|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 10 2012 @ 09:19 PM EDT |
Although I don't expect the original poster to answer with the correct answer
(if, and I highly suspect it's a he, he chooses to answer at all):
Math is
exempt under Patent Law because the words of Patent Law extend far beyond that
which was quoted by the OP! It is encompassed in such documents as the
Constitution - where it, along with it's limitations, originates.
So by
isolating a small portion of Patent Law with which to base one's arguments on
with regards whether particular subject matter should be patentable - is a tad
misleading.
Reminds me of the Patent Lawyers who expressed a certain
level of disgust at the Supremes' decision, suggesting that the Federal Circuit
will overrule the Supremes.
It still boggles my mind that a Lawyer would
suggest such a thing given the actual hierarchy of the Courts. Mind you.... it
does make a certain amount of sense when one considers:
If they're having so
much difficulty understanding the hierarchy that places the Supremes over the
Federal Circuit... that would certainly explain why they have such difficulties
with the more complicated technology they're asked to review.
Nah... they
passed the bar exam... they can't really be as dumb as to actually believe in
the Federal Circuit over-ruling the Supremes. So the more logic answer to them
saying that is:
They tipped their hands. They've been manipulating the
Federal Circuit for so long, they plan on continuing to do so confident they
will succeed.
I use "manipulating" in this sense to outline the confusing
logic they keep trying to pass as their arguments as to why everything -
including math - should be patentable. It's like a lot of the arguments BSF
provided on behalf of SCOG:
It's so twisted, and the person sounds so
sincere, that there must be something there. But upon much closer inspection
where you slice through the deliberate obfuscation and contradictory logic, you
find there really is nothing.
I sure wish more in the Federal Circuit would
start seeing the claims for what they really are.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 11 2012 @ 07:01 AM EDT |
Any mathematical proof is trivial
I'm so glad, that
explains why the proof to Fermat's Last Theorem didn't take years to find!?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- term of art - Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, July 11 2012 @ 12:40 PM EDT
|
|
|
|
