AIA 3-16-2013 Willkomen

35 U.S.C. 102
Conditions for patentability; novelty.
(a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.
--A person shall be entitled to a patent unless--

(1) the claimed invention
was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale,
or otherwise available to the public
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or

(2) the claimed invention
was described in a patent issued under section 151,
or in an application for patent
published or deemed published under section 122(b),
in which the patent or application, as the case may be,
names another inventor and
was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.

(b) EXCEPTIONS.-- ...

Mr. Gorbachev, We too want to ... Tear Down Our Patent System Walls ... just as you guys did ... so we can HARMonize with you ... be like you

Brick by brick,
and mortar layer
by next layer,
the US Congress is tearing down
the treasured US Patent System
so that we can be in "HARMony"
with them who don't value inventors and their inventions.

So that we can be like ...
Mr. Gorbachev.

So that we can be like ...
the former and collapsed, USSR.

So that we can return to
the Dark ages,
force our Galileo's to recant,
become like ...
other backward nations
who devalue, discard and denigrate
their inventor subpopulation
(North Korea, ...).

Bill Targeting Patent Trolls Could Be First Nail in the Coffin

Trailblazing "inventors" are fakes. The "real" contributors are them who copy the inventors and call that "entrepreneurship" and "INNOVATION".

Obama: Patent and Inventors-hater in Chief?

Jump to time point 16:03/47.03 to see the Q&A

Has Obama become
the Patent/
Inventors-hater
in Chief?

Obama Calls Patent Trolls Extortionists That 'Hijack' People's Ideas

And TECH DIRT is just lovin' it:
from the TD didn't-expect-that dept

Let's roll back the selective amnesia tapes:

Sept. 16, 2011: Obama praises and signs the new & improved America Don't Invent No More Reform Act (ADINM-RA; a.k.a. the Leahy-Smith Patent Act of 2011)

He says: "“I am pleased to sign the America Invents Act. This much-needed reform will speed up the patent process so that innovators and entrepreneurs can turn a new invention into a business as quickly as possible, ... Here in America, our creativity has always set us apart, and in order to continue to grow our economy, we need to encourage that spirit wherever we find it.””

Yes we can
Out-innovate
Out-BS
Out-DoubleSpeak
Any other greatest exceptional nation on this planet,
or better yet
in the whole freakin' Galaxy!

Einstein returns from dead
to brow beat Obama
on his Uncle Tom-foolery
re patents

The
America Don't No More
Patent Act
blow by
anti-inventor
blow

More ....

Bonus video:
Non-lawyer teaches you how to shoot your own IP rights in the foot
Click here for your I want to shoot my foot off kit

Doctors of Voodoo (Economics) Debate the Which Came First Question

Which came first?

The trickled-down chicken pot pie (a great "innovation" for its time), or
the technology-incubating tooth fairy egg? (Which first?) And did patents help in any of it? Did patents send the right kind of message to them who do the inventing?
Inquiring economists (don't) want to know:
Read it here: ...

The Fed's Case Against Patents

(a PDF position paper ... click to read)



Huff Post short story take on the Fed's
Kill-all-Patents Paper:

The paper ... argues that the patent system is damaging public health by raising the cost of prescription drugs, while failing to generate a plethora of innovative new treatments for life-saving diseases.

Hoping to improve patent quality, Boldrin and Levine say, is a lost cause.
"Why use band-aids to staunch a major wound?" Boldrin and Levine wrote. "Economists fought for decades -- ultimately with considerable success -- to reduce restrictions on international trade. A similar approach, albeit less slow, should be adopted to phase out patents [altogether]."

====================================
More details out of the Kill-all-Patents Paper
... an analytic look
PAGE 5:
Fed Fanta-thought #1.1:

"The market for software and hardware may be viewed as a ... special case. Generally the fixed cost of producing [already-invented] software [(as opposed to "developing" it)] is low ... This, however, pales in comparison to the cost of developing new medicines [(as opposed to "producing" them)]– which is estimated to have a present value of closer to 1 billion USD – the same way it does in front of that for developing [as opposed to "producing"] a new model of automobile ... "

((The Steppy smells a rotting fish here: Observe that the above paragraph compares apples with grapefruits. "Developing" and "producing" (mass producing) are not one and the same thing. Sneaky fellas them are at the Fed. Hee hee ha. Click Read More to see more analysis.))

Framing an isolated chemical compound as a warm, fuzzy and "human" thingy-ma-gene

The U.S. Supreme Court on Nov. 30, 2012 granted cert. for only one
warm and fuzzy question:
1. Are human genes patentable?

The chemists among us are left to ponder:
(1) What makes any given chemical compound "human"?
(2) What makes any given chemical compound a "gene"?
(3) How do I prevent my chemical compound from being pejoratively labeled as "human" and a "gene"?

Brief by Myriad in Opposition to Grant of Cert. here

No Inventor's Good Deed Goes Unpunished

'You must also pay the lawyer fees of the trespasser'.

What more can an appeals court do to twist the dagger deeper into the heart of a stabbed inventor?

We speak here of INVENTIO AG v. OTIS ELEVATOR (Fed. Cir. Decided: November 27, 2012) ["Costs to Otis"]

And the dagger to the heart?

That comes with an "appeals" court deciding de novo issues of fact including, how did the person of ordinary skill in the art think at the time of invention.

The jury found in favor of the inventor, that the invention was not obvious.

Au contraire says the "appeals" court:
"So how could it not “logically ... commend[] itself to [the ’094] inventor’s attention in considering his problem” of seamlessly controlling access to elevators? ... We need not decide the question because, based on the jury charge, a reasonable juror could not conclude that the RFID prior art was nonanalogous. ... Because the jury should have found the RFID prior art analogous, the conclusion becomes inescapable that ’094 patent is a clear example of a “combination of familiar elements according to known methods [yielding] no more than . . . predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., ..."

Another Victory for Our War on Science

Glorious Patriots:
Our War on Science Continues
with fresh news of grand victories on all fronts!

Today's victory story comes to you thanks to the efforts of those good folk stting on the bench of the US Court of Appeals that reviews patents.
Thank heavens they know abstraction when they see it:
PERKINELMER v. INTEMA

Need we even quote their ever vigilant insights?

Process claims fail this requirement [for "something more"] if, apart from the ineligible concept, they contain nothing more than “well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously engaged in by researchers in the field.” Id. Because they merely describe the ineligible concept, amounting to a claim on the concept, such claims run afoul of section 101. That is the case here.

And note how unscientific and foolish are the clown inventors:

Intema responds that the claims are directed to a specific medical test, not to an abstract method. Intema contends that the machine-or-transformation test is satisfied by the “assaying” measurement because the sample is chemically transformed. Intema also believes that the measurement of an ultrasound scan involves the transformation of data into a visual depiction

Oh clever inventors and your dangerously devious lawyers, do you honestly think you can fool us?

Since Intema’s claims recite mental processes and natural laws, we must decide if Intema added enough to the statements of ineligible subject matter to direct the claims, not to the ineligible concepts themselves, but to applications of those concepts. We think not.

WE THINK NOT

Can any one liner capture our essence better than this?

WE THINK NOT

=======================

Mother Nature: She be a Giver of Laws.
Inventors: They be abusive takers.
Nature: Seen through the eyes of transformative metaphors: