By Dennis Crouch
Marvell's stock price plunged about 10% following news that a jury had awarded well over $1 billion patent infringement verdict to Carnegie Mellon University. Download MarvellVerdict. The verdict is based upon finding of direct literal infringement of claim 4 of Patent No. 6,201,839 and claim 2 of Patent No. 6,438,180. The CMU hometown Pittsburgh jury also found that Marvell induced infringement by encouraging customers to use its chips. Regarding validity, the jury held that the asserted claims were neither anticipated nor obvious. One of the key pieces of evidence in the trial was an old email from a Seagate engineer noting that the CMU invention went well beyond the current state of the art. (Of course, that email was focused on advances found in the disclosure rather than the broad claims asserted by CMU.) Seagate was apparently happy to provide that document to be used against its market competitor. It is that same Seagate engineer's prior patent application that served as the core of Marvell unsuccessful invalidity argument.
An interesting element of the verdict involved particular willfulness questions. The jury particularly held that (1) Marvell knew of the asserted patent before the lawsuit; (2) had no reasonable defense for its actions; and (3) knew or should have known that its actions were infringing. The verdict did not, however, ask whether the action was "willful." CMU will ask the court to rely upon those answers to treble the damage award. If the damage award is trebled (tripled) and interest added, the award will be roughly equivalent to Marvell's $3.8b market valuation. (The award is larger than CMU's current endowment.) In the initial complaint, CMU also requested attorney fees and a permanent injunction.
This is the second billion dollar judgment against a Quinn Emanuel client awarded in the past few months.
Marvell has announced that it will prevail on appeal. In a pretrial ruling, district court judge Nora Fischer denied Marvell's motion for summary judgment of anticipation, but noted that it was a "close call" based upon her construction of the asserted claims. Marvell did not exercise its authority to seek a reexamination of the patent at the USPTO. Over the next six months, both parties will file and respond to post-verdict motions. Judge Fischer announced her intention to make a final ruling in the case in May 2013. If the verdict is confirmed by Judge Fischer, Marvell will then have an opportunity to appeal after posting a "supersedeas bond." If the damage award is roughly equivalent
The asserted patent claims are basically signal processing logic algorithms for determining the value of items coming from a computer memory signal. This is necessary because the "0" and "1" that we normally talk about for binary digital signals is not actually accurate. In particular, the invention indicates that you should apply a "signal dependent" function to calculate the value as a way to overcome noise in the signal. Apparently a key distinguishing factor from the prior art is that the decoding functions used are "selected from a set of signal-dependent functions." The asserted claims do not identify the particular functions used, only that functions are used.
The two infringing claims are as follows:
Claim 4 of US Patent 6,201,839:
A method of determining branch metric values for branches of a trellis for a Viterbi-like detector, comprising:
selecting a branch metric function for each of the branches at a certain time index from a set of signal-dependent branch metric functions; and applying each of said selected functions to a plurality of signal samples to determine the metric value corresponding to the branch for which the applied branch metric function was selected, wherein each sample corresponds to a different sampling time instant.
Claim 2 of US Patent 6,438,180 (Claim 2 is dependent from Claim 1 and I combined the two together):
A method of determining branch metric values in a detector, comprising:
receiving a plurality of time variant signal samples, the signal samples having one of signal-dependent noise, correlated noise, and both signal dependent and correlated noise associated therewith; selecting a branch metric function at a certain time index; and applying the selected function to the signal samples to determine the metric values, wherein the branch metric function is selected from a set of signal-dependent branch metric functions.
Folks focused on subject matter eligibility issues will notice the obvious problems raised by the asserted claims.
101,
When you say X = Y,
you do not mean that some X are Y.
You mean that ALL X are Y.
Think.
101, if you say that BMs are eligible, that is what you argue. If you do not so argue, then stop saying it.
Logic.
"Republicans are teapartiers."
The problem with this statement is that not all Republicans are teapartiers. Get it?
