. After all, “we” are Supreme and in that top 1% number. Clearly they are not. Sigh.
</p>
Step Backhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06178091823442339760noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4831263988895973669.post-5183619219282846242017-02-25T11:08:00.002-08:002017-03-04T06:19:13.988-08:00Rise of the New Romantics<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ky6qKSCvSMw"><img src="https://florencelilyhs.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/download-1.jpeg" height="250" align="right"></a>
<p>
It is not at first obvious, this <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2015/04/14/combatting-antiscience-denialism-and-quackery-how-to-do-it/">newly re-surging</a> undercurrent of <a href="https://jngross.wordpress.com/2014/03/">disdain for scientists, inventors and tools of modernity</a> such as computers, social media networks and biotechnology.
</p>
<p>
For <a href="http://www.tomrichey.net/powerpoints.html">historians</a> however, the emergence of a counter culture reaction to science and enlightenment is no surprise. Ours is not the first time that a social movement (i.e <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsKHaCIwyaY">the Luddite movement</a>) emerged to reject rational thought and instead adopt a mystic worship of things <a href="http://www.tomrichey.net/uploads/3/2/1/0/32100773/6.3_-_romanticism_3.pptx">more "natural".</a>
</p>
<a href="https://teodoreljic.com/2016/11/22/eternal-frankenstein-read-a-thon-12-nathan-carson/"><img src="https://teodoreljicdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/bride-of-frankenstein-bride-screaming.jpg?w=750" height="150" align="right"></a>
<p>
Back in the mid-1800's, an emergence of a similar shift to "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanticism">Romanticism</a>" is seen in the <a href="https://jngross.wordpress.com/">anti-inventor bent</a> of the Supreme Court patent case of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Roy_v._Tatham">Le Roy v. Tatham (SCt. 1852)</a>. The nature adoring majority in that case saw the inventor's claim to the essence of the leaden pipe as reaching in to greedily grasp a "natural" fundamental of Mother Nature herself. They saw in Mother Nature, certain "principles", "<a href="https://weatherall.com/blog/log-homes/building-treehouse-starting-fundamentals/">fundamentals</a>", "natural elements of power" and <a href="http://www.mgallery.com.sg/exhibitions/philippines-laos-perspectives-motives-and-movements">motives</a> that they believed should be free for all and not the exclusive domain of another Frankensteinian tinkerer in the Alchemical arts.
</p>
<p>
Still under construction ... re <a href="http://www.bilskiblog.com/blog/2013/05/the-historical-cases.html">other Law of Nature cases</a>
</p>Step Backhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06178091823442339760noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4831263988895973669.post-69206405929292089942017-02-24T12:23:00.003-08:002017-02-25T05:17:39.013-08:00Origins of Alice, The Gobbledygook and Illuminatiasm of Le Roy v. Tatham <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JW0Gz8KbmSs"><img src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/JW0Gz8KbmSs/maxresdefault.jpg" height="250" align="right"></a>
<p>
As <a href="http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/02/21/inventors-need-fix-patent-system/id=78587/">the more geeky</a> of patent law watchers know, the "abstract ideas" part of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International"><u>Alice in Blunderland</u></a> Supreme Court (SCOTUS 2014) decision finds its roots in <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9195622383669422745&q=le+roy&hl=en&as_sdt=2006"><u>Le Roy v. Tatham (1852)</u></a>.
</p>
<p>
One might assume that the Floundering Ancient SCOTeti Fathers of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liVQ21KZfOI">the 1852 version</a> of SCOTUS were more reserved, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KQ9kDbduTo">scholarly</a> and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xyb6C68WfGI&index=3&list=PLNjmj1FqxCTkqJnaZB90WBuyJra5LBEfw">enlightened</a> than our current crop of <a href="http://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/the-new-romantics-in-the-computer-age">"New Romantics"</a> like <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-alito-supreme-court-tryouts-20161117-story.html">Clarence the Clown</a> and <a href="http://www.heraldtribune.com/news/20170211/supreme-court-justice-breyer-plays-down-politics-of-court-during-sarasota-speech">'Bacus Brain Breyer</a>. But not so.
