Monday, September 22, 2014

Bulls Barrel through Glassware Dept.

The "soft" in software is misleading just as the "supreme" in SCOTUS means not that the black robed nine are infallible.

Software is physically scratched into the glass or Mylar film on your compact disk. It is not an "abstraction".

Software is spun and rotated into the magnetic domains of your "hard" disk and hot burnt into you jumpy flash drive. It's real. It's there.

It is not the product of a leisurely weekend code fest. Even if the "Supremes" dream otherwise.

Of late, them that don't know and don't have even the inclination to learn, are crowing about the "innovative" massacre of patents dealing with computer-related inventions. Kill the inventors and kill the lawyers that brought 'em to the party they say. Less is more. Backwards is forward they say.

God bless and goodnight to us all.

Sunday, September 14, 2014

Arrogance, Ignorance Parade Proud and Naked Yet Again (Go means Stop, Open means Close)

The swift shift to lucid insanity does not surprise in the wake of the "Go Ask Alice" decision by our most "Supreme" of authoritative and authoritarian courts (a.k.a. SCOTUS).

However the slope of that playground slide into a world of acid-tripped hallucinations is unexpected.

One of the well known bell weathers of faulty logic is that of "Appeal to Authority". If somebody important said it, then it must be true.

That appears to be the logic behind a recent post-Alice invalidation of yet another lawfully issued patent. "In any event,the Supreme Court has spoken, and §101 now plays an important [patent killing] role." writes Judge Wu in Eclipse IP v. McKinley Equipment (C.D. Cal. 2014)

In other words, when the dentist says, "Open wide",
some judges understand it to mean 'shut it tight'.

Even Judge Wu understands that section 101 is Congress' version of "Open wide".
How much wider can you get than:
Any machine.
Any process.
Just as long as it is new and useful.

How much wider can one go in opening the Welcome door for inventors?
Yet by some perverse logic of green being red (Go meaning Stop) and up being down, our On-Parade Naked Nine and the minions who serve as tools of the master's drool see section 101 as the shut it closed message. They see what they want to see no matter what the facts are. They've made up their story (software is "abstract") and they are going to stick to that story come America going to Hale Bob's Comet or drowning in Climate Change's waters. Welcome to Salem. This week's special, burnt crisp inventors in the computer related arts.

... still under construction
... in the same way that US patent system is still under destruction

Saturday, August 9, 2014

How the Supreme Court declared and won its war on the US Constitution

Dear History Students,

Today we will look back at a small part of the early 21st Century in our study of the Disintegrated States of Corporate America (DSCA).

As you will recall,
the height of American technological advancement
in the 1980's was actually a foreshadowing of its
imminent demise.

Once the Americans adopted computer technology,
they stopped doing things known as "reading" and "thinking".
They gave over their brains to popularity polls, and
to text-free me-Tube videos.

There was no need anymore to read the prime directives
of the US Constitution.
Feckless talking heads would tell the masses what the Nine
Black Robed Ones had declared and the no longer literate
would accept it as gospel.

Take for example the written mandate in the Constitution
for the American Congress to write the laws regarding
how best to "secure" for American inventors,
the exclusive rights to "their" discoveries.

Article 1, Section 1.
All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

... 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;

... as usual ... still under construction

Well, it was in an acid-trip decision known as Alice
that the Nine Black Robed Ones (a.k.a. SCOTUS) declared
they knew better than all others what the American inventor
had "truly" invented and how it was "drawn"
to mere "abstraction".

SCOTUS declared by fiat that inventing was
no more than mere "coding" over weekend's time
of simpleton "ideas" that called for a "generic computer"
and utterance of magic words, "just do it".

No one dared challenge their holy words.
To do so would be irreverent.
And might get your head chopped off if ever you needed a last minute stay from SCOTUS just before the Constitution-following government tested some of its new execution chemicals on you following conviction by a kangaroo court peopled by a Corporations-are-persons jury.

Word got out.
Soon fewer and fewer inventors disclosed their inventions.
Why bother when it can be snuffed out by fiat declaration of abstractionism?
Eventually America (DCSA) became a disintegrated 3rd world mess, as well you know dear history students.

Friday, July 25, 2014

US Constitution and Power of SCOTUS to re-write Patent Law

The Federal government of the United States of America has 3 (and a half) co-equal branches, none of whom, alone or even together are above the Constitution of the USA:

(1) The Executive Branch (The President and the Departments under his control)
(2) The Legislative Branch (which is further broken into the Senate sub branch and the House o’ Representatives sub branch)
(3) The Judiciary
(4)(and the various alphabet soup Administrative Agencies SEC, IRS, FDA, EPA, … USPTO)

Given this structure, not even the top court (SCOTUS) has the lawful power to take over the enumerated and limited powers granted exclusively to the Legislative Branch under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution:

where the latter includes:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to … Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective … Discoveries;

The above discussion brings to mind an argument that Thomas Jefferson made a long time ago about the powers of the US Supreme Court:
“[Re SCOTUS decision in Marbury:] You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps…. Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.


In the case of Alice v. CLS it should be recalled that the US Constitution leaves to the Congress, the job of “*** securing*** for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”

To this end (of “securing” rights), Congress passed 35 USC 101.

Now comes a despotic SCOTUS with aim and act of de-securing IP rights already granted by the Executive branch via the US Patent office.
How does SCOTUS have powers even beyond that granted to Congress (of “*** securing*** for limited Times to …. Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective …. Discoveries.”) ?

Sunday, July 6, 2014

Extinction Level Developments (ELDs) for Patents and Inventors

If you are a fan of ELE's (Extinction Level Events) for humanity in general,
there is no shortage of web sites discussing the possibilities,
be they by collision with near-Earth large objects or emergence of unstoppable microbial pathogens.

But enough with the happy talk.

Let's talk about Extinction Level Developments (ELD's) for Patents and for Inventors

What are they, now or in the future?

A number of more publicized movements quickly come to mind:

(1)First let's kill the software patents?

(2) First let's kill the patent attorneys?

(3) First let's recognize the corporation as the sole inventor?
(One having exclusive rights of free political speech and religious exclusion?)

(4) First let's kill the Federal Circuit?

(5) NO. Let's kill it all. DESTROY IT ALL --according to two "economists".

Historical precedents
Endings for progress, inventing, innovation enlightenment and their promotion are not without precedent in human history:

(a) Burn-down of Library of Alexandria

(b) European Dark Ages

(c) Islamic Dark Ages

Descent into Dark Age usually begins
with collision between State Religion and Progressing Science
Think Galileo versus the Spanish Inquisition
Think End of the Islamic Golden Age
Think the burning down of the Library in Ancient Alexandria Egypt

What is our State Religion?

Hint: Look up "market forces" in KSR v. Teleflex

Monday, June 30, 2014

Incompetent Ball Players (of Judicial Kind) in the Outfield

What if
some of our players
in the judicial arena
are fielding questions
outside their field of competence?


Consider the dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge REYNA ...

" ... Rather, the examiner [of a separate patent prosecution] understood that the patents-in-suit [when used as 103 references in that separate patent prosecution] did not include [an explicit teaching of] wireless communications, which necessarily means [from my common sense point of view] that he did not consider the “datalink” [39] disclosed in the patents-in-suit to 'reach' such wireless technology. The majority [here] fails to acknowledge the full scope of the examiner’s [extrinsic] statements, which were made by an uninterested party outside the scope of the present litigation, [and thus from my common sense point of view, that should be] a material element in the analysis of the evidentiary record [for carrying out "claim construction" here]." [Text in brackets added]

There is much more that Judge Renya argues in his dissent.
(The text in question discloses: In one embodiment of the invention, the bed input signals 33 are received as hard wired inputs ... The bed message created by processor 140 is then sent through the bed junction box 37 to the wall interface unit 40 over serial datalink 39.)

For the present analysis we simply want to note an example of CAFC sitting judge not "getting it" with regard to many basics of patent law (what "In one embodiment" means), and demonstrating a lack of competence in a technical field that is apparently outside his range ... just scary (Will the real Judge Rader please come back, please come back? ... to be recited in the tune of the real slim shady, eminem)

This is not to get down on Judge Renya.
There is much that he says, that from a lay person's point of view, makes "common sense".
However, from the point of view of one skilled in the art of networked computer systems, his take on the meaning of a "serial datalink" is nonsensical and embarrassing. The other 2 judges on the CAFC panel try to be be polite and less than thorough in dissecting Judge Renya's 'dissent'.

Such observation begs the next level question:
What if we are in a higher level court,
Where none on the panel are competent
in either of
patent law or
the scientific field of endeavor,
and their decision is more far reaching?

"When deh truth is found to be lies
and all deh hope vitin you dies
- then vat?"
-Rabbi Marshak, A Serious Man

Then what?
Go ask Alice

Friday, June 27, 2014

Perky Parrots of the Patent-Haters Club

The nonsensical parrot noises
frothing from the beaks of
our Magnificent Nine ...

could not reasonably have come
from reasonable minds.

And that begs the question:

Where did the nonsensical, patent-related
gobbledygook really come from?

One need look no further than
the amicus briefs of the so-called
"frenemies of the court".

... Parrot hears, parrot parrots:

"Generic" computers and graphic claims that are "yawn-drawn" indeed!

The EFF Brief
"B. At a Minimum, Performance of an Otherwise Abstract Idea “on a Computer” or “on the Internet” [performance stage] Should Not Make that Idea Non- Abstract
In effort to avoid preemption, courts have rightfully found that performing an abstract idea on a general purpose computer, without more, does not make that invention patent-eligible. For example, in Dealertrack, ... The claims at issue here, like those in Dealertrack, Benson, and Bilski, take an abstract idea—using a third-party intermediary to settle risk— and merely tie that idea to a general “data processing system” (in the system claims) and a “computer program ... comprising a computer readable storage medium” (in the media claims). CLS Bank Br. at 48-51. Nevertheless, five judges on the Federal Circuit would have found these system claims patent-eligible. ..."