Embracing the Spandex Inquisition

Breathe deeply my child.
"Direct" your thoughts to inner
beauty and abstraction.

Dream my child.
Perchance mediate on the simplicity of the universe.

One need only to float over to yonder coffee shop, find some equally meditative and de-stressed nerds sipping on their mocha-java, give onto them your abstract idea; utter the magic Star Trek words, "Make it so"; and jiggery pokery dock, it shall be done in just a few turns of the clock.

Genric computers abound.
Generic "coders" are all around.
Conventional is as convention doth.
Fundamentals are always off the cuff.
Hard it cannot be.
The Olympus nine have insightfully channeled that to me.

Oh for what does a techno-knowledgeable man forsake,
by giving up on science, hard work and 90% perspiration?

And embracing 'stead,
the abstractly spanding Spandex Inquisition?

Round and round we go.
No stopping now.
A tissue. A tissue.
We all fall down.
(Thanks to the Mount Olympus clowns.)

Technological is as Techno-logical does

VERSATA DEVELOPMENT GROUP v. SAP AMERICA, INC. [OPINION]

The term "logical" appears in one of our favorite "buzzzz" words of the 21st century: technological.

So exactly how "logical" are our adjudicative and legislative bodies (PTAB, CAFC, SCOTUS, Congress) in dealing with all the latest "technological" innovations?

Forrest Gump's mamma, she knew.

David Hrcik's "rant" over at PO shows he knows.

That kid in the "Sixth Sense" movie, he knew.
It's called the Dunning–Kruger effect.
People who think they are supremely smart are often supremely ignorant of their supreme incompetence.

post script: Patent Docs take on VERSTA

What's in your Walrus?

INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL

No harm in asking.
What's in your walrus?

Or are you yourself, abstractly speaking of course, "the" walrus?

We are not saying that in end of day, all the IV patents are "good" in terms of 102, 103 112.

However, when an Article III "appeals" court of limited jurisdiction gets to pontificate as a "matter of law" on "abstract ideas", quartering and drawing of claims, "generic computer elements" and "meaningfully significantly more" alchemy, jabberwhocky and jiggery-pokery; something has gone terribly wrong with due process and rational decision making. What's in your walrus? Are you the egg man?

A Kayak in WonderWaters

SOURCE SEARCH TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. KAYAK.COM., INC.

No. 1:2011cv03388 - Document 280 (D.N.J. 2015)

It is left to the reader to click on the above link and download a PDF copy of the DC (Article III court) decision.

But as you do, you might want to answer for yourselves some questions:

1) Does an Article III court have jurisdictional authority to decide as a matter of law so many questions "rooted" in technology and thus the facts of the technology>

Jiggery-Pokery Mock

Jiggery-Pokery Mock,
Three blind mice
Ran up the Clock,
The clock struck one,
And two got away
With major IPR violations.

That one is just too funny; that Scalia J. says SCOTUS cares.
That SCOTUS should stick to the letter of the law as legislated by Congress pursuant to the Constitution

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook,Daily Show Video Archive

"Calling the Court's reasoning "absurd," "interpretive jiggery-pokery" and "pure applesauce," Scalia said the law was clear -- and accused the Court of rewriting it once again to get the result it wanted. ... Scalia said, "We should start calling this law SCOTUScare." ... And one more putdown: “Words no longer have meaning if an exchange that is NOT established by a state is [nonetheless abstractly] ‘established by a state.'” ... Scalia has gone to the pantry before for analogies. The “sheer applesauce” reference in Thursday’s King v. Burwell dissent follows along the lines of a 2007 dissent, in which Scalia referred to an opinion by Justice Stephen Breyer as “pure applesauce.”

Does SCOTUS care?
When it comes to inventors and 35 USC 101
There is total contempt by Court.

Take "Alice" (away please).
The letter of the law says:
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.

MockingJayBirdWhocky Games

In the
beginning there was "Alice"
Then came [Game of] Internet Patents

’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
“Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!”

Spanish Inquisition Jumps the Patentability Shark

Let's break it down
into very simple insect bites.

In Nature there are no magic flying
syringes intelligently swarming in
to sample maternal blood
and bring it back to the lab.

... so that non-cellular components can be isolated
and tested for fetal nucleotides
and the nucleotides can be amplified
and analyzed/

Yet the CAFC has finally jumped the shark
in ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS, INC v. SEQUENOM, INC.

By declaring it all to be natural phenomenon and abstract concept.

When does the anti-science Inquisition stop?

When do sane minds say enough is enough?

When do a courageous few stand up and say we're not going to take it anymore?

SEQUENOM's claims cover a physical process.
It is new.
It is useful.
It is not "naturally" carried out by Nature without intervention by the hand of man and the ingenuity of his mind.

The King's Inquisition panels wear no clothes.
Yet they have no shame.
They parade proudly carrying only smoke and mirages.
Return oh demons to the twisted abyss from which yea arose.

Post Script:
The implication of the SEQUENOM rationale
If you have a brilliant new idea that involves the use of gravity
and you implement that idea with "conventional" gears, levers, pulleys, etc.
then no patent (or soup) for you
because your claims are directed to natural phenomenon and you "merely" use conventional means for achieving it!!!
Read more here: Sequenom’s testing is not patentable: uses conventional techniques, not innovative