As every student of patent law knows, inventors were required to submit a working miniature model of their invention along with their patent application until the late nineteenth-century. Famous models include those of such iconic inventions as the Whitney cotton gin, the Singer sewing machine, and the Morse telegraph register. A substantial number of those models still exist, although virtually all are in private collections.
The Smithsonian Institute recently opened a a two-year exhibition of patent models from the collection of Alan Rothchild, offering everyone an opportunity to view examples of these models. Entitled "Inventing a Better Mousetrap: Patent Models from the Rothschild Collection," the curated exhibit runs until November 3, 2013. If you are in Washington D.C., it may be worth your while to wander over to the American Art Museum to check it out.
Bonus: the Rothchild Peterson Patent Model Museum website has a page explaining what the models are and linking to the patents themselves.
AI, I find it somewhat tragic that you actually believe the drivel you write.
OMG, this entire 300 thread is one you hijackoffed for your own paid narcissistic pleasure. I made the comment to rebuke 6, for his iron age reference to patent models. And lo and behold you managed to force in your favorite anti business method agenda and warped Bilskian view of the law.
Then you manage to elbow your way into an exchange between myself and inane on history, with totally irrelevant comments that again led you to spewing your delusions on Bilski and 101.
And of course your outrageous attempts to misrepresent and twist actual law provoked the usual ire of the fine legal scholars that read this blog. And thus you achieved your ultimate troll goal.
And though you have been thoroughly castigated and bastardized for shilling, forced limp into a submission that your boldly asserted facts are merely your own fantastical theories and wishful thinking, you will start the whole game again during the next 101 article.
You will forget all about the beating you took here and once again say Bilski banned business methods, made the MOT the exclusive test and all the rest of your BS agenda anti patent agenda. All while not answering a single line of questioning on the law or facts.
Such is the online persona and ethics of a poster called Ned Heller
Ned,
My lectures are very few and far between, and very much deserved by those I lecture to, as I only respond to those that have stepped over the line (including you, as when you insult me rather than answer my simple questions).
Now this post is a lecture – one you deserve.
I really don’t care if you think I am someone else or not (Malcolm’s disease of seeing blood spots everywhere obviously infects you), you have no right to be rude when I merely ask simple questions – and then you have the audacity to complain that others are rude. Further, while MaxDrei is not a rude person, the other two posters you “glorify” are without a doubt the two most rudest posters on this blog.
My simple questions engender debate because often times it is the simple questions that are most telling. Especially when people cannot answer those simple questions, or feel threatened by them.
Do you feel threatened by my simple questions?
Your rants here, lumping me in with others that may challenge the “priveleged few” are far more indicative of just who thinks they are emperors or gods. And likewise, you cry for debate is shallow and hypocritical, as you do not give answers (I think Anon is still waiting for a real debate with you, waiting for answers that have been asked countless times on countless threads, answers, “you have decided” you do not need to give.
You indicate that I make myself out as an emperor or god of patent law. Nothing could be further from the truth. How often have I told you what the law was, much less, told you without adequate support?
No Ned, I am afraid that this is yet again one of your games that you and Malcolm play in accusing others of the actions that you do. It is your narcissism that has been on parade of late, with your “deigning” to not bother reading posts, demanding pincites and such (and yes, I do note that Anon even gave you pincites in one set of questions, which you still refused to answer.
My simple questions do not demand attention. They request answers. There is a rather substantial difference. And one I would expect you to recognize. If you were not so full of yourself that is.
As far as your willingness to associate yourself with the crowd of MaxDrei, Malcolm and 6, well, that says far more than any simple question I could ask (I just don’t think you really understand exactly what that says).
What I understand, simple, is that you and your fellow sock puppets are disrespectful jerks. You go about demanding! that posters do this or do that or else you will whine and complain or whatever. No one made you god. No one elected you emperor. You do not have the right to treat people with such disrespect.
At a minimum, the way you behave here is narcissism on parade. You think that your opinion is the law and that you have the right to lecture others. Lecture!! You do it over, and over, and over again. You really do not engage in legal debate. You engage in whining and complaining and demanding attention.
Why do you think that MaxDrei, I, Malcolm and 6, have had it up to hear with your presence here?
Begone, please.
Ned,
Do you realize that the questions are simple and that youranswers should be more complete?
The actual answers should be that yes, it would be better if you started doing what you ask others to do (as one that you maligned without cause, I am qualified to lecture you on his). And yes, Um. no, rants were specifically on the point that you thought that mere blog message boards did not require the same level of respect, deference (and truth) that courts require. So the final answer is yes, your position and chastisement of others is in fact more than just a little hypocritical.
You do understand what “hypocritical” means, do you not?
No.
Sent from iPhone
“and start treating people with respect?”