</p>
<p>
They too, at the dawn of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xyb6C68WfGI&index=3&list=PLNjmj1FqxCTkqJnaZB90WBuyJra5LBEfw">the Industrial Revolution</a> misunderstood science, technology and instead had mystical Illuminati beliefs in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanticism_in_science#Principles_of_Romanticism">'principles'</a>, symbolisms, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturphilosophie">confluence with Mother Nature</a> and abstractions emanating from the shining eye on top of <a href="http://www.deonvsearth.com/illuminati-official-website-found-end-time-deception-exposed/">the pyramid of power</a>. They write:
</p>
<a href="http://totallyhistory.com/the-treachery-of-images/"><img src="http://totallyhistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/the-treachery-of-images-this-is-not-a-pipe-1948.jpg" height="150" align="right"></a>
<p>
“A <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Roy_v._Tatham">patent for leaden pipes</a> would not be good, as it would be for an effect, and would, consequently, prohibit all other persons from <u>using the same article, however manufactured</u>. Leaden pipes are the same, <i>the metal being in no respect different</i>. Any difference in form and strength <b>must</b> arise from the mode of manufacturing the pipes. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Roy_v._Tatham#Dissent">The new property in the metal</a> claimed to have been <i>discovered</i> by the patentees, belongs to the process of manufacture, and not to the thing made.” --<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9195622383669422745&q=le+roy&hl=en&as_sdt=2006">at 176</a>
</p>
<p>
Clearly the SCOTeti of days yore did not, could not understand <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallurgy#Metalworking_processes">metallurgy</a> or product by process. Nonetheless they considered themselves smarter than everyone else, even the inventor a.k.a. discoverer. How times have changed (not).
</p>
<p>
The 1852 SCOTeti go on to proclaim:
</p>
<a href="http://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/02/19/scientist-reveals-the-big-fundamental-truth-that-convinces-him-that-science-and-the-bible-are-totally-compatible/"><img src="http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Screen-Shot-2016-02-19-at-10.02.53-AM-620x491.jpg" height="150" align="right"></a>
<p>
"The word <b>principle</b> is used by <i>elementary writers</i> on patent subjects, and sometimes in adjudications of courts, with such a <i>want of precision</i> in its application, as <b>to mislead</b>. It is admitted, that a principle is not patentable. <b>A principle, in the abstract, is a fundamental truth;</b> <i>an original cause;</i> <u>a motive;</u> these cannot be patented, as no one can claim <u>in either of them</u> an exclusive right. Nor can an exclusive right exist to <u>a new power</u>, <i>should one be discovered</i> in addition to <u>those</u> already known. Through the agency of machinery <i>a new steam power</i> may be said to have been generated. But no one can appropriate <u>this power</u> exclusively to himself, under the patent laws. The same may be said of <i>electricity</i>, and of <u>any other power in nature</u>, which is alike open to all, and may be applied to useful purposes by the use of machinery.<br><br>
<a href="http://moviecreedlive.com/entertainment/2665446-how-the-power-rangers-film-should-be-elements-it-should-have/"><img src="http://moviecreedlive.com/img/upload/mighty_morphin_power_rangers_epic_by_heroforpain-d68uqyi.jpg" height="150" align="right"></a>
In all such cases, the processes used to extract, modify, and concentrate <u>natural agencies</u>, constitute the invention. The <i>elements of the power</i> exist; the invention is not in discovering them, but in applying them to useful objects. Whether the machinery used be novel, or consist of a new combination of parts known, the right of the inventor is secured against all who use the same mechanical power, or one that shall be substantially the same.<br><br>
A patent is not good for an effect, or the result of a certain process, as that would prohibit all other persons from making the same thing by any means whatsoever. This, <i>by creating monopolies</i>, <b>would discourage</b> arts and manufactures, against the avowed policy of the patent laws.<br><br>
<a href="http://promus-kaa.deviantart.com/art/Steampunk-Red-Ranger-Sketch-41810331"><img src="https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/ea/87/4f/ea874ff840a523da545f7120825b028b.jpg" height="250" align="right"></a>