Ned, now you need to admit that business methods are patent eligible. And to never again say they are NOT patent eligible unless Congress changes the law to say such, or the Supreme Court so holds.
Agree?
They did hold the claims ineligible, but not because the claims were directed to a business method, but because the claims were abstract. Still, that they were directed to a business method was well understood.
So, it cannot be true that business method claims are categorically eligible. They are, rather, not categorically inelible even thought they are business methods. In most cases they are abstract. But, if they are not abstract, they are potentially eligible. But if they are not abstract, they are also not business methods, but claims that otherwise would pass the MOT.
I have no trouble believing that all three of you had wonderful fathers – I envy you that. And I thought that EG’s column on the other blog was nicely done. But I think invoking the memory of anyone’s deceased father in the pursuance of attacking pseudonymous blog posters is in poor taste. That’s especially the case if the deceased was known for his professionalism and dignity.
Ned: “business methods are categorically eligible for patenting.”
That is simply stu pid. No one is arguing that.
Business methods are simply one type of method that is eligible under the method category.
You really need to top these semantic games because they prove nothing and get you no closer to banning business methods.
The thing is, you see, nobody, not you, not EG, not anybody, had a more admirable father than mine. And there are surely any number of other contributers to this blog with recently deceased fathers who feel about their own fathers like I do about mine, you do about yours and EG does about his.
Ned: “I bring up Bilski, where the Supreme Court held a business method not to be eligible .”
The Supreme Court did NOT so hold.
Can you prove me wrong by providing the exact quote of the holding?
:: silence::
Of course you can’t.
You are a liar.
The law establishes three categories that are NOT eligible for patents: laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas.
Business methods are NOT one of the categories.
Stop saying they are.
Stop lying.
For the sake of the integrity of the blog It ought to be against the rules of Patently O!
I am shocked.
I do not need to deny it. The statement is true.
But you must understand what that statement means. I have been careful and explicit in explaining that the statement applies to the business methods as a category – just like any other category. I have also explained that this still means that ALL individual examples, individual claims from individual applications must be evaluated.
I have been rock solid steady in my views. My views accord with the law. My views do not play the semantic games you attempt to play and avoid the improper “categorically” nonsense you wish to employ – and as noted universally applies to ANY and ALL method claims of ANY category.
It is quite clear to see that using such language is universally true, and thus the selective callingout of business methods to employ that language is a deceptive trick.
Stop the attempts at deception.
Ned: ” Supreme Court actually said that they held the claims ineligible because they were abstract.”
Yes and why were they abstract?
Because the claims were math.
Conducting business had nothing to do with it.
Conducting business is not abstract.
It is you that is beyond ridiculous to insist otherwise.
Ned: “Thus your contention that business methods are eligible for patenting as a category is ridiculous.”
I never said there was a business method category. Section 101 lists four categories of subject matter that are patent-eligible: process, machine, manufacture, and composition of matter.
Likewise the law establishes three categories that are not eligible for patents: laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas.
Business methods are NOT one of the categories.
Stop saying they are.
Anyone in the patent community, even a beginner that just read a patent it yourself book, would know you are being a willfully dishonest foool.
STOP IT!
Oh, stop it, Ned. Agree with anon that “as a category” and “categorically” have two different meanings, and move on.
Anon, this who back and forth started eons ago with your statementment that BMs ARE elibible. Deny that you ever said that in you can.
“to again state that business methods are categorically eligible for patenting.”
I have never ever ever stated that.
Never.
In fact, I have consistently corrected you and will correct you yet again in the immediate case.
Ned Heller, you are fallaciously using (in fact misusing) the word “categorically.”
Quite plainly, “as a category” and “categorically” have two different meanings.
I have discussed this in great detail and quite frankly your “ignore-what-I’ve-said-and-repeat-the-same-crrp” game is distasteful and extremely intellectually dishonest.
Please stop.
Anon, make it your New Year's pledge never to again state that business methods are categorically eligible for patenting.
anon: "There is nothing at all that is categorically eligible. NOTHING. No kinds of methods."
We agree.
Once again Ned your fallacy is the one example in place of a category fallacy.
Please stop.
You are embarrassing yourself.
Ned,
I have explained ad infinitum that your use of “categorically” is fallacious.
Quite simply, there is nothing at all that is categorically eligible. NOTHING. No kinds of methods. No kinds of machine. No kinds of manufacture. No kinds of composition of matter.
It makes no sense to even speak so.
All that is accomplished is kicking up dust.
Please stop.
101, regardless of your thinking about why the claims in Bilski were held in eligible, the Supreme Court actually said that they held the claims ineligible because they were abstract.
Furthermore, there was a broad consensus by everybody involved in that case that the claims involved in Bilski were directed to "business methods." While there is no good definition of what constitutes a business method that everybody accepts, there is a broad agreement that the claims in Bilski were in fact directed to a business method.
Thus your contention that business methods are eligible for patenting as a category is ridiculous.
Anon, your purpose is clear, indeed.
Anon, try this
"No particular kind of methods is categorically eligible."
Anon, let's be clear here whose brain is malfunctioning. You state that "business methods ARE eligible." I bring up Bilski, where the Supreme Court held a business method not to be eligible – and then you accuse me of being disingenuous.
Ridiculous.
“And yet for some unknown reason (my guess would be at the urging of his third party benefactor), he has attempted to resurrect a stale and defeated argument in pushing his agenda.”
I for one am finished with Ned and his shameful shilling tactics and total disregard for the truth and the law.
MM: The claim from Prometheus was from a real case and you thought it was eligible. You were wrong. What changed?
“Integration Analysis” Prometheus 9-0.
While I do not recall making a prediction on Prometheus many did rightfully feel the claims should pass 101 for the same reason the dissents in In re Ferguson and Bilski felt those claims should pass 101. That reason being:
” a concept and an application is statutory subject matter under Diehr. ”
The problem was although such processes were statutory under Diehr, those same processes it would not be under Flook. So what Prometheus sought to do was reconcile Diehr with Flook without having to overturn Flook. Which resulted in the Court stating the following:
“In Diehr, the overall process was patent eligible because of the way the additional steps of the process “integrated” the equation into the process as a whole.” 450 U. S., at 187. These additional steps transformed the process into an inventive application of the formula. ) [MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES v. PROMETHEUS LABORATORIES, INC 566 U. S. (2012) 3 Syllabus] (Emphasis Added)
What’s important to understand here is that the Court did not endorse “dissection” or overturn any part of Diehr. Remember “integration” is the antithesis of dissection. As the Court literally said Diehr remains the case “most on point ” for what “is” statutory subject matter.
All the Court said was in effect that a bare Court created judicial exception, in the form of a math equation or law of nature, (derived implicitly from the Congressional Statute of 101) can’t be made patent eligible with additional steps to apply it, if the claims as a whole still pre-empt the judicial exception.
So, using the Courts line of 101 cases as the lens thru which to determine when claims are “integrated” it is apparent that a new and useful process claim in general has a clear presumption of “Integration” and the presumption remains valid, and requires no further analysis under 101 unless the claims as a whole recite;
1. A bare Court created judicial exception, (derived implicitly from the Congressional Statute of 101) or
The first element of the claim is a bare Court created judicial exception (derived implicitly from the Congressional Statute of 101) followed by additional steps or claims that apply the judicial exception. In the case of the latter, analysis for extra-solution activity, (pre or post ) occurs to determine if the claims are integrated or instead pre-empt the judicial exception.
And that MM, is the way to proceed. All your whacky wet dreams for resurrecting Steven’s dissent in Diehr in order to establish a mental steps dissection test has been crushed by the Supreme Court in Prometheus, 9-0!
MaxDrei:
Shame on on. Your post is patronizing, disrespectful, and downright disgusting. Who the he ll are you to tell a son how to commemorate and speak of his dearly departed father?
What right do you have?
And that you “invoke” E.G’s. father as “your dad” in an attempt to be snarky at that, is downright disgraceful!
Unless he was your actual father too, you have NO RIGHT to speak of the great man in that manner!!
I too recently lost my dad and he was close to the age of E.G.’s father So I understand the grief and that comes with that.
Speaking of your father and what he meant to you and accomplished in this world is one of the best ways to work through that grief and put it to good use. The humor is entirely appropriate when the “son” evokes it in memory of the brave and courageous acts his father once demonstrated. It’s healthy and all part if the grieving process.
I understand what it means to have a tall legacy left by the one that taught you more than you can imagine and the enormous responsibility you now have to spend the rest of your life working to measure up to his legacy.
Though you may never quite measure up, you know you will be a greater man than you could have ever been for the effort. And that is perhaps the greatest gift a father can leave his son. E.G. and myself in that regards are truly blessed.
What’s worse 101 Integration Expert was the lesson was previously fully absorbed by Ned Heller and he expressly repeated the holding of Bilski – as you are indicating – and the lesson included the use of Ned’s own supplied article on the difference between a holding and dicta.
He even thanked me for showing him exactly what the holding of Bilski was.
And yet for some unknown reason (my guess would be at the urging of his third party benefactor), he has attempted to resurrect a stale and defeated argument in pushing his agenda.
It is not possible to teach someone who refuses to learn (even if that person has actually learned the lesson previously).
Without any forceful moderation we are doomed to repeat the merry-go-round of such travesties. And there is little hope that such will change (witness Prof. Crouch’s post on the fifty-year old letter).
“You cannot really pretend that Bilski did not hold the claims before it ineligible.
But—that does seem to be your position.”
No, that is not my position. Now let’s get this. I have stated many times in this thread and others that the Court found Bilki’s process claims ineligible because they amounted to nothing more than math, a Court created judicial exception of an abstract idea. That Bilski’s claims were applicable and beneficial to business, specifically the field of hedging, was not a sufficient limitation to prevent the claims from preempting the judicial exception of the claimed math formula.
Also that the Court in it’s discussions may have referred to Bilski’s invention as a business method was simply dicta and not the holding in the case, and equally irrelevant regarding to the question of patent eligibility under 101.
I really do not know how to explain this any simpler to you. Perhaps anon can teach you about how to read a Court case. Anon is a good teacher.
Ned: “Stop saying BMs are eligible.”
Why?
Did I miss something?
Did the Supreme Court say stop?
I know they were specifically asked to say so in Bilski.
Did they say it?
Did Congress say stop?
Please provide an exact quote and the proper pin-cite.
Also if the Court and/or Congress has made any other processes ineligible please let me know will ya?
Ya know like medical methods, rubber curing methods, software methods and the like.
And please don’t forget the citations!
Thank You.
“They are not categorically eligible.”
This is farcical, as no one (except you) has ever said suich a thing. I have repeatedly attempted to disabuse you of your fallacious way of saying exactly what you just said (you continue to misrepresent this area of law, long after I make this clear to you – we both know why).
Review my post at 7:33 once again (or any of the hundreds in which I have streadfastly and pateinetly explained how you are torturing the word “categorically” as opposed to treating things as “of a category.”
Do you realize how bad you look in black and white when you attempt (and fail) at these semantic word games, Ned?
This is farcical. They are not categorically eligible. No particular kind of method claim is.
The SC simply held that they were not categorically excluded.
Sent from iPhone
“mawk·ish
/ˈmôkiSH/
Adjective
1.Sentimental in a feeble or sickly way: “a mawkish poem”.”
Wow – talk about a lack of awareness. MaxDrei, do you know how insulting your post is? How much common decency it lacks? It is your post that is grotesque.
It’s easy to see you lining up shoulder to shoulder with MM. And yet, you B_itch and Moan when the “swagger” is turned on you.
Hypocrite.
By all accounts Dad was a person of some considerable dignity, with a strong presence. That being the case, I imagine he would be even more embarrassed than me, by the use of this blog to make grotesquely mawkish tributes to him. I’ll get no thanks for saying this but, for the sake of what remains of his dignity, can it stop now please?
I really chuckled at your reply to my comment about “handing heads back,” anon. You truly made my day!
And MaxDrei has never been irritated with MM’s invective….
Hmm, I guess the “swagger” is not so charming when it not you that is dishing it out…
What’s the word for someone who can dish it out, but not take it?
Oh yeah,
Hypocrite.
Ring a bell MaxDrei? Mind you, that’s not a third grade level word, so maybe MaxDrei doesn’t recognize it, so perhaps someone can explain it to him at the level or in a manner that will not lose his interest. Is Beavis or Bxtthead available? Any other third grade words you want to add to the banter?
“or you would have your head figuratively handed back to you.”
LOL – like I hand MM’s head to him?
It does set him to eplectic fits of rage, especially when he tries to be substantive and self-defeats, destroying his own anti-patent “policy” positions with his admissions of “programmed to = structure” and the understanding of the critical exception to the printed matter doctrine. Mind you, that won’t stop him from blatant lying, but the fact that he has volunteered such admissions does make it impossible to advance his “policies” in any type of intellectual honesty (and delightfully, any attempt to actually improve this blog will necessitate the surrender of his favorite dogma).
Outright lies, gross and deliberate misrepresentations of positions and retreads of fallacious logic that have been repeatedly shown to be fallacious.
Leopold is right (and as typical, not in the way he thinks):
Dennis isn’t it time?
No Ned – I am using eligiblity appropriately in discussing a category level. It is you that is using the term inappropriately. I have explained this in great detail. You are purposefully conflating a single example and an entire category.
This is a fallacy – one easily demonstrated by the example of medical methods and the Prometheus case. The simple example that you quite simply refuse to engage in any sense of intellectual honesty.
My purpose is genuine and clear: to wash out all the dust you are trying to kick up on this issue. You can continue your crusade if you choose – but this path only leads to crystal clear expositions of your fallacious logic, and the continued display of your lack of intellectual honesty. It’s not a very good path for you and your third party interests, so I suggest you rethink your tactics.
Turn off italics tag.
Are you up to 273 yet?
Do you recognize the number?
BMs are eligible – by law – and as a category. Just like any other category. Go back and read Bilski. Note that Stevens lost.
Then try (once again) to understand what this means in regards to ANY single method claim of ANY single patent application that belongs to ANY category.
And then please stop trying to kick up dust with your bogus arguments and fallacious logic, especially as you refuse to honestly engage my questions and comparisons to medical methods due to your third party interests.
Stop saying BMs are eligible.
Sent from iPhone
The point is that you are using eligible in appropriately and for a purpose.
Sent from iPhone
You’re also correct in another regard: Dad would have “torched” Malcolm mentally to ashes, and then wiped up those ashes. Play “nice” with Dad, and he would respect you, even if you were the adversary. Play “nasty” (like Malcolm does), and Dad would likely make you regret it (in spades); I saw that happen at least twice, once in the appealed interference case I noted in my article. The other was in a bruising contested reissue proceeding where the other side tried to kick improper “dirt” repeatedly on the patent invovled; Dad fielded each such “missile” hurled and turned it back against the other side. I learned early never, but never make the case personal with Dad or his client, or you would have your head figuratively handed back to you.
“counterexample to their nonsensical thesis that all business method claims are inherently eligible.”
Look how far you have sunk in defeat to stoop to outright lies. I don’t think anyone has held such a position when it comes to business methods. I for one have always said a business method is no different than any other method. And as such is equal to and subject to the same conditions and requirements of the other 3 categories.
MM: Why does your analysis of a claim require that the claim be from a “real” patent?
101 Integration Expert: Because like most of the people on the planet I live in the real world. You are invited to join us .
Right. Just to be clear, the patent claim has to be granted or you won’t discuss it?
Not the way I remember. I can remember getting into some serious disagreements with IANAE, MD, and LB over the years, although I’ve never lost respect for any of them.
Forgot Nedler.
You comment to make objections when others make even more objectionable posts (and yet you remain silent to those posters).
Hmm. Not the way I remember. I can remember getting into some serious disagreements with IANAE, MD, and LB over the years, although I’ve never lost respect for any of them. They seem honest enough. Thet might have “agendas” but they always seem to present compelling arguments for them.
I even remember agreeing with you once or twice over that same period of time, anon. And yet somehow since the sockpuppet days ended you’ve managed to garner a few other … skeptics, shall I say? I can’t say I’m surprised in the least. I can say that I’m surprised if anyone else was surprised. 😉
Yeah, Dad was a “chess master” all the way. Trying to outthink him in an interference proceeding was an exercise in futility; Dad knew it all, and even Judge Rich couldn’t trip him up.
What’s particularly sad is Dad has only one published article, in the JPTOS on the Hass-Henze doctrine, which holds that a compound in the prior art that is close enough to the claimed compound such that it would motivate a person skilled in the art to make the claimed compound (e.g., a homologue), then the claimed compound is assumed to be obvious unless evidence is provided which shows that the claimed compound possessed unexpected properties. Dad could have written volumes on what he knew, especially about interference practice.
At least Dad “practiced what he preached” Malcolm which is fight hard (or even harder) for the “little guy,” and if you bothered to read the article I gave the link for, you would know why (101 IE now knows why).
Thanks for the very kind words, 101 IE. I’ll always “honor” Dad, he was “one of kind” and I was truly blessed to be his son. As my article points out, Dad obtained several thousand patents for his clients (I’m not making that up), and was involved, he figured, in about 400 patent interferences (he also testified many times in litigation as an expert interference procedure). Whenever I or my patent attorney brother had an interference quesition, we went to Dad (the “fountain of knowledge”). I’ll truly miss him but his DNA (especially that related to chemistry and patent law) still resides in me.
Ned,
Ergo – your logic is still faulty.
Try this: (as I have said many many many many times): As a category, BMs just like any other category of methods are eligible.
YOU MUST STILL EVALUATE THE INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS.
This is ALSO true for any other category of methods.
“their nonsensical thesis that all business method claims are inherently eligible.”
IANAE – this is a blatant lie. Do not mistate my position.
I have fully explained and have never deviated from my position on how to approach the category of business methods (you approach them EXACTLY like you apporach any other patent eligible category).
“Bilski; that business methods were invoked; and that we’re held to be ineligible.”
Meet:
Prometheus; that medical methods were invoked; and that we’re [sic] held to be ineligible.
SO WHAT.
The point, Ned, is that this logic of yours is a fallacy.
This is not a new point. You did stop using this point when I put your nose in your own crrp with your own reference on the difference between holding and dicta. Why are you trying to resurrect an argument that never worked in the first place?
MM: Does your analysis differ depending on whether the claim is from a “real patent” or not?
101 Integration Expert: Yes.
MM: Why does your analysis of a claim require that the claim be from a “real” patent?
101 Integration Expert: Because like most of the people on the planet I live in the real world. You are invited to join us .
Hell EG:
This time the link worked. I truly enjoyed the article. Yes your dad was a great man. I particularly enjoyed the examples of your dads strategic thinking. He seemed to always be three or four steps ahead of his adversaries. And yes he would have wiped the floor with the likes of MM. But somehow I do not even think MM would have been worthy. Thank you for sharing.
link to ipwatchdog.com
The link has moved. None the less you have my condolences.
Your father seems like a truly great man.
Honor him in all you do.
Why do you content the Bilski claims are not business method claims?
Same reason AI does. Because it’s such a blatant (and Supreme Court-endorsed) counterexample to their nonsensical thesis that all business method claims are inherently eligible.
Anon: BMs are eligible.
Bilski claims, however, are not eligible.
Ergo, Bilski claims are not BMs
Why do you content the Bilski claims are not business method claims?
You say that as if that is an answer – it is not. One does not implicate the entire category – else, that same logic infects all medical methods.
Ned – your lack of intellectual honesty on this simple point is astounding.
No. I meant what I said – regardless of my complying with Prof. Crouch’s request (which is much more than I can say that MM, Ned, or even yourslef have done).
But thanks for drawing attention to those who have NOT complied with the good professor’s call for a better blog (still no smart in your smart @_$$ attempts).
Listen.
Sent from iPhone
You, on the other hand, comment in what must be greater than 90% to a single name.
Since you stopped posting under all the other names, you mean?
Bilski; that business methods were invoked; and that we're held to be ineligible.
Sent from iPhone
What exactly Ned do you think I am ignoring, refusing to accept or denying?
Then we can discuss motives and your refusal to actually engage adult conversations when those conversations take a turn against your third party interests.
(have you reached 273 yet in your “1” counting?)
the Atticus Finch of patent prosecutors
Now I’ve seen everything.
Blind?
That like "ignore."
Or
"Refuse to accept."
Or
"Deny."
I think, Anon, that you "deny."
Sent from iPhone
1
Sent from iPhone
so you can drop the Leopold-style obsession
Right. The one who has posted over 300 comments in the first 10 days of the year (and likely over 9,000 last year) is calling other people “obsessed.”
There are none so blind as those that will not see.
Open your eyes, then.
Ned,
Do you realize the difference between “the” claims and the false projection you (habitually) do to “all” claims?
Do you realize how many times I have attempted to correct this fallacy of yours? This attempt to falsely conflate a single example with an entire category? Do you not remember my attempts to explain to you the difference between “of a category” and “categorically?”
Do you realize that your answering imperative of “Define medical methods” is likewise a fallacy?
Q: Why is it that you refuse to engage my question to you based on your existing use of “logic” from the Bilksi case?
A: Because you are not intellectually honest enough to see that if you were to do so, you would be forced to see the fallacy that you are (again) trying to foist in pursuit of your third party advocacy.
It is plain and clear error for you to attempt to paint an entire category with the example of a single application. Yet, you persist. Please stop. I wish you would realize how badly this affects your credibility (and it really does not matter if it is I that points this out to you or not – so you can drop the Leopold-style obsession – such is but a smokescreen, and that dog don’t hunt).
MM does have his usefulness. Unfortunately, such is by way of negative example.
The amount of self-delusion that he carries with himself is impressive, as he continues to post as if he is anything other than a vacuous and foul-mouthed hyper-inflated egotistical windbag.
btw, MM, still waiting for actual answers from you. You do remember what actual answers look like, right?
1
Sent from iPhone
Anon, you assume that people actually care about what you say.
Sent from iPhone
Pretend that we haven't been discussing this for years.
Sent from iPhone
Define medical method.
Sent from iPhone
No
Sent from iPhone
Define medical method/
Sent from iPhone
You continue t
Sent from iPhonegnore that the claims in Bilski were held to be ineligible.
You cannot really pretend that Bilski did not hold the claims before it ineligible.
But—that does seem to be your position.
Sent from iPhone
Yes.
Ready for another merry-go-round ride?
As anon would say, “same old, same old,” Malcolm. All I can tell you is that you’re lucky your dealing with me. My former patent attorney Dad (a true legal titan and the Atticus Finch of patent prosecutors in terms of how he fought for the “little guys” who just passed away) would have verbally “scorched” you from head to toe for what you just said, and that’s no exaggeration. If you don’t believe me, go check out the article I posted on Dad’s professional career on IPWatchdog (link to ipwatchdog.com). Dad was well-respected by the patent bar for his legal prowess (especially in interferences) and that’s no exaggeration either. (Thanks too Malcolm for giving me the opportunity to let others know about my Dad’s professional career.)