Wouldn’t it be better if you started doing what you ask others to do?
Likewise, with your comment to Anon about behaving as if you were in court – Isn’t this exactly what Um, no. is upset at you about (that you do not treat this blog with the same respect as you would a courtroom, that you do not adhere to posting with the same honesty and integrity)?
Don’t you think this appears to be more than just a little hypocritical?
The accuse game – noted
the umbrage game – noted
T O O L
WOW! Struck a nerve huh?
anon, OK. I will accept your summary of his remarks. Just give me what you recall he said, and I will either accept that or I will check the record to see if your memory is accurate.
OK?
Jane, you really got a stick up your a… don't you. You claim to lecture others and that they should obey your commands as if you were some sort of patent god. Who elected you and your fellow sock puppets emperor of the entire universe?
What gives you the right declare as a matter of law that you are right and everyone else is wrong?
Now, if you want to actually discuss legal issues with me or with anyone else, may I politely suggest that you get off your high horse and start treating people with respect?
Ned,
Coming from the person who has admittted that he hasn’t even read all of the threads (and yet still pontificates), your call to me at 3:51 PM is a slap in the face.
You first. I will even settle for you answering only the points that I have put in one place – this blog. I have yet to see even that.
Do not lecture on that which you yourself fail to do.
Further, the congressional record is not a “research plan”, and Lamar Smith’s comments are but a small subset of the record. I did not bookmark them as I read them, otherwise I would be glad to share that mark. But for you to act like this is some onerous task is a bit over the top.
So are you paid then to promote the MOT? Because every time you are beat over the head with Bilski and forced to concede that Bilski was not required to pass the MOT by the Supreme Court, and the MOT was struck down as the sole test, you come back the next day or two and start talking about the MOT again as if it were “the” test.
Anon, I was in the leadership of the AIPLA and IPO during the '90s. As such, I was generally consulted about legislative issues.
Generally, the IPO favored prior user rights, and advocated that they be implemented as soon as possible regardless of first to file. The legislation that ended up passing in 1999 originally was proposed years earlier, and it had a more general prior user right section. That section, among others, was opposed by universities and small inventors. In response, it was narrowed time and again, but never to the complete satisfaction of the opponents.
About this time, SSB came down. Rather than delete prior user rights totally from the bill, the final offer of compromise was to limit the section to just business methods that had been deemed by SSB to be not categorically excluded as patentable subject matter, a result no one had expected or anticipated. SSB was a very radical, and heavily criticized, sea-change in the law. It potentially left many businesses unexpectedly exposed: Prior use, to be prior art, has to be public. Business that had long been using patented BMs typically employed the now validly patented BM algorithms in non public software. The business community was angered by SSB, and was very concerned. They very much supported prior user rights even if limited to BMs.
Universities did not seek or obtain BMPs, so they dropped their opposition to prior user rights when limited to BMs. The bill passed with prior user rights included, but limited to BMs.
Anon, if you have a specific reference to something Smith said, and you are relying on it, you have to give me more than a research plan. You might want to treat your fellows here on Patently-O with the same respect you would treat any fellow lawyer or judge.
Ned,
The congressional record was mentioned more than once – look there.
In fact, your nemisis Um, no. provides a starting point.
As to your “involvement” in 273, do you have any backup to that (it might make for some interesting reading).
anon, I scanned this thread for a link to a Smith quote in vain. I appears you mentions Smith a number of times, but failed to at any time provide a link or even a cite.
anon, if you have a specific reference to something Smith had to say, please provide a link.
anon, I'll check Lamar's comments and get back to you.
However, I was somewhat involved in the passage of 273, so I can speak first hand of what went on there.
Hmmm, the part of the elephant I hold is long and slinky, therefore the elephant must be the same as a snake.
“Your turn.”
No, Ned, it is still your turn.
Please do not piecemeal me with arguments – especially arguments that I have already refuted. YOu (once again) lay conjecture down that the S.18 must be in response to Bilski, yet offer no substance in the Congressional record for such a thought. It might help if you read what Lamar Smith had to say about Bilski before you advance your theories that do not have any support. Do not play the elephant game with the law – it is far too complicated and far too amenable to misrepresentation when you take such a piecemeal approach. TAKE THE TIME to understand the law as a whole prior to coming to a conclusion about what the law says. You keep on jumping the gun about what the law says to fit what you want the law to say without taking that time. I apologize if this seems like I am talking down to you, but I feel like I am talking to an anxious teenager who thinks he knows all the answers in the world (but is actually about to learn those answers the hard way).
Ned, it will not be “my turn” until you take the time to understand my position – my complete position. Please refrain from responding without reading and understanding the total picture. Once you understand the total picutre, you will see why your repeated, unsubstantiated, what-you-want-the-law-to-be position simply fails as to what the law actually is.
