Supreme Court Rules Software Patents Invalid-Without Ever Mentioning Software Once In the Decision

Posted by khalling 6 years, 10 months ago to Technology
504 comments | Share | Flag

"What this means is that companies like Apple, IBM, Microsoft, Google and others have had the value of their patent portfolios nearly completely erased today. If they wish to remain compliant with Sarbanes Oxley and other laws and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission they will need to level with their shareholders and tell them that their patent portfolios have been decimated."

db is on a plane headed to the Atlas Summit to give a talk about Galt as Inventor. When he gets off the plane, this news will greet him. Imagine a MODERN patent system understanding the manufacturing age but not the information age....
SOURCE URL: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/06/19/scotus-rules-alice-software-claims-patent-ineligible/id=50120/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ jlc 6 years, 10 months ago
    Actually, as VP of a software company, this ruling comes as a relief. Many of the software related patents that have been issued in the past put us in jeopardy. We write innovative medical software that comes out of our own little brains, but we are aware that everything we do probably involves infringing on a spurious patent someone else has acquired (such as patents on common GUI functions). There have been a number of big corporations suing each other over infringement of a patent that was issued on something such as 'the concept of wireless email', for instance.

    Ideally, these patents on generalized functions would not have been issued and we would all be able to innovate, but as it is the only thing that keeps the software industry working is that these spurious patents are only dusted off to use as a targeted assault against a major competitor (we little folk are not worthy of such notice).

    It is as if someone had patented 'the idea of a gear shift' or 'the idea of displaying the MPH on the dashboard of a car' - patents that have been issued in the past are for the gears and dashboards of pretty much any gui software. The little slider to the right of the box into which I am typing may represent a patent infringement...

    I think that 'copyright' may be a better term to apply to software. Anyone who stole our base code would be stealing our product*; someone who looks at the neat things we can do and then goes off to figure out how to code these things on his own: more power to him! We have no hesitation in demo-ing our product to our competitors, "Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!" (Shelley)

    Jan
    *They would go crazy trying to figure it out: "Who steals my [base code] steals [lightly commented complexity]." (Shakespeare - slightly altered, perhaps)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
      code is not patentable in and of itself. It is copyright-able material.
      "Ideally, these patents on generalized functions would not have been issued and we would all be able to innovate, but as it is the only thing that keeps the software industry working is that these spurious patents are only dusted off to use as a targeted assault against a major competitor (we little folk are not worthy of such notice). "
      jan, what patents are you referring to? You are making broad statements with no support.
      "but we are aware that everything we do probably involves infringing on a spurious patent someone else has acquired (such as patents on common GUI functions)"
      If in fact you are knowing violating patents, that is against the law. Why would you want to recreate what someone else has invented. Patent searches are relatively simple to do. The information is all out there. Why not do the due diligence first? Could save you lots of valuable time.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ jlc 6 years, 10 months ago
        You cannot make software for general commercial use and not use radio buttons, checkboxes, pulldown lists, sliders, etc. These are common gui display items. I have heard it alleged that all of the abovementioned items have been patented. (I have not verified that these items have been patented; if I get the time to do this research I will be glad to let you know more details.)

        It does not matter: One cannot write software without using these common denominators in the user interface - it would mean that your users would have to learn every tool de novo. As it is, when I first came to this forum I already knew how to 'type in a text box' and 'use a slider' and 'push a Reply or Cancel button'.

        When you buy a car, you depend on it having 'a steering wheel' and 'some sort of a shift' and 'a MPH display'. If someone had patented these items and every brand of car had to invent a new way of driving it would mean a learning curve was added to each change of car - and you would not have any enduring 'driving reflexes'. Similarly with respect to the software user interface, you need to use the conventional display items so that a new user already knows how to work the tools and just needs to learn the software itself. We cannot care if these items are patented because we must use them whether or not they are. (I speak for pretty much all software developers here, not just our company.)

        So it does not matter if these items all have spurious patents (usually held by someone who did NOT develop or premier the use of that item, but by someone who retrospecitvely patented something that was already common): If you want to write marketable software, you must use the commonly understood tools.

        The only thing that protects us is, as I mentioned, that these patents are generally used only against major competitors and we - and the plethora of other small software companies - are safely small and obscure.

        Jan
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
          "When you buy a car, you depend on it having 'a steering wheel' and 'some sort of a shift' and 'a MPH display'."
          yes, these things are all inventions and they change over time. and yes, YOU take them for granted. But people are in the business of developing these things you take for granted and are out there everywhere. What individuals like yourself conveniently ignore is that the cost and time and talent involved in developing those ideas happened first-when you didn't see how simple and obvious it was to driving. All of the time, talent, time and costs are risks to businesses and individuals which are leveraged against the value in intellectual property. This includes all these guis. Someone came up with them and it wasn't spontaneous. Patents are limited.
          "We cannot care if these items are patented because we must use them whether or not they are. (I speak for pretty much all software developers here, not just our company.) " jan, this statement sounds eerily like a moocher right out of Atlas Shrugged. If you "must" and it infringes, buy a license! Most are easily done and inexpensive. That's their purpose. Your company cannot "reinvent all wheels" that's the point of a license. That's how inventors make a profession out of what they do.
          If you get to have every technological advance in developing your own technology for free-why would someone design them in the first place? A gift to your software company?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ jlc 6 years, 10 months ago
            Who invented the wheel? A patent lawyer in Australia patented it in 2001 (to prove a point). As Hiraghm points out (below) the patent of the whole desktop metaphor has been under discussion among MS/Apple/Xerox (the lastmentioned being the one who probably developed it - but who did not patent it). The desktop metaphor is in virtually universal use. The important point that you miss is that the people who are making these spurious patents are NOT the people who developed them in the first place. These people are finding someone else's developments, which have been in common use for years (but which were never patented by their inventors) and taking out a spurious patent on them. Like patenting the wheel.

            Do you think anybody does, or should, pay for the use of the 'concept' of a car's steering wheel? Even if I patented 'circular directional vehicle manipulation device' today, it would not be because I had invented it (no clue who did or when) but because I was trying to sequester the use of a common item by 'gaming' the patent system.

            We develop brilliant and original medical software. Our software has to perform the same tasks as all other medical software, however, so there is a lot of convergent evolution evident in the screen display (though the underlying code is completely different). "Show a list of patient names that partially match the entered characters" is something that medical software has to do, whatever its origin. This is a concept, and should not be patentable. We also have to be useable 'out of the box' to our customers, which means using the common tools and look of a gui dashboard. So we use sliders and radio buttons and all of the other conventional display tools.

            We are a bootstrap company that has worked our way up from 'a table at the Carl's Jr halfway between our respective homes' to nice offices and a product that is sold around the world. We have worked for everything we have attained, and done it with integrity. I will thank you not to state, nor imply, that we are moochers. We have done nothing but produce excellent laboratory software at reasonable prices. We use the common tools that all software companies use and if this makes us moochers in your book, then you have just excluded from the 'Producer' category all of the software entrepreneurs that are providing products in all industries all over the world.

            Jan
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
              yes, and so have other inventors. Why is your technology so important that you can steal? We deal with dozens of software companies. and we understand your frustrations in wanting to get a product out the door. We also understand the guy who first came up with intermittent windshield wipers, the fountain pen, the first micro-processor...
              Your arguments are based on emotion and expediency. Sure there are bad patents that get through. The vast majority are hard fought and take years to acquire. That's right. think a decade in terms of cell phones. What's obvious to you today was thought up a decade ago or more. All of our inventors say:
              "We are a bootstrap company that has worked our way up from[ 'a table at the Carl's Jr] halfway between our respective homes' to nice offices and a product that is sold around the world. We have worked for everything we have attained, and done it with integrity."
              I simply responded to your own words. Go re-read what you said. You did not care, because you *needed* it.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ jlc 6 years, 10 months ago
                I think we will have to disagree. To the best of my knowledge there is no patent on the concept of a steering wheel nor the concept of a paper file folder nor the concept of alphabetical order. For someone now to retrospectively patent one of those concepts would be egregious. We, and all other software developers I have known, make use of the gui equivalents of those concepts to steer, file, and organize the visual presentation of data. The use of these commonalities allows the user of a new utility or program to instinctively know what to do as certainly as knowing how to turn the pages of a book or turn on a light.

                The fact that we are a bootstrap company who has worked our way up in the world - as have many other companies, as you point out - indicates that we are producers of a product that we sell for our living. This has nothing to do with whether or not we use a slidebar or radio buttons. It has nothing to do with need. It does have to do with the fact that we are earning our living. We produce a valuable product. Please do not refer to us as moochers.

                Jan
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ CBJ 6 years, 10 months ago
              It’s a good thing that patents weren’t around in primitive times. Aside from the wheel, many other inventions and discoveries would have been eligible for patents:

              The spear and other weapons. (“If you don’t pay my licensing fee, you must hunt wild animals with your bare hands.”)

              Cave art. (“I’ve patented this method of creating a representation of a wooly mammoth. Give me my licensing fee.”)

              A method for making fire. (“If you don’t pay my licensing fee, you are morally obliged to freeze to death.”)

              Money. (“If you want to use it as a medium of exchange, I’ll need my cut.”)

              Maybe even the patent system itself. (“I own the patent on patents, so you can’t patent your invention without paying me a patent fee.”)
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
                please consider reading db's non-fiction book, "The Decline and Fall of the American Entrepreneur.." The rise of a modern patent system allowed the WORLD to escape the Malthusian trap.
                "A method for making fire. (“If you don’t pay my licensing fee, you are morally obliged to freeze to death.”)" If I do not feed YOU, I am guilty of murder?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
                Your ignorance of patent and history is outrageous. Before the advent of modern patent system people lived in the Malthusian Trap (edge of starvation). Every bit of income you make above subsistence you can thank for the advent of property rights in inventions - patents.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
              Jan,

              Your propaganda is outrageous. Please find the patent on the Wheel from Australia and send it to me. I can assure it does not cover just a wheel. But yes there have been advances on wheels and those were patented. For instance, radial tires, non-air tires, etc.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
          Jan,

          You are incorrect about these items are patented, but you are good at propagating nonsense. Even if there had been patents on some of these items, they would have been much more specific than you are implying and they would have expired a long time ago.

          Please work with facts. For instance, please name a specific spurious patent. You clearly thought Alice was a spurious patent, and you were clearly incorrect.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Hiraghm 6 years, 10 months ago
        The debate comes over who "invented".

        Who "invented" the Desktop metaphor interface? Apple tried suing MS over it, but then Xerox said, "excuse us..." And I'm pretty sure Xerox hadn't taken out a patent on it.

        You shouldn't be able to patent ideas; just implementations of ideas. And that's where the devil enters the details.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
      Jan,

      This was not a patent on a generalized function. None of the Supreme Court Justices has a technical background, not one the Justices is a patent attorney, not one of them is qualified to be a first year patent attorney. I would add and neither are you.

      This patent is not an escrow arrangement, requires very specific process (But because the Supreme Court does not know how to read a patent claim they ignore are the real world limitations), saves people billions of dollars, and did not exist until Alice created it. Note that escrow systems existed for centuries and CLS did not create an escrow system, they decided to steal Alice's technology
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
      Jan,

      Other peoples technology is spurious, but yours is good?????

      Other people's property rights are unimportant, but yours are important???

      Your statement is completely unprincipled.

      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 6 years, 10 months ago
    Time to re-define the actions of the supreme court based on the constitution as originally written. The court is an ass.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
      The only RIGHT in the original constitution is the right of inventors and artists to their creations.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by freedomforall 6 years, 10 months ago
        To me "original' means as signed and after the anti-federalists were able to topple the 'made for banksters and aristocrats' version from Alexander Hamilton and his gang of looters. As signed includes the Bill of Rights which could be argued to be restrictions upon the central government, but the word 'right' appears repeatedly in defining those restrictions.
        (Entirely possible that I missed your point, db.)
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
          The Bill of Rights are amendments and not part of the Original constitution. The point being that founders considered patent rights very important and totally consistent with Natural Rights.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by vido 6 years, 10 months ago
    Since the beginning, most software patents are a blatant scam, without originality whatsoever, used to stifle competitors. Making something really, fundamentally original in software happens extremely rarely. Nothing common with real engineering patents, actually. The comparison with Galt's engine is insulting to Galt. On one hand (Galt), you have an example of true genious at work. On the other hand (patented software), you have mere repackaging of public knowledge in a bid to extort competitors. One can not count the number of "XOR sprite", "slide to unlock" etc, kind of ridiculous claims that just an abusive appropriation of obviousness. I for one am glad this charade is over. Keep the patenting process as clean as possible, do not clutter it with countless stupid claims of invention where there is no real justification.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
      If "One Click" was not that desirable, why didn't Barnes and Noble just work around it with 2 clicks? No, it was extremely valuable to their business model and they stole it. The only specifics you give in your comment are "slide to unlock" which is covered by multiple patents. Which patent are you referring to? Have you read the claims of the patent? Until you you offer proof for your wild assertions of "abusive appropriation of obviousness" I cannot gauge the objectivity of your statements
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by vido 6 years, 10 months ago
        "One click" is so obvious that it should never have been patented in the first place. "Slide to unlock", ditto : any number of patents derives from the simple capture of a series of events. This has existed since the inception of event capture devices, probably back to nearly 50 years ago, now. You are obviously no programmer, you speak like a lawyer. Given an existing set of possibilities, enabled by the simple existence of physical inputs, the entire set of "gestures" and the like can be recreated by any programmer worth his salt, independently from the others, and that stems from the fact that these are intuitive, meaning that anybody is going to think about it, and the difficulty to implement obvious ideas is very low (of course, not for a lawyer, whose job is to make the simplest things look extremely complicated to outsiders).
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
          You did answer my question. If it was so "obvious" why wasn't everyone using it? The Patent and Trademark Office is very vigilent in looking for prior art-anything out in the public domain as well. Programmers always make these specious claims with no proof. Let's take an example of "event capture devise" 50 years ago and apply it to One Click.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by vido 6 years, 10 months ago
            Actually if you have an actual look at what is done all around you, you see at the appearance of every new generation of device a flurry of applications, most of them resembling each other, and these reflect the very capabilities now enabled.
            As for the GUI etc, it was not 50 years ago but 60 years ago that the development was spectacularly kickstarted. Just refer to Engelbart 's demo in 1968, showing this new paradigm, enabled by raster display, pointing input devices, packet transmissions, etc. The basic idea was and is still the same : reproduce intuitive behaviors. The results are naturally very close to each other precisely because of that.

            Now, about your dear "One click" that you introduced and keep putting on top of the stack. Never heard of a cookie ? A cookie is what enables that, it is meant to create persistence on top of an otherwise non persistent protocol. Once you get a persistent session, you don't need to re-authenticate, that's the whole point, and keeping your payment information is an obvious application. That's why that patent should never have been granted in the first place. But of course, lawyers are not programmers, they make money by making gullible people think that an obvious consequence of a functionality can ever be implemented once, preferably by the first thief to come to the patent office with a claim to it.

            Oh, and by the way, the Patent Office is far, far from being as efficient is checking claims as you seem to be persuaded of. Just lookup "USPTO staggering incompetence for a recent instance which made it to mainstream media".
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Solver 6 years, 10 months ago
              "1-Click, also called one-click or one-click buying, is the technique of allowing customers to make online purchases with a single click, with the payment information needed to complete the purchase already entered by the user previously."

              I wouldn't want my payment information stored in a cookie. No business that wants to stay in business would store its customer payment information there either.

              Either way, I don't use one click. I prefer "Two Clicks." I need a least a second click to confirm that what I'm buying and how I'm paying is correct.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by vido 6 years, 10 months ago
                Who is going to store payment information _inside_ the cookie ? That would be nonsense. A persistent cookie stores session persistence information, so that re-authentication is skipped. Private/financial information is of course obviously stored in the data storage, hopefully securely enough. Once the user is authenticated, it's a no brainer to retrieve the right set of information about him.

                As for the whole idea of "1-click purchase", I agree with you, it's obviously in order to increase profit by skipping another important step : the time it takes for the user to reconsider a sale, therefore taking advantage of a lot more impulse buy moves, knowing that a large part of the customers won't bother to cancel after ordering, if they have a slight buyer's regret. Of course, I too always avoid that button.

                Anyway, I did not introduce that worthless "1-click" thing in the thread, khalling did and seems to be fond of it, judging by how much he is clinging to it, ignoring everything else I'm writing (he's probably not a programmer, since he obviously does not understand anything to what I'm saying, preferring to utter "you give your opinion, no evidence" instead of popping google up and look up for references).

                The fact remains that USPTO rarely assesses properly the validity of patent claims before granting patents, and most software patents, if not all, are simply too obvious and should never have been granted in the first place. The goal of the patenting system was originally to foster innovation by granting a limited monopoly of an original invention, in exchange for the information describing it, therefore ensuring it is not lost, and that others will make it evolve. This system is rapidly becoming dangerous, because it is becoming more rewarding to just rely on secret to keep a monopoly for a some time, while the competition tries to figure out the secret sauce. In case of software systems, the software _is_ the information, therefore patenting it is inadequate for all purposes, except for frivolous lawsuits (a programmer doesn't care whether what he creates has already been created somewhere else, only lawyers will twist facts to make it appears that he somehow magically copied -they use the word "stealed"- someone else). Besides, no software is ever truly original, there is always a whole spectrum of applications emerging in the same general direction, using the same basic algorithms and patterns.


                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by Solver 6 years, 10 months ago
                  "This system is rapidly becoming dangerous..."
                  Well said.

                  "no software is ever truly original..."
                  That could be claimed for anything ever invented, and sometimes is. But after we gain knowledge, original ideas do come from the mind. Who owns those ideas. The one that has the idea or society?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
                    All inventions are a combination of existing or known elements. The reason we know this is because of conservation of energy and matter.

                    Some people have attempted to define Novel as creating something from nothing, which is impossible. Just like the AWG people they set an impossible goal and then use this to attack legitimate property rights.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by Maphesdus 6 years, 10 months ago
                      All technological innovation happens by a series of small evolutions, rather than huge revolutions. If you require that people come up with a huge revolutionary idea before they're allowed to enter the market, and use the law to stomp on the tiny evolutions, then you're impeding technological advancement.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by Maphesdus 6 years, 10 months ago
                Many online stores provide the option of canceling a purchase within 24 hours if you realize you made a mistake. The concern over accidentally buying the wrong thing is certainly legitimate, but simply introducing a second click into the buying process is both needlessly cumbersome and also ineffective. The ability to undo the purchase after the fact is a much better solution.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
              Please provide actual evidence. So far you just seem to be good a spewing socialist propaganda designed to destroy property rights. In fact why are you on this site? You clearly do not believe in property rights.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
      Really. First of all you don't seem to understand what software is. It is a way of wiring an electronic circuit.

      Second of all Alice's had a real invention, it was not done before Alice created it, it save billions of dollars a year, and not CLS did not just use a computer to automate an escrow system. If it had then ALice would not of sued them.

      Check your premises.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 6 years, 10 months ago
        Software is not a way of wiring an electronic circuit. The circuits in the computer are already "wired" (now "printed"). The software is a sequence of steps implementing decisions by algorithms that put the circuits into different electronic states as the steps are traversed. Some circuits are custom designed to implement specific software.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Solver 6 years, 10 months ago
          The earliest computers were also wired. They also required a programmer to wire rows on these individual boards that would run steps in machine code on the hardware. Then these wired boards were plugged into these computers in the the order needed for a specific program to run. A different program to solve a different problem only needed a different set of wired boards.
          This is the basis of today's computers and today's software.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 6 years, 10 months ago
            But the circuits they used were hardware, not software. Software made it possible to use general purpose computers without changing the hardware.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • -1
              Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
              You don't understand how software and computers work. Your clearly unqualified to comment, but I am sure that will not stop you from doing so.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 6 years, 10 months ago
                My career has been in computers, including "how computers work" and algorithms, software, and applied mathematics in engineering physics. Why do you think software is a way of wiring an electronic circuit?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
                  High level software is converted by a compiler into assembly code or other lower level language. This is converted by computer into voltage levels, which set the states of various transistors. This means that you are wiring an electronic circuit.

