In a "Nova Nation", energy; for lack of a better term,
is produced
by the incantation of
innovative words.
Sen. Murkowski (at 29:57): "Let's use our ingenuity to advance ... an all-of-the above approach ... spend more on innovation"
FULL COMMITTEE HEARING: The Government's Role in Energy Innovation (SD-36 --the meeting starts at 25:47 into the video, so click there to view. "About" the Committee is here.)
Two Smarter-than-a-5th-Grader
words appear in this post's title:
"vicarious" and "innovator".
If you recall your high school SAT study guide, one of the meanings associated with "vicarious" is that of "delegating" to others (to your vicar, if you are king) an accomplishment that you later pretend to have had yourself.
Our public discourse is filled with vicarious "we" talk.
Example:
"If we are to remain the strongest nation on Earth, we must remain the most innovative nation on Earth"
--a 2012 US Presidential candidate.
Another example:
“None of us can predict with certainty what the next big industry will be, or where the new jobs will come from. Thirty years ago, we couldn’t know that something called the Internet would lead to an economic revolution. What we can do – what America does better than anyone – is spark the creativity and imagination of our people. We are the nation that put cars in driveways and computers in offices; the nation of Edison and the Wright brothers; of Google and Facebook. In America, innovation doesn’t just change our lives. It’s how we make a living.”
--President Barack Obama, The State of the Union, 1/25/11
who believe "innovation"
naturally grows on a forest
full of many fruitful trees,
all placed there by
the "ingenuity"-rich "we".
They believe that a band of
terrifying "trolls"
then run amok through these forests,
plucking the otherwise "naturally" occurring fruits
and hording the same for their greedy selves.
[W]e have created a [broken] patent system that gives innovators a temporary monopoly overwhat they create, which encourages them to hoard their knowledge, lest they help a competitor.
--Joseph Stiglitz
For you see, there is no "inventor" inside of "inNOvation".
It is the ingenious "WE" who vicariously create all the "inNOvation".
"Inventors" are merely greedy hoarding trolls who take false credit for what the ingenious "WE" vicariously created through mental manipulation of their robot bodies.
They deserve nothing.
"WE", the vicarious "innovators" deserve it all.
Bwaaahaha.
(... post is still under construction)
This week the number 5 weighs heavy
in US patent law.
May 5th (Cinco de Mayo) will mark roughly 5 years and 5 days since the infamous KSR v. Teleflex decision.
The (AIA) 'Seeds of Chucky' revealed their true colors this week ...
It was a fab five who rendered the bombastic Bilski decision (though it could have been much worse had the more anti-inventor other 4 had their way).
And then we have the newest creme de la creme of patent logic signed by all 9 of the anti-inventor Amigos: Mayo v. Prometheus (MVP) ....
Oh to have been that proverbial fly on the wall and listened in as the 9 Amigos deliberated over the fate of pharama in the MvP star chamber.
Perhaps it went like this (a fictional dramatization)
Chief Justice Roberts: Sonia, you used to be married to a patent attorney, right? What the heck is a patent any way?
Associate Justice Scalia: I think I can help on that score because this history buff and medium does pay attention. Each night before I go to sleep, I talk things over with our Founding Fathers. I mentioned to them this business about not letting physicians bleed their patients as they wish.
Need I say that the FF's (Founding Fathers) were almost rolling out of their resting places? Why it is imperative and part of the Natural Laws that a doctor has every right to excise the harmful humors from an ill body. I say we put a stop to this outrage!
Associate Justice Kennedy: Whoa. Hold up there my brother Anton. I too am a medium or moderate of sorts. While I don't nightly consult with our FF's, I fear we may be going to far and too fast. Perhaps at the end of the day we need to outlaw the use of patents for anything and everything having to do with medicine. But at least for now, can't we come up with a more measured approach? I liked what you said about the "Natural Laws". And I liked what Sonia said about a patent claim reciting to an audience. Can we somehow combine those ideas and come up with a compromise?
Associate Justice Thomas: [nods head in agreement]
Associate Justice Breyer: While I am a bleeding heart liberal, I must in this case agree with my artery bleeding brother Scalia. We cannot let this patent law stuff interfere with a doctor's right to treat his patients as he wills, be it with 18th century medicine or something slightly more modern. I think I see a way to combine this idea of "Natural Laws" and of what a "patent claim" recites to its audience so as to reign in inventors who claim too broad of a taking from the public's right to Obama care. Why don't you guys let me chisel out the first draft? If you like it, sign it and put the final blame on me. OK?
