Saturday, February 11, 2017

The Post Modern Inquisition

The purpose of an Inquisition is to create general hysteria, ferret out those who might pose a threat to The Inquisitive Powers That Already Be (TIPTAB) and establish a permanent bureaucracy for sustaining the Inquisition.

Inquisition panels often use the pretext of law and regulations. However, their true purpose and effect is to create a climate of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) while consolidating the power of final judgment exclusively to themselves. (Only we can know it when we see it, that elusive something significantly more that is needed for you to prove your innocence, that you are not a member of a very very (believe us) short list of suspect categories comprised of: (1) witches, (2) warlocks, (3) radicalized islamo-facists, (4) sexual deviants, (5) fake news reporters, (6) fake inventors, (7) devil worshipers, (8) terrorists, (9) heretics, (10) trolls, (11) apostates and (12) ....)

Sounds just like what PTAB death squads do, right?

Well D'oh. Yeah. Is that a surprise?

Monday, January 30, 2017

Confluence of Fibs and Fabulations

Before we start our leisurely white waters rafting trip down that roaring river of level four lies and level five false fabrications, please remember to put on your sanity safety helmet lest you fall, flail and lose sight of that which you should have known in the first place before we started tripping down into Alice's Falls. It's a bottomless pit of fibs, fabs, lies and deceptions.

We shouldn't, after all, trust them who are supposed to be here to protect us when they tell us they are from the government and they arehere to protect us. Beware these deceivious scriveners of new false law. Beware their jabberwhack skulduggery.

Take for example what Clarence the Clownish rafting guide tells us upon embarking down through Alice Falls about us always having had for over 150 years these newly frameworked exception rules that never existed beforehand. (Hold your breath.)

"[*1] We have long held [oh really? that long?] that this provision [§101] contains an [*2] important implicit exception: Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and [*3] abstract ideas are not patentable." Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U. S. , (2013) (slip op., at 11) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). We have interpreted §101 [*4] and its predecessors in light of this exception for more than 150 years. Bilski, supra, at 601-602; see also O'Reilly v. Morse, 15 How. 62, 112-120 (1854); Le Roy v. Tatham, 14 How. 156, 174-175 (1853).

... in applying the §101 exception [*5], we must
[most assuredly indefatigably must] .....
(click below "Read More" for more)

Friday, January 27, 2017

You have proven nothing, I haz "alternative facts"

One anti-inventor gadfly writes with respect to patent "eligibility" and the "information" arts:

Nobody has “proven” anything ……… smart people are all over the map on this clearly political question.

This gadfly appears to believe that everyone can have their own “alternative facts” in their privately owned “alternative universes” and that's OK because such is politics as usual and politics trumps reality.

However,
FACT: US patent law is encoded in Article 1, section 8, clause 8 of the US Constitution and in Title 35 of the US Code (e.g. 35 USC 100, 101, 102, 103 and 112 being the most important sections with respect to definitions and examination of patent applications in the USPTO)

FACT: 35 USC 101 is a statute passed by the US Congress. It states, “Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title [meaning 35 USC].”

FACT: The US Constitution provides for separation of powers and vests the legislative power exclusively in the hands of Congress, not in the Supreme Court.

What was being discussed in the associated blog was the grabbing of illegitimate power by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS), by the lower federal courts (CAFC and DCs) and by the US Patent Office (USPTO) to write their own laws, the so-called Alice/Mayo framework laws that transform a solid MRI “machine” into an abstraction.

What was being discussed was that they (SCOTUS and minions thereof) have also taken over the fundamentals of science by conjuring up these so-called “fundamental building blocks of ingenuity.

Yes in one sense this is politics because it involves the grabbing of power. But it is also law in that it raises the question of the Constitutionality of this power grab.

And it is also a question of how “smart” these people are because they are destroying the American patent system, tearing down the fabric of America itself (obliterating separation of powers) and they are too full of themselves to understand that this is what they are doing. Forgive them (not) for they know not what they do.

Wednesday, January 11, 2017

Innovation is Essential, Inventors are Not

Something was missing when "The Spirit of Kitty Hawk" soared out of President Obama's Farewell Address to the nation. The innovation was there but Wilbur and Orville were not.
Yes, innovation and its "spirit" are "essential" to the future prosperity of America. However innovation is not a faceless, inevitable phenomenon or spiritual effervescence of nature. Behind every innovation is a struggling one or more lone wolves who step out from the herd, take risks, absorb the cost of failures and hope for personal reward.

It is no secret that the Obama administration has not been a friend to lone wolf inventors. The passage of the America Invents (Not) Act or AIA was no gift to the inventor community. The positions adopted by the Obama controlled Patent Office were not for sake of making life easier for inventors. Quite the opposite.

And now President Obama has the audacity to look back on his legacy and talk about innovation being essential? About yes "we" can? ...

Who wants to give inventors a grace period? Not I, said audacious Obama.

Who wants to let inventors invent first and file later? Not I, said impatient Obama.

Who wants to take credit for the accomplishments of others, for what "we" did, for the tiny computer in everyone's pocket? Here I am, here I am, crowed nostalgic Obama.

___________________________________

"Take the challenge of climate change. In just eight years, we’ve halved our dependence on foreign oil [*n1.]; we’ve doubled our renewable energy [*n2.]; we’ve led the world [*n3.] to an agreement that has the promise to save this planet. But without bolder action, our children won’t have time to debate the existence of climate change. They’ll be busy dealing with its effects: more environmental disasters, more economic disruptions, waves of climate refugees [*n4.] seeking sanctuary.

