On Software Patents and Soft Think Judges, Humpty Dumpty Comments

Howdy !

My name is Humpty Dumpty

Come sit a spell with me.

Yes, up here on the wall.
Fresh air.
Sunshine.

You know, it's an odd thing.

When the sun enlightens me,
my thoughts get slightly poached
and then scrambled beyond comprehension.
Do bright things do that for you too?
Consider my deep blue thoughts
on the issue of "Software Patents".


I've always said that
I am the master of my thoughts.
My thoughts are not masters over me.
And therefore, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less."
Federal Judges operate under the same principle.
They exert command over reality, not the other way around.
The bright sunlight meanings that they project onto words illuminate us all!

Consider as example, this "brilliant" statement:
"When a claim recites patent-ineligible subject matter it is invalid under 35 U.S.C. §101"
EXAMPLE 1: What is claimed is: A support means for a judge's dairy aire
comprising:
(1) two arm rests;
(2) one buttocks cushioning means;
(3) three flimsy legs to tilt upon; and
(4) a cranial rest means upon which to prop one's heavy headed thoughts.

This claim recites the numbers, 1, 2 and 3; all ineligible.
Ergo, EXAMPLE 1 fails under 35 U.S.C. §101.
One merely needs to seek out the right words within a claim and put a leash around them so as to become their master and not let the other words (the "insignificant" words) clutter one's thoughts.

Let's see how gettin' rid of them "insignificant" words works in another similar situation.
Don't run away
and leave me a sittin' on this wall all alone,
tottering on the edge of excitement.
Hang on.
This next part will be a truly White Rabbit experience for you.
 (Click more to see the next example)

And one pill makes you 10 feet small --Go Ask Alice (v. CLS)

During a tour of the set of the popular TV show "Big Bang Theory",

a tired Judge Pauline Newman collapses into

the chair of one of their props, the H.G. Wells Time Machine.
Her eyes barely start to close when the time wheel behind her spins into motion.
Faster and faster. Crazy fast.

The music begins to blast.

With no warning, it all transforms into an image of a spinning compass needle, "directing" its aim to all manner of targets, real and abstract.

Then it deforms once more, into to a top view of a Wizard of Oz tornado.
The witch on broomstick begins her hideous screech.

With a thunk,

Perilous Pauline finds herself
dead dropped into the Land of the Mental Munchkins

"We represent the anti-software patents league,"
they began in sing song syncopation, ...
"... the anti-software patents league, ... the anti-software patents league, ...

The mayor steps forward.
"Welcome to the County of Go Ask Alice,"
he proclaims

"Here in Go Ask Alice County, all is not as it seems.
A machine is not a machine, a process is not a process.
They are mere words; "tools" if you must.
Tools in an abstract twisty worded world.
Fundamentals of a fundamentally defunded mentality.

We hold these truths to be self evident:
Claims should not be coextensive with a natural law, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea

They should be violative of "science"
and of all mode of rational ideation!
Only "nonabstract" ideas (no such thing) are allowed.
Heads you lose. Tails means patent haters win.

Don't believe me?
Go ask Alice (v. CLS)

AIA 3-16-2013 Willkomen

35 U.S.C. 102
Conditions for patentability; novelty.
(a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.
--A person shall be entitled to a patent unless--

(1) the claimed invention
was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale,
or otherwise available to the public
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or

(2) the claimed invention
was described in a patent issued under section 151,
or in an application for patent
published or deemed published under section 122(b),
in which the patent or application, as the case may be,
names another inventor and
was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.

(b) EXCEPTIONS.-- ...

Mr. Gorbachev, We too want to ... Tear Down Our Patent System Walls ... just as you guys did ... so we can HARMonize with you ... be like you

Brick by brick,
and mortar layer
by next layer,
the US Congress is tearing down
the treasured US Patent System
so that we can be in "HARMony"
with them who don't value inventors and their inventions.

So that we can be like ...
Mr. Gorbachev.

So that we can be like ...
the former and collapsed, USSR.

