|
Authored by: feldegast on Saturday, September 15 2012 @ 05:10 AM EDT |
So they can be fixed
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: feldegast on Saturday, September 15 2012 @ 05:12 AM EDT |
Please make links clickable
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- PJ: re-"Stasis does" [Stasis defined. Where Dynamism should prevail...(FOSS is all about that)] - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 15 2012 @ 07:43 AM EDT
- Bezos on Android: We Like It! - Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, September 15 2012 @ 11:54 AM EDT
- Megapuload - Authored by: symbolset on Saturday, September 15 2012 @ 04:46 PM EDT
- St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank: The Case Against Patents - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 15 2012 @ 05:36 PM EDT
- iPhone 5 Pre-Order Sells Out 20X Faster Than 4 And 4S, Further Highlighting Apple’s Dominance - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 15 2012 @ 06:38 PM EDT
- Karma - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 16 2012 @ 01:14 AM EDT
- Karma - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 16 2012 @ 04:41 AM EDT
- Maybe Apple will buy Sharp? - Authored by: Gringo_ on Sunday, September 16 2012 @ 02:40 PM EDT
- Amazon to Apple: the game starts now - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 15 2012 @ 07:13 PM EDT
- Europeana's Huge Cultural Dataset Opens for Re-use - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 16 2012 @ 03:15 AM EDT
- Did Apple lie again? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 16 2012 @ 09:58 AM EDT
- It's a Win8 chip == it's not good enough to compete with ARM - Authored by: marcosdumay on Sunday, September 16 2012 @ 10:39 AM EDT
- Notes on the implementation of encryption in Android 3.0 - Authored by: albert on Sunday, September 16 2012 @ 04:18 PM EDT
- Ballmer trumpets Microsoft's 'epic year' - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 16 2012 @ 11:22 PM EDT
- Ebook price hike causes friction between publisher and libraries - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 17 2012 @ 01:34 AM EDT
|
Authored by: feldegast on Saturday, September 15 2012 @ 05:13 AM EDT |
Please make links clickable
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Killer whales live on after menopause to protect sons - Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, September 15 2012 @ 07:17 AM EDT
- The time when football fans were hated (The reason behind the Hillsborough cover-up) - Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, September 15 2012 @ 07:27 AM EDT
- There is something magical about Firefox OS - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 15 2012 @ 11:05 AM EDT
- theverge: comments on acer smackdown, very funny - Are they trolls or really this stupid? - Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, September 15 2012 @ 11:25 AM EDT
- Zynga countersues EA for alleged 'anticompetitive' practices - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 15 2012 @ 01:34 PM EDT
- Intel to make Windows only chips - Authored by: symbolset on Saturday, September 15 2012 @ 06:49 PM EDT
- Update on Android vs Aliyun - Andy Rubin's posts and comments - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 15 2012 @ 09:45 PM EDT
- A new twist for an old game - Prisoner's Dilemma - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 15 2012 @ 10:40 PM EDT
- Compiling.tv - As exciting as it sounds - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 16 2012 @ 02:25 AM EDT
- Eye test provides new insight into your neurological future - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 16 2012 @ 07:06 AM EDT
- Apple vs Samsung - Authored by: JamesK on Sunday, September 16 2012 @ 08:22 AM EDT
- Netflix exec: Canada’s broadband caps “almost a human rights violation” - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 16 2012 @ 11:17 PM EDT
- Microsoft: a devices-and-services company - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 17 2012 @ 01:20 AM EDT
- From Designer Pants To Design Patents - The Yoga Wear Wars - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 17 2012 @ 02:14 AM EDT
- guess who's software ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 17 2012 @ 03:06 AM EDT
- Microsoft warns Kenya against Open Source .. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 17 2012 @ 06:41 AM EDT
- The case for Open Source .. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 17 2012 @ 06:49 AM EDT
|
Authored by: feldegast on Saturday, September 15 2012 @ 05:14 AM EDT |
Thank you for your support
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PolR on Saturday, September 15 2012 @ 05:51 AM EDT |
Why do we need the Federal Circuit?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kuroshima on Saturday, September 15 2012 @ 08:01 AM EDT |
This is a serious question, can a lower court, like a
district or federal court simply disagree and ignore Supreme
Court rulings, legally?