Associate Justice Alito: My comic sense tells me I should leave my comedian's routine out of this.
Associate Justice Breyer: I'll include that notion in there as well.
Outcome: And so it came to pass that the Supreme Court wisely ruled that a patent claim is something that recites to an audience of doctors what the invention is and when it recites only "Natural Laws" and "routine" other things then it fails to genuinely recite that extra something significantly "more" which raises it to the level of deserving and being "eligible" for a patent.
Public acclaim: Moreover, the enlightened public was full of praise for the clear guidance that the 9 Amigos had once again cast over the confusing land of patenthood. (Click on image to the left)
to be continued ...
SubTitle: Mayo v. Prometheus or How I stopped worrying and learned to love the Idiocracy)
(The above first link is to all things Mayo v. Promo (a Google search). This following link: here provides the decision in HTML accessible format as opposed to PDF format here: Mayo v. Promo. Left click on image at right to see list of Briefs filed before the US Supreme Court.) Click on summary bullet number to jump to section.
It is the patriotic duty of an informed public to loudly protest when a governmental body, even the US Supreme Court, comes out with a Stinko-da-Mayo result such as this one.
Overview: Sadly, what this post will show is that:
|
• 2. The US SCt does not know, or intentionally misinforms on what function a "patent claim" is supposed to perform, • 3. The US SCt does not know, or intentionally misinforms on what a "method step" is, • 4. The US SCt does not know, or intentionally misinforms on what a "Law of Nature" is • 5. ... (to be continued/updated) |
Why even care?
Because soon they will be hanging a new BANNER,
"NoT-BIO-DH"
draped across the entrance to the SCt. Building:
(Not To Be Invented Or Discovered Here)
1) A ductile metal bent into shape retains its shape
2) If you bump into a sharp point, you will bleed
American inventors are being slowly bled to death by one unkind SCt. cut and then a thousand more like it:
Benson,
Bilski,
Prometheus, ... and what is next?
Perhaps a blog post that sums up the situation most succinctly (for patent experts) is Patent Doc's lament: "We have met our 'Benson' and its name is 'Mayo' " (paraphrased). For more Patent Doc laments, see here
__________________________ Detailed analysis:
In the "Legal Universe", when the US Supreme court speaks, its words trump the very "Laws of Nature".
On the other hand, in the more humble world of "Science" (should you even be so lame brained as to believe in that most-obvious of "hoaxes" /sarcasm),
(1) Mother Nature always bats last,
(3) is at bat throughout the almost-endless baseball game.
In that game, she often moves in a way that blocks scientists from seeing exactly how (or getting to understand exactly how) Mother Nature bats.
If lucky, they get a glimpse of the ball's trajectory after Nature has cracked her bat against it.
Then they go at it by making up stories, rules, abstract theories about what they think Mother was doing, how she was doing it and what she will do if confronted in the future with similar inputs. (The last part is called predictive modeling --calling the ball's trajectory even before Mother Nature bats its out of the ball park).
Mother doesn't care one owl's hoot about what the scientists' abstract theories say.
She does her thing irrespective of the noises the monkeys make amongst themselves.
Mother has no plans of coming down from the mountain top with stone tablets in hand, merely for the sake of proclaiming her "laws" to one tribe of monkeys or another. No one knows if her laws can even be expressed in a manner that the human mind can grasp. That possibility is one that Mother does not fret over.
Stepping boldly forward into this arena there come the "Magnificent Nine" (M9). These 'Wisdom-spewing' lords and ladies arrive gowned in black robes and steeped in learned chanting of laws of the 'legalized mind'.
They stare unblinkingly at Mother Nature as she stands in the batter's box. They throw their curve straight at her face, fully expecting Mother to step back and to show some humble deference before the awesome powers of the "Magnificent Nine" (M9). They utter legal-eagle incantations about Her "laws". They fail to see that she steps back not. Their curve balls vaporize into hot air before even coming close to Mother Nature's batting position.
