Thursday, April 17, 2014

No you don't C# Justice Breyer

"Seeing" requires more than
just considering your eyes
and saying "apply them".

"Seeing" means taking note
of ALL the details by using
an appendage of the eyeballs
sometimes referred to as the brain.

In the released tape recordings of Alice v. CLS

Justice Breyer claims to see the whole picture
as being nothing more than:
(1) King Tut's pile of gold and chits
(2) An abacus-using man
(3) And the abstract idea of Mom yelling "Stop!" (if you C# where he is going with that).

That indeed is comical
but at the same time dishonest
and disrespectful of the full list
of patents and claims involved
and of the specific details of
their complex and detailed disclosures.

is no different than
killing your parents and labeling yourself
an un-entangled "orphan" deserving of mercy.

Are these Serious Men (and Women)?
Is ignorance of your own ignorance an excuse under the law?

At times in the audio tape (link also above)
we can hear the Justices nervously laughing
at the admittedly complex geek flowcharts
with their boxes and arrows going all over the place.

Transcript page 30:
24 CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, that's a
25 little more complicated. He referred us to Joint
[Transcript page 31:]
1 Appendix Page 159, which is not a change in how
2 computers work. But it is constitutes the
3 instructions about how to use the computer and where it
4 needs to be affected. And just looking at it, it looks
5 pretty complicated. There are a lot of arrows and
6 they you know, different things that go 7
8 CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, but I mean,
9 you know, it in different directions. And I
10 understand him to say that in each of those places,
11 that's where the computer is needed.

[post incomplete and still under construction]

Tuesday, April 1, 2014

Close Patent Encounters of the Go Ask Alice Kind

Well, thanks to the oral hearings transcript (here)
and tape recorded orals (here)
for March 31, 2014
we finally have first contact
(of the King Tut kind) with
the mythologies, thoughts and fantasies that are bubbling and troubling within the heads of our Supreme Court Justices.

The crux of the issue,
in Alice v. CLS [Big] Bank
apparently revolves around "ideas" and not just ideas, but those of the subclass, "abstract" (as opposed to those of the subclass, "concrete") and the triviality of "coding" it once the idea is stated.

According to Justice Ginsburg there is a
"degree" of abstractness in
each of the " abstract ideas".
Some ideas are apparently more abstract than others.
Page 4 of oral hearing transcript:

5 JUSTICE GINSBURG: Mr. Phillips, on the
6 abstract idea [thing], you know that the Bilski case held that
7 [computer-implemented] hedging qualified as an "abstract idea."
So how is ... 8 [computer-implemented financial and] intermediate
settlement [any less of an] abstract [idea] than [Bilski's] hedging?

According to Justice Kennedy, irrespective
of whether an "idea" is abstract or concrete,
once you have it, and state that idea to any handful of computer geeks, implementation is trivial:
Page 5, line 7:
7 JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, let me put it this
8 way. If you describe that [(where "that" may refer to the whole of Alice's patent disclosure as summarized by PHILLIPS at pg 4, ln 16-pg 5, ln 6)] to a second year college
9 class in engineering and said "here’s my idea,"
10 now you go home and
you program ["that" on a single "computer"] over this weekend, my
11 guess is my guess is that that would be fairly easy
12 to program [because "programming" is all that is needed].

Page 12: (more on triviality of coding)
8 JUSTICE KENNEDY: Suppose I thought and,
9 again, it’s just a thought because I don’t have the
10 expertise that any computer [-savvy] group of people sitting
11 around a coffee shop in Silicon Valley could do this
12 over a weekend. Suppose I thought that.
13 MR. PHILLIPS: You mean wrote the code?
14 JUSTICE KENNEDY: Yes, right. [All that is needed is to write "code".]
Page 5: (continued from above)
15 JUSTICE KENNEDY: So the fact that the [one --(not true), see US5970479 at right]
16 "computer" is involved, it it seems to me, is necessary
17 to make it [(the whole system)] work.
But ... the innovative aspect
18 is certainly not in the creation of the program to make
19 that work [because programming is what any coffee clutch worth ..
of Silicon Valley nerds can do]. All you're talking about
[after stripping everything away, despite what 35 USC 112 says about inventor's regard]
is if I can use ... 20 the word [is merely] an "idea."
[In other words, in so far as what I, Kennedy J. understand, you are claiming no more than "an idea"!]

[... post still under construction ...]
(Click Read More to read on)

Friday, March 21, 2014

The Fifty Shades of Elephant Gray that is "Software"

Like the finches of Darwin's Galapagos Islands,
the term "software" has evolved over the years
to represent subtly different things to different people.
Our language does not have 50 different shades
of word for the different species we collectively call "software".

It's as if we used the term "flying things" for Darwin's finches and we didn't comprehend that such imprecise terminology just doesn't quite cut it for serving the needs of a "modern" science-based society.
And thus, when it comes to the "software" stuff, we are often caught pushing each other
off the proverbial Tower of Babel as we debate what is and isn't "software"
and whether "it" should be patent eligible.

[still under construction] ....
One writer **here** (a Mr. Martin Goetz) claims that he has the definitive definition of what software is is.
That can be disputed.

Take for example, the “configuration bits” that are loaded into a Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA). These ones (1's) and zeroes (0's) are not instructions for execution by a “computer” but rather they are controls for how the reconfigurable signal routing wires of the FPGA are to be routed and how the reconfigurable logic blocks of the FPGA are to be configured. It is indeed “software”, but not a kind that is “executed” by a computer. So anyone who claims that all “software” is computer executed software is overstepping the bounds of reasonableness.
By the same token, anyone who claims that all “software” is pure “math” is equally stepping outside the bounds of reasonableness. (Click 'Read More' below to read more.)