                  You realize that anything done is software can be done in hardware - because it is done by hardware. The reason an electrical engineer decides to implement a solution in software or hardware (or the numerous other choices in between) has to do with a trade between speed versus flexibility.

                  If you just look at the history of computers, the whole point was to create a flexible way of wiring logic (digital) circuits.

                  "algorithms, software, and applied mathematics in engineering physics" How does it do this? By changing voltages that change the states of transistors and the voltages on capacitors - electronic circuit.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 9 months ago
                    Changing the states of the transistors does not "rewire the circuits". You have no business accusing anyone of "not understanding how software and computers work" and being "being unqualified to comment" for rejecting it.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 9 months ago
                      Of course it does that is why they are called switches.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by ewv 6 years, 9 months ago
                        Switches do not rewire a circuit, they are components that are part of a circuit. But a switching circuit in a computer means that the transistors change the binary states which they represent by the voltage differences across them. Logic circuits in computers operate with binary signals represented by voltages at the lower and upper range, with several elements employed to control each transistor. The states change with each increment of the clock, with a different state for each step of the program (at the machine language level). It is these voltage states that are "switched" from one logical configuration to another. They do not not "rewire the circuit". Whatever you are trying to say you aren't using the correct terminology.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ ObjectiveAnalyst 6 years, 10 months ago
    Good morning khalling,
    Wow! This thread has made a lot of waves. I see quite a bit of contention. It is a subject far afield from my expertise so I hesitate to offer an opinion. I will say that my spidey senses alight when I read in the comments section below the linked to article, that the decision is right because the system as previously established "no longer serves the greater good of society."

    Isn't the purpose to serve the inventor first for a limited period so as to foster innovation which will later have a byproduct of benefit to society as a whole? As a layman I also wonder what kind of incentive for software developers may be diminished and how this may slow development... right or wrong... I wonder of the expertise and technical knowledge of the SCOTUS. Even in local court cases where colleagues of mine have sued for payment, judges unqualified to judge the efforts and technical aspects of the industrial manufacturing processes have ruled unfairly for deadbeats that did not wish to pay for services rendered because despite monumental efforts on the part of the manufacturers the unique designs were found wanting for the chosen process. If a buyer designs a part to be cast that is a challenge to produce soundly without modification and refuses to allow for deviations in pattern design which could be reversed in secondary machining processes it is not the fault of a casting facility that the parts as designed could not be produced error free. It is a unique condition of a part that has never been attempted before.

    Like I said, I am ignorant in such matters and defer to expert opinion. If every layman could do my job I would be without one...
    Respectfully,
    O.A.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
      OA, as an inventor, I see you appreciate and understand the importance of protecting the products of your labor. It seems strange to me that individuals who promote capitalism would not give the benefit of the doubt to the inventor. The vast majority of our clients are able to quickly answer several questions which I consider integral to beginning the patent process.
      1. Is there anything like this already in your industry?
      2. What is the need? and how does your invention address the need
      3. If there currently is not a need, how will your invention disrupt your industry or other industries?
      4. How will you monetize this invention?

      In Alice's case, there was nothing like it out there, it saved clients billions in costs, it was obviously valuable or CLS would not have stolen the technology. The CAFC case revolved around not whether Alice was the inventor but IF the patent covered invention criteria. In other words, was this within the scope of invention (section 35 USC 101-patent statute). Their argument was if you combined computers + communication systems to settle financial transactions it is not in the subject matter of inventions.
      It is impossible to logically suggest that something that uses computers and communication systems is NOT in the subject matter of inventions. A computer is NOT an abstract idea. Communication systems exist, are tangible-not abstract. The court has NEVER defined abstract ideas. The court was purposefully vague, because they are unanimous in feeling anti-patent in general. Justice Thomas, probably been the strongest on patents, has referred to patents as "monopolies." This shows inherent bias and an erroneous definition for patent in the first place.
      George Mason University School of Law has an intellectual property center pursuing some of these intellectual battles. It may be too late...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ ObjectiveAnalyst 6 years, 10 months ago
        Hello khalling,
        I am unqualified to judge on the merits, but it sure sounds like something from AS. Directive 10-289 ... "Point Three. All patents and copyrights, pertaining to any devices, inventions, formulas, processes and works of any nature whatsoever, shall be turned over to the nation as a patriotic emergency gift by means of Gift Certificates to be signed voluntarily by the owners of all such patents and copyrights. The Unification Board shall then license the use of such patents and copyrights to all applicants, equally and without discrimination, for the purpose of eliminating monopolistic practices, discarding obsolete products and making the best available to the whole nation. No trademarks, brand names or copyrighted titles shall be used. Every formerly patented product shall be known by a new name and sold by all manufacturers under the same name, such name to be selected by the Unification Board. All private trademarks and brand names are hereby abolished.It sounds as if the government is taking away patents that were previously held just like with Rearden. But, like I said, I am not qualified to judge so I will defer to the experts.
        You may be interested in some further comments I shall write to db and to Robbie shortly.
        Regards,
        O.A.

        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
          OA,
          yes. We already know AR was very deliberate in her writing. It was no accident that Rearden and Galt were both inventors. Directive 10-289 is the literary equivalent to a Supreme Court decision such as Alice's last week. Thanks for reminding us.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
      OA,

      Good points. I do not object to comments about patents that are directed to general knowledge (e.g., do patents foster economic growth and they a natural right) but I do object when people who have no expertise in patents start making pronouncements about whether the claims should be held patentable.

      This case really was only about whether Alice's described (claimed) something that was an invention. It was not about whether Alice was the inventor (first to create this invention). A computer and communication system that helps settle financial transactions is clearly an invention - it is a human creation with an objective result.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ ObjectiveAnalyst 6 years, 10 months ago
        Hello dbhalling,
        I produce one offs. The tooling I produce is unique, it requires my ingenuity and creativity to produce. My customers go on using it long after I am paid, to produce wealth for themselves, while I receive no royalties. I produce mostly injection molds that may last indefinitely. I am not complaining, because I know what I am getting into in the first place. However sometimes my customers make unreasonable demands upon me and I will not comply. For instance; The other day a customer requested my die designs (CAD files) before proceeding with the build. He had already issued a P.O. and I have been a supplier for many years. This was new and quite disconcerting. I said I would not and he questioned why not? since he was paying for them... I told him to read my customer service policy which clearly states that my designs and data are proprietary and that he did not pay for my software or my designs that he has contracted for a tool and i was going to supply it and nothing more since this has been standard practice in this industry for longer than I can remember and I have in this business in some capacity for forty years. He was satisfied with some screen dumps, and I believe i will maintain their business, but I will not hand over CAD files. They are mine and they exist because of my investment and ingenuity. I could still be producing these dies with paper sketches, a pencil and a trig book of sine, cos, and tan, values. These files I keep are also sales tool and help me with die changes and engineering changes that make it more affordable for my customers to send dies I build back to me. additionally if I supplied the data up-front my customer could nit pick them to death and drive up the cost of the production, or cancel the order and use my files to have another mold-maker build from them.

        Not Cool!

        Regards,
        O.A.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
          Understood. Actually, I have had to advise s/w consultants on something similar, where the customer wants all rights in the s/w. If the consultant does this too often then he will not be able to make anything. Usually, we can work out an agreement to not reuse the information for a competitor and let the customer have rights to non-repeatable techniques that apply to their industry.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ ObjectiveAnalyst 6 years, 10 months ago
            I find this thinking outrageous. Where else does this happen?!?! One does not go to the car dealer and buy a car and then demand the blueprints or CAD files, or walk into KFC, buy a bucket of chicken and demand the secret recipe!
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
              In s/w the concern most customers have is that you will sell the same code to their competitors. They also believe that if they paid for the development they should have the rights to the thing being developed. In s/w I see both sides have a point. Certainly, the person paying for the s/w needs to keep the copyright in the code if they are going to resell it.

              I have also told developers to trade the amount they will charge for the amount of IP they are willing to give up.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ ObjectiveAnalyst 6 years, 10 months ago
                Indeed. When I "purchase" software the contract makes it quite clear that I am not purchasing the software, but a license to use it; that I may not copy or resell it or any part of it.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
                  What is interesting is that the reason s/w is licensed is probably because it could not meet the warranty requirements of the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code). Thus s/w companies licensed their s/w to avoid this issue. This has caused a number of other problems.

                  In your case, it seems to me that people are probably just trying to avoid paying you.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Robbie53024 6 years, 10 months ago
      Hi, OA. Perhaps it would have been better to turn down such business? I understand that it was done in good faith, and probably under a contract, but when a customer asks for the impossible, it's probably not worth it.

      As an engineer, I learned early in my career to listen to the manuf engineers. Having designed a beautiful bracket that was an impossibility to manufacture and being rather embarrassed by such, it only took one such instance to forever change my behavior.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ ObjectiveAnalyst 6 years, 10 months ago
        Hello Robbie53024,
        As a fellow engineer you can appreciate the fact that some designs are not being designed for "manufacturability." Some new designers are enamored with the power of their CAD systems and are not engineers but are designing for pure aesthetics without regard for manufacture. Sometimes some of my customers get a job which I can produce a die/mold for, but they cannot cast with reasonable scrap rates. The parts are marginal as designed for metal flow and casting purposes. They can often be manufactured from billet, but they wish to save costs and try to cast the parts near net shape. If the foundry pays me to build a tool and then finds they cannot produce the casting as designed and the customer will not allow modifications, they occasionally refuse to pay and win in court. A judge will say that my customer did not produce what his customer ordered, end of story... the judge will not care how much effort and different methods my customer tried or how many suggestions of how to make the part more casting friendly, or that I will demand payment because my tooling was not at fault. My customer loses! The judge is ignorant of the process. Each time a new part is cast it is a unique challenge. It is a prototype so to speak the first time and it may not work. My customers are often willing to take on the challenges, the R&D, and will point out the limitations and the possibility that this may not work as designed, only to find out later of the inflexibility of the ultimate purchaser. This is when they lose all around. Some of the companies I serve are small outfits that only generate a few million in sales so an order of an hundred thousand that goes bad can ruin them and this is not an unusual sum. I have even seen when this occurs, that the judge will rule that the foundry must also pay legal fees for the winner who ultimately was a moocher.
        Regards,
        O.A.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
    So all of you patent haters are victims? Victims of industrious people who invent? How so? Please pick and choose industries that are null and void of disruptive invention. Please tell me how you have not benefited by inventions you claim have always been there. Watch innovation stifle and go underground. I wish you good luck. Because you have turned your minds OFF
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 6 years, 10 months ago
    Say goodbye to creativity for profit.
    This makes me so angry that I would do something drastic, if I wasn't an old disabled fart.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
      herb, look at the numbers of gulchers who support this decision. I am appalled
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Herb7734 6 years, 10 months ago
        Looks like they have the intent but lack the knowledge. The marvel of technology can become the monster of technology to those who fail to understand that there can be such a thing as intangible property.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ jbrenner 6 years, 10 months ago
        I agree with you, khalling. I do understand why others think the way they do about software. The 10% rule with regard to patents refers to "If you change something by 10%, you can patent it". When it comes to software, this has been abused. When Microsoft came up with Windows, it was a blatant copy of Apple's GUI, which of course Xerox handed Apple on a silver platter. The problem that needs correcting is that the substantive improvements of one technology over another need to be considerably more distinct than they are allowed to be currently. In the software field, there is not much difference that is permissible regarding how to display something, and patenting a logic package is difficult, too. The software field definitely is one of, if not the, most nebulous when it comes to patent distinctions. One of my master's students left a patent clerk job to come work with me. Now she is going back to earning significantly more money in the patent business. Are you interested in hiring anyone for your patent business?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
          opportunity.
          We do not litigate. We will be counseling our clients on this ruling. We will be informing them of their opportunity costs in filing applications. What do you think? db could tomorrow become part of the "machine" and represent clients(big ones and bad decision makers) fighting against this ruling....who is john galt?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ jbrenner 6 years, 10 months ago
            With any change in the business climate, there are opportunities.

            Regardless of one's rules for living, one must always be willing to live with oneself after each decision and be willing to live with the consequences of the decision. I'll call this jbrenner's corollary to A = A.

            If you and db "become part of the machine", it will be not a concession to the ways of the world, but rather another step in shrugging.

            Indeed, who is John Galt?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by HRoberts3 6 years, 10 months ago
    You can now see why John Galt did NOT apply to patent his new motor. This SCOTUS decision is merely the anti-mind part of the "Anti-Industrial Revolution."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 6 years, 10 months ago
    This is why Supreme Court justices should NOT have lifetime appointments.
    If any inventor was doubting about shrugging, this should convince them.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
      Note one of the Supreme Court justices are factually or legally competent to be patent attorneys. Legally, patent attorneys have to have a engineering or science background. Factually, you cannot correctly rule on patents if you do not understand the technology. None of the Justices has any idea what a computer is or does. None of them no how to read a patent claim among many other things they do not understand about patent law.

      None of the Sup. Ct Justices would make it as a first year associate in patent law.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 6 years, 10 months ago
    With respect, I suggest the standpoint taken here by kh is wrong, that the US court system is impartial. Not so, rulings are random but have biases not towards legal argument but weight of money, and nation of origin of the protagonists.
    Another view, the ruling is an understandable reaction to the permitted misuse of patent/intellectual property law which has encouraged mass creation of patents without technical merit and the trading in them, patents which do not describe invention but purportedly predict an invention the patent owner can leech off, a system which does not protect inventors but makes big corporates employ masses of lawyers.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
      your statements are incorrect. It takes years sometimes over a decade to argue getting a patent. It is highly costly and a significant risk on the part of the inventor company. I will agree that multi-nationals can flood the USPTO with applications. Where is your proof that patents do not describe adequately the invention? I think you have bought into the anti-patent propaganda lucky. disappointing
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 6 years, 10 months ago
    Perhaps a different perspective will provide a different perspective.

    From InfoWorld - a software industry publication

    The U.S. Supreme Court delivered its much-anticipated decision in the case of Alice v. CLS today. The case involved an Australian company attempting to enforce patents on software managing risk mitigation in financial transactions; CLS Bank sought a court ruling that the patents were not enforceable. The first court ruled Alice's patents invalid; the Federal Circuit Appeals court reversed that decision; and then the same court, in an en banc hearing, re-ruled that the patents were invalid. The Supreme Court today upheld that ruling.

    This is great news for America's software industry: It just became much harder to prove a software patent is valid. In affirming the lower court's en banc decision, the Supreme Court confirmed its previously-devised approach to such matters. It divided the problem into two parts:
    ◾Is there something Alice is doing that would be patentable without a computer being involved?
    ◾Does the involvement of a computer transform anything into a patentable subject?

    In this case, the answer to both questions was "no." While, characteristically, the court has avoided straying into larger matters (such as the general applicability of software patents), What it did say helps tremendously. First, the court said:

    Merely requiring generic computer implementation fails to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.

    In other words, just slapping a phrase like "a computer that..." in front of something that's not patentable does not magically make it patentable. Secondly, the court said that making it sound all technical is not a magical talisman unlocking patentability.

    Read more at: http://www.infoworld.com/t/technology-bu...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
      The writer from Info world does not understand inventions which are patentable. Here is a simple litmus test. Erase all of the software on your computer robbie. Then answer this comment I am writing to you. The sheer ignorance and arrogance of these idiots stuns me
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Robbie53024 6 years, 10 months ago
        I understand your passion in this area, it is your life's work. However, I think this deserves perspective from other views. As I said, a different perspective might provide a different perspective.

        I don't know the particulars of the case. What I read is that the "innovation" existed regardless of the computer and that the addition of the computer did not then create an innovation that would be deemed "patentable." If true, then they got it right.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
          db not only studied the case in depth he knows the CEO and inventor of Alice. I am fine with other perspectives as long as they are objective and based on reason. InfoWorld reported incorrectly on the case. They are opinion driven not based on law or an understanding of what an invention is.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Hiraghm 6 years, 10 months ago
        I'll do the next best thing... I'll turn off this computer. Then answer you on my phone. Or my Amiga. Or my Model 100...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by johnpe1 6 years, 10 months ago
          we could do it better -- call her on a tin can and a
          string! let's see. where is she, northern Argentina?
          long string.... there are a lot of inventions between
          the can-and-string and the computer, all of them
          patentable, including software. (code-frozen ideas) -- j

          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • -1
            Posted by Hiraghm 6 years, 10 months ago
            Okay, I'll allow software patents the day they start allow patents for "Avatar 2" and "Atlas Shrugged part 3"...

            Tin cans and string can't transfer text information onto the internet. My Android phone, my Amiga, or my M100 can, each using very different software to perform the same function.

            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
      Robbie,

      Infoworld is not a patent attorney. They did not just slap a computer on a general idea. Infoworld is part of the mass propagation of lies surrounding people's property right in their inventions. The fact that you are falling for this Socialist propaganda is surprising to me.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Robbie53024 6 years, 10 months ago
        Not "falling" for anything. Merely availing myself of different perspectives so that I can form my own, informed, opinion. While I recognize your expertise in the area, I also recognize your inherent bias (that's not an insult, merely a statement of fact).

        Like I said, I used to read lots of patents for my work. As an engineer, I saw numerous nearly identical implementations of functions. Few of them were truly "novel and unique", yet they received a patent. And often I would run into "blocking" patents by competitors which were written all around a truly novel and unique innovation such that the originator was stifled in other uses of their idea, yet the competitor couldn't use their patents without leasing the original patent. They would crowd out the originator and force them into signing that license because they had no real choice.

        I think we need to protect IP. I just don't think the current system does so rationally.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ jbrenner 6 years, 10 months ago
          The blocking patent issue is definitely a real problem with the current patent system. One of the more important aspects of a good patent is to make it broad enough in the first place so that the originator has room to operate. I have seen patents on catalysts that damn near covered the whole periodic table!
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
          Let's start with your definition of Novel - what is it? Second of all I know plenty of very smart engineers who look at patents all the time and still have not mastered the art of reading claims. So unless you have passed the patent bar, I am skeptical that you can correctly read the claims.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Robbie53024 6 years, 10 months ago
            So, if a reasonably competent engineer - OK, I'm taking the liberty that you would consider me reasonably competent ;-) - cannot read a patent claim and understand it, how can some regular schmo research them and ensure that he isn't violating an existing claim, or that he is citing all prior art?

            I'm guessing that your response is that he needs to hire a patent attorney, in which case I will respond that that is precisely the problem. It is (like all too much in the area of the law), so complex, arcane, and confusing that a regular person with normal competency cannot fathom it anymore. That is a problem.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ jbrenner 6 years, 10 months ago
              Two hours spent in the library is worth six weeks in the lab. It is one's job to know the existing literature, both journal published and patent literature. Nonetheless, your point is well taken about how the regular person with normal competency struggles with patent law. I often have to get students to "unlearn what they have learned" (said in my best Yoda imitation) with regard to intellectual property.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by Robbie53024 6 years, 10 months ago
                Undoubtedly. I was told by a corporate patent attorney that their job was specifically to write the patent in such a way so as to cover the technology, but be so obtuse and convoluted so as to make deciphering the actual technology difficult. 1) so as to not tip off the invention to competitors, and 2) so that if/when those competitors came up with something in that space, that they could then sue to prevent usage.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
                  wow. That was spectacularly bad advice to you. It is frustrating that applications are published 18 months into the process allowing competitors to engineer around the invention, and allowing countries (China) to just steal the technology. I know db reads convoluted patents at times. He is kinda famous for his short applications. He once had a Fortune 100 client tell him to add more pages to the description. Descriptions are separate from claims however, and the determination of patent eligibility will rest on the claims. Claim construction is very rule specific. There is lots of statute out there telling a patent prosecutor how to construct them. Much like an equation....Some claims are considered independent and some claims are dependent, for example. Although confusing to you or I, it is not intended to obfuscate but to adhere to the laws regarding eligibility.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
              I do think it should be part of an engineering education that students learn the basics of how patents work including claims. You hire an attorney to prepare an important contract don't you?