I understand that they will always try to nibble around the
edges, slowly eroding the verdict, but this looks more like a
frontal assault. Can they do that? What measures can the
SCotUS take when this happens? Is there any official
reprimand that they can take?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Enforcement? - Authored by: lnuss on Saturday, September 15 2012 @ 08:46 AM EDT
- Enforcement? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 15 2012 @ 09:26 AM EDT
- Enforcement? - Authored by: PolR on Saturday, September 15 2012 @ 10:33 AM EDT
- That they haven't - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 15 2012 @ 11:52 AM EDT
- That they haven't - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 15 2012 @ 01:13 PM EDT
- Enforcement? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 15 2012 @ 01:18 PM EDT
- Enforcement? - Authored by: red floyd on Saturday, September 15 2012 @ 11:14 PM EDT
- Enforcement? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 16 2012 @ 02:57 AM EDT
- Enforcement? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 17 2012 @ 12:35 AM EDT
- Enforcement? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 15 2012 @ 11:51 AM EDT
|
Authored by: BuggyFunBunny on Saturday, September 15 2012 @ 09:43 AM EDT |
From the Right Wing Presidents, by any chance? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jheisey on Saturday, September 15 2012 @ 10:15 AM EDT |
The federal circuit judges responsible for this judgement would be failures if
they instead worked as computer programmers. They appear incapable of logical
thought. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kawabago on Saturday, September 15 2012 @ 01:49 PM EDT |
Maybe that will finally get through to the appeals court. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jvillain on Saturday, September 15 2012 @ 02:27 PM EDT |
The harder the Federal circuit pushes in one direction the more likely it is
that Supreme Court will push back. There is nothing that will force the Supreme
Court to take a hard look at the over all effect of all this like the junior
league gone wild. We may finally get some real harsh precedents in place.
There is no chance that the SC will bow to the will of the Federal circuit
because that would make the CS impotent not just in this instance but all and
most of the Judges on the SC already have woken up to the madness that has been
unleashed.
It sucks that we will have to waste another year getting to a better place but
the odds are that we will be left better off after the dust settles than we are
now. At least until the politicians weigh in and make it a mess again. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 15 2012 @ 08:49 PM EDT |
And it is a huge issue, and not just with software. Take Johnson Matthey's
patent on a continuously regenerating trap ( PDF brochure
here),
which locked up a natural process. No one in the industry had
the money to take
this to court, and so the patent was considered in the
United States at least,
valid until it expired.
I could explain the exact mechanism of how
the device works, but most
people here probably wouldn't understand the
chemistry involved.
The simple explanation is that all that JM did
was move the production of
NO2 by oxidation of NO with O2 slightly upstream in
the exhaust system.
Every device produced before the CRT patent was issued
produced NO2 in
the exact same way. The reason that production of NO2 (which is
approximately 10 times more poisonous than carbon monoxide - check the
OSHA
exposure limits if you don't believe me) is important is that it reacts
with C6
(elemental carbon) and the results of the reaction are N2 and CO2,
which would
have been the final result in atmosphere
anyway.
Wayne
http://madhatter.ca
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Sunday, September 16 2012 @ 05:16 AM EDT |
Then I read the opinion of Judge Prost and he says pretty much what I was going
to say.
If I have understood the invention, it substitutes the
principle of exchange of contracts by two conveyancing solicitors with a single,
shared, trusted legal entity. Using two trusted solicitors is how houses have
been sold in the UK since before I was... since before computers were... for a
very, very long time.
I pulled this from the majority
opinion:These patents cover a computerized trading platform for
exchanging obligations in which a trusted third party settles obligations
between a first and second party so as to eliminate “settlement
risk.”
The question I would ask is whether a computer is the
trusted third party or whether that would be a person? If it is a person (it
would be a qualified solicitor in UK conveyancing) then the invention is to use
one or more computers instead of quill pen, ink and face to face meetings. It is
a legal financial process using computers to allow people to carry out the steps
of the process. The computers are not required for reasons of speed, legal
certitude or personal trust.
If a computer is the trusted third party,
then there must be a set of claims about that computer that engenders that
trust, for it to be an invention. If the computer is owned by either party then
no such trust will be engendered. Does the patent make that clear? If the
computer is trusted because it is owned and operated by a trusted third party
then it is the third party and not the computer which is trusted.
As
Judge Prost said:The Court once again iterated that “the prohibition
against patenting abstract ideas cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit
the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.” Prometheus,
(quoting Bilski,)
As PJ said, the abstract idea of getting one or
more trusted third parties to enact a legal or a financial transaction is prior
art and it is prior art from long before the writing of the US Constitution. It
is an abstract idea that does not stop being an abstract idea by being narrowed
to a particular subset of financial transactions (see, Bilski).
Further narrowing to a particular technological environment does not
stop it being an abstract idea (again, see Bilski).
If the abstract
idea required a computer of a specific form to create a trusted third party then
that might be a patentable machine. However, putting ones trust in a computer
rather than the programmer and the computer owner and operator does not
constitute a discovery of innovation: it is a discovery of
stupidity.
Once the narrowing to financial transactions and then
further to on-a-computer are dismissed as being without innovation, 'the
application, considered as a whole, contain[s] no patentable invention'
(Flook).
Benson is a clear parallel:The concept of hedging,
described in claim 1 and reduced to a mathematical formula in claim 4, is an
unpatentable abstract idea, just like the algorithms at issue in Benson and
Flook . Allowing petitioners to patent risk hedging would pre-empt use of this
approach in all fields, and would
effectively grant a monopoly over an abstract
idea.
Petitioners’ remaining claims are broad examples of how hedging
can be used in commodities and energy markets. Flook established that limiting
an abstract idea to one field of use or adding token postsolution components did
not make the concept patentable. That is exactly what the remaining claims in
petitioners’ application do. These claims attempt to patent the use of the
abstract idea of hedging risk in the energy market and then instruct the use of
well-known random analysis techniques to help establish some of the inputs into
the equation. Indeed, these claims add even less to the underlying abstract
principle than the invention in Flook did, for the Flook invention was at
least directed to the narrower domain of signaling dangers in operating a
catalytic converter.
The Alice patent does not even reduce the
abstract idea of a trading transaction to a formula that needs the computer for
the purpose of speed of analysis. The Alice patent does not achieve anything by
using the computer other than as a platform for the transaction. It's a bit like
buying something on the internet.
The concept of hedging, described in claim
1 and reduced to a mathematical formula in claim 4, is an unpatentable abstract
idea, just like the algorithms at issue in Benson and Flook . Allowing
petitioners to patent risk hedging would pre-empt use of this approach in all
fields, and would
effectively grant a monopoly over an abstract idea.
--- Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 16 2012 @ 06:56 AM EDT |
I think part of the problem is that the SC has been
straddling the fence on this important issue, they have not
come out loud, strong and clear on software patents, also on
patents on just abstract methods.
This is suspect to me, and its was actually predictable that
this was going to happen. And I am sure the SC foresaw it,
after all: these gentlemen are surely NOT naive.
I also remember reading somewhere the SC consider the actual
making of policy a matter for congress, not something they
see as their jobs. So what they in effect did was give this
opening to the Federal Circuit, not sure that they intended
it, but they must have seen it coming.
The next question that the SC are going to have to ask
themselves however is: if it is the Federal Circuits job to
make rulings that promote ignorance of the law. And if
they really can afford to tolerate that kind of outright
defiance.
It may unfortunately be just a political game strategy that
they are playing.
The gut feeling I am getting is that the judicial system is
corrupted.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jacks4u on Sunday, September 16 2012 @ 11:56 AM EDT |
From Googles Amicus brief...
At least for high-tech companies like
amici, the greatest source of uncertainty today is not Mayo; it is whether any
given panel of this Court will apply the Mayo standard and
guideposts.
...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 17 2012 @ 06:29 AM EDT |
Ah, the good old Moby Dick
Support Device, based on a comment from BitOBear
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Careful now! - Authored by: Ian Al on Monday, September 17 2012 @ 11:21 AM EDT
- BitOBear - Authored by: Wol on Monday, September 17 2012 @ 01:13 PM EDT
- Careful now! - Authored by: cbc on Wednesday, September 19 2012 @ 08:40 PM EDT
|
|
|
|