Tuesday, May 17, 2016

The Lord Giveth and the Lord Takith it all back (per Lordly Prerogatives)

Just as practitioners in the abstract arts were rejoicing in view of Enfish v. Microsoft, now comes TLI COMMUNICATIONS LLC v. AV AUTOMOTIVE, L.L.C. to take it all back.

The TLI COMMUNICATIONS panel justifies itself as follows: [TBC]

"On its face, representative claim 17 is drawn to the concept of classifying an image and storing the image based on its classification. ... the specification makes clear that the recited physical components merely provide a generic environment in which to carry out the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner. And the specification's emphasis that the present invention "relates to a method for recording, communicating and administering [a] digital image" underscores that claim 17 is directed to an abstract concept. ... Contrary to TLI's arguments on appeal, the claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality"

Wednesday, May 11, 2016

Moonshooting ourselves in the foot

The Moonshot is back!

We are sciencing the heck out of ourselves by convincing others to work for free for the greater good.

The brave new world of conquering them there cancers once and for all is unfolding itself (self-disassembly) in the Median strip of our intellectual super highway.

More to the point, if only "we" all collaborate and freely share, we will surely unleash, unlock, de-clog the dam that has been holding back the inevitable rush of progress including the Moonshot that will cure all cancers once and for all.

It's simply a matter of convincing the evil self-centered scientists to forego their careers for the greater good.
"... to advance discovery and innovation, we need to break down the barriers that are preventing it. ... academics are discouraged from releasing their data for fear of being “scooped” and therefore denied opportunities to publish and advance their careers."

One sees the same meme when talking about those "patent trolls".
Clearly, any non-corporate inventor who holds back on giving away for free the fruits of his or her labors is a hideous, lazy, non-practicing creature (NPE) who lives under a bridge and takes advantage of innocent baby goats.

Big government knows how to deal with such monsters by promising them the moon and then shooting them in their IPRs. (You had it coming oh evil inventors and your Egor-like legal assistants.)

Death to the inventor class. Death to their IP practitioner abetters. Long live "true" innovation.

/end sarcasm --in case you took the end tag to be a universal truth and law of nature

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