              On a practical basis: the first step is to search patents for inventions that are in a similar space as your invention. This is something that any competent engineer can do. There are important business reasons for doing this, including not wasting engineering resources reinventing the wheel, avoiding liability, and often learning improvements that you can take advantage of. There are academic papers on point that show a startups that understands the patent space (like marketing space) they live in are much more likely to have a successful exit. If you find a patent that appears close then you hire a patent attorney.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ jbrenner 6 years, 10 months ago
                I make sure my students spend time dealing with patents in several of my engineering courses, db. Florida Tech is talking about starting up a law school, but the only type of law that students would be able to prepare for is patent law. This makes sense, as we are an engineering school.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
                  That is great. I had an engineer from a defense company tell me he knew a case from the 80s where they spent at least $10 million and then he found out years later through patents that someone had already gone down this path including the problems they ran into and could have saved millions if they just had done a patent search.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ jbrenner 6 years, 10 months ago
                    There are many stories similar to that, db. My dissertation advisor really impressed on us the importance of knowing the literature. For a little while, I put in the time getting to know the literature before realizing just how wise my advisor was. It was time well spent.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
                      When I went to school I learned how to analyze in depth, but nothing about design. My opinion is that design is more about learning the history of an area of technology as analysis.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by $ jbrenner 6 years, 10 months ago
                        Chemical engineering process design always has multiple answers that are fairly close when it comes to how one defines optimal. Often the differences come down to the cost of transporting raw materials and/or products to/from the plant site. There will be a history once has to consider, but independent designs that are sufficiently superior in one or more of several criteria do often get implemented. It's almost a Roark vs. Keating thing.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by lrbeggs 6 years, 10 months ago
    I am stunned to the point of pain. How is this travesty possible? All nine? Integrity is lost.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
      they simply do not understand how claims are written, or the underlying science(Myriad, Mayo) or even their own decisions! This decision has language that directly contradicts Bilski (a previous decision). Patent law is highly complex, it is one reason why there is a separate court to hear patent law cases. The small inventor was just given the boot AGAIN! A Google or Apple or Samsung-they can afford to spend years arguing for a patent. Most independent inventors cannot.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ richrobinson 6 years, 10 months ago
    Is this a result of lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court? It was a unanimous decision. Did not one of the nine understand what they were ruling on? How far can this be stretched? I am guessing we will see follow up stories based on this ruling.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
      correct. not one of the justices understand patent law, technology or science
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Robbie53024 6 years, 10 months ago
        Actually, in reading the decision, they do seem to understand patent law.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
          from a patent scholar:

          "You say: “It should make people think twice about trying to patent obvious or non-novel things.”

          That wasn’t what the case is about. This case is not about patenting things that are known or obvious. This case was about whether despite something being novel and non-obvious it is still nevertheless patent ineligible. That is the only question under 35 USC 101 to ask and answer. The Supreme Court is clearly conflating 101 with 102/103. That is in direct violation of the requirements of the Patent Statute. So you can celebrate the decision, but the decision is clearly and unambiguously contrary to the law. Of course, at the end of the day the Supreme Court gets the final say, but that doesn’t mean they are right. So now we have a mess. They say one thing and the law says another thing. Under our system of government the law is supposed to be primary unless it is unconstitutional. Since the Supreme Court has not declared the Patent Act unconstitutional it is their duty under our system of government to correctly interpret Acts of Congress. Today they failed. They also failed in Mayo and Myriad as well."
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Robbie53024 6 years, 10 months ago
            citation? I'd prefer to validate the objectiveness myself.

            On its face, a 9-0 decision, with the likes of Thomas and Scalia concurring, doesn't seem to me that they got the law wrong. These are two strong private property advocates.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
              go to intellectual property code. Read Rules 101, 102, 103 and section 112. If you read the opinion you will see it directly contradicts law and prior SCOTUS rulings. In specific, Bilski where the court ruled business method patents are valid. This patent covered a method for Escrow. It was much desired and a game changer making Alice an internationally recognized company. CLS copied the method. Looters, really.
              Thomas and Scalia countered their own arguments in Bilski! that's how absurd they have gotten on these cases. The law was clear. They have moved philosophically in a direction to limit what is patent able because it doesn't feel right. Well it is not their job to write laws-only interpret them. When this all settles, the court will come back likely and say "we didn't mean that." but in the meantime, the USPTO examiners will cite Alice and reject most software applications. The cost for applying has just doubled or tripled and the chances of a grant have gone down significantly. Hide your ideas.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
              Actually there is no evidence that either of these Justices are strong property rights advocates. If you read the decision it is illogical on its face. It shows they cannot read patent claims. It shows that they do not understand patent law. They fail to read claims correctly. They violate the laws of physics by saying each part of the claim is well known. (Its called conservation of matter and energy). You have proven you also are impervious to logic and reason.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 6 years, 10 months ago
                The evidence that Thomas and Scalia are strong on behalf of property rights is their record in defending them in the realm of land rights, etc. They do understand and support property rights, but that in itself does not mean that they understand the source and meaning of intellectual property rights in particular. They may very well have intended to support property rights in this case, but didn't how to do it and what it meant for each side.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
          not according to patent law scholars
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Robbie53024 6 years, 10 months ago
            Please provide citation of independent scholar(s) that do not derive their livelihood from the status quo and I'll be happy to add that to my analysis. The article linked in the heading is certainly from a biased source.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
              "independent scholar(s) that do not derive their livelihood from the status quo..."
              what the hell does that even mean? if you are an expert in patent law you are an expert in patent law. do you mean a scholar is only valid if they are not a patent attorney? or if they are a professor? ok, professor Crouch at Patently-O. He is not as negative as we are on this, but he will point out the absurdity of the ruling.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
          Robbie,

          How do you form that opinion? What is your expertise in patent law? Do you know the difference between "comprising" and "consisting of", do you know the doctrine of claim differentiation?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ winterwind 6 years, 10 months ago
    I just read the first 2 paragraphs of the article to a bunch of medical-equipment boffins and there was a short, but significant, silence - and then much technical conversation which I had no hope of understanding.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
      sorry. the lay stuff which is not Obama admin spin will come a little later. This is fresh off the press and scholars are studying the nonsensical decision to determine how to move forward. The Justices are just not scientific minds. and certainly not well versed in patent law.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 6 years, 10 months ago
        khalling: "The Justices are just not scientific minds. and certainly not well versed in patent law."

        The Justices each have staffs of legal experts who are in turn expected to do the required research. This opens the question of what did they do to find how what else they needed to know rather the matter of whether the Justices are personal experts in patent law.

        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • -1
          Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
          Not one of whom is technical expert, not one of which is legally or factually qualified to be a patent attorney. Your really have no idea what you are talking about.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 6 years, 10 months ago
            I don't know what the specialties of their staff members are. I only raise this because there is more to it than the specialties of the Justices themselves. Have you looked into the backgrounds of the staff? For all we know the ignorance spreads beyond any particular Justice and the staff didn't know enough to consult anyone either.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
              db has a post on this on his blog. Not one of the Justices has a technical or scientific background. Most of their staff are are young lawyers who also cannot claim expertise in this area. To illustrate: the Supreme Court and the CAFC have disagreed over patent rulings, usually based on patent law precedent or technical assertions. The CAFC is made up of about half patent attys who in order to practice patent law must also have either a science or engineering background.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 6 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I'm not ignoring anything. I don't have direct interaction with them, so have no info. Thus, I don't bother to comment on that of which I have no info.
    Advocating for theft, while reprehensible, isn't a form of theft. That is tantamount to guilt by association, which I would think you find objectionable.
    While I understand frustration and lashing out with an ad hominem once in a while (as I'm want to do occasionally myself), but making it one's primary method of argument does not reflect positively.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 6 years, 9 months ago
      it's worse. Advocating for theft is trying to morally justify it which is worse in the long run. I am tired of mincing around anarchists and pretending I am having an intellectual discussion with a moving target. The goal is to obscure, divert, antagonize and divide ultimately. It is intellectually dishonest and not objective to promote abolishing of property rights. Your belief in God does not threaten me. Those advocating for abolishment of property rights threatens everyone. I will not ignore those attempts on this site. I will point them out for who they are and what they are advocating for.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
    There seems to be a general lack of understanding of what software is. Software is a way of wiring an electronic circuit. Logically to be against patents on software you have to be against patents on electronics. This position is absurd.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 6 years, 10 months ago
      As explained elsewhere on this page, software is not a way of wiring an electronic circuit. The circuits in the computer are already "wired" (now "printed"). The software is a sequence of steps implementing decisions by algorithms that put the circuits into different electronic states as the steps are traversed. Some circuits are custom designed to implement specific software.

      Any program can in principle be implemented directly in hardware (beyond just rigging it to run what is still a general purpose computer), which raises the questions of what kind of circuits employing what kind of logic are patentable and does that then automatically extend to the corresponding software version? It doesn't seem that the layering of software and hardware should make much difference.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
        Your ignorance of how computers works is monumental.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 6 years, 10 months ago
          I assure you I know quite a lot about computers from both education through graduate school and years of experience in computers, mathematics, engineering and physics. Why do you think software is a way of wiring an electronic circuit? Maybe you are just using non-standard terminology.

          A good book for you to read is The Feynman Lectures on Computation, which explains both the physics and mathematics of computers. It does not require prior technical knowledge of these subjects and you would probably get a lot out of it. It shows how the states of a computer are represented and controlled, and how this is implemented in hardware with transistor circuits employing solid state physics.You would only need to read about half the book. His presentation is now decades old, but still captures the fundamentals.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago

            Posted by dbhalling 39 minutes ago
            High level software is converted by a compiler into assembly code or other lower level language. This is converted by computer into voltage levels, which set the states of various transistors. This means that you are wiring an electronic circuit.

            You realize that anything done is software can be done in hardware - because it is done by hardware. The reason an electrical engineer decides to implement a solution in software or hardware (or the numerous other choices in between) has to do with a trade between speed versus flexibility.

            If you just look at the history of computers, the whole point was to create a flexible way of wiring logic (digital) circuits.

            "algorithms, software, and applied mathematics in engineering physics" How does it do this? By changing voltages that change the states of transistors and the voltages on capacitors - electronic circuit.

            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 6 years, 9 months ago
              Changing the states of the transistors does not "rewire the circuits". You have no business accusing anyone of "monumental ignorance" for rejecting it.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 9 months ago
                Of course it does. That is why they are called switches.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 6 years, 9 months ago
                  Switches do not rewire a circuit, they are components that are part of a circuit. But a switching circuit in a computer means that the transistors change the binary states which they represent by the voltage differences across them. Logic circuits in computers operate with binary signals represented by voltages at the lower and upper range, with several elements employed to control each transistor. The states change with each increment of the clock, with a different state for each step of the program (at the machine language level). It is these voltage states that are "switched" from one logical configuration to another. They do not not "rewire the circuit". Whatever you are trying to say you aren't using the correct terminology.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 6 years, 10 months ago
    “Ever since Autodesk had to pay $25,000 to “license” a patent which claimed the invention of XOR-draw for screen cursors (the patent was filed years after everybody in computer graphics was already using that trick), at the risk of delaying or cancelling our Initial Public Offering in 1985, I've been convinced that software patents are not only a terrible idea, but one of the principal threats to the software industry. As I write this introduction in 1993, the multimedia industry is shuddering at the prospect of paying royalties on every product they make, because a small company in California has obtained an absurdly broad patent on concepts that were widely discussed and implemented experimentally more than 20 years earlier.” Read here “Patent Nonsense” by John Walker. http://www.fourmilab.ch/autofile/www/cha...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • -1
      Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
      Brilliant Mike. You base you decision on one data point, that is a purposeful mis-characterization. You are clearly incorrect about the XOR being known before the patent was filed. If was created years before as part of a CAD computer system. Then people started using it and it became part of the VGA (I think) standard. So your facts are wrong, but you are good a spreading socialist propaganda designed to destroy people's property rights.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 6 years, 10 months ago
        Dale, you contradict yourself. You said: "You are clearly incorrect about the XOR being known before the patent was filed. If was created years before as part of a CAD computer system." So, the XOR was known even even before AutoCAD used it is its own CAD systems. I believe that this was, indeed, the point of the AutoCAD complaint: they did not invent it; and neither did the patent claimant. Rather than refuting my point, that validates it. You say that this is just one example, an outlier, not representative of patents in general. Perhaps so. Rather than address that, you fire an invective at me, claiming that I am "spreading socialist propaganda". In fact, you seem to know little about socialism in practice:

        "By decree of the Central Executive Committee of September, 1924, patent laws were established somewhat similar to those in force before the world war. In December, 1924, a Committee on Inventions was created to carry out the provisions of the patent laws and to conduct the business of the Patent Office.

        The Soviet patent laws follow the same general lines as those of Germany, and give similar protection to the inventor. The Soviet Union does not belong to the International Patent Convention. It has, however, a special patent agreement with Germany.

        Foreigners may obtain patents on equal terms with the citizens of the U.S.S.R. " -- https://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/go...

        Apparently, all _socialist_ nations have patents. First show me a (truly) capitalist nation; then show me its patent law. Do you know the play _Rossum's Universal Robots_? It coined the word "robot." When the robots revolt and kill all the humans, they spare the engineer because like them, he works. The story is a parable. Socialists wanted to see inventors honored and rewarded, not exploited by evil capitalists and their corporations. It is easy to question their claim, but they do make it. So, your nasty charge that I am pushing socialism is just an ad hominem attack.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
          Yes USSR tried and it did not work. Patents are property rights not a reward such as a monetary prize. As a result, what the USSR did was call something a patent system when it was not. Words have meanings. Calling a dandelion a rose does not make it a rose.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 6 years, 10 months ago
            Yes, of course, we agree on the fundamental contradiction faced by the USSR in attempting to protect inventions through patents. The fact remains that classical Marxist socialism does recognize the inventor and does advocate for rewards, if only medals for your shirt.

            That being as it may, you failed to address the more challenging point:
            ""Dale, you contradict yourself. You said: "You are clearly incorrect about the XOR being known before the patent was filed. If was created years before as part of a CAD computer system." So, the XOR was known even even before AutoCAD used it is its own CAD systems. I believe that this was, indeed, the point of the AutoCAD complaint: they did not invent it; and neither did the patent claimant. Rather than refuting my point, that validates it. You say that this is just one example, an outlier, not representative of patents in general. Perhaps so." "

            To me, the case in point was not an outlier, but exemplary, as you admit. All patents are applications of the second law of thermodynamics: "Have one, you have them all." You painted yourself into a corner. I am sorry that you did. I believe in the existence of intellectual property rights. You seem incapable of defining and defending them. I will have to do the work myself. (It will be copyrighted.)
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
          Once again you don't even understand the basics of patents and physics. Every invention in the history of the world is a combination of KNOWN elements. You know WHY???? Because you can't violate conservation of energy and matter. Based on your non-sense the only thing patentable is black magic. Brilliant.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Maphesdus 6 years, 10 months ago
        How is that socialist?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
          This whole anti-patent line is pushed stealthily by socialists. They know that patents and copyrights are critical for property rights. Much like many socialist ideas they are not upfront about their goals - see the word progressive or the whole environmental movement.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 6 years, 10 months ago
            That doesn't mean that every opposition to some patent or patent standard as overly broad is socialist. Some libertarians oppose patents -- with the typical a-philosophical anarcho mentality, which is more crudely collectivist in implementation even if not intentionally socialist. But there are technical disputes over what should be patentable and which are not motivated to destroy property rights or grease the skids for socialism. Overly broad patents granted for obvious and common ideas are also destructive of property rights. The question is how to properly define and delimit them to protect the property rights of creators who deserve them rather than grant a "property right" to someone who does not.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
              The libertarians do not understand property rights. They play into the socialist hands, so I stand by my criticism.

              Name an overly broad patent. How do you determine if it is overly broad? Do you know how to read and interpret claims?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 6 years, 10 months ago
                They play into socialist hands inevitably, but often not intentionally. When they deny some broad category of property rights it is worse, and even if they don't intend it to be across the board socialism, they are advocating collectivism in that one realm at least.

                There have been many examples of software patents -- whether granted or being argued or fought over -- which would be ridiculous to patent. They are typically routine application of general methods, or ordinary techniques that came out of non-commercial research or obvious applications that almost anyone would do in the course of his work, without thought of patenting it, but which someone claims to have temporal priority over and "proven" only because no one else was bothering to keep records of such an "invention" because no one else thought of it that way or would have thought to exclude others from independently doing the same thing.

                I am reacting only to commonly cited examples, some of which we see here on this page, not as someone who would know how to evaluate claims under current law. I'm not opposing intellectual property rights, but rather find that important proper principles defining them for software (except perhaps for copyrights or trade secrets) are not easy, and I can see how not getting it right can violate the property rights for a lot of people excluded from use of their own routine independent work as well as those with legitimate inventions that ought to be patentable.

                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
                  I have been in the business for over 20 years. I hear the claim that there are numerous example of bad patents. In my experience, based on the evidence before me and an examiner I can only think of one patent I got issued where I did not think it was supported by the evidence.

                  I have seen several other patents, one I was working on and we let drop, that should not of been issued. Analyzing claims is hard work. People spend years learning to do this. For this reason I am very skeptical of people who make this claim. Most of the people making this claim are not skilled enough to make a qualified legal opinion. Several of the academic studies that attempted to show this (also done by those not skilled in the art) were clearly based on flawed methodologies.

                  To have a rational discussion of this you have to start with the proper definition of an invention. Note the question of who is the inventor is a separate question (novelty - nonobviousness). All human creations can be divided into those that have an objective result and those that have a subjective result. Objective means repeatable and independent of the observer just like in scientific experiments. All inventions should be eligible for patent protection - property rights in inventions.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
                  the only thing common on this post are those examples which have been misinterpreted and misunderstood. They are popular to cite in the media and on tech (anti-patent) sites. However, they are legitimate patents and were not well known or there would have been no need to desire the technology or steal it. Generally those who claim "obviousness," a bad way to test for patent eligibility btw, have not understood claim construction or what the invention really covers-only what the media or anti-patent interests describe the invention as. Patents take hours to examine-not a quick article read, and so I reject your examples, most of which have been vetted and upheld by experts as inventions.