Sunday, March 9, 2014

Let's Hate the Inventors

We have to hate somebody.

Maybe we should hate blacks?
No. Can't.
Not politically correct.
Don't dare use the N-WORD.

Maybe we should hate gays?
No. Can't.
No longer politically correct.
Don't dare use the F-WORD,
or any other LGBT derogatory word.

Maybe we can hate inventors?
Yes. Finally. Totally politically correct.
Do use the T-WORD.

Inventors aren't even real people.
Why they're "nerds". Ugly hideous things who hide under the bridge.
Honestly when was the last time you ran into a "true" inventor, meaning someone who went all the way by building the thing in her garage and then mass producing it and getting everyone to instantly love it and buy it? That's "innovation". Anything less is nothing.

So go ahead. Do use the T-word.
Everyone else does.
Here, here and here.

Why even the US government hates them.
Lookie here at what the US President said about them in his 2014 SOTU speech.

In its brief to the Supreme Court, the government said
inventors use "schemes".
They rely on "shadow records".
They claim "abstract ideas".
They spread their evil doings into "traditionally non-technological fields of human endeavor" and for that reason we must be vigilant and enforce "traditional limits" on them.

Get the picture?
Got it? Get them. Good.

More Hate Pieces:
1) A "Final Solution" for them who dare to invent
2) Obama: the Great T-word Slayer
3) The Patent ‘troll’ label ... worthy of ponder
4) More T-word stories

"I think this [Kill-Inventors-Bill] could get done if we keep our nose to the grindstone."

Sunday, March 2, 2014

Quid Quo Vait Fo' Us (#Hyatt)

Never mind "12 Years a Slave".
How about 40 years an inventor in waiting? (#Hyatt)

How about inventor man without a country?
(Because your Gov't is waging a "War on Inventors"?

When do America's inventors get their applause?
Their moment in the sun?
Or is America's innovative fire doused out by bureaucratic hope-kill and political kah ching?

Wednesday, February 26, 2014

Rolling Snake Eyes in CAFC Dice Toss Game

Woe onto he who rolls
into the wrong panel on the CAFC.

To some judges, anything that smells of software
is no better than that which stenches of mendacity ... or pornography ... or death (death to all software IP they say!).

T'is the offensive smell of mendacity and abstractness.
They know it when they sniff it.

“There ain’t nothin’ more powerful than the odor of mendacity …You can smell it. It smells like death” --Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (Tennessee Williams)

Death to your software patent if the dice roll you into Judge Lourie's panel.

"The “telephone” recited in claim 1 is not a specific machine, and adds nothing of significance to the claimed abstract idea. ... We agree with the district court that the ’060 patent claims ineligible subject matter—an abstract idea—and that the patent is invalid under § 101."

Yes operator.
I want to make this a direct shoe machine to shoe machine personal call.

What? Not specific enough?
Just as I suspected. You must be an agent of KAOS,
a secret Luddite organization hell bent on sending America back
to the 18th Century.

Wednesday, January 29, 2014

State of the Unleashed Dogs Speech (#SOTUDS)

America, it seems, is filled with eager packs of "innovative" smartphone dogs all biting at the chomp for the chance to be "UNLEASHED" onto the free markets so they can "innovate", come up with the next GREAT American Discovery and surge onward and everwards against that forward revolving "Wheel of Progress" --but only of course, if we first rip all the enforcement teeth out of their chomping gums (see HR 3309).

From Obama's 2014 SOTU Speech:

"We know that the nation that goes all-in on innovation today will own the global economy tomorrow. This is an edge America cannot surrender.
Federally-funded research helped lead to the ideas and inventions behind Google and smartphones."

"That’s why Congress should undo the damage done by last year’s cuts to basic research so we can unleash the next Great American Discovery – whether it’s vaccines that stay ahead of drug-resistant bacteria, or paper-thin material that’s stronger than [Reardon] steel. And let’s pass a PATENT REFORM bill (a.k.a. HR 3309)that allows our businesses [(fogetta bout our inventors)] to stay focused on INNOVATION, not costly, needless litigation.

Now, one of the biggest factors in bringing more jobs back is our commitment to American energy. The all-of-the-above energy strategy I announced a few years ago is working, and today, America is closer to energy independence than we’ve been in decades. One of the reasons why is natural gas – if extracted safely, it [METHANE] is the bridge fuel that can power our economy with less of the carbon pollution that causes Climate Change."

"Cory is here tonight. And like the Army he loves, like the America he serves, Sergeant First Class Cory Remsburg never gives up, and he does not quit. My fellow Americans, men and women like Cory remind us that America has never come easy. Our freedom, our democracy, has never been easy. Sometimes we stumble; we make mistakes; we get frustrated or discouraged. But for more than two hundred years, we have put those things aside and placed our collective shoulder to the wheel of progress – to create and build and expand the possibilities of individual achievement; to free other nations from tyranny and fear; to promote justice, and fairness, and equality under the law, so that the words set to paper by our founders [**] are made real for every citizen [(even inventors --nah, not really)]. The America we want for our kids – a rising America where honest work is plentiful and communities are strong; where prosperity is widely shared and opportunity for all lets us go as far as our dreams and toil will take us"

(**Article I, Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power ...
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;