Monday, April 25, 2016

The end justifies the vaporization of that which never should have existed in first place

It's time to blow up the world.

Maybe it should have never existed in the first place?
Because one of the lines on the map is ambiguous.
Because whoever got that extra territory did not make a good showing on his one last chance.
Because all these hurt other folk are showing up lately demanding elimination.

That logic is good enough to justify vaporization.


See Cuzzo oral arguments here.


According to Breyer J:
"And so what we're trying to do with this process is to tell the [Patent] Office, You've been doing too much too fast. [Jack was too nimble, too quick. Shouldn't have jumped over that candle stick.]

Go back and let people who are hurt by this come in and get rid of those [contempt worthy] patents that shouldn't have been issued [in the first place or even before that -you see what I mean? Like King Tut and his abacus man you know? He says stop. His grandma says stop. Stop hurting all those innocent hurt people].

Now, we will give you [the evil so-called overlord inventor, humph], again, once [(one time only)] the same chance we gave you before, and that is you can amend it once if you convince the judge you should have done it before.

But if, on the broadest possible interpretation, you know, [oh did I not misspeak myself?] "reasonable" interpretation, it shouldn't have been issued, we're canceling it [the whole thing]. And -and that is for the benefit of those people who were suffering from too many patents that shouldn't have been issued in the first place. I don't know. [meaning I am all knowing, all powerful, the chief wizard of this inquisition -visualize smug face here, visualize]"

Post Scripts: ____________________________________

Link to Patent Docs review of Cuzzo oral hearings here

Link to Patent Docs analysis of The Fantastical World of Breyer J here

Wall Street J's "Grapple" article:
"Many technology companies, including ... favor the new procedure as an effective way to attack patents that never should have been approved [in the zeroth place]."
"Justice Stephen Breyer said it is possible the new legal rules make sense if the government’s goal is to weed out bad patents and take on patent-licensing firms, which critics call “patent trolls. ... the Patent Office’s approach “is for the benefit of those people who were suffering from too many patents that shouldn’t have been issued in the first place,” Justice Breyer said.”

Wednesday, April 20, 2016

Boo Hoo, The other side dares to shoot back

One anti-patent web site now cries with crocodile tears.

Imagine.
The other side shoots back.
What a concept.
Maybe they can patent that?

Snippet: "That’s like asking, “what should we do about the Supreme Court [due to Alice]?” IBM seems arrogant enough to attack or discredit the highest court via Kappos (IBM)."

Discredit the "Supremes"?
Seems like they need no help in that department.
They do it on their own.

Corporations are people too. Right.

Elections in USA are all honest and need no supervision. Right.

Mother Nature hath descended from her mountain top and hath given onto the Supremes her "laws" inscribed on two clay tablets. Unquestionable.

The US Constitution does not permit patents for "discoveries", only for something significantly and elusively more.

Yes, that's it. Only the truly arrogant would attack and discredit the incredible undiscredible highest court.

Friday, April 15, 2016

If only Palin had screeched not against Nye but against SCOTUS Sci-Fi

In her latest screed Sarah Palin calls Bill Nye (Mech. Engineering Degree 1977 Cornell U.) a kid show clown.

But if she wanted real science carnival chicanery she would have called out the SCOTUS Magnificent Nine for their lucid proclamations on laws of nature and fundamentals of discovery in the storehouse of human knowledge ala' Alice in Blunderland.

Bill Nye is a science guy. (Who puts money behind mouth.)

Sarah Palin on the other hand is a political carnival barker.

And so too are the SCOTUS "Supremes" in their belief there ain't no science mountain high enough to block them from getting to the legal "truth" about molecular biology, the workings of geriatric computers and that illusive something "significantly more" (Myriad, Mayo, Alice and Bilski) that converts an "apply it" abstraction into an at-long-last patent eligible thing.

Tuesday, April 12, 2016

Methods of Using Tools Not "Naturally" Patentable

The optical telescope is a tool.

It allows one to see what the human eyes alone cannot "naturally" see.

The atomic force microscope (AFM) is a tool.

It allows one to see (to gather information about) what the human eyes alone cannot "naturally" see.

But gathering "information" about things in "nature" is verboten according to the newly emerging "laws of nature" doctrine. Naturally of course.

Genetic Technologies Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C. (Fed. Cir. 2016)

Sunday, April 3, 2016

Judge Robinson puts Alice in Restraints

Alice Backlash:
"she issued three opinions in three cases addressing software-related patents under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Improved Search LLC v. AOL, Inc., Civ. No. 15-262-SLR (D. Del. Mar. 22, 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Ricoh Americas Corp., Civ. No. 13-474-SLR (D. Del. Mar. 22, 2016); Network Congestion Solutions, LLC v. U.S. Cellular Corp., Civ. No. 14-903-SLR (D. Del. Mar. 22, 2016)."

Network Congestion Solutions v. US Cellular

Sunday, March 27, 2016

Alice in Bark Bytes Land --the full story

Moments of tail waggin' clarity in the Alice v. CLS oral hearings are found for example at 2:32/1:00:13 where Kennedy J. begins his hypothetical on the 2nd year engineer programming "the" computer as an over the weekend homework project. Here is my "idea". Make it so.

Bryer's "King Tut" dance is at 3:23/1:00:00 where abacus man stops the whole thing when more gold given away than total in account. --You see the point? (Don't dare say no.)

"Apply it" through the computer per Bryer's Tut-n'-stop example at at 5:12/1:00:00

Scalia "cotton gin" sarcasm at 6:56/1:00:00 --it too can be done instead by hand

Kennedy's Scene II Take 1 in A Coffee Shop Somewhere in Silicon Valley kicks back in at 9:55/1:00:00



**Footnote

Claim 33 of US Pat. 5,970,479:

33. 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 ones 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.

See also US Pat 6,912,510; 7,149,720 and 7,725,375

Thursday, March 24, 2016

It ain't no fair that someone wins that race

In the competition for alternate world outcomes there are at least two races.

One seeks to come up with the ultimate in hypocrisy: Stop competition in order to promote competition.

The other one ...

... was established over 200 years ago ...

... to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to .. Inventors the exclusive Right to their .. Discoveries

by granting them patents as quid quo pro for their being first in a race to un-cover (dis-cover) that which they had found ...

so long as what they un-cover is any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof

However this opinion piece, "Patent law is holding back scientific advancement" would like us to believe that competition and winner take all is not the way to go if the 2nd runner up was close.

It would like us to believe that the publishing of patents hides and keeps secret that which the published patents dis-close.

In part it argues, "Unlike the informal system that scientists use for sharing intellectual credit, the patent system is winner take all. Whoever gets his or her application approved first gets all the money. That creates an incentive for secrecy -- if scientists' ideas leak out, someone else could file the patent more quickly."

Hugh?

Obviously that paradox sounds logical to some people.