                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 6 years, 10 months ago
    I just finished reading the entire decision. In the specific case that was brought to the court, I happen to agree. True, it will require more analysis and work by those seeking patents, but to a large extent and speaking as an Electrical Engineer that's sought patents in the past, that's a good thing. The granting of a monopoly should require not only the innovative work of the inventor, but also a rigorous and thorough review process of the application. And it should never be granted for such a use as applied for in this application. This was not an invention.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
      patent applications undergo rigorous and thorough review. I know, I sit next to someone who argues with the patent office daily. Patents cost thousands and take years to get through. You are also using an incorrect definition. Patents are not monopolies.
      Am I to understand you promote patents granted in the manufacturing age but will call abstract inventions of the information age?
      The law interpreted here is a mish mash of contradictory statements. how's this for example:
      “But if what is new is not eligible, or improves the eligible, the claims as a whole is ineligible.”
      All inventions are a combination of known elements
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Zenphamy 6 years, 10 months ago
        I agree, some - patent applications undergo 'rigorous and thorough' review, often times dependent on the expertise of the patent attorney and his staff, but I contend - not all. I have no problem with the granting of patents for abstract inventions nor protection for intellectual property as long as it can be adequately demonstrated as something that is new. But I maintain that this case is one that is the exception. It was not a new abstract, it was a long recognized business practice - there was nothing new in the computer or computer system applied to the system or process, and the software was simply a step sequence instruction no different than the step sequence applied by a human performing the same practice, ie. there was no evidence of a new algorithm.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
          Define Abstract. By definition an invention is an abstraction, just as the word humans is an abstraction that classifies a number of specific instances.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Zenphamy 6 years, 10 months ago
            'Define Abstract.':
            existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence:
            verb |abˈstrakt |
            1 consider (something) theoretically or separately from something else:
            2 extract or remove (something):
            3 make a written summary of (an article or book):
            noun |ˈabˌstrakt |
            1 a summary of the contents of a book, article, or formal speech:
            2 an abstract work of art:
            3 ( the abstract ) that which is abstract; the theoretical consideration of something:
            Abstract may refer to:
            Abstract (law), a summary of a legal document
            Abstract (summary), in scientific publishing
            Abstract art, artistic works that don't attempt to represent reality or concrete subjects
            Abstract object in philosophy
            Abstract structure in mathematics
            Abstract type in computer science
            The property of an abstraction

            'By definition an invention is an abstraction,':
            An invention is a unique or novel device, method, composition or process. The invention process is a process within an overall engineering and product development process. It may be an improvement upon a machine or product, or a new process for creating an object or a result. An invention that achieves a completely unique function or result may be a radical breakthrough. Such works are novel and not obvious to others skilled in the same field.

            I don't really enjoy getting sucked into a semantics battle. I fully understand what an invention and an abstraction are. With that understanding behind me, my statement previous to this still stands:
            'I have no problem with the granting of patents for abstract inventions nor protection for intellectual property as long as it can be adequately demonstrated as something that is new. But I maintain that this case is one that is the exception. It was not a new abstract, it was a long recognized business practice - there was nothing new in the computer or computer system applied to the system or process, and the software was simply a step sequence instruction no different than the step sequence applied by a human performing the same practice, ie. there was no evidence of a new algorithm.'
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
              Alice was clearly new. Meaning no one had created this combination. It had an objective result and therefore it was an invention.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Zenphamy 6 years, 10 months ago
                db: Alice simply took pre-existing information (numbers and identifiers) from a previously untapped source, information that was no different than that already being inputted to thousands, if not millions of computers - calculated pluses and minuses against a running balance, and outputted settlement instructions for payments (numbers and identifiers) at the end of each day to financial actors which was exactly the same already being performed, again by thousands of computers.

                Sorry, but I still fail to see what was clearly new. I can see and agree that Alice improved the integrity and efficiency of the daily settlement outcome. But if you could, please explain how that was different to any other financial accounting function gaining the improved integrity and efficiency of computerization already existing and being implemented throughout businesses and financial operations.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
                  Zen, can you read? Every invention is a combination of existing elements. Your lack of expertise in patents shows that you have no idea what you are talking about. According to you only only black magic is patentable.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 10 months ago
                    I think he is arguing that programming a commonly known and used algorithm should not be patentable, i.e., the shear act of programming it, not that all patents must be for devices that contain all and only original elements that have never before existed. The dispute seems to be over exactly what the patent in this case was claimed for, not whether it was black magic.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
                      You cannot create something from nothing, conservation of matter and energy, so no invention has "completely novel elements." What is novel is the combination.

                      Try this. Think of an invention and then think of the components at some level you will see that all those components were known before the invention was made. For instances a LASER. Ruby rods were known, Fabry Perot Etalons (mirrors) were known, flash lamps were known, and the MASER existed before the LASER.

                      In fact there is another part of patent law that requires you to provide a description that one skilled in the art can use to practice the invention. If one of the elements were completely new, it would be unknown to those skilled in the art, which means they could not practice the invention. And therefor should not obtain a patent.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by ewv 6 years, 9 months ago
                        All material production is a recombination of existing physical reality. There is no where else to get it from. Not every recombination of existing components is patentable.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 9 months ago
                          I did not say that. Stating the inverse does not follow. All Apples are fruit, does not mean all fruit are apples.

                          Every invention is a combination of existing, known elements is absolutely true - something you would know if you just thought about conservation of energy and matter.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by ewv 6 years, 9 months ago
                            I did not say that you said it. I said it, and it is not an "inverse". Stop telling me what I "would know" if "only I thought about it". The condescending talking down to people is not helping you, and neither is vague repetition of appeals to 'conservation of mass and energy'. It is repetition of the obvious, especially to those of us who understand science and technology very well, with no explanatory value provided for philosophy of law for distinguishing what is patentable and what is not. Whatever your success in the field of patent law, you are driving away technically and scientifically knowledgeable people who support intellectual property rights and have been trying to discuss it with you.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
                      Really "Alice simply took pre-existing information (numbers and identifiers)/" No what is arguing is metaphysical impossibilities. The argue is outrageous and absurd and just an excuse to steal other people's property.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by ewv 6 years, 10 months ago
                        I can't follow that first sentence.

                        It's not even clear to me from the articles exactly what this particular patent was specifically claimed to be for, so I don't know what methods claimed to be previously commonly used were involved.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
                          It is a system for settling international financial transactions that reduces settlement risk. It uses computers and communication systems. The other side and the Supreme Court said this was well known. They said it was just a computerized escrow arrangement. Actually, the claims do not cover an escrow arrangement and CLS could have used a computerized escrow system without violating Alice's invention.

                          This case was not even about whether Alice's invention was novel, it was about whether it was directed to an invention. The Supreme Court has created an exception to patents for "abstract ideas." But of course they refuse to define what they mean. All inventions are an abstraction of a number of specific instances. So this allows them to invalidate any patent they don't like. In this case they don't like patents on software implemented inventions and they do not like patents in the financial space (protecting Wall Street) and they really don't like the combination.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Hiraghm 6 years, 10 months ago
        "Patents are not monopolies. "
        Is Apple aware of this?

        How expert are you and db in software development? How many coding languages do you know, how much software have you written?

        That's not a challenge, it's a voir dire.

        "Am I to understand you promote patents granted in the manufacturing age but will call abstract inventions of the information age? "

        We have a word for abstract inventions of the information age: the word is, "ideas". Isn't it possible to be granted a patent without actually having created anything? Just draw up a set of documents describe a process, or a device, and submit it for patenting, without having even built a prototype? (again, a question to which I don't know the answer, but assume you and db must...)

        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
          Hiraghm,

          We use to have a requirement to submit a model of the invention. The problem is how do you submit a model of a nuclear reactor, or a jet engine. In the information age we have the problem of the patent office needing to have the right computer to run your program. Rarely is the invention easily discernible from the code. Sending in a microprocessor as a model would provide no insight. We changed the rules to just require a description of how to make and practice the invention that provides one skilled in the art enough information to do so.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
      First of all the fact that you call a patent a monopoly, means you do not understand patents. The reality is you don't understand property rights, you don't understand this technology This patent is not an escrow arrangement, requires a very specific process (But because the Supreme Court does not know how to read a patent claim they ignore are the real world limitations), saves people billions of dollars, and did not exist until Alice created it. Note that escrow systems existed for centuries and CLS did not create an escrow system, they decided to steal Alice's technology
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Zenphamy 6 years, 10 months ago
        A patent, by definition is a monopoly, delineated by sovereign granted title and rights, although one that is limited in time. It's purpose is to encourage the work of inventors while also recognizing the private and natural property rights of the inventor in order to provide an incentive to release the 'new' technology or process for gains to be made throughout the public, subject to recompense to the holder of the patent. I fully understand property rights within both the natural rights of the enlightenment and the concepts of Objectivism. If there's something more to understand about property rights that you feel that I don't understand, please elucidate.

        Alice simply tapped into existing information flow, stored and manipulated that information in a computer, then processed that information acting as a third party intermediary to the transaction, and released payment instructions to financial actors. Although the patent application attempted to describe the abstract as a new and not pre-existing process in words not mentioning an escrow arrangement, the facts of what was described in the patent application were nothing more than an escrow arrangement. The idea of applying a computer to complex and large data processing in otherwise common and well known accounting practices was not new, in fact was common throughout business and science. There was no new algorithm created nor described in the patent application.

        All I could determine from the application and the court's description of it's findings was that Alice was a common and pre-existing business model using common and pre-existing technology and common and pre-existing step sequence (algorithm) applied to a specific set of financial transactions.

        Rather than competing in business relying on better performance, better integrity, better customer relationships, or better costs - Alice attempted to gain business advantage from the coercive force of the government under color of inventive property rights. That to me equals moocher.

        Although we might disagree in our understanding of a specific set of facts and the outcome of a law suit, please don't utilize ad hominem attacks such as I don't understand property rights, patents, technology or other such. Maybe pointing out issues or items I might have missed or mis-understood in the application or the court decision might have more of an impact on me.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
          It is not a monopoly. It is a property right. A monopoly is not a property right.

          Patents: Monopoly or Property Right a Testable Hypothesis http://hallingblog.com/patents-monopoly-...
          If patents are a monopoly, as some suggest, then it should led to certain outcomes. A close examination shows that none of the supposed monopoly effects result from granting patents.

          Monopoly/Rent Seeking vs. Property Rights/Intellectual Property http://hallingblog.com/monopolyrent-seek....
          This post explains the characteristics of a monopoly and a property right and poses three questions to show the difference. Patents fit all the characteristics of a property right and none of a monopoly. Note that professional license, such as a law license has some of the characteristics of a monopoly.

          More on the Myth that Patents are Monopolies http://hallingblog.com/more-on-the-myth-....
          This post contains a number of quotes from philosophers explaining that patents are not monopolies.

          Property Rights, Possession and Objects http://hallingblog.com/property-rights-p...
          This post explains the difference in the concepts of property rights, possession, and objects. Most economists and patent detractors confuse these concepts. The origin, definition, and legal basis of property right are explained.

          The Myth That Patents are a Monopoly http://hallingblog.com/the-myth-that-pat...
          This post compares the definition of a monopoly to the rights obtained with a patent. It shows that the rights obtained with a patent do not confer a monopoly.

          Patents are Natural Rights http://hallingblog.com/patents-are-natur...
          This post traces the ideas of Locke and William Blackstone to show patents and copyrights are natural rights.

          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Solver 6 years, 10 months ago
            It begs the question—Do I have a monopoly on my own mind?
            It seems that the answer should be obvious.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
              Economists started defining monopolies or monopoly power with respect to their model of "perfect competition." Perfect competition was created to describe an altruistic market and any property right and any invention or distinguishing feature is inconsistent with perfect competition.

              Perfect competition is a nonsensical ideal that in fact we would never want. A proper definition of a monopoly can only be defined in terms of Natural Rights. A monopoly is the government interfering in the marketplace in way that infringes peoples' right to contract or property that give one person/company an exclusive access to a market.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
          Zen, you are not qualified to read the claims of a patent. You do not understand patent law, but despite your ignorance you can state as a fact that it was not an invention. Something you also have failed to define.

          The fact is that Alice created a system for settling transactions that saved people billions of dollars a year, had never been done before, and which did not keep CLS from creating a computerized escrow arrangement. We don't disagree about the facts, you don't know the facts. But again you are willing to pontificate and spread socialist lies to destroy property rights.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Zenphamy 6 years, 10 months ago
            db: I readily accept and admit that I'm not a patent attorney nor do I understand all the intricacies of patent law nor would I ever desire to. I'm not aware of any 'socialist lies' or desire on my part to 'destroy property rights', but I'll certainly admit that I have a strong antipathy to moochers that attempt to gain market advantages utilizing government coercion, particularly as applied in this instant case.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
              "moochers that attempt to gain market advantages utilizing government coercion..."
              a government which does not enforce property rights is no government. It is anarchy
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Zenphamy 6 years, 10 months ago
                I have no disagreement with anything you've just said.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
                  every inventor who pursues a patent is attempting to gain market advantage. Please distinguish between government enforcement and coercion...
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by Zenphamy 6 years, 10 months ago
                    khaling, I accept your definition so adequately described in your reply comment to me about 20 hr and 44 min ago:
                    'police will not only NOT show up to arrest the robbers but will charge you for the courtesy of looking around and determining-it wasn't your stuff in the first place.'

                    Coercion is simply the threat of the enforcement understanding that any enforcement action carries with it the ultimate force of government. Men with guns acting with the force of law and sovereign immunity.

                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
                      How does one enforce their property rights? it is not efficient to spend all of one's time vigilent to the threat of looters. nor to hire individual enforcement mechanisms. Who is the ultimate arbitor in a dispute? the thought of devolving to individual city states or clans seems med-evil to me. It is the proper function of a government to enforce the property rights of its citizens allowing them time to be productive
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by Zenphamy 6 years, 10 months ago
                        But isn't that the exact situation we find ourselves in today as it relates to patents? Who else will or even can be vigilant to the threat of looters of the patent? Don't you have to hire an attorney and pay the cost of pursuing a patent infringement?

                        I agree that devolving to a medieval state isn't going to work. Yes, I agree that the proper (and most essential) function of government is the protection of the property rights of it's citizens and I also agree that patents are property rights. But I can't imagine that government can or should provide the vigilance.

                        It becomes a quandary. I read recently somewhere that the cost of patent application and maintenance is something like $100K (?) and that pursuing an infringement suit and action is easily $1M if not settled out of court. It appears that we somehow need to enforce honor and integrity or at least instill them. I wonder why we can't refer an infringement claim to the Patent Office, that they perform the investigation and then prosecute.

                        Maybe a good candidate for a separate Post.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • Posted by Robbie53024 6 years, 10 months ago
                          You raise a good point - our society has lost most of the self-instilled honor and principles of the past. We demand that every action be specifically regulated. That is not how a free society exists. A free society has, and needs, few laws. Only a totalitarian state needs laws to specify all action/inaction.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
                          the cost of obtaining a US patent is probably between 10-30K depending on level of tech and how expensive the firm you use. Maintenance fees add 7K over life of patent.
                          Litigation is OVER a million if you go through trial. Appeals add more. We are talking well over 5M. Those costs are outrageous. Partly, it is due to rulings such as this one, which has easily doubled the cost of software applications moving forward (according to this article). and partly due to our federal rules of discovery which makes all federal lawsuits ridiculously expensive. db does not litigate, but if he was a litigator representing a client who has been accused of infringement, this ruling (along with others recently) would be very important. If your case will not stand up on your innocence-much better to argue invalidating the patent. Imagine I want to accuse someone of infringement. I have a granted patent. I now take the risk the court will not start with the assumption I have valid property. Is it worth the risk for me to sue? What is the value of getting a patent if that is the case? these kinds of rulings hurt the startups and small inventors the most. The large companies can litigate all day long and do. Trust me, they are VERY happy with this ruling.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
              Right, but you are happy to support moochers, you are happy to support socialist schemes. Your lack of understanding of property rights is outrageous. Patents are property rights and you are supporting moochers who are happy to steal the effort of inventors.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Zenphamy 6 years, 10 months ago
                I don't now nor ever have supported any type or sort of moocher and have struggled against many throughout my career. I fully understand and support valid property rights, created, earned, or procured by voluntary agreement.

                We simply disagree on who was the moocher or if there was a proper invention providing for property rights in the instant case. You obviously support Alice's proposition that they invented something - I don't.

                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
                  The majority of the experts disagree with you. The implications of the ruling are highly confusing and contradictory. If Alice's invention is ineligible, then how software patents have been written for the last 30 years are invalid as well. Basically the court tells us-stay away from the financial sector with your inventions. It is protecting Wall Street with several of these software cases. That directly contradicts Bilski, which says you may patent business methods. Finally, the court argued a strawman with the argument "adding a computer" to [invention]. That is not at all how the claims of the patent read. The Justices do not understand claim construction. So, in the end, their ruling is well, we can't explain it, but we know it (ineligibility) when we see it. You have argued the same. You have not given a definition for invention and you have not stated why Alice's patent should not be an invention-only that you think it shouldn't. db has spent hours going over the patent in order to determine it was a valid patent. He understands claim construction and is well versed in the prior art. He has laid out a definition for invention, and as simply as possible, given a reasoning for why Alice had a patent, why software is eligible for patenting and the implications if software is going to not be patentable in the future. I have read through every comment on this post in support of the ruling. People have given their opinion without objective support for their opinion on which patents are spurious, how many are that way, why there should be no patents, and why software should not be patented, nor any evidence for this was invented a long time ago. Finally, there was even one comment that stated they knew they violated patents, but they didn't care because they "needed" them for their own technology-so the definition of "spurious patents" were, patents which they needed but were unwilling to recognize as legitimate property. Pretty frustrating on this site...
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by Robbie53024 6 years, 10 months ago
                  Which really gets to the heart of the matter. I've seen it written here that the court got the law wrong. Not that I hand my own judgment over to the SCOTUS, but there are several there whom I respect, particularly as it comes to understanding what the law is. I'm inclined to take their judgment on LAW over most others.

                  I also respect the guidance of those in various specific fields. I must, however, temper that respect with my own judgment, particularly when the rules/rulings that might undercut their own power is challenged and they strike out. That seems to indicate to me that they are reeling not against true injustice, but against their own loss of power. I understand this reaction, but cannot condone it.

                  My 2 cents, for what it's worth (probably less than 2 cents).
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
                    pursuing a moral livelihood hardly constitutes a power grab. Inventors pursuing property rights for their inventions are not "power grabbers." huh?
                    True injustice is reading rulings which are confusing, legally contradictory and the result of which will devalue high tech start up companies' patent portfolios. The ruling has vast implications over thousands of patents and over a trillion dollars. It will take months for the dust to settle on this and the court will attempt to clean up this ruling, but the implications are clear: 1. you are not likely to get patents in financial business methods 2. software inventions will now cost double to write applications, you will argue them longer (10years plus) with examiners who will say straight out that the media publicity on spurious patents is so concerning to the PTO they are unlikely to grant much 3.Litigation wars will increase as infringing companies take on existing patents which were invalidated by this ruling.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by Hiraghm 6 years, 10 months ago
                I have to ask...

                How can you be a lawyer and so frequently substitute ad hominem for argument?

                Patents are no more property rights than the 2nd Amendment is gun rights. Patents *protect* existing property rights. For a limited time, they protect your right to the fruits of your inventiveness.

                Semi-off-topic... on "American Ride" today, the host pointed out that in 1906 the Wright brothers got received a patent... not for the airplane, or the idea of heavier than air flight, but for their three axis control system. The basis of all flight control systems today.

                Just think where we'd be if that patent had remained in effect as a bar to anyone else's attempt at controlling a powered flying machine...

                The host also pointed out that during the "gilded age"... 850,000 patents were issued to American inventors.

                I may not agree with your views on patents, but that's one hell of an argument for your side.


                Speaking purely for myself, I don't support people who literally *steal* the effort of inventors. However, if someone takes someone else's invention, makes changes and improvements on it, applies it where the original inventor never thought to apply it, it seems to me that person is not a moocher, and deserves some benefit, himself.

                Any patent which prevents this development is, in my opinion, an impediment to the advancement of civilization, and therefore unacceptable.

                You don't have to share your invention with the public, but if you do and someone builds or expands upon it, you got no kick coming.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Robbie53024 6 years, 10 months ago
            db: Isn't that the same rationality that the elites use against the plebiscite to maintain their superiority? You're just too dumb to understand this all, so just leave the difficult thinking to us and we'll tell you what to think.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
              No it is what people say when they don't understand railroads, but think they can dictate how they run.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by Hiraghm 6 years, 10 months ago
                I like playing with language, do you like playing with language?

                "when they don't understand railroads, but think they can dictate how they run. "

                please explain to me how a knowledge of railroads has anything to do with dictating how they run?

                Dictation has to do with power, not technical expertise.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by Robbie53024 6 years, 10 months ago
                Yet I understand railroads, scheduling, deconflicting, load ratings, etc.

                I don't mind having things explained to me that are out of my realm of knowledge, but when the "elites" just tell me to shut up and go away, the "big people" are talking, I take offense.

                I'll leave it up to fellow Gulchers to examine the discussion and draw their own conclusions.

                Oh, btw, down voting those with a different opinion is petulant. It doesn't really affect me one way or another, but speaks volumes about those who do it.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
                  Robbie your criticisms constantly go to areas you have no expertise in. You ignore that patents are property rights, you ignore that patents are the most expensive, most examined, most time consuming property right to obtain. But somehow, with no knowledge of patent law you think you can say that Alice should not have obtained a patent. You do this without understanding how claims work, without reading the patent and the claims, without looking at the file history, without understanding the underlying technology. Gee - its like arguing over Electromagnetics with someone who has not even taken a basic engineering physics course.

                  I am happy to discuss those aspects of patents that do not require expertise, but when you think you can spend 15 minutes reading some article on this and then provide a pronouncement on this patent then you are being absurd. It's like arguing with someone who has no knowledge of EM over the Brewster angle.

                  Hear are some things that do not require expertise in patents:

                  1) Are patents property right?
                  2) Should software be patentable?


                  I down vote people who don't know what they are talking about, but have strident, unsupported positions. If you don't want to be down voted, either get some expertise in the field or stick to things you actually have the requisite background in.


                  I am not an expert is software programming. I would not spend 15 minutes reviewing some software you wrote and say it is useless, or tell you how you should have structured the software or tell you what language you should of used. I would not tell a heart surgeon how to best perform heart surgery.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by Robbie53024 6 years, 10 months ago
                    Yet, you don't give the same respect to those who are experts in LAW.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
                      No one on the Supreme Court is legally or factually to practice patent law. They are not experts. This is why it is the only field of law where you must pass a separate bar in order to practice and even to take that bar you are required to have a technical background. Not one of the judges has a technical background, they have proven they do not understand the most simple aspects of technology (not one justice uses email to communicate), not one of them would make it as a first year patent associate.
                      This why President Reagan advocated and passed law creating the Court of Appeals for patent cases. In part, this was in response to a huge anti-patent push in the late 60s and 70s.
                      The problem is you have been making broad pronouncements that are incorrect and require knowledge about how patents are written and work. So, your conclusions are based on faulty information.
                      Your opinions can influence. IF people are swayed by incorrect information or incorrect assumptions, that is not good. This happens to be an area rife with mis-information and there is a resurgence of anti-patent sentiment which goes along with anti-property right sentiment. Patent laws are where it always starts.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by Hiraghm 6 years, 10 months ago
                    Answers to 1 and 2...

                    No and no.

                    "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
                    - Robert Heinlein, Time Enough for Love

                    Methinks you put too much faith into "experts".
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
          Zen, No it is not. You clearly do not understand property rights and patents. As such your opinion about patents has absolutely no weight. But thanks for spreading socialist propaganda.

          Property rights are based on creation It is the law recognizing the metaphysical fact of creation and who is the creator. Patents are clearly property rights.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Zenphamy 6 years, 10 months ago
            db: We obviously disagree with the decision of the case of Alice and CLS, but you've taken it far beyond that with personal attacks on me claiming socialist propaganda. Sorry to see you stoop that low, but that's enough of this conversation.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
              the ruling will have broad implications, regardless of the poor, intellectually bankrupt decision. Even those siding with CLS, who are experts, and want to limit the eligability of software patents, agree the ruling does not provide guidance on how to determine eligability and has directly contradicted earlier decisions. It's a hot mess. If you were the CEO/inventor for Alice, after spending thousands and many years to get the patent, to be stolen from (CLS does not deny infringing) only to have your property stripped from you(after spending millions to defend the patent), would you ever file for another one? If you are a VC company, looking at funding tech startups, and you have always used as an objective measure, the patent portfolio as one large measure to determine the company's value (after all you are investing in the technology), and you are aware of this ruling, has your investment risk gone up or down? Your business model has certainly changed. and a high tech startup relying on its intellectual property portfolio, has just watched all the locks removed from their house, and the police will not only NOT show up to arrest the robbers but will charge you for the courtesy of looking around and determining-it wasn't your stuff in the first place.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
              Stooping low is commenting on things you have no expertise or knowledge on. Stooping low is not realizing that you are pushing socialist propaganda. Your facts are wrong, you don't understand claims, you don't understand patent law, you don't even have a coherent definition of an invention. So yeah I am frustrated. At best you are what Marx calls a useful idiot.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Zenphamy 6 years, 10 months ago
                And you sir are a generalizing, authoritarian, pompous, ass with a god complex and a great deal of hubris that's peeved because your acquaintance lost in his attempt to patent what was determined to be ineligible for a patent and you're lashing out. Sorry about your frustration, but I happen to agree with that outcome in this particular case.

                From an earlier reply to your comment: 'Define Abstract. By definition an invention is an abstraction, just as the word humans is an abstraction that classifies a number of specific instances.'…

                My response: "An invention is a unique or novel device, method, composition or process. The invention process is a process within an overall engineering and product development process. It may be an improvement upon a machine or product, or a new process for creating an object or a result. An invention that achieves a completely unique function or result may be a radical breakthrough. Such works are novel and not obvious to others skilled in the same field."

                If that is not a coherent definition of an invention, then I might suggest that you've spent too much time away from your engineering background being a scrivner.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
                  zen, I will agree that db argues strenuously for his opinion in areas which he claims expertise. Patent law is consistently and stealthily misinterpreted and misunderstood. Just as I would not argue with a pathologist over a cancer diagnosis, I understand his reaction to people who do not practice patent law making sweeping determinations as to what should or should not be a patent. "Obviousness" is a hotly debated method for determiniation and I think you are employing it in this case. However, even the jusdges did not test this case for obviousness. Rather, they broadened their interpretation of "abstract idea." Software was not even mentioned in the decision, furthering the confusion of the experts looking at the opinion.
                  You specifically wanted to discuss this case not broad categories of what should/should not be patentable. Dale had spent hours researching the Alice patent before meeting the inventor. He did not enter the case with any bias, save some previous bad Supreme Court rulings moving ever closer to anti-patent stances not based on technological or patent law expertise. It was one reason President Regan commissioned the CAFC in the first place-Judges lack of knowledge and understanding of the subject matters. Although not intended by President Reagan, the CAFC court is made up of only half patent attorneys with technical degrees. When the CAFC decision came out, the court was sharply divided with Justice Rader correctly pointing out in his dissenting opinion:
                  "[I]f all of these claims, including the system claims, are not patent-eligible, this case is the death of hundreds of thousands of patents, including all business method, financial system, and software patents as well as many computer implemented and telecommunications patents."
                  Those skilled in the art admit prior tests for eligibility are outdated withthe disruptive onset of the information age. Patent prosecutors were looking for strong guidance in these decisions for how to move forward. But both decisions lack substantive direction. IF those who write patent applications daily and deliver Patent opinions cannot know how to move forward with their clients, how is it you are so confident in this case? I think that is the source of ultimate frustration on db's part.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by Zenphamy 6 years, 10 months ago
                    khaling; I appreciate both db's and your intensity with this matter, both specifically to this case and generally to the state of current Patent law and decisions such as this one. By the way, I just finished db's suggested links to his writings on this case and other issues such as monopoly vs property rights of a patent as well as some of the filings in the case (I'm taking a break before I chase down the applications, but it interests me enough to want to do so), so I've gained a better understanding of his dissension toward some of my comments. I'm also going to have to go back to some of my earlier AR readings because I'm pretty positive that she described patents as both property rights and government sanctioned and limited monopolies.

                    But his personal attacks were unwarranted under any circumstance. There's not a socialist, Marxist bone in this old Objectivist body and I challenge anyone that's a stronger and more dedicated proponent of natural and property rights. And my ability to comprehend patent claims goes back a long number of years with some excellent tutelage from a number of Phd professors and Engineering firms along the way. My early Electrical Engineering education was obtained at the University of Mo - Rolla in a 5yr BS rather than the normal 4yr program offered in most universities, which gave me a shortcut to my MS and work toward a Phd. I was lucky enough in those years to obtain significant experience in applied EE as well as design, project and contract management and later to establish, build, and manage a successful, multi-state business with up to 500 employees.

                    Secondly, I find in general, that I feel as much intensity in my own opinions of what our system of law in whole has become. Every decision, every lobby, each lawyer politician have all pulled us farther and farther away from the intent of the Founders and the core values of the Enlightenment that the citizen should not be subjected to laws which he could not read and understand with a commonly obtained education. Current law and decisions in nearly every area is so convoluted and semanticized as to be nearly incomprehensible, by even many of it's practitioners. Which is another topic for another day's discussion.

                    But that said, I'm strongly supportive of the desire I sense from both of you, that Patent cases and law should be written and decided by only those with the acceptable levels of expertise and also that the law needs clarification as it applies to not only software, but intellectual property and business technology as well.

                    Hope this provides some reduction of the generated heat of this issue.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
                      I appreciate your response. and that is a fine alma mater for sure. bet we canoed the same rivers. ;)
                      Where you would find common ground with db, I bet, would be the whole lawyer approach-even in patent law. If you think it got heated in here, imagine db debating lawyers who look at all legal issues pragmatically and completely devoid of moral foundations, firm definitions, logic and reason. It leads to laws which are inconsistent, nonsensical, and contradictory and then opinions (from the lawyers) based on all that nonsense and contradictory thinking. When instead where there is confusion, people should start from the logical foundations and remain consistent. No wonder people look at the legal profession as ridiculous. I agree completely with your comments regarding our current system. Let us know how your research goes.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
                  Because I pointed out that you are commenting on things you have no expertise?

                  "My response: "An invention is a unique or novel device, method, composition or process. The invention process is a process within an overall engineering and product development process. It may be an improvement upon a machine or product, or a new process for creating an object or a result. An invention that achieves a completely unique function or result may be a radical breakthrough. Such works are novel and not obvious to others skilled in the same field."

                  The laser produces light, but so does a fire. Does that achieve a unique function? An invention does not have to have a unique result actually. Swan invented an incandescent light bulb and so did Edison. Many inventions are different ways of accomplishing something that is already done.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by Zenphamy 6 years, 10 months ago
                    db; Yes, the laser and fire both produce light as one result, but the laser is a 'unique device' and 'method' and 'process' when compared to existing devices and methods for producing light at the time of discovery, invention, and patent application. Though in fact the original laser didn't actually 'produce' light in that it required a light source (such as a flash bulb) which then entered the resonant cavity or oscillator of the laser element (the gain material with mirrored caps/ends) amplifying and bringing the light to polarity and temporal coherence before emitting it (actually escaping the partially translucent mirror end) as the maser did earlier with microwave frequencies.

                    As I understand Edison's first marketable light bulb patent, it was essentially Swan's British patented bulb with an improved carbon on bamboo filament permitting a reduced current (therefor an improvement on Swan's and granted in the US) over that of Swan's which required much larger wiring. Had Swan sued Edison, Swan likely would've won - thus the merger of the two into the Edison - Swan company again utilizing another improvement by Swan of a plasticized cellulose/carbon element.

                    I've added the above two paragraphs, not to blow wind up your skirt, but to illustrate two patentable examples - the first a unique device, method, and process and second, an improvement on an existing patented device. Though I totally agree that an invention of a different way to accomplish something is also patentable
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
                      Swan did sue and win. Swan should have won. Regardless, Edison's invention was a significant improvement over Swan's. This is a case that shows why patents do NOT give you a MONOPOLY over your invention. It illustrates how this system ensures that everyone who contributed to the commercial version of the invention is entitled to compensation or credit.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by Zenphamy 6 years, 10 months ago
                        Yes, it's indeed interesting that Edison improved on Swan, then Swan improved on Edison, the others beyond that. It speaks well of the intent of the founders in prioritizing the patent in the Constitution. And I think that Einstein's work as a patent clerk in Switzerland (?) adds gravitas to the profession.

                        My understanding of the monopoly situation of the invention/improvement is that the original patent holder can place restrictions on the improvement patent. True?
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
                          1st under natural law, Sir William Blackstone and the Constitution defined it as a natural right. It is a property right for the same reasons you have rights in land.

                          There is really no such thing as an improvement patent. Every invention is a combination of existing elements, because of conservation of matter and energy and every invention improves on something.

                          The patent holder has a right to exclude anyone from making, using, selling, importing their invention. It does not place any restrictions on what inventions might build on it. In fact that would defeat one of the purposes of patents. People get patents to secure their property rights so they can commercialize their invention. Almost always you can buy their invention from them and then use it as you wish. The sale of a item that incorporates the patent from the patent holder/licensee comes with a license to use that instance of the invention.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
                          "As an objection to the patent laws, some people cite the fact that two inventors may work independently for years on the same invention, but one will beat the other to the patent office by an hour or a day and will acquire an exclusive monopoly, while the loser’s work will then be totally wasted. This type of objection is based on the error of equating the potential with the actual. The fact that a man might have been first, does not alter the fact that he wasn’t. Since the issue is one of commercial rights, the loser in a case of that kind has to accept the fact that in seeking to trade with others he must face the possibility of a competitor winning the race, which is true of all types of competition." Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, p. 133
                          This is the only reference I can find that uses the word monopoly with patents and within the context of the paragraph, she clearly disagrees.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
                      Judge Newman also wrote in the CAFC ruling on Alice:
                      "Reliable application of legal principles underlies the economic incentive purpose of patent law, in turn implementing the benefits to the public of technology-based advances, and the benefits to the nation of industrial activity, employment, and economic growth. Today’s irresolution concerning section 101 affects not only this court and the trial courts, but also the PTO examiners and agency tribunals, and all who invent and invest in new technology. The uncertainty of administrative and judicial outcome and the high cost of resolution are a disincentive to both innovators and competitors."
                      The judges anticipated this would go to the Supreme Court and were nervous...
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Hiraghm 6 years, 10 months ago
            I like to play with language. Do you like to play with language?

            "You clearly do not understand property rights and patents. As such your opinion about patents has absolutely no weight."

            By what authority do you dictate that his opinion has no weight, simply because you assert that he does not understand property rights?

            I submit that you don't understand property rights; therefore your opinion carries no weight. See? Anyone can make such an assertion. Isn't language fun?

            Actually, I would tend to think that most patent attorneys, lawyers in general, and politicians, and in particular "experts" in the field of property rights don't understand property rights. As evidence I submit the current state of the United States with regard to property rights.

            Gosh, you're fun to play with.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 6 years, 10 months ago
    I really don't think this ruling is either wrong or a bad thing for the industry in general. The software patent world has become so ridiculously complex that it was nearly impossible for anyone to NOT infringe on someone else's "patented" ideas. I think it is also absurd that all you have to do to get around any particular patent is simply add a few extra words of code to slightly alter how something gets done.

    As an IT guy of 20+ years, I really don't think this ruling is the death-knell for software patents that khalling thinks, but rather a breath of fresh air to and industry long held hostage by the hoarding of IP.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
      The software patent world has become so ridiculously complex that it was nearly impossible for anyone to NOT infringe on someone else's "patented" ideas"
      please give examples. This affects your industry. You stand to gain by this ruling to the deficit of inventors honestly inventing
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 6 years, 10 months ago
        My father-in-law filed for and obtained a patent. It took him 3 years. I've seen the process, as I worked for him the whole time this was going on.

        The problem is using the broad brush of "inventing" and applying it to everything written in code. Programming is problem-solving, but not much coming out of software development is "new and novel" - it's trying to figure out a way to get something done.

        The problem I have is that there are a whole plethora of patents on methods for getting something done that aren't a novel practice at all. Do I support software copyrights? Sure. But I think people have confused copyrights with patents - see the Novell vs Microsoft case. You also have so much blatant pirating ("Pirates of Silicon Valley" anyone?) and such a slow legal system for resolving anything that much of it becomes a moot point (Internet Explorer anyone?)

        Things I think should apply for software patents: linked lists, the RDBMS, sort algorithms, new programming languages, protocols (sometimes), etc. Interfaces? That's a very long shot. I'm not going to say no, but something pretty close.

        I want to see it get back to where it should be: patents should be for novel and useful ideas - not just anything someone is willing to pay a lawyer for. No offense, but that's how I see it.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 6 years, 10 months ago
          blarman: "Things I think should apply for software patents: linked lists, the RDBMS, sort algorithms, new programming languages, "

          You believe that sort algorithms should be patentable? Abstract algorithms of that kind also include every algorithm of numerical analysis, from Gauss quadrature to splines, wavelets, the finite element method, solution of integer programming problems with branch and cut, finite state machines, boolean minimization with prime implicants, and on and on for entire libraries of books and journals. All of it is theoretical knowledge. Is that what you meant to include?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • -2
          Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
          Please define new and novel. You seem to not understand the basic facts of physics. Every invention in the history of the world is combination of existing or known elements. This is because of conservation of energy and matter.

          Your argument appears to be that Novel means creating something from nothing which is impossible. But thanks for spewing socialist propaganda designed to destroy property rights.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ blarman 6 years, 10 months ago
            So let me ask you this: since every piece of code one writes is built to solve a problem, does every software solution then become patentable? I'm sure even you can see the absurdity of such logic. I write database queries every day that are novel (meaning they haven't existed) in order to solve problems and get my users data. Should my everyday work qualify for patent protection?

            The question is WHERE the line gets drawn, and the Supreme Court ruled that the bar needed to be much higher to justify a patent. You seem to be taking the angle that there will no longer be ANY patents - an absurd notion.

            I'm going to ignore the rest of your post as an emotional diatribe not characteristic of your normal level of intellect and rationale.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
              Good question. Clearly a database query language (SQL) is an invention. An invention is a class of things that encompasses many specifics. When you write a query you are implementing a specific instance of that invention.

              There is a difference between standard engineering and inventions. A suspension bridge is an invention. Engineering a suspension bridge for a specific case, such as to cross a river, is not an invention.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ blarman 6 years, 10 months ago
                Those definitions I can work with and agree to. By that definition, many of the patents granted on UI aspects (including one-click, gestures on touchscreens, etc.) classify as instances of application rather than invention. And these constitute 99%+ of the software that gets written for industrial usage.

                Where do you see the problems arising from the limitations now established by the Supreme Court? Please cite specific instances so that I can better follow you.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
                  I guess I don't know about the 99%, but given my limited experience with programming it seems like 75% of it is I/O stuff, which is very unlikely to be an invention.

                  1) The Sup Ct. has failed to define what they mean by an abstract idea. This means the standard is arbitrary and just an excuse to steal people's property rights.
                  2) No where did Alice say "do it with a computer", so this rhetoric is going to be used to invalidate (steal inventions) patents.
                  3) This is going to eliminate investment software companies that create financial products, further entrenching big banks and Wall Street.
                  4) The Court has revived the discredited and logically incorrect idea that you can look to each element of a claim and if they are all known then the patent can be invalidated. This violates conservation of energy and matter.
                  5) This is just the start of the problems this decision will create
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 10 months ago
                    How does it violate the physical principles of the conservation laws and what does such theoretical knowledge have to do with patents?
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
                      Every invention in the history of the world is a combination of known or existing elements. We know this because of conservation of matter and energy. Thus if you define novel as having an element in a claim that is totally unknown it would violate physics. This allows the judges to say each element was known, so you should not obtain a patent. Thus my black magic comment.