A new property discovered in matter, <i>when practically applied</i>, in the construction of a useful article of commerce or manufacture, is patentable; but the process through which the new property is developed and applied, must be stated, with such precision as to enable an ordinary mechanic to construct and apply the necessary process. This is required by the <b>patent laws of England and of the United States</b>, in order that when the patent shall run out, the public may know how to profit by the invention. It is said, in the case of the <i>Househill Company v. Neilson, Webster's Patent Cases</i>, 683, "A patent will be good, though the subject of the patent consists in the discovery of a great, general, and most <u>comprehensive principle in science or law of nature</u>, if that <i>principle</i> is by the specification applied to any special purpose, so as thereby to effectuate a practical result and benefit not previously attained." In that case, Mr. Justice Clerk, in his charge to the jury, said, "the specification does not claim any thing as to the form, nature, shape, materials, numbers, or mathematical character of the vessel or vessels in which the air is to be heated, or as to the mode of heating such vessels," &c. The patent was for "the improved application of air to produce heat in fires, forges and furnaces, where bellows or other blowing apparatus are required."<br><br>
In that case, although the machinery was not claimed as a part of the invention, the jury were instructed to inquire, "whether the specification was not such <b>as to enable workmen of ordinary skill to make machinery or apparatus capable of producing the effect</b> set forth in said letters-patent and specification." And, that in order to ascertain whether the defendants had infringed the patent, the jury should inquire whether they, "did by themselves or others, and in contravention of the privileges conferred by the said letters-patent, use machinery or apparatus substantially the same with the machinery or apparatus described in the plaintiffs' specification, and to the effect set forth in said letters-patent and specification." <b>So it would seem</b> that where a patent is obtained, without a claim to the invention of the machinery, through which a valuable result is produced, <b>a precise specification is required</b>; and the test of infringement is, whether the defendants have used substantially the same <b>process</b> to produce the same result.
</p>Step Backhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06178091823442339760noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4831263988895973669.post-20042689405694184062017-02-20T10:09:00.002-08:002017-02-21T00:39:13.703-08:00Vanity be not Proud<a href="http://blueprintsforliving.com/empobiological-evolution-a-case-of-the-emperors-new-clothes-part-1/"><img src="https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/91/e1/9f/91e19f418020591660256d306d5fa421.jpg" height="150" align="right"></a>
<p>
Is it "maths" or processing of real physical electric signals (i.e. electrons) with real electronic circuits?<br>
Some believe <a href="http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/02/19/operational-mathematics-processor-not-abstract-idea/id=78466/">the battle line for debate</a> is drawn at that intersection.
</p>
<p>
Perhaps though, the battle line plays out at the intersection of judicial vanity and judicial ignorance.
</p>
<a href="http://abovethelaw.com/2014/07/law-prof-sez-state-judges-have-contempt-for-smart-guys-like-me/"><img src="https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/8f/56/91/8f56918b0882cbbc6bdff56c9f4b541b.jpg" height="150" align="right"></a>
<p>
Most judges consider themselves to be very smart (High IQ). And they are.
</p>
<p>
But High IQ alone is not enough. No matter how smart one is, no matter how credentialed, the human brain (a biological organ) is of finite size, of finite speed and of finite (as well as age diminishing) ability to rewire itself (a thing referred to as plasticity).
</p>
<a href="https://syracusefan.com/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fsimplyamericandotnet.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F06%2Fold-computer.jpg&hash=bc2b707d3f84012fb66b900934b4a51d"><img src="https://stonybrookstories.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/old-man-on-computer.jpg" height="150" align="right"></a>
<p>
No matter how hard they try, many an elder judge (or other arbiter) will never comprehend "computers," will never grasp modern biogenetics, will never fully appreciate modern physics and science.
</p>
<p>
There is a reason why almost all of our best and brightest (same high IQ) young PhD earners take so many years to finish their studies and finally get into the work world.
</p>
<a href="http://graduateschool.vt.edu/about/development-graduate-school.html"><img src="http://graduateschool.vt.edu/content/graduateschool_vt_edu/en/about/development-graduate-school/jcr:content/content/adaptiveimage_24736237.img.3008.low.jpg/1479326532481.jpg" height="150" align="right"></a>
<p>
It’s because this is hard hard, brain straining stuff. The biological human brain organ is not a silicon based digital electronic computer and vice versa the computer is not a replica of the human brain. The notion of abstraction, of “mind” and of being able to do stuff with pencil and paper are delusions. These delusions appeal to the judge’s vanity by making them “feel” smart. (Gee now I get it, molecular biology is just like plucking a leaf from a tree.)
</p>
<a href="http://www.pluggedin.com/movie-reviews/sixthsense/"><img src="http://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/assets/4868282/sixth.jpg" height="150" align="right"></a>
<p>
But they are not anywhere near that smart and all knowing. They are simply parading proudly in arrogant, asinine and vain ignorance. They just don’t know it. We see it. They don’t. Will they ever see it? (Ask the Bruce Willis character in the movie, “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUYKSWQmkrg">The Sixth Sense</a>”. Spoiler alert, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxYtwZUKn5I&t=22s">he is one</a> of those ignorant lost ghosts.)
</p>Step Backhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06178091823442339760noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4831263988895973669.post-65319548862930616562017-02-11T03:18:00.001-08:002017-02-12T08:44:44.445-08:00The Post Modern Inquisition<a href="https://atlasmonitor.wordpress.com/2016/03/11/post-modern-science-academics-regularly-lie-to-get-research-grants/"><img src="https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/global-warming-inquisition.jpg?w=400&h=303" height="150" align="right"></a>
<p>
The purpose of an <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cullen-murphy/10-questions-about-the-inquisition_b_1224406.html">Inquisition</a> is to create general hysteria, ferret out those who might pose a threat to The Inquisitive Powers That Already Be (TIPTAB) and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Inquisition#Inquisition_procedure">establish a permanent bureaucracy for sustaining the Inquisition.</a>
</p>
<p>
Inquisition panels often use <a href="https://inquisition.library.nd.edu/genre/RBSC-INQ:Inquisitorial_manuals/essays/RBSC-INQ:ESSAY_InquisitorialManuals">the pretext of law and regulations.</a> However, their true purpose and effect is to create <a href="http://www.slideshare.net/robertecummings/fear-uncertainty-and-doubt-by-robert-cummings-rsa-2014">a climate of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD)</a> while consolidating the power of final judgment exclusively to themselves. (<i>Only we can know it when we see it, that elusive</i> <b>something significantly more</b> <i>that is needed for you to prove your innocence,</i> that you are not a member of a very very (believe us) short list of suspect categories comprised of:
<b>(1)</b> <a href="http://www.i-mockery.com/halloween/bag/how-to-detect-a-witch.php">witches</a>,
<b>(2)</b> <a href="http://www.mysecretatheistblog.com/2015/03/malaysian-state-university-develops.html">warlocks</a>,
<b>(3)</b> radicalized islamo-facists,
<b>(4)</b> sexual deviants,
<b>(5)</b> fake news reporters,
<b>(6)</b> <a href="https://ipcloseup.com/2011/07/26/kearns-son-still-fuming-over-wiper-blade-fight/">fake inventors</a>,
<b>(7)</b> <a href="https://www.revolvy.com/topic/Witchcraft&item_type=topic">devil worshipers</a>,
<b>(8)</b> terrorists,
<b>(9)</b> <a href="https://www.revolvy.com/topic/Christianity">heretics</a>,
<b>(10)</b> <a href="https://www.revolvy.com/topic/Patent%20troll">trolls, </a>
<b>(11)</b> apostates and
<b>(12)</b> ....)
</p>
<p>
Sounds just like what <a href="http://www.intellectualpropertymagazine.com/patent/is-ptab-death-squad-just-a-myth-109342.htm">PTAB death squads</a> do, right?
</p>
<a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/12/15/deja-vu-all-over-again-or-orac-goes-doh/"><img src="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/files/2016/12/homer-computer-doh-590x374.jpg" height="150" align="right"></a>
<p>
Well D'oh. Yeah. Is that a surprise?
</p>Step Backhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06178091823442339760noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4831263988895973669.post-6371074619997824892017-01-30T17:37:00.003-08:002017-02-09T10:27:25.809-08:00Confluence of Fibs and Fabulations<a href="http://allthingscrimeblog.com/2013/03/14/landscape-of-lies-the-curious-confluence-of-life-crime-and-art/"><img src="https://www.whistler.com/images/header/white-water-rafting.jpg" height="100" align="right"></a>
<p>
Before we start our leisurely white waters rafting trip down that roaring river of <a href="http://www.wikihow.com/Detect-Lies">level four lies</a> and level five false <a href="http://thebrainbank.scienceblog.com/2013/03/15/your-brain-on-lies-damned-lies-and-truth-serums/">fabrications,</a> please remember to put on your sanity safety helmet lest you fall, flail and lose sight of that which <a href="http://quoteaddicts.com/i/68467">you should have known</a> in the first place before we started tripping down into <a href="https://buffalonews.com/2016/05/26/latest-alice-adaptation-falls-flat/"><i>Alice's Falls</i>.</a> It's a bottomless pit of fibs, fabs, lies and deceptions.
</p>
<p>
We shouldn't, after all, trust them who are supposed to be here to protect us when they tell us they are from the government and they are<a href="http://www.thejournal.ie/trump-policies-3071864-Nov2016/">here to protect us.</a> Beware these deceivious scriveners of new false law. <a href="http://www.offwestend.com/files/Waiting%20for%20Alice%20Edinburgh%2011-07%20copy.jpg">Beware their jabberwhack skulduggery.</a>
</p>
<a href="http://www.scmp.com/news/world/article/1339000/mexicos-professional-clowns-deny-drug-lord-killer-was-one-them"><img src="http://cdn1.i-scmp.com/sites/default/files/styles/980x551/public/images/methode/2016/09/25/d8af6182-82ec-11e6-9a58-22a696b49295_1280x720.jpeg?itok=uZBb-VEh" height="150" align="right"></a>
<p>
Take for example <a href="https://patentu.blogspot.com/2016/11/oh-really.html">what Clarence the Clownish rafting guide tells us</a> upon embarking down through <i>Alice Falls</i> about us <b>always <a href="https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/images/ic/976x549_b/p02d9wz3.jpg">having had</a> for over 150 years</b> these newly frameworked exception rules that never existed beforehand. (Hold your breath.)
</p>
<a href="http://www.jasonfsmith.com/stage-i/"><img src="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54f6360ae4b02d96d056d6bc/t/5545446ee4b0a1a9a9fc3e14/1430602863521/?format=750w" height="150" align="right"></a>
<p>
"[*1] <u>We have long held</u> [<i>oh really? that long?</i>] that this provision [§101] contains an [*2] important
implicit exception: Laws of nature, natural phenomena,
and [*3] abstract ideas are not patentable." <i>Association
for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.</i>, 569
U. S. , (2013) (slip op., at 11) (internal quotation
marks and brackets omitted). We have <i>interpreted</i> §101 [*4]
and its predecessors in light of this exception <u>for more
than 150 years</u>. <i>Bilski</i>, supra, at 601-602; see also
<i>O'Reilly v. Morse</i>, 15 How. 62, 112-120 (1854); <i>Le Roy v.
Tatham</i>, 14 How. 156, 174-175 (1853).
</p>
<a href="http://newsitems.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Holding-poop-inside-you-for-a-long-is-really-very-deadly-for-your-health.jpeg"><img src="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54f6360ae4b02d96d056d6bc/t/554cd563e4b06ed5925976de/1431098725213/?format=750w" height="150" align="right"></a>
<p>
... in applying <u>the §101 exception</u> [*5], we must<br />
[<i>most assuredly indefatigably must</i>] .....<br>
(click below "Read More" for more) <a name='more'></a>
distinguish between patents that claim the [<i>scientifically demonstrated and well agreed upon</i>] <b>Buildin[g]
block[s]"' of human ingenuity</b> [*6] and those [patents] that integrate <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rlnx4cTc0yo">the[se invisible, but believe me they are there!</a>]
<iframe width="200" height="135" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/x0IMEly2aTc" frameborder="0" align="right"></iframe>
building blocks into <b>something more</b>, <i>Mayo</i>, 566 U. S., at
(slip op., at 20), thereby "transform[ing]" them into a
patent-<u>eligible</u> invention, id., at (slip op., at 3). The
former "would risk disproportionately <u>tying up the use of
the underlying" ideas</u>, id., at (slip op., at 4), and are
therefore ineligible for patent protection. The latter pose
no comparable risk of pre-emption, and therefore remain
eligible for <u>the monopoly granted</u> under our patent laws.
</p>
<a href="https://wellthisiswhatithink.com/2014/10/29/fearofclowns/"><img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-7NjJGt0IrL4/VAOsnLw2vqI/AAAAAAAAElE/2C-6EUjRNGs/s1600/cat's%2Bcradle.JPG" height="150" align="right"></a>
<p>
... we set forth [<i>as if we had been doing so for 150 years perhaps, or even more, perhaps</i>] <b>a framework</b>
for distinguishing <u>patents that claim</u> laws of nature, natural
phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim
patent-eligible applications of those concepts. First, we
determine whether the claims at issue are <b><u>directed to</u></b> one
of those patent-ineligible concepts. Id., at (slip op., at
8). If so, we then ask, "[w]hat else is there in the claims
before us?" Id., at (slip op., at 9).
