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.
Yes.
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.
Trolls?
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.
Really?

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?

Tuesday, December 30, 2014

Thought Breaking Wizardry of the Patent Hate Clan

YOU should've known
even before you thought
about it in the first place.
Critical thinking is so yesterday.
Running with the bulls and rolling gloriously in their tail mud is what the herds of today do to stay "with it".

Take for example (please) our friends and family at the F___ Institute. They know how to Fix what "Ails" the Patent System.

They say for example:
"Created over 200 years ago, the current system does more to inhibit innovation than promote it. And it all starts with patents – freely granted by the U.S. government – that last 20 years from the date an application is filed."

Anyone who knows anything
(and that's a small number already)
about the "current" US Patent System,
knows that it was "reformed" in a major way in 2011 by the AIA (America Invents (no-more) Act).

A bit of New Year's celebration math:
2015 - 2011 = ????
informs the few math literati of us
that it was not 200 years ago.

It's not "free".
No patent "lasts 20 years".
Every part of just that small blurb above is an untruthiness.

And of course that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Truthiness is not an option for the Patent Hate Clan.

HEY!!! It's New Years !!! Let's just celebrate ...

Wednesday, December 24, 2014

Going Deeper Down the Abstraction Death Spiral

CONTENT EXTRACTION v. WELLS FARGO BANK [OPINION]:

"Applying Mayo/Alice step one, we agree with the district court that the claims of the asserted patents are drawn to the abstract idea of 1) collecting data, 2) recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and 3) storing that recognized data in a memory. The concept of data collection, recognition, and storage is undisputedly well-known. Indeed, humans have always performed these functions." --Chen J on behalf of the panel.

To "abstract" means, in one sense, to remove details and draw out a more generalized idea, for example from a first set of words (i.e. words of a claim).

Words, however, are abstractions themselves.
So when one abstracts from a set of words, one is abstracting an abstraction.

How deep down can one abstract from an abstraction of an abstraction of a ...?

The end of the downward spiral is the idea of "idea" itself.

When we get to that level, most of us have no idea what idea means to begin with, let alone what "abstract" idea means.

The CONTENT EXTRACTION court goes on to explain:

"Applying Mayo/Alice step two, we agree with the district court that the asserted patents contain no limitations— either individually or as an ordered combination— that transform the claims into a patent-eligible application. ... CET’s claims merely recite the use of this existing scanning and processing technology to recognize and store data from specific data fields such as amounts, addresses, and dates. ... There is no “inventive concept” in CET’s use of a generic scanner and computer to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities commonly used in industry. ... At most, CET’s claims attempt to limit the abstract idea of recognizing and storing information from hard copy documents using a scanner and a computer to a particular technological environment. Such a limitation has been held insufficient to save [an inherently doomed] claim in this context."

So there you have it.
Claim words which are merely abstraction to begin with, need to be alchemically "transformed" into patent-eligible stuff by not attempting to limit ... otherwise they are inherently doomed.

From the '855 patent:

The location of data to be extracted can be defined in a number of ways other than by use of a template. For example, the user can designate the absolute location of information on the document with respect to a grid overlaid on the document, e.g., always on line 3, starting in column i. The user can also identify information by specifying the relative location of information to be extracted, e.g., always two lines below the piece of data named "salutation", starting in column 3. The user can also specify the location of information to be extracted by variable location specification. For example, if the hard copy document is a letter, the module would conduct a key word search for the term "Dear Sir:". Wherever this term "Dear Sir:" is located, this piece of data would be associated with the variable specified by the user, for example, the variable "salutation." In addition, a defined set of conventional symbols can be used to signify certain recurring data items for the convenience of users of the instant invention. For example, a "@" symbol can be used to delineate the vendor name as follows: "@XYZ Corporation@". Other examples of the use of symbols to delineate information will be described with reference to FIG. 14.

The maintains definition module 2.2 is also used to maintain data relationships in accordance with content instructions and to maintain input file formats in accordance with transmission format instructions. Relationships are defined and maintained between pieces of data, specified by, for example, the names of variables, through the define relationships module 2.2.2. The names of pieces of data on the document are retrieved by, for example, the define template module 2.2.1, and are passed to the define relationships module 2.2.2. The user may then provide any additional pieces of data needed to generate an input file for a particular application program or unit, such as an input file line number. The user, the applications software, and/or instructions previously stored in memory then establishes the contents of the input file by defining relationships between pieces of data using content instructions. Specific examples of content instructions will be discussed below in conjunction with FIGS. 11, 12A, 12B, 12C, 13A, 13B, and 13C.

Thursday, December 18, 2014

Discovery Death Squads

IN RE BRCA1- AND BRCA2-BASED HEREDITARY CANCER TEST PATENT LITIGATION

"We do not read the Supreme Court’s opinion in Myriad as conferring patent eligibility on composition of matter claims directed to naturally occurring DNA strands under such circumstances. A DNA structure with a function similar to that found in nature can only be patent eligible as a composition of matter if it has a unique structure, different from anything found in nature. Myriad, 133 S. Ct. at 2116–17 (citing Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309–10). Primers do not have such a different structure and are patent ineligible."

Ah yes.
The judicial ego.
Know it alls spawned from their own mental test tubes.

Electrons are real.
Molecules have wavefunctions as part of their "structural" makeup.
An in-DNA strand is not "structurally" the same as an isolated snippet.
But then again, what do so-called "scientists" know when in the presence of Mount Olympus giants?