                      Socialist like this formulation because it sets up a metaphysical impossibility destroying peoples' ability to think.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by $ blarman 6 years, 10 months ago
                        By that logic, you would destroy the very foundation for patents completely, citing prior art. I don't think your logic there holds.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
                          it is the result of the combination of elements which creates something new. there is no such thing as *improvement* concept in patents. They are new inventions. Prior Art looks at combinations as a whole. Not individual parts. For example, a new smart phone has a micro-processor. A patent examiner is not allowed to reject your new smart phone invention just because it utilizes a micro-processor.
                          The metaphysical basis for this would be conservation of matter and energy. cell phones do not appear out of thin air. They are made up of prior inventions.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
                      The way claim construction works requires that elements of the invention be included. By law, they are not allowed to pick out each element and claim that it is known and therefore invalidates. They are supposed to only look at the combination as a whole. For example, in making a new smart phone, part of the claim construction would include the use of a micro-processor. You would not be allowed to say hey, this smart phone invention has a micro processor and we know all about those, they've been around forever. and phones have been around forever too! why is that smart phone patentable? This is basically the same argument we are having here. Even though the court is not supposed to separate out individual parts from the whole, in this case and another recent patent case, they are doing just that. and they are applying different patent law statutes to each part.
                      This is the reference to black magic. You cannot create something from nothing. All new inventions come from known elements. so if the court looks at individual elements of a process or method and tries to invalidate the result based on the fact an element was well-known, that would mean there would never be any new inventions. Their language implies this. They have already back-tracked on previous cases regarding this by simply responding "we didn't mean that." But their decisions have consequences. We know this. Think the Patriot Act. On a good day many parts of the law are used to protect citizens from terrorism. On a bad day or how the government would most broadly interpret their powers under the act-it is used against the citizens it was intended to protect. Simply saying that was not the intent of the law should make no one comfortable. There are thousands of software patents out there which were just invalidated by this ruling. In the end, this ruling will hurt the start-up/small inventor and strengthen the large corporation. The large corp was just given more incentive to infringe on patents which were weakened by this ruling. Over time it will stifle the invention process. Why go through the risky, time-consuming, expensive process of R&D if there is no guarantee you can secure a patent (property right ) to that labor?
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ blarman 6 years, 10 months ago
                    "given my limited experience with programming"

                    I would just add this: If you do not understand the subject matter, I would advise against attempting to describe why or why it doesn't qualify as novel until you do.

                    1) How does one define an abstract idea at all? It is the process of turning the abstract into the concrete that creates a standard, is it not?

                    2) Invariably there are going to be a lot of patents which are going to get invalidated. You make the dubious assumption that those patents were correctly granted in the first place. And the invalidation process doesn't happen automatically - the challenger still has the uphill battle to prove that the patent was awarded incorrectly. I think you are taking an extreme view of this. Note that I do not dispute that this will make obtaining a new patent on software more difficult.
                    3) Why don't you track how many of these companies exist and how many go out of business due to patent-invalidation to explore your hypothesis. I'm personally very skeptical of such a claim, having had two brothers and a brother-in-law that worked in that exact field.
                    4) What does conservation of matter have to do with organization or manifestation of matter in a particular form? This claim makes absolutely zero sense. And the other part of your claim is of a similarly dubious nature as the definition of a patent includes the novel use of a system (of parts).
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
                      4)You want to divide out each component of an invention and claim obviousness. That is not how to look at inventions. They do not spring from thin air! They are made up of other inventions already known or even well-known. A car uses wheels, for example. I am done on this post discussing conservation of matter.
                      1) every invention can be an abstraction. The concept of human being is an abstraction. This is why the Supreme Court ruling in this case, citing Alice's invention as ineligible due to abstraction is absurd. It gives no distinction or guidance against any invention moving forward. Just because you can bank online does not mean your bank account is not real and tangible. But there is no vault at your bank holding the physical cash balance in your name.
                      This is just one shining example of how SCOTUS does not understand patent law, inventions, or technology.
                      3) db runs a blog that tracks this closely. http://www.hallingblog.com. Fighting this intellectual battle is one reason why we "shrugged." Individuals refuse to use logic and reason on the subject of patents, anti-patent groups (such as von MIses-btw Benthum who was tasked by the von mises group to define property rights is a self-proclaimed socialist) exploit limited government thinkers like yourself to their side with specious claims and untruths. We try to be a voice for that person, inventor, who wants to make a livelihood inventing. It is their right to pursue it. But sentiments such as yours, based on false information and illogical threaten those livelihoods.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
                      Blarman, you are not serious, you are not interested in logic and evidence, and you are not advancing the discussion.

                      You do not understand property rights, you do not know how to read a claim, you do not know how patents work, you have not read the patent in the case.

                      Your like a college freshman pontificating on quantum mechanics.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by Robbie53024 6 years, 10 months ago
                    4) only if the combination is truly novel and not an intuitively obvious derivation of the combination of the elements.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • -1
                      Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
                      There is no such thing. Truly novel means a unique combination of elements. Any other definition requires inventors to violate conservation of energy and matter. Non-Obviousness is the result of Judicial activism and is illogical. On its face it is impossible to have an invention that is new (novel) that was obvious when it was created. The non-obviousness requirement is arbitrary and should be withdrawn. Baring that we should return to the Federal Circuits formulation of the non-obviousness requirement.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Hiraghm 6 years, 10 months ago
            Are you capable of typing a message completely devoid of ad hominem characterizations?

            I can understand and even sympathize with your frustration, but ad hominem is not argument.


            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
      Please provide actual evidence. I deal with software companies everyday. And they do not infringe anyone's patents.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Hiraghm 6 years, 10 months ago
        How do you know?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
          db researches and purposely examines clients' space. Just like you would understand your marketplace, your patent attorney (s) perform the intellectual property due diligence. It is time consuming, but the resulting Opinion save time and lots of money. It is as important as any part of building your business. There are papers on point that objectively show startups which do the search and opinion work on inventions have better "exits." An exit situation might be a IPO (initial public offering) or sale.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Hiraghm 6 years, 10 months ago
            I repeat my question...

            How does he know?

            There are a LOT of software companies out there; some of them are nothing more than a handful of people.

            Somehow you're proposing that software companies are paragons of virtue who would never, ever lie to their lawyers or keep secrets.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 6 years, 10 months ago
    For those of us who do not consider patents to be legitimate property, the Supreme Court made the right call.

    And the legal issues regarding computer-related patents are only going to get murkier as computers continue to become more powerful and produce inventions of their own without direct human intervention.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
      For those of you who do not consider patents legitimate property, you are violating the US Constitution. You don't understand the basis of property rights. Property rights are the law recognizing the metaphysical fact that you created something.

      You also do not seem to understand what software and computers are. Software is a way of wiring an electronic circuit. A computer is a electronic circuit that can be wired to accomplish a specific task.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 6 years, 10 months ago
        Not quite. A computer is a set of circuits that can be dynamically re-assigned based on conditions in order to perform certain tasks that may be altered during execution or interrupted/preempted entirely. There is the hardware aspect of the computer that specifically conforms to your restricted definition, but once you start laying on the firmware and software and interfaces you abstract the hardware entirely from the process.

        That's the problem with attempting to define software as circuits. It is better labeled the instructions used to manipulate the circuits - not the circuits themselves.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
          Software is just a bunch of words. When it is executed by an electronic circuit (compiler) it is converted into a wiring instructions.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 6 years, 9 months ago
            Software is not a "bunch of words" and the compiler is itself a program, not an electronic circuit. None of it is "wiring instructions". All the components are fixed in hardware, including the interconnects between the components (there are no literal "wires", feature sizes are on the order of microns to nanometers and printed on the circuit board in layers in a process similar to a photographic development - it doesn't move and the circuit layout does not change.)
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Hiraghm 6 years, 10 months ago
        o.O
        O.o

        I have never
        in my life
        seen a better example
        of oversimplification ad absurdum.

        You do not wire circuits with code. Most people don't wire circuits anymore; they etch them.

        Java is a high level software language.
        It does not rewire circuits. It executes other, existing, software instructions. Nowadays there are many such programming languages, such as Python and Lua.

        Most software is designed to accomplish more than one specific task.

        Most code, including machine code, are instructions, not "wiring". they are instructions telling the cpu and/or associated co-processors what functions to perform, in what order, upon which data. We have a word for this, even when it's binary numbers; "language".

        Tell me, Mr. Owl, is there a subject about which you do not feel a God-like omniscience?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ CBJ 6 years, 10 months ago
        "Violating the Constitution?" Since when does holding an opinion or belief violate the Constitution? Have we finally arrived at the age of thoughtcrime?

        As a computer programmer for 33 years, I'm well aware of what computers are capable of. Check out neural networks, genetic algorithms, and agent-based models. Computers are becoming more and more powerful and more and more capable of mimicking aspects of human thought processes, discovering relationships and finding more efficient ways of performing physical and mental tasks.

        I'll say it again: The legal issues regarding computer-related patents are only going to get murkier as computers continue to become more powerful and produce inventions of their own without direct human intervention.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • -1
          Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
          Not protecting inventions violates the constitution. Your position is inconsistent with the Constitution.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ CBJ 6 years, 10 months ago
            My position is perfectly consistent with the Constitution. Nothing in the Constitution *requires* Congress to enact patent laws.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • -1
              Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
              What a bunch of Nonsense. The purpose of government is to protect the RIGHTS of people. When the founders used the word RIGHT they meant a natural right. Not protecting those rights means that government is not doing its job. See the Declaration of Independence.

              You don't understand the purpose of a preamble. A preamble is not limiting in law, it is merely descriptive. In this case of one of the outcomes of protecting inventor's rights is promoting science and the useful arts and all macroeconomic evidence shows they are right.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
      you are an anarchist. This is a site promoting Objectivism. The philosophy of Objectivism logically refutes anarchy
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Robbie53024 6 years, 10 months ago
        No, it's not. This is a site promoting the movies. Why would you say such a thing?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by j_IR1776wg 6 years, 10 months ago
          This site is promoting Ayn Rand;s philosophy called Objectivism. The Atlas Shrugged trilogy is merely a vehicle for doing so.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Robbie53024 6 years, 10 months ago
            You are wrong. Below is from the "About" section of the site - copied verbatim.


            Welcome to Galt's Gulch

            The Official Atlas Shrugged Movie "Collective"

            The Producers of the movies hang out in here pretty regularly so don't hesitate to engage and ask real questions or bring some real commentary.

            We're very much looking forward to giving you as much behind-the-scenes access as possible and hearing from you along the way. We'll be reading everything so, be good.



            OUR PURPOSE:
            1.We have movies to promote - Atlas Shrugged Part II is now out on DVD and Blu-ray and, Part III will soon be in theaters. We need to get the word out and we want to employ your help.
            2.We have ideas to spread - We're passionate about Ayn Rand's ideas and we hope to assist in their progress by engaging in some inspired conversation.
            3.We have connections to facilitate - Have you ever wished you lived in the Gulch and could conduct value-for-value exchanges exclusively with like minded individuals? Us too. Let's.
            =============

            Nowhere there do I see that this is an Objectivist site. It does say that "we," that means all of us on the site, have ideas to spread. If you cannot accept that there are members here in the Gulch with their own ideas, then I'd advise you to find another O collective (and I mean that in the collectivist spirit as I find those sites a true bastion of collectivism). There are several of them out there.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by j_IR1776wg 6 years, 10 months ago
              ..".2.We have ideas to spread - We're passionate about Ayn Rand's ideas and we hope to assist in their progress by engaging in some inspired conversation"." If you are not here to promote Objectivism, then why are you here?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • -2
                Posted by Robbie53024 6 years, 10 months ago
                Because I believe in most of the philosophy, just not the atheism part.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 6 years, 9 months ago
                  It's not a Chinese menu. Your religeous 'philosophy' consisting of part stealing from Ayn Rand and part contradicting it is incoherent.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by Hiraghm 6 years, 9 months ago
                    "It's not a Chinese menu."

                    Said the Pope of Objectivism....

                    Of course it's a Chinese menu. To swallow everything Ayn Rand said, without question, without applying real world experience and thoughts and ideas from other minds makes one a robot, and the ideal acolyte of most any religion.

                    Ayn Rand came up with a good philosophy in Objectivism. But she wasn't, in fact, God, and therefore she didn't have all the answer, and she didn't get it all right. So the search for truth continues.

                    How do I know she didn't get it all right? Because nobody can get it all right. Nobody can get it all right because people are individuals, and individuals have different values, wants, needs, goals. No one, pristine philosophy can cover all of them, without forced indoctrination from infancy. And probably not even then.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by Robbie53024 6 years, 10 months ago
                  And because most here participate in and appreciate honest and rational debate, and aren't merely mind numbed knobs marching in lockstep to their goddess AR.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
                    Objectivists reject all mysticism, which includes gods
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by Hiraghm 6 years, 9 months ago
                      Human beings are not computers; they are swayed by their emotions. Objectivists are human beings. They are likewise swayed by their emotions. The root of mysticism lies in emotion, not reason. Those who cling to Rand and Objectivism from an emotional standpoint can be blind to the mysticism inherent in their clinging loyalty.

                      And once again we're back to the example that got me sent to Coventry <sigh>
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • -1
                      Posted by Hiraghm 6 years, 10 months ago
                      Hm.

                      That sounds like a "purist" argument one might find in a Christian cult. "We're the only *real* Christians because we're the only ones who believe and obey every letter of the Bible".

                      If Objectivists reject all mysticism... why do so many of you worship at the feet of AR?

                      Let me elaborate on that, for you...

                      If one is unwilling to concede the possibility that AR is wrong about something... then one must logically have some mystical view of her as some godlike creature; certainly superior to the rest of us who are fallible most of the time.

                      If one is willing to concede that AR is wrong about something... then AR *could* be wrong about God.

                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • -2
                      Posted by Robbie53024 6 years, 10 months ago
                      If you insist that Objectivism requires atheism. And that only Objectivists are welcome here.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
                        where have I said only Objectivists should be welcome here? you r argument is a strawman
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • Posted by Robbie53024 6 years, 10 months ago
                          "This is a site promoting Objectivism," + "Objectivists reject all mysticism," => ipso facto by your arguments, those who do believe in what you term "mysticism" don't belong on a site devoted to "Objectivism." No strawman here.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
                            There are new people to the site who don't yet know Objectivism. On my posts, I will point out where relevant. It does not keep someone disagreeing with Objectivism from making their argument. But t is relevant to show the distinctions.
                            "...those who do believe in what you term "mysticism" don't belong on a site devoted to "Objectivism."'
                            I have never said this on this site. I would not use the term "devoted" in speaking about Objectivism. I did use the word "promote." There is a huge difference. This site definitely promotes the ideas of Objectivism and Capitalism.
                            Why is it important to make the distinction? Because there are from time to time contributors on this site who attempt to hide ideas they are actually promoting. Anarchism is one area I find dangerous. To be perfectly honest, I find it
                            more dangerous in how anarchists try to hide that agenda by getting people to buy into sloppy utilitarianism ignoring important philosophical foundations.
                            As far as Christianity goes, I do not find it dangerous-just illogical and mystical. I've never met a Christian on this site yet, trying to hide Christian values. Christians openly promote their beliefs. That's straightforward and honest. Many Anarchists, especially anti-patent crowd, purposely distort facts and outright lie to push their agenda. I will always point out that Objectivism supports all property rights, including intellectual property. I will continue to point out that in Atlas Shrugged intellectual property and patents are discussed around 200 times. Including a very important discussion between Cheryl and James Taggert regarding Rearden metal.





                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                            • -1
                              Posted by Robbie53024 6 years, 10 months ago
                              Just pointing out that one could take your statements in the manner that I presented them. Having had these discussions in the past, I understand your perspective - but others might not. Particularly with the occasional O who wanders in here and screams that only the "pure" should be in here.

                              No harm, no foul.

                              Blood pressure reducing yet from the SCOTUS ruling?
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 6 years, 10 months ago
              "What is 'Galt's Gulch?'"

              "Galt's Gulch is the Official Atlas Shrugged Movie 'Collective.' Galt's Gulch is a community of like-minded individuals who come together regularly to share interesting content and ideas with each other and debate about politics, economics, philosophy and more. If you've read and have been influenced by Atlas Shrugged, this is the site you've been waiting for. This, is Galt's Gulch Online."

              "Like-minded" does not mean your spreading any ideas you feel like in your religious hatred for Ayn Rand's philosophy.

              "Collective" in the definition statement, included in quotes, is a joke, throwing it back in your face.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ CBJ 6 years, 10 months ago
            According to the home page, "Galt's Gulch is a community of like-minded individuals who come together regularly to share interesting content and ideas with each other and debate politics, economics, philosophy and more." It doesn't say anything about "promoting" a particular viewpoint.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
              I did not state there could be no debate. Where did you read that? I simply made the distinction between the site and what you are promoting. Debate away...
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by j_IR1776wg 6 years, 10 months ago
              See my reply to Robbie.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ CBJ 6 years, 10 months ago
                I did. See my reply to you. A major purpose of the Gulch is to *debate* issues, not march in lockstep. The issue of patents concerns a specific application of Ayn Rand's political philosophy, is an appropriate subject for debate, and thus qualifies as a legitimate subject to discuss in the Gulch.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
                  I completely agree. But I am allowed on my post to point out the differences between Objectivism and Anarchism.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ CBJ 6 years, 10 months ago
                    How? By saying "you are an anarchist" to anyone who disagrees with your position on patents? Not all opponents of patents are anarchists. And name-calling is not a proper way to point out the differences between Objectivism and anything else.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
                      rejecting a modern patent system is a form of anarchy. It denies individuals the opportunity (right) to pursue the products of their mind. I am not name calling. If you are not an anarchist, stop supporting anarchistic ideas. Denying property rights which are the ONLY right enumerated in the original Constitution.
                      "The Congress shall have power ... To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by ewv 6 years, 10 months ago
                        "Securing the exclusive right" is based, more fundamentally, on the rights of the _individual_, like all rights, not to "promote progress", but at least they got it in as a function to protect intellectual property rights.

                        Denial of intellectual property rights on principle is a form of anarchy in one sphere, not necessarily across the board, but the same a-philosophical "libertarian" mentality seems to often show up in both.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by Rozar 6 years, 10 months ago
                        Woah. You're free to pursue the product of your mind with or without a patent. You will just get less profit without a modern patent system. And the constitution wasn't purely objectivist, unless you're willing to say that an objectivist form of government has been tried and failed.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
          I disagree . I did not state it was the number one reason for the site, but the whole point is to bring people to Atlas Shrugged. That book is chock full of stuff regarding Objectivism. There's this little speech....Capitalism and anarchy do not mix
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Robbie53024 6 years, 10 months ago
            But this isn't an O site. There are plenty of those. As I copied directly from the About page, this site is primarily about promoting the movies. And sharing common ideas - often resulting in debate. <br abp="1845"> <br abp="1846">I have to disagree that capitalism and anarchy don't mix. Some seem to believe that there is this thing called anarcho-capitalism. Not a believer in such myself, but some are (kinda like a religious-Objectivist, and you know my thoughts on that - I'm not about to negate someone else's perspective merely because it doesn't fit my understanding). :-)
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 6 years, 10 months ago
              "Galt's Gulch is the Official Atlas Shrugged Movie 'Collective.' Galt's Gulch is a community of like-minded individuals who come together regularly to share interesting content and ideas with each other and debate about politics, economics, philosophy and more. If you've read and have been influenced by Atlas Shrugged, this is the site you've been waiting for. This, is Galt's Gulch Online."

