Thursday, June 23, 2016

BROKES-IT: The Great Unraveling

Picture in your head all the work that would go into hand knitting a sweater.
The patience.
The precision.
The creativity.
The organization of the whole body of work.

It doesn't take much for an immature adolescent to come along and unravel the whole thing.
Creating an elegant body of work is hard.
Destroying is easy.
Take that you stuffy snob nosed creator. BOOM. BANG. CRASH. Destroyed!

The adolescent feels great.
He has succeeded in being the bossy bull in the proverbial china shop.

Here's another group that feels good about themselves.
They are breaking apart the U.S. patent system.
The only good patent is a busted patent.
Take that you stuffy snob nosed creators (a.k.a. inventors).
We dun teached you about the laws of nature.
The great unraveling. Entropy.
BREXIT. BROKES-IT. BLOKES-IT.
Nothing matters.
Let's again warp back to the Medieval Times dance!

Monday, June 20, 2016

Be Cuzz "We" say so

CUOZZO SPEED TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. LEE

Breyer J. --"But where a statute leaves a “gap” or is “ambigu[ous],” we typically interpret it as granting the agency leeway to enact rules that are reasonable in light of the text, nature, and purpose [**] of the statute. Mead Corp., 533 U. S., at 229; Chevron U. S. A. Inc., supra, at 843. The [IPR] statute contains such a gap: No statutory provision unambiguously directs the agency [(the USPTO)]to use one standard or the other. And the statute “express[ly] ... authoriz[es] [the Patent Office] to engage in the process of rulemaking” to address that gap."

** Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 --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.
______________________

Sotomayor J. sorry for meth dealer but not inventors? (here)

Sunday, June 19, 2016

Don't Celebrate Just Yet

"Justice Clarence Thomas, a reliable conservative vote on the Supreme Court, is mulling retirement after the presidential election, according to ..." (here)

"If [winner is] Hillary Clinton, then she would get the chance to flip two Republican seats, giving the liberals a 6-3 majority."

The departure of Alice opinion writer, Clarence the Clown might seem like reason for celebrate. But be careful what you wish for. The liberals on the Court are equally anti-inventor.

_________________

Rumors of departure premature? (here)

Tuesday, June 7, 2016

You didn't invent/build that (Part II)

The meme of "You didn't invent/build that" comes in several flavors.

Yes. One of them appears in the earlier post of basically the same title ("You didn't invent that"). It says that the community did not need "You" the inventor because the invention is the inevitable fruit of a community knowledge tree. You just happened by luck to come along, spot and pluck that banana off the tree first. But others were right behind you and would have done the same thing. It was inevitable. (Monkey #1 see banana. Monkey #1 pluck and peel banana. Tree made plucked banana on its own as mostly a natural phenomenon, Monkey #1 didn't do much, and neither would have Monkey #2 or the next one, etc.) Therefore "You", the one claiming to be first to invent or discover, have no right to patent and monopolize that which was inevitable and would have been done by the next person if not you, but mostly on the back of the community knowledge tree.

A second flavor of "You didn't invent/build that" focuses on what you really invented (but probably did not build) once one strips away or unmasks the deceptive add-ons of the crafty patent lawyers. This is where the courts and the USPTO discover on their own what the claim is truly "directed to".

You didn't invent what you claim. You invented an abstract idea. Then your deceptive patent draftsman came along and added insignificant guises (masking facades) to hide the fact that the true invention is merely the abstract idea we say it is.

We know better than you what the "gist" of the invention is.

Monday, June 6, 2016

You didn't invent that

A growing school of argument preaches that "innovation" and its significantly less important stepchild, "invention" are the inevitable byproducts of our "advanced" political-industrial complex.

For example, one recent editorial (here) warns:

"The gravest danger arising from the emphasis on “monetisation” of [our community's] traditional knowledge is that [outsider] interests will patent and monopolise benefits derived from [our community's] traditional knowledge not only elsewhere in the world but even here. This will prevent innovation based on traditional knowledge, depriving [our] society of the fruits of its own past."

It's as if all one needs to do is plant a seed, get the process rolling, turn one's head away and then look back with ingrained traditional knowledge that the seed will have inevitably taken care of itself. Provided itself with essential nutrients. Defended itself against all attacks. And sprouted into full blossom so as to be exploited by he who claims to have knowledge of the seeding event.

Where is the Little Red Hen when we need her?

___________________________

post scripts:
Biographies for authors of the referenced work may be found here.

Thursday, June 2, 2016

If only you had a brain

Dear Supremes ones,
... and lower judicial
types too,

Lately it seems that you have been pumping out deep insight observations about laws "of nature", "mental" steps, "generic" computers, "abstract" ideas and the unknowable except to you "significant more" stuff.

Perchance you might watch Professor Neil de Grasse's video and change your Socratic "minds" into biologically evolved "brain" organs?

No?

What? You've made up your "minds" and are going to stick with that myth preserving story?

History will remember.

Thursday, May 26, 2016