Read more ... here Read the Supreme Court opinon itself by clicking the below: MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES v. PROMETHEUS LABORATORIES, INC.Link to the engrossed version of HR 1249
Link to judiciary.house.gov page for HR 1249
Some random bits of herring:
‘‘§ 115. Inventor’s oath or declaration
‘‘(b) REQUIRED STATEMENTS.—An oath or declaration under subsection (a) shall contain statements that—
‘‘(2) such individual believes himself or herself to be the original inventor or an original joint inventor of a claimed invention in the application.
‘‘(c) ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS.
—The Director may specify additional information relating to the inventor and the invention that is required to be included in an oath or declaration under subsection (a).
‘‘(2) COPIES OF OATHS, DECLARATIONS, STATEMENTS, OR ASSIGNMENTS.—
... the Director may require that a copy of the executed oath or declaration, the substitute statement, or the assignment filed in connection with the earlier-filed application be included in the later-filed application.
SEC. 10. FEE SETTING AUTHORITY.
(a) FEE SETTING.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Director may set or adjust by rule any fee established, authorized, or charged under title 35, United States Code, or the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq.), for any services performed by or materials furnished by, the Office, subject to paragraph (2).
‘‘(b) MAINTENANCE FEES.—
‘‘(C) Eleven years and 6 months after grant, $4,110.
SEC. 33. LIMITATION ON ISSUANCE OF PATENTS.
(a) LIMITATION.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Passed the House of Representatives June 23, 2011.
Over at the IP WatchDog site, I posted the below somewhat irreverent proposal:
|
|
place each one outside the 3 point basketball circle
relative to the elephant and put a Geiger counter or compass in the hand of
each blind Justice whereby each senses the “spin” around the Bilski claims but none of them actually touches and “gets
it” directly (by hand or even with a blind man's walking stick).
In this hypothesized cartoon, one Justice would be saying, “My Geiger counter says it ‘feels’
that the Bilski elephant is too “abstract”. I say the physical steps in Bilski
were never there to begin with and certainly I don’t see them.” 
Another would say, “My sundial is
foreshadowed by an ancient sun and indicates that the Founding Fathers would have frowned on this sort of progress.
The business of patents is not business –irrespective of whatever the word
“business” might mean”. A third would say, “My MRI spin machine indicates ... (Read more) |
Outgoing Supreme Court Justice Stevens failed to garner a majority in Bilski v. Kappos. (Thank goodness.)
Today's decision was instead authored by a Kennedy-led "consensus" majority. The compromise-driven coalition majority clung to a mere 16 pages of veiled revelation so as to not lay bare their internal disagreements and foggy apprehensions about what clueless footholds might lie under the swampy murk of the patent eligibility world.
As usual, lay folk will want to know: What does it (the Bilski v. Kappos decision) mean?
Here are some semi-cryptic answers:
1. MOT has been whipped into apple sauce --still good for the gander, but not gravy for the patent-killing goose
2. The concrete sidewalk on State Street is demolished
3. Opaqueness is the new transparency
4. Bilski is a teacher and his claims "explain", tutor and educate.
5. "Invention" is to be divined through the eyes of the beholding judge/ examiner and not in accordance with claims read as a whole
6. As for Bilski himself and poor Yorick, alas we knew them well but they must hang.
Of course, to "make apple sauce" of something means to mash it up, to run it through the blender so that the original is no longer recognizable.
Bilski aficionados know that "MOT" stands for the Machine-Or-Transformation test, This was the eligibility test put forth by the lower US appeal court, the Federal Circuit. (See In re Bilski (Oct. 30, 2008)) as being the "exclusive" and only test for eligibility of a "process" claim under section 101.
The US Supreme Court has today mashed up the Fed. Cir.'s MOT test such that it is no longer usable for knocking down another's patent or application.
Also, Mott's happens to be a brand name of an apple sauce.
To say that MOT is no longer gravy for the patent-killing goose means that although MOT has been de-fanged as a test for knocking down someone's business/ software patent under 35 USC 101, the other edge of the MOT double edged sword remains sharp and wield-able. Patent owners can still use MOT to validate their patent claims under section 101.
Opaqueness is the new transparency.
What does that mean?
The US Supreme Court today "affirmed" the Fed. Circuit decision.
But in actuality, they reversed it.
Welcome to the new Mis-Information Age where words mean the opposite of what they say. Alice of the Wonderland Mirror would be right proud. More to follow. ... here
In the mean time if you wish to see what other bloggers are saying about Bilski, here is a link to such other views.