Lastly, there is no need to apologize for my “getting the better of you.” If you are going to apologize for anything, apologize for responding without understanding, or apologize for responding without a substantive argument (I know full well your opinion on the matter, but I am looking for far more than opinion).
“I catch a lot of flack.”
And for good reason.
Try more reading and less talking.
Ned,
Truth is always a defense.
I catch a lot of flack.
Sent from iPhone
Agreed. So, the could not say what the actual reason was, but simply declare the result, which is what Kennedy actually did.
Sent from iPhone
“ I do not have time to actually read these threads. ”
Yet, you have time to be the most prolific poster…?
Remember what Momma said:
One mouth…
Two ears…
“The failure to pass the MOT remains my main working theory regarding Bilski.”
Starting with a working theory that ALL NINE Justices came out against is not a smart way to start.
“but found fault in the claims because they did not pass the MOT.”
All nine justices said the opposite. There was no fault in not passing the MOT, because the MOT was not the exclusive test.
You really need to accept what history has given you.
AI, Bye, bye.
NED: I don’t know the right answer.
AI: You dont need to know the “right” answer. Just follow the law. MOT is not an exclusive test.
NED: But I think one can say with some reliability that any method claim that does not pass the MOT, and is directed to a method of doing or conducting business, is probably not patent eligible.
AI: Okay. I quit! You post this circular BS when you obviously know better.
:: Actual Inventor is OFF the treadmill::
AI, thanks for your reply. Regarding Biksi, we both do not know why the Supremes held the Bilski claims to be abstract. You suggested earlier that the Supremes thought Bilksi was claiming disembodied math, as in Benson; but that is really the MOT as the MOT is the basis for Benson's holding. The failure to pass the MOT remains my main working theory regarding Bilski.
NED: AI, I think the reason for our discussion was your and/or some others assertion that BMs were patent eligible without qualification.
AI: I have never said such . Nor has anyone else.
NED: Regarding my belief that BMs that fail the MOT not being patent eligible, I believe this is a matter of fact even if the SC did not say so in so many words.
AI: This being your “belief” negates it being a matter of “fact”, especially when the Supreme Court did not say it. Don’t conflate your belief and opinion with fact and Supreme Court ruling. An attorney, especially an ethical one would know this without being told.
NED: I think this is self evident from what they did say and the facts of the case.
AI: No it’s not see above for the reason why.
NED: The Biskii claims were an application of a general hedging principles to a specific use, which the SC had for 150 years said was the stuff of patents.
AI: Its just the start. There are conditions and requirements under U.S.C Title 35 that must be met and Court created judicial exception that must be avoided.
NED The Bilski claims did not claim hedging in the abstract, or math in the abstract.
AI: That’s merely your opinion, and maybe Bilski’s . But not a legal ruling.
NED: They simply claimed an application of general principles in an application of mathematics to a specific use. So what was wrong with the Bilski claims?
AI: The Supreme Court has rightly or wrongly decided such is a judicial exception to statutory subject matter. It has NOTHING to do with so called business methods.
NED: As I said, probably in response to anon and not in response to you, we really don’t know the answer to this question.
AI: Then stop acting like YOU do and most important trying to claim as a fact what you only think the Court meant and then inferring business methods were ruled non statutory subject matter.
NED: It could be that the Supreme Court really agreed with the Stevens concurring opinion that method claims with a business utility should not be the subject matter of patents.
AI: No it could not. This is only your your unsupported, non legal, fantasy opinion.
NED: It can also be that the Kennedy majority found no vice in the business utility per se, but found fault in the claims because they did not pass the MOT.
AI: No it could not. This too is only your your unsupported, non legal, fantasy opinion.
“It could be that Supreme Court really agreed with the Stevens concurring opinion that method claims with a business utility should not be the subject matter of patents.”
No. It cannot be. Count the votes – Stevens did not make it.
Stop trying to rewrite history.
AI, I think the question is quite relevant, because if the output of a method is a number, albeit a number having some significance such as the degree of risk, the method claim will not pass the MOT.
This is the real reason that the claims in Benson, Flook and Bilski failed. They all failed MOT even though in Bilski they involved physical steps as part of the claim process.
No, AI, I respond early in the morning, during breaks or during lunch. Many times I don't even have time to even read my posts to fix the typos.
However, I do my best.
If you really have a question that I overlooked and is critical to your argument, repeat it. I do not have time to actually read these threads. But I do respond to the e-mail from typepad.
Is a number a claimed invention?
Is risk a a claimed invention?
Now next time just answer the original question, and avoid these silly games.
Better yet, dont answer t all. Go back and address ALL of Anons points.
AI, I think the reason for our discussion was your and/or some others assertion that BMs were patent eligible without qualification. I don't believe that that is a correct summary of Bilski, especially given that Supreme Court held the claims in that case to be ineligible.
Regarding my belief that BMs that fail the MOT not being patent eligible, I believe this is a matter of fact even if the SC did not say so in so many words. I think this is self evident from what they did say and the facts of the case. The Biskii claims were an application of a general hedging principles to a specific use, which the SC had for 150 years said was the stuff of patents. The Bilski claims did not claim hedging in the abstract, or math in the abstract. They simply claimed an application of general principles in an application of mathematics to a specific use.
So what was wrong with the Bilski claims?
As I said, probably in response to anon and not in response to you, we really don't know the answer to this question. It could be that Supreme Court really agreed with the Stevens concurring opinion that method claims with a business utility should not be the subject matter of patents. It can also be that the Kennedy majority found no vice in the business utility per se, but found fault in the claims because they did not pass the MOT. But they could not say that in so many words because they had just ruled that the MOT was not an exclusive test.
I don't know the right answer. But I think one can say with some reliability that any method claim that does not pass the MOT, and is directed to a method of doing or conducting business, is probably not patent eligible.
” I read them, but do not have the time to respond to all of them. You are getting the better of me here. I apologize.”
Not acceptable Ned.
In the time it took to say you do not have time you could have responded.
In FACT all you seem to have is time!
You have a dozen or so people all asking you the same or similar questions around the clock and you reply to ALL of them around the clock, yet never actually answer the questions.
This way you never have to admit you are wrong and can keep your merry go round of shilling going ad infinitum.
BTW, please do not comment on this post. I give up my time for a response and donate it to Anon.
Now please go and respond to EVERY POINT Anon has made.
Well, if you think the Supremes made a mistake in Bilksi so be it. I am certain Bilski would agree with you. But thats a horse of a different color.
What you need to do now Ned is …
1. Admit the Supremes did not rule Business Methods as ineligible subject matter.
2. Apologize for being an obnoxious azz whole for so many months by insisting they did and thus wasting everyones time.
So?
If I invent a process and the process is found ineligible that does NOT mean ALL processes are ineligible.
Furthermore if I invent a process for serving ice cream and the process is found ineligible that does NOT mean ALL processes for serving ice cream are now ineligible.
Why?
Each invention and the corresponding claims is judged on its own merits. According to the same conditions and requirements of U.S.C. Title 35 and the Court created judicial exceptions.
Ned I challenged you to plug any of your arguments into the above and you will immediately see how illogical and irrational they are.
anon, you do not play games with me. I was referring to some of the others.
You actually make substantive arguments. I read them, but do not have the time to respond to all of them. You are getting the better of me here. I apologize.
But on the S. 18 issue, it is clear that Congress did not want the courts to use its definition of "covered business methods." Why? Because they said so. So the real question is why did they said that here, in S. 18, and not when they passed Section 273 in 1999? I think the answer is quite obvious: what happened in Bilski.
Your turn.
Ned,
Respectfully, your post at 12:04 is not an answer in any way, shape, or form.
Further, your calling of my challenge to you to respond with legal substance “a game” is insulting. Do you intend to mock me, even as I have been polite to you?
Further, whether or not you respond “with what you think is the right call” is immaterial. In fact, it is your continued judgment not to respond to the legal points being raised that lend credence to Um, no.’s accusations (as well as The Shilling Shall Continue’s).
And once again, you want to depend on your “feelings” argument on the S.18, when you have not answered several strong legislative canons that hold your proposal stillborn.
If you do not want to engage in a true legal discussion, just say so. But don’t play the obvious and quite silly games that you are playing. I belive this is the type of behavior that so infuriated Um, no. to begin with. And your running from key issues feeds the mantra of The Shilling Shall Continue.
It is game playing because you are refusing to answer the critics of your position. I have been very polite (yet firm) in being a critic of your position, even as you slide into calling me names and accusing me of “bootstrapping” and (once again) evading the arguments put to you.
I have been clear and direct in my positions here and elsewhere. Of course, it is always your choice not to respond, but that choice has obvious consequences. You can duck the questions, but you cannot duck the consequences.
anon, my refusal to play your games is not playing games. I read your posts. I respond with what I think is the right call, even if I do not have time to refute every one of your points.
Regarding Congress and 273 and S. 18, it is quite obvious that you are bootstrapping. Start backwards from S. 18. Why do you think they have the "reservations clause" about the definition. It really has nothing to do with the PTO.
Sorry, Ned. I agree with Um, no. (at least in substantial parts). You do play games – quite often – and quite often the same games.
I have chased you thread after thread to answer simple and straight forward questions which you have refused to answer.
