|Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 16 2013 @ 04:23 PM EDT|
|Consider, for example, the following patent claim.
26. A data
processing system to enable the exchange of an obligation between parties, the
this a claim for a machine? The Sun Microsystems 670mp appears to offer the
possibility of faster, more accurate
transactions. But the two colums of
"exasperative detail" and the pages of figured flow charts "satisfy [my]
only insofar as they codify transactions that had been performed
by human operators for maybe a hundred years. The speed
and accuracy of the
transactions was not at suit, it was the
method, system, and media
claims at issue
having a phone perched on each
with sufficient monitor screens to
about a first account for a first party, independent
from a second account
maintained by a first exchange institution,
about a third account for a second party,
independent from a fourth account
maintained by a second exchange institution; and
because, albeit computer-implemented, they
recite no more
than an abstract fundamental mechanism of financial
intermediation with no inventive concept.
What dismays the more
simple minded folks around here is that learned Judges can also fall for
fairground banter if it's
dressed up in the right legal prose.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
- My Response to You - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 10:44 AM EDT
- It's Both - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 02:34 PM EDT
|Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 22 2013 @ 04:34 AM EDT|
|Is a Judge reading a document in a legal case a patentable process?
"Actually no, we know that's not right because
we have the specifications of the patent.. which aaa if you look at columns 7
and 8 span 2 full columns of exasperative detail about how for example .. 'the
processing unit 20 comprises 3 interlinked data processers, such as the sun
670mp manufactured by Sun Microsystems, each processing unit runs operational
systems software such as sun microsystems os 4.1.2 as well as applications
software. The applications software is shown in the flow charts accompanying
this patent ie figures 8 through 16 and figures 18 through 40 which contain
detailed flow charts that would certainly satisfy anybody's predilections
regarding an algorithm disclosure for sofware purposes .... Perry "your honor"
.. this is so far from just a computer doing an abstract idea .. I can't even
imagine how you can characterize it as such."
Let us go over the
You have a biological data processor inside the Judge's head,
containing a Broca's Area for processing incoming sound, and a Wernicke's Area
for processing intentional speech. It is controlled by genetic means which
permit it to process abstract and concrete data. It has Input and Output
Channels which are likewise controlled by genetic means.
Genetic means are
It is connected by technological means including
artificial body hair (clothing), artificial lighting, to various external
technical means of processing speech, light, temperature, etc.
Your Honour, this is so far from just a brain doing an abstract idea ... I can't
even imagine how you can characterize it as such.
Ergo, Judges Perusing
Legal Documents are Patentable Processes.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]