So that we can return to
the Dark ages,
force our Galileo's to recant,
become like ...
other backward nations
who devalue, discard and denigrate
their inventor subpopulation
(North Korea, ...).

Bill Targeting Patent Trolls Could Be First Nail in the Coffin

Trailblazing "inventors" are fakes. The "real" contributors are them who copy the inventors and call that "entrepreneurship" and "INNOVATION".

Obama: Patent and Inventors-hater in Chief?

Jump to time point 16:03/47.03 to see the Q&A

Has Obama become
the Patent/
Inventors-hater
in Chief?

Obama Calls Patent Trolls Extortionists That 'Hijack' People's Ideas

And TECH DIRT is just lovin' it:
from the TD didn't-expect-that dept

Let's roll back the selective amnesia tapes:

Sept. 16, 2011: Obama praises and signs the new & improved America Don't Invent No More Reform Act (ADINM-RA; a.k.a. the Leahy-Smith Patent Act of 2011)

He says: "“I am pleased to sign the America Invents Act. This much-needed reform will speed up the patent process so that innovators and entrepreneurs can turn a new invention into a business as quickly as possible, ... Here in America, our creativity has always set us apart, and in order to continue to grow our economy, we need to encourage that spirit wherever we find it.””

Yes we can
Out-innovate
Out-BS
Out-DoubleSpeak
Any other greatest exceptional nation on this planet,
or better yet
in the whole freakin' Galaxy!

Einstein returns from dead
to brow beat Obama
on his Uncle Tom-foolery
re patents

The
America Don't No More
Patent Act
blow by
anti-inventor
blow

More ....

Bonus video:
Non-lawyer teaches you how to shoot your own IP rights in the foot
Click here for your I want to shoot my foot off kit

Doctors of Voodoo (Economics) Debate the Which Came First Question

Which came first?

The trickled-down chicken pot pie (a great "innovation" for its time), or
the technology-incubating tooth fairy egg? (Which first?) And did patents help in any of it? Did patents send the right kind of message to them who do the inventing?
Inquiring economists (don't) want to know:
Read it here: ...

The Fed's Case Against Patents

(a PDF position paper ... click to read)



Huff Post short story take on the Fed's
Kill-all-Patents Paper:

The paper ... argues that the patent system is damaging public health by raising the cost of prescription drugs, while failing to generate a plethora of innovative new treatments for life-saving diseases.

Hoping to improve patent quality, Boldrin and Levine say, is a lost cause.
"Why use band-aids to staunch a major wound?" Boldrin and Levine wrote. "Economists fought for decades -- ultimately with considerable success -- to reduce restrictions on international trade. A similar approach, albeit less slow, should be adopted to phase out patents [altogether]."

====================================
More details out of the Kill-all-Patents Paper
... an analytic look
PAGE 5:
Fed Fanta-thought #1.1:

"The market for software and hardware may be viewed as a ... special case. Generally the fixed cost of producing [already-invented] software [(as opposed to "developing" it)] is low ... This, however, pales in comparison to the cost of developing new medicines [(as opposed to "producing" them)]– which is estimated to have a present value of closer to 1 billion USD – the same way it does in front of that for developing [as opposed to "producing"] a new model of automobile ... "

((The Steppy smells a rotting fish here: Observe that the above paragraph compares apples with grapefruits. "Developing" and "producing" (mass producing) are not one and the same thing. Sneaky fellas them are at the Fed. Hee hee ha. Click Read More to see more analysis.))

Framing an isolated chemical compound as a warm, fuzzy and "human" thingy-ma-gene

The U.S. Supreme Court on Nov. 30, 2012 granted cert. for only one
warm and fuzzy question:
1. Are human genes patentable?

The chemists among us are left to ponder:
(1) What makes any given chemical compound "human"?
(2) What makes any given chemical compound a "gene"?
(3) How do I prevent my chemical compound from being pejoratively labeled as "human" and a "gene"?

Brief by Myriad in Opposition to Grant of Cert. here