I have laid out a detailed argument here and all you can do is wave at the argument, proclaim that my “bits” are wrong (without saying why – or providing support for your position) and announce how Congress “must have felt” and “that it is self-evident.” You claim both that “business method patents” could not be defined by either Congress of the US Supreme Court in an effort to outright outlaw them (on at least three occasions), yet you have decided what an appropriate definition is (from Congress) and you have decided that they indeed have been outlawed. I asked for substance to back this up and you give me “feelings” and “it is self evident that Congress ‘felt'”.
Sorry Ned – that is pure BS and does not pass for legal reasoning. Sorry Ned, those are not real arguments. They are pure conjecture and your policy projected onto others’ motives without any substantive backing.
I am holding your feet to the fire to supply actual legal reasoning and anything less than that from you is game playing.
I am asking you to step it up and believe that you can – I am also not accepting any “because I say so” rationales.
But why were they held to be abstract when everyone can see that the hedging method claimed was an application of the general hedging idea. Application of ideas has repeatedly been said was the lynchpin of patent eligibility.
Everyone, but everyone, has commented on the complete lack of rationale in the Kennedy holding. It was, like Rader's lower court concurrence, devoid of substance. It was an announcement.
But, since the claims were an application of a principle and not the principle itself, contrary to the words of Kennedy and Rader, what are we to really learn from Bilski. That the Supreme Court is not honest?
What?
Um, no., I accuse you of lying, whining, gameplaying. You do not engage in discussions. You engage in slander.
Um, no. I do not play games. You do. Furthermore, you are a liar.
Please be so kind as to stop posting to me or about me. Everything you say is slander and libel.
“And yet, AI, the Supreme Court held the process claims in Bilski to be ineligible. ”
SO WHAT?
Did they hold them to be ineligible because they were business methods?
NO!
They were held to be ineligible because they violated one of the three judiciary set-asides – abstractness.
Again with the canard that a single exmple rules an entire category.
Jebus, Ned, stop looking redunkulous.
Herrre Doktarrr,
Want a page? I may have already given you this page but I’ll write it again. You might get a hint of what makes me tick. When I was very little I had terrible separation anxiety. Like Linus in Charlie Brown I would attach myself to something. A Rock, A Powder Horn I found, A Gun I was given that I would twirl, many different things. And each time I became attached Lou or Marcella would take it. Each time I had a boyfriend she knew of, when they called She would tell them to get lost. This went on pretty much my whole life. I really think that may have truly made it hard for me to connect. I spent a lot of time by myself just thinking and dreaming. I do believe that is why I fight for what is mine now that I am out from under them. I got hit by a car they took my Money.I married an A@@ he took our SSI.I invent something they just take it!
The good thing like beauty, or a good voice, or a big nose,you are born with those things. And Engineers are born, not made. Genius are born not made, Poets are born not made. Yes I have lots of hobbies. Lots of them. and that is because i was never able to completely get into one thing because when I did they just TOOK IT! So I am a scatter brain. But that was a learned behavior. So Herrreee Doktarrr mark this page.
Things not to do to children!
Read my posts again Ned. You acuse me of what you do. Your reply to AI makes no sense as you appear to accuse him as well.
All these accusations of others, without cause or justification tell a story of borderline psychosis all right, just not hte story you think is being told.
“You both agree that any disagreement with your opinion of the law is not disagreement, but lying. Such thinking is derranged at best, a mental state exhibited by mentally ill people. This suggests that only one person is involved.”
Ned, your acusations come too late and only appear to once again be a part of your game of “Accuse.”
For if you had actually read my posts, you would see exactly the opposite from me. I welcome multiple views, and do not treat any view other than mine as a lie. I show where you lie and and where your prevarications with the law must be purposeful. I also notice that you do not deny any of my part of the story of your half-truths, Kantian perspective, and your refusal to adhere to strict honesty in postings.
And yet you play the games that such as Malcolm play, accusing other people of being “sockpuppets” and mentally ill because they disagress with you. You only left out the Troll word, otherwise we could have exchanged your signature with Malcolm’s.
I am waiting for you to show the actual incorrect points in this thread to back up what you say. All you have given so far are “feelings” and what Congress “must have” felt. These are your projections and have no backing. Yet you would apply some type of “iron-clad” construction to your paper policy table argument.
Not good enough, not by a long shot.
So, stop doing it if you agree that it is wrong.
Sent from iPhone
But Diehr was math.
Sent from iPhone
Is a number physical?
Is risk physical?
Sent from iPhone
And yet, AI, the Supreme Court held the process claims in Bilski to be ineligible.
Sent from iPhone
AI, "Deal with it…."
And you think that somehow I have disagreed with this?
This is the very point(s) I have been arguing with you for weeks.
"At least some" may be eligible. "Some."
Sent from iPhone
As I sit here what to offer,
Is a thought put forth to me.
Now I’ve no more Jimmy Hoffa,
So I’ll tell you what it will be,
I will give you First Edition,
And it’s signed to you from Me.
Cause He’s off her Jimmy Hoffa,
As I blow in Revelry.
Your comment was dead in the water for hours. It was my comment and substantive follow up that got the ball rolling. I hereby claim any rights to any prize being offered. Or at least a single wish to be granted. Now what should my wish be? Hmmmm.
In psyche 101 this is called “projection” ,
Here in the states they are known as the Three Stoooges, with an occasional Shemp. Guess who is Shemp?
” why do the Supreme Court hold that the claims and Bilski were not directed to patent eligible subject matter?”
Math.
::CASE CLOSED::
“They await the lower courts to approve of a non physical claim, so that they can assess that lower courts rationale in a real case.”
What type of wicked cocktail of straw and red herring is this?!?!?!?!?!?
Ned all process claims are physical in that they require a series of observable steps.
If a process is not physically observable then it is purely mental and the Supreme Court has ruled such as abstract ideas, a judicial exception to statutory subject matter.
So why the he ll would lower courts be in effect approving of purely mental claims and the Supremes waiting for such?
You are claiming something the Supreme Court did not say and no lower court world have any logical reason to rule in favor of.
Lundgrens claims pass(ed) the DCAT.
::Case Closed::
Recently I read an intriguing article arguing that the USPTO should perhaps reinstate the requirement of submitting a prototype with each patent application, with the idea that this requirement (among other things) would contribute to improving the quality of issued patents. Whatever one’s opinion on a specific such requirement, it’s undoubtedly a good idea for a patent applicant to create a prototype, simply as part of the process of invention. The new 3D printers could, in this regard, serve as a real blessing to the next generation of innovators.
My one comment spawned over 100 posts from others!
I think I should get a substantial prize.
Yeah that was the view of the USPTO, and they won at the CAFC in re Bilski, only to get smack down at SCOTUS.
“”Respondent Patent Di- rector urges the Court to read §101’s other three patentable catego- ries as confining “process” to a machine or transformation. However, the doctrine of noscitur a sociis is inapplicable here, for §100(b) al- ready explicitly defines “process,” see Burgess v. United States, 553 U. S. 124, 130, and nothing about the section’s inclusion of those other categories suggests that a “process” must be tied to one of them.”
Process is an independent category like Machines, articles of manufacture and compositions of matter and are patentable as such.
:: Case Closed. ::
Nut Case that is!
Ned no amount of disparagement or innuendo will distract nor change the ruling of the SC Court of the United States and America. Read it and Deal BEACH!
The invention at issue is claimed to be a “process,” which §100(b) defines as a “proc- ess, art or method, and includes a new use of a known process, ma- chine, manufacture, composition of matter, or material.”
Finally, the Federal Circuit incorrectly concluded that this Court has endorsed the machine-or-transformation test as the exclusive test. Recent authorities show that the test was never intended to be ex- haustive or exclusive.
(b) The machine-or-transformation test is not the sole test for pat- ent eligibility under §101.
(c) Section 101 similarly precludes a reading of the term “process” that would categorically exclude business methods.
Ned:AI, obviously, you do not care to listen to the advice of your patent attorneys, do you? You are a know-it-all who tells them what the law is, right?”
AI: I pay thousands of dollars for their advice so you bet I listen to every singe word. And it is not I, but the Supreme Court of the United States which tells us all what the law is. Unlike you WE listen. And my attorneys work with me to make sure my company follows that law, not subvert it. I would NEVER hire what appears to be a shill like you NEVER. In my opinion such actions are a true disservice to patent law.
If you want to believe or convince others I am, Um No, deranged, mentally ill, or the boogie man for that matter be my guest. Such disparaging attacks and innuendo will not change the ruling by the Court in Bilski that is as follows:
“The machine-or-transformation test is not the sole test for pat- ent eligibility under §101.”
“The Court is unaware of any ordinary, contemporary, common meaning of “process” that would require it to be tied to a machine or the transformation of an article.”
“Respondent Patent Di- rector urges the Court to read §101’s other three patentable catego- ries as confining “process” to a machine or transformation. However, the doctrine of noscitur a sociis is inapplicable here, for §100(b) al- ready explicitly defines “process,” see Burgess v. United States, 553 U. S. 124, 130, and nothing about the section’s inclusion of those other categories suggests that a “process” must be tied to one of them.”
“Finally, the Federal Circuit incorrectly concluded that this Court has endorsed the machine-or-transformation test as the exclusive test. Recent authorities show that the test was never intended to be ex- haustive or exclusive.”