Now, we can and should argue about the best approach to solve the problem [*n5.]. But to simply deny the problem not only betrays future generations, it betrays the essential spirit of this country ― the essential spirit of innovation and practical problem-solving that guided our Founders.

It is that spirit, born of the Enlightenment, that made us an economic powerhouse ― the spirit that took flight at Kitty Hawk [*n6.] and Cape Canaveral; the spirit that cures disease and put a computer in every pocket.

It’s that spirit ― a faith in reason, and enterprise, and the primacy of right over might [*n7.]..."

___________________________________

Notes: *n1.: This is utter science-divorced nonsense. The atmosphere does not "care" (Obama-wise or otherwise) what nationality is assigned to the oil or other fossil fuels burned in our relentless lemming charge towards the ledge.

*n2.: As well known, 2 times zero is zero

*n3.: US representatives come kicking and screaming to all the climate change conferences.

*n4.: Yes, many more "spring" times for the Middle East.

*n5.: Nothing is being "solved" or mitigated. The can keeps getting kicked down the road. (The road that says This way to Lemming's Ledge.)

*n6.: A "spirit" did not take flight. Wilbur and Orville did, using their invented and non-abstract flight control mechanisms.

*n7.: Go tell the inventors in In re Bilski about that right over might thing.

Thursday, January 5, 2017

Depriving Inventors of Legal Counsel

Inventors are not like ordinary people.

You see, what inventors do is akin to weaving of witchcraft.

All that computer wizardry and unnatural rearranging of Mother Nature's designs in the genetic realm has to be magic.

More often than not it is dark magic. And must be stopped.

One way to stop it is by saying "No."

No, you inventors are not human. No, you self-proclaimed inventors are not entitled to legal counsel. After all, your legal eagles are merely the "familiars" of your trollish like witchcraft, helping you to hide your true truly evil nature by way of their deceptive scrivener's art.

As one enlightening web post explains: "For years, patent trolls [and their behind the scenes legal helpers] have been ... pure evil ...
And like most evil entities, they are almost impossible to stop. Even a 2014 U.S. Supreme Court decision [Alice v. CLS] that was highly critical of patent trolls has done little to slow their slimy, reptilian-like existence. ...

But a federal judge ... slapped a half-million-dollar bill on the [contingency fee] lawyers and said that they were personally responsible for paying it, not their client. ... Part of the patent-troll economic model is based on lawyers taking a contingency fee, meaning ... the lawyers [are] more of a partner than a traditional contractor ... By placing the fines on the lawyers personally — well, to be precise, on their law firms — it threatens to change the dynamics. If lawyers stop taking these cases, patent trolls will no longer have a viable way to threaten thousands of companies."

--Stated otherwise, those "Igor" legal helpers of the Frankensteinian inventor class are just as guilty and must pay. Frankensteins (read as those who tamper with the "natural" ways of the world) are not entitled to helpful Igors or to a contingency lawyers (same thing) or to any legal rights because, after all, these Frankenstein inventors are abominations. Subhumans, monsters, trolls (or witches) that is what they truly are! We need not belabor the point. It is a self-evident truth.

... SARCASM still under construction but see Fatal blow against patent trolls

Sunday, December 18, 2016

Fake law, fake science and fake friends of 2016 in review

History will look back at 2016 as the "BIG FAKEOUT."

Sure. We had USA election 2016. We had an international hack-o-thon. We attained frackutopia. We had the Fed tell us all is well and the economy is ready for rate hikes. We had the election winner tells us to get ready for really really great again things.

But that is not what this blog is about.
It's about patent law. Or more correctly in recent times about unconstitutional fake law which is promulgated as if it is real by almost all involved including the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Fed. Cir.), the federal district courts (DC's), the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO/ptab) and many a fake law professors.

So let's try to review some of the big patent fakeouts of 2016 ...

(1) First there is Ariosa v. Sequenom.

(1.1) All agree that it was a breakthrough discovery.

(1.2) The US Constitution specifically empowers Congress to secure "discoveries".
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

(1.3) Section 100 of the Patent law (Title 35) tells us that:
When used in this title unless the context otherwise indicates - (a) The term "invention" means invention or discovery.
(b) The term "process" means process, art, or method, and includes a new use of a known process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or material.
... (f) The term "inventor" means the individual or, if a joint invention, the individuals collectively who invented or discovered the subject matter of the invention.

(1.4) Section 101 of the Patent law (Title 35) tells us:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

Despite all this guidance from the statutory law, the Fed. Cir panel in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015) found that: ...

Monday, December 5, 2016

Sanity: Prometheus Bound Back to his Rock

Sanity at last: Prometheus Bound Back to his Rock
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Art Unit: 1645 Ex Parte McBride et al 12/377,926
REVERSED

"The facts distinguish the present case from Funk Brothers, where the claims were directed to the mere packaging of a plurality of selected, naturally occurring strains of different bacteria that were mutually non- inhibitive. Here, the individual components are bound together to form an immunogenic unit that is not naturally occurring. Here, the "discovery is not nature's handiwork" and "accordingly it is patentable subject matter under § 101." Diamond v. Chakrabar, 447 U.S. 303, 310 (1980). Here, the polynucleotide (or antibody) and either the solid support or the detectable label are bound together"