              "Like-minded" does not mean your spreading any ideas you feel like in your religious hatred for Ayn Rand's philosophy.

              What some "seem to believe" about anarchy and religion does not make them coherent positions, let alone compatible with their opposite in Ayn Rand's philosophy.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 6 years, 10 months ago
        Bad call, K. Like CBJ, I am an Objectivist. Like you, I believe that "intellectual property" (intangible property) can exist can be recognized in law. Unlike you, and like CBJ, I find not much rational or objective in US Patent Law. If you and Dale have any original ideas on this, you have yet to present them. Yes, I have read Dale's site and some of his essays. He just says what is already the case and never recommends an objective basis for an objective application.

        I have been at this for 30 years writing about "property rights in cyberspace" and similar topics. I do not have a lot of answers, either. It is a difficult problem, at least for me. Perhaps you are smarter and have some answers. So far, you have not even offered a cogent question on intellectual property and US Patent Law but only defend the status quo.

        ... and I am not an anarchist...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
          Dale is an Objectivist. support this statement!
          "He just says what is already the case and never recommends an objective basis for an objective application."
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Rozar 6 years, 10 months ago
            You can't prove a negative. I tried talking to Dale as peacefully as I could muster but he insulted me and refused to explain how a product of the mind fits the definition of property.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
              because ideas lead to physical things that you use everyday making your life easier and safer. Those countries which don't recognize inventions, suffer as a result. THis is objective, measurable and proven.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by Hiraghm 6 years, 10 months ago
                "because ideas lead to physical things that you use everyday"

                When those things lead to physical things, then the physical things can be patented. But not the ideas. The idea of controlled, powered flight can't, and shouldn't, be patented. The implementation of it via the three-axis controller can be.

                Quick, who invented the waterbed? Who invented the communication satellite?

                Patent ideas, and there would have been no Star Trek, or Star Wars, or Battlestar Galactica...
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
              Rozar being impervious to logic and reason is not peaceful. Ultimately you are an anarcho-libertarian. You refuse to acknowledge that you point of view ultimately leads to a government.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by Maphesdus 6 years, 10 months ago
                dbhalling: "Ultimately you are an anarcho-libertarian. You refuse to acknowledge that you point of view ultimately leads to a government."
                ---
                ...What?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
                  Maph,

                  We spent a lot of time on this in another post. The anarcho people propose private entities to enforce contracts and other rules. This either makes them a vigilante or a government. Competing enforcement organizations are still organizations allowed to use force and therefor still governments.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
          Mike,

          You are impervious to logic. An invention is a human creation with an objective result (repeatable). An inventor is the first person to create an invention. Property rights are based on creation. Thus patents are property right that recognized the inventor's creation of an invention, just like all property rights. That is OBJECTIVE AND RATIONAL
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
          no, you are an Objectivist who voted for Obama.
          I do not perceive a problem. I perceive moochers. I understand that patent law must have a place in the information age. stick in the manufacturing age.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • -1
            Posted by Hiraghm 6 years, 10 months ago
            "Information age"? That vague term could have the "information age" begin at the time of Gutenberg (whose invention was an infringement upon the Chinese patent of block type... /sarc)
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Maphesdus 6 years, 10 months ago
        Actually no, Objectivism only provides an emotional denunciation of anarchy. Logically, Objectivism leads straight to anarchy.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 6 years, 10 months ago
          This is more of Maphesdus' repetitive ignorant rubbish. He doesn't have any understanding of Ayn Rand's philosophy, as he repeatedly illustrates over and over in his goofy pronouncements. Ayn Rand explained the logical basis of the necessity and her advocacy for a government properly delimited and how anarchy contradicts it. That was not "emotional denunciation". Her philosophy does not "logically lead straight to anarchy". In Maphesdus' manipulation of floating abstractions he doesn't know what logic is either.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ CBJ 6 years, 10 months ago
        Name-calling is not an argument. And for the record, I'm an advocate of limited government and *legitimate* property rights, which patents are not.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
          Patents are an integral part of the Constitution. As a matter of fact the ONLY right enumerated in the original Constitution. It is essential to Capitalism. If you cannot own the property of your mind, you are a slave. What is the philosophical basis for your assertion that patents are not property rights? The only logical basis I see comes from anarchy.In the History of the World we have only advanced technologically when a nation had a strong patent system in place.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 6 years, 10 months ago
            Do not confuse cause and effect. Modern patents were invented in Venice: the city gave you a monopoly for your lifetime, and when you died, the patent went to the city. Venice was a great trading city, but not a center for innovation and invention. In fact, even the arithmetic of capitalism - double entry in Arabic numerals - came from Treviso, a little city outside of Venice that Venice absorbed. Doing so did not create a University of Business in Venice.

            It is famous that America's competitive textile mills were built by Samuel Slater who brought the plans from England in his head. That story is known to hackers such as Joey Paris who rhymed:
            "The source is the source,
            of course of course
            and no one can copy the source
            of course
            unless the source
            can be carried in your head."

            Three-fifths votes for slaves was also "integral to the Constitution." So what? You have offered only an appeal to authority not a fact independent from it.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 6 years, 10 months ago
              "Land rights" "monopolies" were invented in feudalism, too. Locke, the Enlightenment, and the founding fathers did a lot better. The arithmetic of capitalism, by which you are referring to accounting, was used in merchantilism before capitalism. But it's arithmetic not philosophy, and it's true wherever it is used to calculate.

              It's true that the Constitution is not the philosophical justification for the laws, but it was based on better ideas than those in Venice, feudualism and merchantilism.

              Most of the effort in formulating the Constitution went into devising a political implementation with limits on growth of power, based on already accepted ideas of individualism.

              ("3/5 votes for slaves" was the politically feasible alternative to eliminating slavery at the time; that principle for computing representation in Washington -- not literally discounting votes for slaves -- served to limit the power of the slave states.)
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
              modern patent systems are NOT monopolies. Limited life, does not insure the owner the right to sell their invention
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 6 years, 10 months ago
                The left has been spreading the notion that _all_ private property rights are "monopolies" in their attempt to obliterate the distinction between the rights of the individual and government force, and in particular the distinction between property ownership and government enforced monopoly as nothing but an appendage of government control on behalf of some "class". Not everyone who falls for this disinformation is a leftist -- their intent is to spread confusion and anti-individualist falsehoods everywhere, and so we hear it from all kinds of sources, including supporters of Ayn Rand.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
              Mik,

              Patents are not a monopoly. Venice patents only covered a small number of people. If you were at all interested in the evidence you would see that every bit of income you earn above subsistence is because of property rights inventions - PATENTS.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ blarman 6 years, 10 months ago
                I think you mis-typed that.

                Patents most certainly ARE monopolistic. When you obtain a patent, you are gaining exclusive rights to the use of a particular invention or process until the expiration of the patent, at which point it becomes general knowledge. In order for someone else to LEGALLY use your patent, they MUST obtain an agreement from you as to their use and/or resale of your ideas and those who do not have such an agreement are prosecuted in Federal court.

                That sounds pretty much like the definition of a monopoly to me - and a government-sponsored one to boot.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by Robbie53024 6 years, 10 months ago
                  You are mostly correct.

                  "What Rights Does A Patent Grant?
                  The grant confers "the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale or selling the invention throughout the United States or importing the invention into the United States" and its territories and possessions for which the term of the patent shall be 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States or (if the application contains a specific reference to an earlier filed patent application) from the date of the earliest such application was filed. "

                  So, if not technically a monopoly, the ability to prohibit others from using the IP without a licensure agreement certainly has the effect of a monopoly.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
                    No it does not. A monopoly is a violation of peoples' right to contract and their property rights by the government, providing special access to a specific company to a market. Property rights can never be a monopoly.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ blarman 6 years, 10 months ago
                      So I can come use your home whenever I like, then? I can come borrow your car without your permission? I can raid your bank account?

                      I am trying to point out the absolute absurdity and incongruity of your position.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
                        NO. what the heck is so hard logically about this for you? again, you are taking a short cut. Ultimately, you do not *believe* you own yourself. Something else does.
                        If you own yourself, you own the products of your mind, your labor. That is the moral justification for the right to a patent.
                        Monopoly tests:
                        1. does not grant you exclusive access to a market
                        2. does not grant you a right to produce or manufacture a product
                        3. freely alienable (you can sell it, buy it, with no prejudice)
                        4. anyone can get one
                        Blarman, I am no longer on this post going to argue patents as monopolies. You are not choosing to apply logic to the objective arguments
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by $ blarman 6 years, 10 months ago
                          From Merriam-Webster:

                          mo·nop·o·ly noun \mə-ˈnä-p(ə-)lē\
                          1: complete control of the entire supply of goods or of a service in a certain area or market
                          2: exclusive possession or control
                          3: a commodity controlled by one party

                          What I have been trying to point out to you all along is that you are using a definition that is incorrect when you assert that a patent is NOT a monopoly. The dictionary very clearly disagrees with you - as do I. The fundamental disagreement is not a logical one, it is a definitional one. Logic is extrapolation based on definition. One must assert A before one can assert A -> B. You are asserting A and I am pointing out that your assertion of A is fundamentally fallacious - that you are not accurately describing A.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
                            Yes. I accept the common usage.
                            1.patents do not grant the owner complete control of an entire supply-in fact they do not allow the owner to even make the good much less "control" a market.
                            2. a patent does not give the owner exclusive possession or control. (Swan vs. Edison)
                            3. a patent is not a commodity
                            On this post, db gave you 5 articles explaining in great detail the differences between the two. It is exhausting to repeat again and again what is objectively known. We're done. Move on to another argument.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • -2
                        Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
                        Blarman, you are not serious, you are not interested in logic and evidence, and you are not advancing the discussion.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by $ blarman 6 years, 10 months ago
                          "you are not serious, you are not interested in logic and evidence" = ad hominem attack

                          Ad hominem attack is example of logical fallacy

                          Use of logical fallacy = abrogation of logical process

                          Accusation of opponent failing to abide by process of logical discovery immediately after violating process of logical discovery through ad hominem attack = blatant hypocrisy.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
                            who has time to go around and around on logically proven concepts. A right in a patent does not fit even one definition of a monopoly. To hold they do is an emotional response not objective and individuals have a right to get heated when reason is applied. Again, go to any Objectivist website and read the definitions of property rights-I have posted Rand's definitions on all property rights and on intellectual property rights including discussion regarding monopolies. You have not provided one shred of evidence to counter act any of the copious definitions, facts, examples, that have been posted here. You do not like patents. I get that. You support anarchy to deny property rights. Logically see your inherent contradictions and re-check your premises.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
                  No I did not mistype that. Property rights are based on creation and that is what patents are based on. All property rights are about exclusive rights.

                  You do not understand what a monopoly is. 1st of all a patent does not even give you the right to make or sell your own invention, so it cannot be a monopoly. Property rights can never be a monopoly.

                  All property rights are government sponsored. You either have not thought about this or you are being intellectually dishonest.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ blarman 6 years, 10 months ago
                    I will point out a significant flaw in your logic: your own body. By your argument, because you did not create your own body, the government has the right to tell you what you can and can not do with your own body. This is clearly absurd.

                    Property rights exist independent of the government. Government RECOGNIZES rights and enforces penalties on those who abrogate others' rights, but it neither creates nor grants rights.

                    A patent is a recognition of a property right and its exclusive use.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
                      You are taking a short cut in logic blarman and I think fundamentally this is a religious one. You do not accept that you own yourself. This is the basis of all property rights. Locke, Blackstone (through english common law), Jefferson, Rand-all acknowledge natural rights. So either you do not accept humans have natural rights or you are purposely trying to obfuscate.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by $ blarman 6 years, 10 months ago
                        Exclusivity is equivalent to monopoly. From Merriam-Webster:

                        Monopoly
                        1. exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action

                        Monopoly. A. Identity.
                        Exclusivity. B. Identity.
                        Monopoly = Exclusivity. A = B. Definition.
                        A patent grants exclusivity. C -> A. Definition.
                        Hence C -> B: a patent grants a monopoly. Transitive use.

                        My point was not to make a religious one, but to illustrate the absurdity of your argument by arguing an extreme case of your own supposition. I am not arguing that one does not have primacy of use of one's own body - I am arguing that placing the government as the determiner of such primacy is inherently fallacious. The government recognizes rights, however, it does NOT grant them.

                        When you register a patent, you are applying for official recognition for your efforts in the form of monopolistic or exclusive use. You are staking a claim to a particular idea or process and requesting legal recognition and enforcement. But it is NOT the government that grants those rights. It can not unless it is the originator of those rights, which it is not. You are confusing rights with recognition of rights. The rights exist independently of any governmental presence; what the government provides is an enforcement mechanism for the recognition of rights. That is all I have been saying all along.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by Rozar 6 years, 10 months ago
                      But you did create your body, you maintained it and fed it and took care of it. You put your labor both of the mind and body, into keeping yourself alive. That's what makes it yours. You mixed your time and energy with it. It's the same with a patent. You mixed your time and energy into establishing a new set of instructions. So it's yours, and if other people take that thing you produced, and use it without your permission, it's theft.

                      Then after 20 years or whatever the government takes your property away from you for the public good.

                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by Robbie53024 6 years, 10 months ago
                    db: You are the one being disingenuous here.

                    "Ordinarily there is nothing which prohibits a patentee from making, using, offering for sale, or selling, or importing his/her own invention, unless he/she thereby infringes another’s patent which is still in force."

                    Blarman, myself, and others who have joined in this discussion do so mostly from a lay perspective. Taking obscure and very narrow technicalities and generalizing them to a point that you say totally disproves the point is dishonest and not worthy of the level of discourse expected on the board. The use of such tactics undercuts your own authority of the subject.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
                      Robbie,

                      I am not being technical I am talking about facts. If we were discussing Global Warming and I did not know the basic facts I would expect and I know you would oblige in correcting me. If I persisted in obvious mistakes, I doubt your patience would last as long as mine has.

                      Let's start with basics:
                      1) you do know what a property right is
                      2) you throw around the idea that patents are monopoly, which shows you do not understand 1. You accept the Socialist definition of monopolies which were designed to attack all property rights.
                      3) You have professed knowledge of whether Alice's invention is patentable. But you don't know how patent law works, you don't know how to read claims, but then you complain that I point out your ignorance. That is just whining.
                      4) Finally your position is advocating theft. Sorry I am not patient with people who advocate theft and mooching.

                      It is I that should be offended by you and blarman. If I comment on something in which I do not have expertise, I am careful and try to not over reach. For instance, there was an extensive discussion of new Nuclear Reactor designs. I did comment, but made sure that I did not over reach my knowledge.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by ewv 6 years, 10 months ago
                        These supposed rational arguments for calling patents government sponsored "monopolies" as opposed to government defended property rights apply equally (i.e., they don't) to your "exclusive use" of your home and your bank account.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                      • Posted by Robbie53024 6 years, 10 months ago
                        You mistake me for other posters. Regardless, you refuse to present rational arguments.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
                          Perhaps
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                          • Posted by Robbie53024 6 years, 10 months ago
                            So, you agree to irrationality?
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
                              I agree that you are confused, have no idea what property rights are, and you are clearly unable to follow or present a logical argument.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                              • Posted by Robbie53024 6 years, 10 months ago
                                How am I confused?

                                How do you identify that I have no idea as to what property rights are?

                                How is it that you believe that I cannot follow or present a logical argument?

                                Dale, you have been illogical, have not presented a coherent and logical argument. And continue to attack using merely ad hominems. That is the mind of one who doesn't have logic or facts on their side. I've tried to be honest and rational in this discussion, but you don't reply with a like respect.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
                                  You stridently display your ignorance and your inability to follow simple logic. Gee there appears to be a pattern. You did the same thing with your ignorance of EM. You are not objectivist, you do not understand or practice logic and reason, you are just emoting all of this site.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                  • ewv replied 6 years, 10 months ago
                • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
                  blarman you are incorrect. and I am concerned you are making fundamental decisions on incorrect information. A property right cannot be a monopoly Property rights re based on creation and a monopoly is a grant by the govt that interferes with with others' rights to contract and/or their property. It provides a special access or market to a specific player.
                  Patent: a property right. A patent does not interfere with other property rights. A patent does not give you a right to make or sell your invention. an example: if I were to invent the micro-controller and someone had the patent on the integrated circuit, then I could not produce my micro-controller without violating another's patent on an integrated circuit.
                  One is a property right the other is an interference with people's natural rights. Please study the differences because your opinion has influence and this is an intellectual war we have to win on moral foundations.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • -1
                    Posted by $ blarman 6 years, 10 months ago
                    If you own a piece of land, you have the primacy of right to use that land, do you not? Anyone who wishes to use that land must get your permission or pay you for the privilege, or they will be engaging in unlawful use, will they not?

                    How is this ANY different than owning a patent? Does not the government enforce the rights of a patent by declaring the terms of unlawful use? Do you not have to grant permission in order for others to lawfully use your patented ideas?

                    The fact that you and you alone determine who can legally use that idea is by very definition monopolistic use. There can be no other interpretation that passes muster.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
                      Once again you show your ignorance of law. Ownership in land gives you the right to exclude others. But it does not give you a right to do whatever you want with land.

                      You do not understand what a monopoly is. Go read up on the Statute of Monopolies. It is about the government granting a exclusive right to a market. A patent and a property right do not do this.

                      Blarman, you are not serious, you are not interested in logic and evidence, and you are not advancing the discussion.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by Bobhummel 6 years, 10 months ago
                        To your first point DBH, zoning laws , at the local county level dictate what you can "do" on your private property - commercial vs residential vs industrial. Totally agree on the clear distinction between property rights and patent rights.
                        Cheers
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
                          Hi Bob. there are other laws which limit property rights. Your property rights are limited firt and foremost by others' property rights. Patent rights are one of many property rights, all with slightly different characteristics.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by Bobhummel 6 years, 10 months ago
                            Thanks KH. I was attempting to demonstrate that land property rights can have restrictions placed on them by the zoning boards. The government should not have that authority when it comes to intellectual property. Their only responsibility should be setting the rules by which such IP is legally recorded and then provide the mechanism for adjudication if there are disagreements. Like rules for driving on public roads, so that we are all using a knowable and common system with independent and free movement.
                            Just because someone likes your car, it does not give them the tight to steal it.
                            Cheers
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by $ blarman 6 years, 10 months ago
                        If you are interested in furthering the discussion, answering my questions to arrive at mutually-agreeable point would be a great step forward.

                        If your logic is supreme, it will be its own evidence, will it not? If your position is so fundamentally sound that it can not be breached, you would have no need to deflect or call names or imply inferiority in others. All such are emotive claims, are they not? I understand that this ruling affects your livelihood and you feel threatened by it. That is no excuse to project your insecurities onto us and claim that we are the ones who can't remain objective. Shame on you.

                        Now.

                        Can there be multiple parties who claim primacy of use of property - or even secondary use? There frequently are. That is the reason why people apply for patents in the first place: to secure primacy of use of intellectual property. It is the reason people file property transfer agreements with their local governmental offices when they purchase a lot of land. They seek the enforcement of primacy of use in a government-recognized monopoly. A breach of this primacy of use can be named trespassing (in the case of land), copyright- or patent-infringement in the case of IP, etc. Are the terms of every property recognition identical? No, and no one is arguing otherwise. But definitionally, property rights concern primacy of use, duration of use, and the degree of exclusivity of such use. The government is only a recognizer and arbiter of such (aside from frequently inserting itself as a claimant) - however it is not a grantor.