“(c) Section 101 similarly precludes a reading of the term “process” that would categorically exclude business methods. The term “method” within §100(b)’s “process” definition, at least as a textual matter and before other consulting other Patent Act limitations and this Court’s precedents, may include at least some methods of doing business. The Court is unaware of any argument that the “ordinary, contemporary, common meaning,” Diehr, supra, at 182, of “method” excludes business methods.”
DEAL WITH IT BEACH!!!
AI, you have a weird definition of patentable subject matter that is so unconventional that it is bound to cause confusion.
Machines, articles of manufacture and compositions of matter are patentable as such. However the same as never been true of methods.
Sent from iPhone
“Anon, please read the above. You insist that no one here contends that BMs ARE patent eligible. Well AI does. ”
AI: Ned, why don’t you ever like to acknowledge everything I have said rather than taking one statement out of context and trying to twist it to support your view? I have said all processes and methods are statutory subject to the conditions and requirements and U.S.C. Tile 35, and the Court created judicial exceptions.
Ned: But he defines his BMs as BMs that are not abstract, etc., i.e., that are useful applications of abstract ideas per Diehr, which he describes as DCAT test. Now, in principle, I would agree with AI’s definition,”
AI: Excuse me I said no such thing. Do not put words in my mouth. And the DCAT, which I pronounce D-CAT, is not a definition of business methods but the controlling analysis for 101 Eligible Subject Matter from Diehr and upheld in Bilski at page 14. There is no need IMHO for an additional definition of business methods, other the definition we have now for processes because all statutory methods and processes are subject to the same conditions and requirements.
The SC was quite clear in it’s opinion as to why they deemed Biiski method as abstract and running a foul of the judicial exceptions. It was nothing more than math in the eyes of the Supremes, whether wrong or right. And the Supremes have decided to call math abstract. So stop trying to make it more than that. Look, Ned, we all know your ( whacko) position, which EVERYONE here has disagreed with and debunked at one time or another. But don’t stoop now trying to change and distort the opinions of others to support your own losing point of view.
“But Congress deferred to the SC”
The SC refused to declare business methods as not patent eligible subject matter.
Congress has refused to business methods as not patent eligible subject matter.
All we get from Ned is some whiny excuse about how diffficult it would be to “define” business methods in order to declear them point blank not patent eligible.
But Ned as God has no such difficulty. Ned as God has not only defined them (and to him, exactly as Congress has defined them), but has ruled that both the SC and Congress “really has” decleared business methods as not patent eligible, but only if veiwed through Ned’s eyes.
Ned is WAY too full of himself. Ned needs to seriously think of his own posts and prove that Ned cannot be correct.
There is a reason why both the SC and the Congress has not declared business methods as not patent eligible.
Quite simple: business methods may be patent eligible and each must be judged on its own accord – JUST LIKE ANY OTHER method claim that may be patent eligible.
This UNGODLY fascination with business methods is ludicrous.
AI: "AI: Are you asking if Um No and myself are the same commenter? No, we are not the same. And that you would think I was Um No, is a compliment to me, As Um No is not only eloquent and ethical, he/she has displayed a very sharp and sophisticated legal intellect that obviously befuddles you.No, I am not Um No, or Anon, or anyone else. I am an Actual Inventor, that employs patent attorneys. And while not a patent attorney myself, I do know the law, especially 101, and am more than cable of handling the likes of your banal attempts at intellectual dishonesty any day."
AI, obviously, you do not care to listen to the advice of your patent attorneys, do you? You are a know-it-all who tells them what the law is, right?
Regarding Um, no., I sometimes detect an overlapping style between the two of you that suggests that you two are the same person. You two like to slap each other on the back a lot. You both agree that any disagreement with your opinion of the law is not disagreement, but lying. Such thinking is derranged at best, a mental state exhibited by mentally ill people. This suggests that only one person is involved.
Actual Inventor: "AI: I will save you the trouble. " I Actual Inventor, say, Business methods are patent eligible subject matter."So are manufacturing methods, cooking methods, surgical methods, sewing methods, computer/information processing methods, and ANY other process or method that does not fall into the Court created judicial exceptions."
Anon, please read the above. You insist that no one here contends that BMs ARE patent eligible. Well AI does. But he defines his BMs as BMs that are not abstract, etc., i.e., that are useful applications of abstract ideas per Diehr, which he describes as DCAT test.
Now, in principle, I would agree with AI's definition, but for the fact that one such useful application of was before the SC in Bilski, and it was declared not eligible. So there is either something wrong with AI's definition, or there is something wrong with Bilski.
I think that the SC got it wrong, but they are the SC. We are left to find out why the Bilski claims were declared ineligible, for the SC's reasoning is opaque. We know they had a reason, but we cannot tell what it was from the opinion itself. We are only left to speculate.
AI, "AI: We would not have had an agreement because to this day you insist that since Bilski's method, which most label a business method, was ruled non statutory subject matter, then ALL business methods are non statutory subject matter. What I said above does not support such logic."
No, I continue to insist that BMs that do not pass the MOT are not patent eligible. Any BM that passes the MOT is really technological.
That is why I insist that we define BM so that we agree that we are talking about the same thing. Unless we do, we use the same words, but are not really talking about the same thing.
Ned: “If you had said this way back when, we would not have had a discussion. We would have had an agreement.”
AI: We would not have had an agreement because to this day you insist that since Bilski’s method, which most label a business method, was ruled non statutory subject matter, then ALL business methods are non statutory subject matter. What I said above does not support such logic.
Ned: I will quote you from a post from this thread where you continue to insist that BMs were patent eligible.
AI: I will save you the trouble. ” I Actual Inventor, say, Business methods are patent eligible subject matter.”
So are manufacturing methods, cooking methods, surgical methods, sewing methods, computer/information processing methods, and ANY other process or method that does not fall into the Court created judicial exceptions.
Ned: Um No? Is he one of your sock puppets.
AI: Are you asking if Um No and myself are the same commenter? No, we are not the same. And that you would think I was Um No, is a compliment to me, As Um No is not only eloquent and ethical, he/she has displayed a very sharp and sophisticated legal intellect that obviously befuddles you.
No, I am not Um No, or Anon, or anyone else. I am an Actual Inventor, that employs patent attorneys. And while not a patent attorney myself, I do know the law, especially 101, and am more than cable of handling the likes of your banal attempts at intellectual dishonesty any day.
Um, no., you continue to elevate your own opinions into law and those that disagree with you into debased liars. This kind of thinking is borderline psychotic.
Anon, I have responded in another point to the nut of your argument: that Congress could have simply banned BMs if it wanted to. I have point out why this is all but impossible unless the MOT was deemed exclusive (to distinguish technological BMs from not technological BMs).
But Congress deferred to the SC which had twice held that the MOT was not the exclusive test. That is why they did not act.
Anon, I see your point here. Good point. But definition of technological is the problem, is it not. There is no good definition. Without it, there is no way to pass a statute that is clear that would ban BMs that were not technological while preserving the eligibility of those that were.
As I mentioned before, Benson made the same cautionary statement in announcing the MOT. It was not the exclusive test. So, Congress was advised by the SC as long ago as 1872 not simply use it to distinguish between patentable and unpatentable BMs. So, what is a better definition?
Let the courts decide.
Outlawed BMs?
Asked and answered many times over.
How? Without also potentially impacting patents on technology that is useful in business.
Let's focus, anon, to a critical aspect of your thesis: Congress could have simply banned BMs if it chose to do so.
How?
How, given that there was no acceptable definition of business method, as all the cases prior to SSB had been careful to distinguish methods of doing business qua business from methods and apparatus that were directed to the underlying technology that enabled business? Even in Section 18, they drew this distinction.
Congress could have enacted the MOT to provide the distinction, but was cautioned not to do so by Benson itself.
What we can see from this is that both the SC and Congress have been very careful not to ban business methods in a way that was too broad. They instead opted to provide defenses: first of prior user rights, and second, of a special procedure (new Section 18).
So, your underlying premise here is faulty; and from it your ultimate conclusion.
The hostility of Congress to SSB is evident. They have twice now, not once, but twice, have enacted special defenses solely directed to business methods. They have also declared tax patents unpatentable. This is not endorsement of SSB, but a declaration of Congressional policy that business methods qua business methods are not patentable subject matter in their view.
Um, no. you are really full of yourself to suggest the your view of the law is the law and that my view is a lie. Again, you presume that you are right and that I and anyone who agrees with me is wrong. Based on this presumption, you then state that my views and opinions on the law are lies.
This is way beyond the pale and an insult not only to a child’s intelligence but to any attorney worth his or her salt.
No, stop whining about not convincing me of the validity of your point of view by describing my disagreement with it as a lie. If you have something worthwhile to say, say it.
Ned,
I see the problem that you wrestle with.
You wrestel with trying to keep you rdogma alive, when you cannot. You are forced to conjure and twist, not only Supreme Court ruliings, but the AIA as well.
Ned, You need to truthfully and in direct and simple terms come to grips with each of the points tha tI have made. My points are not there for you to deny them. My points are true and accurate. You need to reformulate your dogma to come tro grips with what Bilski and the AIA actually say.
Return to my post and formualte an answer that treats every element of my post. No mere dismissals allowed. When you force you rslef to lookk at the compelte picture, when you accept those things you must accept, then we can continue our conversation.