</p>
<p>
<u>Notes</u><br>
<b>[*1]:</b> See? You are being reminded about that which you "should" have known about in the first place, a false history.<br>
<b>[*2]:</b> The first deception is a small one. Gets your subconscious prepped for accepting bigger ones coming down the pike. It's not one ("an") exception. He's actually naming three (3) of them.<br>
<b>[*3]:</b> <a href="https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e5/09/f9/e509f9fbff3e9b689f1ef2d2623d9abd.jpg">Mother Nature does not reveal "her" laws.</a> Laws of Nature is actually a euphemism for our ideas/theories of how she works. Did you ever wonder in the first place about the difference between plain ideas and "abstract" ideas? Another thing which you "should" have known about in the first place. Now you're worrying about what else you forgot about. Fear, uncertainty and doubt are creeping in. <a href="https://memegenerator.net/instance/64679158">Beware the FUD-whacky my son.</a><br>
<b>[*4]:</b> This is not an "interpretation." It is something significantly completely new that has not long existed. But you already doubt yourself. (FUD times 2.) So why question now?<br>
<b>[*5]:</b> Don't trust Clarence the Clownish raft tilting guide. <a href="http://www.bitlaw.com/source/35usc/101.html">Read 101 for yourself.</a> There is no one singular "exception" inside of it. Section 101 says "ANY new and useful ..." There is no "directed to" exception inside 101. One must evaluate that <a href="http://www.bitlaw.com/source/35usc/112.html">which the inventor regards as the invention (section 112)</a> and determine whether it falls within the useful arts. Clarence the Clownish raft tipsy-over guide has stripped inventors of their statutory section 112 rights to define that which they regard as "their" invention. The US Constitution talks about "their" respective discoveries. It recognizes the exclusive right of the inventor to determine what is "their" invention and to obtain exclusive, secure rights in "their" invention.<br>
<a href="https://jazzroc.wordpress.com/tag/established-atmospheric-physics/"><img src="https://jazzroc.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/sciencemethod1.jpg" height="150" align="right"></a>
<b>[*6]:</b> Here is where the bigger lies start snaking their ways into the maniacal monologue. There are no "Building Blocks" (<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vSLzEaxWLs">baby's</a>, <a href="http://greenbuildingelements.com/2015/06/27/lego-plans-sustainable-building-blocks/">Lego's</a>, <a href="http://freemasonsfordummies.blogspot.com/2011/01/freemasonry-in-egypt.html">Free Masons'</a> or <a href="https://medium.com/@fernandodeoud/pattern-recognition-ingenuity-and-innovation-92803847c6e1#.10mfpp3wd">otherwise</a>). Human <a href="https://punkrockscientist.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/sagan_delusion_quote.jpg?w=700&h=408">"ingenuity" is a vane delusion</a>. Courtesans of <a href="http://www.deceptology.com/2011/03/tricking-powerful-with-nakedness-and.html">The Emperor's New Clothes</a> were taken in by a similar <a href="http://images.slideplayer.com/2/763458/slides/slide_23.jpg">appeal to vanity</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt">the FUD factors</a> (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) ... <a href="https://www.google.com/#q=building+blocks+of+human+ingenuity+amicus+mayo">Where and when did the "building blocks" enter</a> the conversation? Who knows? Maybe from <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs/10-1150_respondentamcuphrma.authcheckdam.pdf">this Mayo brief</a> and its discussion of the Bilski "<b>basic tools</b> of scientific and technological work” which allegedly "<b>must</b> be available for <b>building</b> <a href="http://invention.si.edu/seeing-future-new-york-world-s-fair">future inventions</a>".
</p>
<a href="http://invention.si.edu/seeing-future-new-york-world-s-fair"><img src="http://invention.si.edu/sites/default/files/blog_oswald-alison-2015-12-10_AC0560-0000049.jpg" height="150" align="right"></a>Step Backhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06178091823442339760noreply@blogger.com0