Friday, June 26, 2015

Jiggery-Pokery Mock

Jiggery-Pokery Mock,
Three blind mice
Ran up the Clock,
The clock struck one,
And two got away
With major IPR violations.

That one is just too funny; that Scalia J. says SCOTUS cares.
That SCOTUS should stick to the letter of the law as legislated by Congress pursuant to the Constitution

"Calling the Court's reasoning "absurd," "interpretive jiggery-pokery" and "pure applesauce," Scalia said the law was clear -- and accused the Court of rewriting it once again to get the result it wanted. ... Scalia said, "We should start calling this law SCOTUScare." ... And one more putdown: “Words no longer have meaning if an exchange that is NOT established by a state is [nonetheless abstractly] ‘established by a state.'” ... Scalia has gone to the pantry before for analogies. The “sheer applesauce” reference in Thursday’s King v. Burwell dissent follows along the lines of a 2007 dissent, in which Scalia referred to an opinion by Justice Stephen Breyer as “pure applesauce.”

Does SCOTUS care?
When it comes to inventors and 35 USC 101
There is total contempt by Court.

Take "Alice" (away please).
The letter of the law says:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

Tuesday, June 23, 2015

MockingJayBirdWhocky Games

In the
beginning there was "Alice"
Then came [Game of] Internet Patents

’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
“Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!”

Friday, June 12, 2015

Spanish Inquisition Jumps the Patentability Shark

Let's break it down
into very simple insect bites.

In Nature there are no magic flying
syringes intelligently swarming in
to sample maternal blood
and bring it back to the lab.

... so that non-cellular components can be isolated
and tested for fetal nucleotides
and the nucleotides can be amplified
and analyzed/

Yet the CAFC has finally jumped the shark

By declaring it all to be natural phenomenon and abstract concept.

When does the anti-science Inquisition stop?

When do sane minds say enough is enough?

When do a courageous few stand up and say we're not going to take it anymore?

SEQUENOM's claims cover a physical process.
It is new.
It is useful.
It is not "naturally" carried out by Nature without intervention by the hand of man and the ingenuity of his mind.

The King's Inquisition panels wear no clothes.
Yet they have no shame.
They parade proudly carrying only smoke and mirages.
Return oh demons to the twisted abyss from which yea arose.

Post Script:
The implication of the SEQUENOM rationale
If you have a brilliant new idea that involves the use of gravity
and you implement that idea with "conventional" gears, levers, pulleys, etc.
then no patent (or soup) for you
because your claims are directed to natural phenomenon and you "merely" use conventional means for achieving it!!!
Read more here: Sequenom’s testing is not patentable: uses conventional techniques, not innovative

Wednesday, January 21, 2015

Royalty Trumps Facts

One maxim of law is that the Sovereign can do no wrong.

A corollary to that is that the King is above the "facts" (Royalty Trumps Facts).

We see that doctrine at work in the dissent by Thomas/Alito in Teva Pharmaceuticals v. Sandoz.

According to Thomas/Alito, when the government "issues" a patent it is more like a statute binding on all than a contract binding on just the one. Hence the rules for interpreting a statute, and not the rules used in contract law, apply. The words of the patent claim become the words of the King. The King is above the trifle of facts. And so therefore are the words and phrases found in a government issued patent claim.

Luckily, the majority in Teva v. Sandoz did not see it quite in this twisted way.

work still under way .... (the webmaster can do no wrong, a law of the web)

Thursday, January 8, 2015

On Fear Itself

Something to think about rather than to merely feel.

Fear itself.

Scientists tell us there is a small nut shaped region in the brain called the amygdala.

When that area gets activated, our higher levels of cognition are greatly degraded.

Fear. Fear itself lives in the amygdala.

We need to remain conscious of times when our fear centers are triggered and rational thought process is flushed down the toilet.

Terror. Terrorism.
That is definitely one event in which our rationality is severely crippled and we may do rash things.

Where else?
Where else do our minds go mad when in the fog of fear?

Try to think hard. This a patent blog.
Abstract ideas?
Father and SCOTUS know best?

Or are they ...
power-crazed abusive personalities?
(Whom we fear because they hold the gavel?)

Caption: "No. You may not have your software patent back."

Monday, January 5, 2015

Making Statistics A Lesser of the Damn Lies Series

Jan. 5 article: "Our System Is So Broken, Almost No Patented Discoveries Ever Get Used"

What was it that Mark Twain used to say?

Actually, the damned levels of untruthiness extend well below the mere "statistics" level.
There is also neuro-linguistic mind bending.

The Broken System article scares you of not being part of the collective "We" by arguing:

"We all know the patent system is broken."

Can you say "bah"?
... followed by a humbug?
WE all?
What do you mean by "we" kimosobee?

The article goes on to argue:

"As a result, most small and mid-sized firms instruct their employees not to read patents that might help improve their products and services. This deprives those firms from being able to build on the knowledge these patents contain and, in turn, help other companies improve their products and so on. This kind of behavior, though legally prudent, defeats the patent system’s whole purpose of technological disclosure and commercialization."

Wait a minute. Here's a thought: (D'oh)
What if the folk who wrote the patent try to commercialize it?

Thursday, January 1, 2015

Last Air and Mind Bender of 2014

December 31, 2014, TITLE: "Software patents are a disaster. The courts finally did something about it"

"... This year, in a case called CLS Bank v. Alice, the Supreme Court rejected a patent that claimed the concept of using a computer to hedge against counterparty risk — the risk that one party to a contract will fail to pay up. The high court ruled that abstract concepts like hedging weren't eligible for patent protection, and merely implementing an abstract idea on a computer wasn't enough to turn it into a patentable invention."

Let's play a game called spot the lies and deceptions.

Give up?

OK then, let's first look at what the patent actually "claimed":

2The parties agree that claim 33 of the ’479 patent is representative of the method claims.
Claim 33 recites:

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

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

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

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

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

App. 383–384.

SCOTUS counted just "one" party trying to escape obligation.
They counted one "a" computer.

Let's insist on a reality-based recount ...

Under the plain language of Claim 33 there are:
+2 stakeholder parties each holding a credit record and a debit record
+2 exchange institutions, one for each stakeholder
+1 supervisory institution
=5 parties (each optionally having its own "computer")

That of course raises a first question: When it comes to counting "computers", are the black robes of SCOTUS smarter than a first grader?