                        Further, though a market may be inferred based on the concepts embodied in the patent for suitability of use, there is nowhere in the patent application or subsequent grant that designates a market of use - that is entirely up to the holder of the patent to determine. The claim that the government grants a right to a market should immediately offend any true Objectivist because it is an assertion that the government has the right to create and/or control such markets in the first place!

                        Advancing the discussion is seeking for the reality or truth of a matter. It begins with an agreement upon definitions, which has not yet been accomplished. It absolutely precludes the use of ad hominem or other attacks on participating parties. When you are in the courtroom, you don't call the opposing lawyer an imbecile - you treat them with respect. You are invited to do the same here. And as lawyers, I am surprised that you do not recognize that we are still in discovery - we haven't even moved to trial, let alone judgment. To declare that the case is closed falls outside your jurisdiction.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
                          yes, obviously. you are not using standard language so I'm not sure what you mean by "primacy use of property." Property rights are a bundle of different rights or different aspects. You have the right to lease, to exclude someone using your land, Land is not the property. The property right is what the owner's relationship is to the land. The land exists. If you own the land(shorthand phrase), you have certain rights associated with that land. Those rights are never unlimited nor are they a monopoly. These are the legal definitions. To move the discussion, please stick to the correct logical and legal structure of property rights. Ultimately, they are about the law, because that is how they are enforced.
                          The market isn't tied to the property right.
                          "The claim that the government grants a right to a market should immediately offend any true Objectivist because it is an assertion that the government has the right to create and/or control such markets in the first place! "
                          THERE is the difference between property rights and Monopoly. In a patent, the government does NOT grant an exclusive right in a market. The government does NOT even grant a right to sell the invention.
                          We are using standard legal definitions for these terms of property right and monopoly. Are you?
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • -1
                      Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
                      Blarman, you are not serious, you are not interested in logic and evidence, and you are not advancing the discussion.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by $ blarman 6 years, 10 months ago
                        A statement that is entirely an ad hominem attack, and yet you go on as if I am the one not adhering to the principles of a logical debate. Then you downvote me for asking questions that expose the vulnerability of your positions?

                        You want to call that rational? You want to set yourself up as the paragon of logic while simultaneously violating the very principles of such with the very basest of logical fallacies? And then you want to claim that I am not "advancing the discussion" simply because I have a fundamental disagreement on the definition which happens to represent the cornerstone of your argument?

                        Wow. That's all I can say. Wow.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
                          I think you are getting downvoted for not sticking with legal definitions of terms, of refusing to acknowledge logical derivations of concepts. Go to any Objectivist site, and study up on why humans have rights in the products of their mind. We are using philosophical and legal standard definitions. Your refusal to accept those definitions, hinders the discussion not advances it.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • Posted by Robbie53024 6 years, 10 months ago
                          You won't get anywhere with this discussion. db is a lawyer and will argue fine points of legality that to the common person are a distinction without a difference. Whether a patent is a monopoly or not from a strictly legal definition is immaterial. If you have it, you can prevent others from using the technology. If they cannot legally use the technology to make a product, it doesn't matter whether they have a gov't sanction to be the sole vendor in a specific region or not, they cannot sell it if they cannot produce or procure it for sale. Thus, as I said, a distinction without a practical difference.

                          And I'll likely get the down vote and ad hominem attack for writing common sense. So be it.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
              that clause took a fledging nation to the most powerful in under 150 years. Watch as companies leave to find nations who vigorously protect intellectual property rights.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ CBJ 6 years, 10 months ago
                Right, the rest of the Constitution had nothing to do with it.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
                  point taken. But the phrases "american ingenuity, exceptionalism" come from the voracious pursuit of invention. The steam engine, the cotton gin, the american system of manufacturing...all were unique, disruptive across industries and created lots of wealth which in turn grew a nation. The Industrial Revolution did not occur simply because we fought for Independence from Britain and won. It was not coincidence that at the first Constitutional Convention a steam ship was on display. Jefferson and Washington knew that a patent system was essential to the growth of the new nation.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 6 years, 10 months ago
                    The steam engine was not an American invention. The cotton gin made slavery economically viable. Eli Whitney's other "invention" was interchangeable parts.

                    The first commercially successful true engine, in that it could generate power and transmit it to a machine, was the atmospheric engine, invented by Thomas Newcomen around 1712.[18][19] It made use of technologies discovered by Savery and Papin. Newcomen's engine was relatively inefficient, and in most cases was used for pumping water. It worked by creating a partial vacuum by condensing steam under a piston within a cylinder. It was employed for draining mine workings at depths hitherto impossible, and also for providing a reusable water supply for driving waterwheels at factories sited away from a suitable "head". Water that had passed over the wheel was pumped back up into a storage reservoir above the wheel.[20]
                    In 1720 Jacob Leupold described a two-cylinder high-pressure steam engine.[21] The invention was published in his major work "Theatri Machinarum Hydraulicarum".[22] The engine used two lead-weighted pistons providing a continuous motion to a water pump. Each piston was raised by the steam pressure and returned to its original position by gravity. The two pistons shared a common four way rotary valve connected directly to a steam boiler.

                    On the Cotton Gin - and the failure of its patents:
                    "The invention solved an economic problem for the south by making the crop worth the effort to grow it for the textile market in New England. Whitney and Miller formed a partnership and in June 1793, Whitney returned to New Haven to take out his patent and to begin manufacturing the gins.

                    The cotton gin did not bring the partners the expected fortune, however. Whitney’s idea soon leaked out and pirated machines were quickly produced in Southern workshops. A patent was obtained but the problems of getting the gins into production allowed competing gin makers to beat him to the planters.
                    [...]
                    "The contested patent fight would last until 1807, involving about 60 lawsuits. Finally Whitney was established as the inventor of the cotton gin and would collect $90,000 from the suits. However, the time and money spent on the suits meant little profit on the invention."
                    -- http://www.eliwhitney.org/museum/about-e...
                    (If you read that site, you will find lacking any large list of patents even though Whitney did a lot of inventing:
                    "He invented the filing jig, which guided the workmen’s file and designed stencils with up to a dozen holes that helped to bore in the exact places. Whitney fixed mechanical stops to his lathe, which prevented the worker from turning the piece too far or not enough. As well as fashioning the dies and molds for various parts, Whitney was busy arranging for ..."

                    Many patents did come from Whitney's Workshop, mostly from Alfred C. Gilbert and mostly for toys:
                    http://www.eliwhitney.org/museum/-gilber...
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by Hiraghm 6 years, 10 months ago
                    Ah, you're talking dirty, now, khalling. "American ingenuity, exceptionalism"... "Industrial Revolution"... "steam engine..." "manufacturing"....

                    excuse me, I need a cold shower, after all that...
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
                  Patents are the basis of property rights. You cannot have a patent system without property rights.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 6 years, 10 months ago
                    That is a non-sequitar, Dale. It is a logical error of the most basic class. P-> Q then Q causes P. In other words, you say that patent rights are the BASIS of property rights AND that you cannot have a patent system without property rights. In fact, the logic works in the other direction. Property rights in general are the (putative) basis for (specific) patent rights. By analogy, property rights in general are the basis for specific "air rights" above a building. You are flailing, counselor.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
                      BS Mike you don't know what a non-sequitar is. Property rights are based on creation. All creation starts with the mind and patents protect the creations of the mind, which makes the most basic and fundamental and logically the basis of all property rights.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                      • Posted by Hiraghm 6 years, 10 months ago
                        Just because someone commits a non-sequitur doesn't mean he doesn't know what one is.

                        If patents protect the creations of the mind...

                        Why wasn't Gone With the Wind patented?

                        (for that matter, why isn't Pinnacle of Justice patented?)

                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by Robbie53024 6 years, 10 months ago
                    That would seem to be backwards. Property rights exist. Patenting is a methodology for defining a type of property rights (a sub-set).
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
                      All creation begins, starts with the human mind. All property rights are protecting the property of one's mind. Patents are the most fundamental of all property rights because they are directly tied to the property of the human mind-right at the source, so to speak.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                      • Posted by Hiraghm 6 years, 10 months ago
                        "All creation begins, starts with the human mind. All property rights are protecting the property of one's mind."

                        So you're saying that the universe is the figment of some person's imagination?

                        I've said it before, I'll say it again... gosh you're fun to play with...
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                      • -1
                        Posted by Robbie53024 6 years, 10 months ago
                        No disagreement there. But not all outputs of the human mind are patentable. Yet, they are a part of his creativity.

                        I agree that they are a fundamental aspect of property rights, but as a sub-set, not the primacy, is all.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ CBJ 6 years, 10 months ago
            Yes, patents are an integral part of the Constitution. In this case, I think the Founders got it wrong. Patents entail the granting of a coercive monopoly over the performance of a process, backed by government guns. They have no place in a free economy.

            My concept of “ownership” does not include forbidding someone else from doing something because I claim to have thought of it first. A person has the fundamental right to promote his/her own well-being by the application of knowledge obtained from others (unless constrained by voluntary contract, such as those protecting trade secrets), as well as from original thought and experience.

            I’ll leave it for others to decide whether this makes me an “anarchist”.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by j_IR1776wg 6 years, 10 months ago
              CBJ Article 1 Section 8 reads as follows as pertains to this subject "...To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for Limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their Respective Writings and Discoveries;..." In an Article V convention would you advocate for its removal? Or would you re-write it? I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on the subject esp. where you think they go it wrong. Thanks.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ CBJ 6 years, 10 months ago
                I probably would seek to re-write it. Authors and inventors are currently lumped together as creators of "intellectual property", but there should be distinctions between the two as far as the legal status of their work is concerned.

                I'm in favor of strong copyright and trademark protection, but not any form of patent protection. The difference, to my mind, is between protecting content (such as a literary work or trademark design) and granting an exclusive right to perform a process (such as a method for creating fire). There can be overlap between the two, but for the most part the division between content and process is clear, and should be reflected in the laws of a free society.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by j_IR1776wg 6 years, 10 months ago
                  Personally, I can perceive no difference between a poem and a light bulb as regards ownership and rewards belonging, solely, to the creative minds whose efforts brought them into existence.

                  Your argument seems to parallel and echo President Obama's "You didn't build that." which itself echoed centuries of moochers railing against the fact that Nature makes some humans more intelligent, creative, and productive than others and tries to compensate for this deficit by hobbling their betters. I am curious why no one applies this to athletes who can run faster or jump higher but, readily, does so in the intellectual realm.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ CBJ 6 years, 10 months ago
                    The difference is between “you can’t copy this, I wrote it first” and “you can’t do this, I did it first”.

                    Ownership and exclusivity are not the same thing, though they can overlap. Parents don’t own their children just because they brought them into existence. Likewise, inventors don’t “own” methods or processes just because they happened to think of them first (or claim they did).

                    Your concept of ownership also runs head-on into the “second to invent” problem – see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_di... and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mul... .

                    Patents force the legal system to base its decisions on inherently subjective criteria such as “novelty” and “nonobviousness”. Not good building blocks for a system of objective law.

                    Finally, attempting to malign those who don’t agree with you as “moochers” or “looters” does not strengthen your arguments. We recognize that inventors have property rights, we simply contend that patents extend those property rights way beyond their appropriate boundaries.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
                      Stealing other people's work is the definition of a moocher.

                      Patents are not inherently based on subjective criteria. An invention is a human creation with a objective result. An inventor is the first person to create an invention. Property rights are the law recognizing that creation. Patents are just property rights in inventions. This is objective and logical.

                      Non-obviousness is subjective, has nothing to do with patents and was one of the first examples of Judicial activism. You want to make patents objective get rid of the non-obviousness requirement.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                      • Posted by Robbie53024 6 years, 10 months ago
                        I agree that non-obvious is subjective. As is the determination of "first." Who is first, the person who files first, or the person who can demonstrate that they had the idea first? And what about the individual who develops the same idea entirely independently? Who is "first" then?
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by j_IR1776wg 6 years, 10 months ago
                      "The difference is between “you can’t copy this, I wrote it first” and “you can’t do this, I did it first”."
                      You are asserting "You didn't invent this, someone else made it happen." You are advocating for the theft of intellectual property by denying the right of ownership to the creative geniuses amongst us.

                      "Parents don’t own their children just because they brought them into existence.".

                      What does parenthood have to do with patents?

                      A moocher or a looter is someone who wants something they haven't earned. If the shoe fits...
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by $ CBJ 6 years, 10 months ago
                        So when I say something, I'm "really" saying something else. If I disagree with your definition of property, I'm advocating theft. A person who invents something is a "moocher" if someone else thought of it first. And what’s with the personal attacks?
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by j_IR1776wg 6 years, 10 months ago
                          "A person who invents something is a "moocher" if someone else thought of it first" This is why we need and have patent offices. The inventor is the person who registers the idea first unless someone can prove otherwise.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 6 years, 10 months ago
              So the "Gift Certificate" was perfectly proper giving Hank Rearden's creation of Rearden Metal and the process for making it to those who did not earn it because Rearden was only a mooching recipient of the government's gift of "monopoly backed by government guns". Obama would love it. Whoops, there goes your right to your house, too, your "monopoly" only being "backed by government guns". Your deed is now the "Gift Certificate".
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ CBJ 6 years, 10 months ago
                Without involving patents in any way, Ayn Rand's moral point could have been made if Hank Rearden had been forced to sign a “gift certificate” giving away his trade secret for the process of creating Rearden Metal. And would it be okay for the government to deny Rearden the right to manufacture and sell his metal, the product of his own mind and years of work, if someone else filed a patent for a similar process a few hours earlier than he did?

                To reiterate: My concept of “ownership” does not include forbidding someone else from doing something because I claim to have thought of it first. A person has the fundamental right to promote his/her own well-being by the application of knowledge obtained from others (unless constrained by voluntary contract, such as those protecting trade secrets), as well as from original thought and experience.

                "He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation." --Thomas Jefferson
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by dbhalling 6 years, 10 months ago
                  You don't have a concept of property. It is not about an idea, it is about creation. All human creation starts with the mind - otherwise animals would be farming, driving cars, building steam engines etc. Thus all property rights are protecting products of the mind.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ CBJ 6 years, 10 months ago
                    I assume from your statement that Rearden Metal is no longer a product of Hank Rearden's mind if someone with a similar invention beats him to the patent office by a few minutes.

                    And that henceforth he has no right to manufacture Rearden Metal without first obtaining permission from the patent holder.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ jbrenner 6 years, 10 months ago
                      In some fields, it actually is that close of a race. In the field of induced pluripotent stem cells, a group from Japan and a group from the UK independently came up with strategies to make adult stem cells act like they were back in the womb. I think this is the most importnat invention of the 21st century. They published within the same MONTH, and their work was being reviewed concurrently by different patent agencies. The UK group got a patent only in the UK. The Japanese group got the "world" PCT patent.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
                        when you file a PCT, it includes the UK. It includes the US. It will turn on priority date of filing, but also, when was it first out there. remember, scientists publishing a paper that pre-dates your filing of an invention if its the same, your application will have to deal with that prior art. In most of the world, it is "absolute novelty" which means you can't publish before you file your patent application in any country that has absolute novelty. Which is most countries. The US had a system for dealing with "simultaneous invention." It was rearely used, and when it was used, almost always, individuals invented similar but not exactly the same. So tehy both ended up with different claims or what were called "counts." I would put my money on this is the case here as well, but that is just based on other similar claims we have heard before and when db looked into it, well, usually both sets of inventors had patentable areas. It was not the case there was one winner and one loser.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
                      actually, since 2011 you are correct. The anti-patent sentiment such as your views, have had influence. The patent reform (regress) bill was passed and is now law. so the first to file is now the "new" definition of inventor. Before all that bad publicity based on erroneous information and publicity was the case an inventor was the first to invent. which is the definition of inventor. FIRST. but those with anti-patent sentiment like yourself had real world affect. Imagine the glee of a big company who has teams of patent attorneys filing everyday. Thank you for supporting them for patent reform. In the past, even if a patent was granted, an inventor could prove they were the first and the patent would be invalidated. Now, not so much. Again, my clients thank you for your anti-patent stances and so do the big boys.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by $ CBJ 6 years, 10 months ago
                        Um . . . so the passage of a "reform" from "first to invent" to "first to file" is the fault of those of us who think patents should be abolished totally? Please explain.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
                          yes. You are a thief. You want to justify your theft of others work. How are you better than a mobster? How are you better than Marx? Your philosophy would protect those who steal AS III and distribute it without paying the creators. You are why I left the US.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                          • Posted by Robbie53024 6 years, 9 months ago
                            And why the ad hominem attacks? You have no evidence that CBJ has stolen anything. At worst, you might claim that they support thievery, in your estimation. Can't we have a civil discussion without the name calling?
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by 6 years, 9 months ago
                              he is advocating theft. copyright vs patent: there is no no logical basis for protecting the works of artists and not protecting the works of inventors.
                              cbj thinks patents should be completely abolished. If the intent is NOT to steal, then why the desire to destroy a property right based on natural rights? How is that different from removing your right to bear arms? It clearly shows that you advocate picking and choosing which property rights people can have. I can argue all day with socialists on this point. Frustrating I have to do it on this site
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                              • Posted by Robbie53024 6 years, 9 months ago
                                1) You didn't address the need for the ad hominem attacks
                                2) Advocating for something doesn't make you one, even though I find it disingenuous
                                3) You make a passionate argument for your case. But you discount the case made by others out of hand. For example, I believe in protection for IP as fundamental property rights, but don't believe that the current system does so rationally or justly. Yet, you and Dale rail against me calling me illogical and immoral.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by 6 years, 9 months ago
                                  3)".. but don't believe that the current system does so rationally or justly..." You had me at believe. ;) You are working off of examples with false information and an emotional response. give me hundreds of examples where the system is "broken" and I will look at them. We deal with the patent system daily. Thousands of patents are reviewed by db. He does not say there is never any patents which should not have made it, but they are very few. the objective proof those nations with strong enforcement of intellectual property rights flourishing compared to nations with less enforcement is objective-yet you ignore that...conveniently?
                                  2) Advocating for theft is a form of theft. They are just a more careful criminal who wants less risk for themselves at great harm to others who are productive.
                                  1) addressed in 2. I have been basically gone from the gulch for 10 days while travelling. my posts are lit up with anarcho bullshit all of a sudden. where was your vigilence? oh, you were supporting them on my patent post. check out my walmart post.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                  • Robbie53024 replied 6 years, 9 months ago
                • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
                  here is Ayn Rand's response to your question:
                  "As an objection to the patent laws, some people cite the fact that two inventors may work independently for years on the same invention, but one will beat the other to the patent office by an hour or a day and will acquire an exclusive monopoly, while the loser’s work will then be totally wasted. This type of objection is based on the error of equating the potential with the actual. The fact that a man might have been first, does not alter the fact that he wasn’t. Since the issue is one of commercial rights, the loser in a case of that kind has to accept the fact that in seeking to trade with others he must face the possibility of a competitor winning the race, which is true of all types of competition." Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ CBJ 6 years, 10 months ago
                    I have read Ayn Rand’s article on patents and copyrights, and on the issue of patents I think she misapplied her own philosophy. Elsewhere, in The Virtue of Selfishness, Ayn Rand says, “Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life.”

                    Clearly in Atlas Shrugged Ayn Rand has established that Rearden Metal is a product of Hank Rearden’s effort. This holds true whether or not anyone else has invented the same or a similar thing, and whether or not Rearden is the first person to arrive at the Patent Office. This being the case, Rearden has the moral right to produce and market Rearden Metal.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • -1
            Posted by Hiraghm 6 years, 10 months ago
            There is no natural right to patent. There is the natural right to the fruit of your labor and creativity, which patents and copyrights protect, in a limited manner, for the benefit of the society as a whole.

            Glad to see that the Greeks, Romans and Egyptians had such strong patent systems.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo