|
Authored by: NobodyYouKnow on Monday, July 09 2012 @ 08:44 PM EDT |
Should any be necessary. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: NobodyYouKnow on Monday, July 09 2012 @ 08:46 PM EDT |
For discussion of News Picks.
It is helpful to include the original link.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Microsoft throws down gaunlet - Authored by: UncleVom on Monday, July 09 2012 @ 10:18 PM EDT
- Microsoft collects 70% of all Android royalties - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 09 2012 @ 11:21 PM EDT
- Microsoft's Ballmer Throws Down Gauntlet - a few years too late! - n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 10 2012 @ 12:03 AM EDT
- Boycott Apple - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 10 2012 @ 12:25 AM EDT
- Boycott Apple - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 10 2012 @ 02:36 AM EDT
- Operation BearLove Good, Cancer Bad has ended - here's some photos of the $211,223.04 - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 10 2012 @ 11:34 AM EDT
- UEFI Looks like this Heise article English Link - Authored by: cbc on Tuesday, July 10 2012 @ 03:13 PM EDT
- Ballmer Confirms: “Surface Is Vaporware” - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 11 2012 @ 09:51 AM EDT
- Enter To Win A Free Ticket To LinuxCon North America - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 11 2012 @ 02:23 PM EDT
- PayPal sets down stricter regulations - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 11 2012 @ 03:46 PM EDT
|
Authored by: NobodyYouKnow on Monday, July 09 2012 @ 08:47 PM EDT |
For discussion not germane to the current article. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Kogan Disappears: Is Microsoft Vengeful Or Just Crap? - Authored by: calris74 on Tuesday, July 10 2012 @ 12:41 AM EDT
- Dotcom Extradition Hearing Delayed till March 2013 - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 10 2012 @ 02:12 AM EDT
- ACTA - Leaked docs show Canada/EU Commission trying to sneak ACTA into Canada & back into EU - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 10 2012 @ 10:45 AM EDT
- Lamar Smith Looking To Sneak Through SOPA In Bits & Pieces, Starting With ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 10 2012 @ 11:14 AM EDT
- How Big Music Threatened Startups and Killed Innovation - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 10 2012 @ 11:58 AM EDT
- More (undesirable) action on standards patents - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 11 2012 @ 09:40 AM EDT
- Alice Corp - Authored by: YurtGuppy on Wednesday, July 11 2012 @ 02:16 PM EDT
- Massive Change to UK Copyright Laws Hidden in Enterprise Bill - Authored by: sproggit on Wednesday, July 11 2012 @ 05:26 PM EDT
- INFOGRAPHIC: The LIBOR Scandal Explained - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 11 2012 @ 05:57 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 09 2012 @ 09:09 PM EDT |
Mark: "Expect this decision to be appealed."
Would they be likely to request an en banc hearing?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 09 2012 @ 09:30 PM EDT |
In functional democracies, this sort of behavior by appeals courts results in
judges being removed from their positions.
Either individually, or by dissolving the Federal Circuit.
But Congress is the branch of government given the authority to do either -- and
Congress is non-functional at the moment, so it will neither impeach any judges
NOR reorganize the court system.
This is not how it was supposed to work. How did we end up with such a broken
government?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 10 2012 @ 01:39 AM EDT |
The patent is dated 19 October 1999, and real time gross settlement was
introduced in Australia in 1998;
http://www.rba.gov.au/publications/bulletin/2010/sep/8.html
I'm fairly sure it was introduced in the UK prior to this.
CLS seem to apply the same concept to foreign exchange transactions. And that is
all.
Cheers from the cellar[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kawabago on Tuesday, July 10 2012 @ 02:29 AM EDT |
They have more aces. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: achurch on Tuesday, July 10 2012 @ 07:33 AM EDT |
Just a hypothetical question, but out of curiosity: If the Federal Circuit
continues this pattern of ignoring Supreme Court decisions, is there anything
the Supremes could do directly, such as bar certain judges from participating in
Federal Circuit cases? Or would they have to live with this pattern of
ignore-appeal-reverse continue until the CAFC has a sufficient change of heart
(or people)? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- s/live with this/let this/ (nt) - Authored by: achurch on Tuesday, July 10 2012 @ 08:02 AM EDT
- SCOTUS vs. CAFC, round N+1... FIGHT! - Authored by: jmc on Tuesday, July 10 2012 @ 08:59 AM EDT
- Advertise reversals? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 10 2012 @ 11:03 AM EDT
- Advertise reversals? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 10 2012 @ 12:15 PM EDT
- (d) - Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, July 10 2012 @ 01:10 PM EDT
- (e) - Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, July 11 2012 @ 02:18 AM EDT
- (f) - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 11 2012 @ 08:32 AM EDT
- SCOTUS vs. CAFC, round N+1... FIGHT! - Authored by: tknarr on Tuesday, July 10 2012 @ 11:57 AM EDT
- SCOTUS vs. CAFC, round N+1... FIGHT! - Authored by: nuthead on Tuesday, July 10 2012 @ 01:18 PM EDT
- What decision do you believe was ignored? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 10 2012 @ 05:00 PM EDT
|
Authored by: JonCB on Tuesday, July 10 2012 @ 08:19 AM EDT |
At its most basic form, in a transaction between parties ‘A’
and
‘B,’ a middle-man collects
funds from ‘A’ but will not pass them to ‘B’ until
‘B’ has
also performed. In more complicated settings, the
intermediary makes
intelligent choices in selecting the
parties
to the transaction in a way to
minimize or hedge the
transaction risk. In any event, this basic idea of
“credit
intermediation” is not just abstract; it is also literally
ancient.
See Temin, Peter, Financial Intermediation in
the Early Roman Empire (November
2002), MIT Department of
Economics Working Paper No. 02-39, available
at
http://ssrn.com/abstract=348103 or http://dx.doi.org/10.21
39/ssrn.348103
(exploring the use of financial
intermediaries in the Early Roman
Empire).
Maybe the majority's idea is that if the USA wasn't around
when it
was in use then it's patentable.
Go Prost!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: deck2 on Tuesday, July 10 2012 @ 09:09 AM EDT |
If I recall correctly this is the exact scenario George Quinn predicted when
SCOTUS overturned Bilski. CAFC would continue to rule in this manner in
complete defiance of SCOTUS. I believe they do this out of arrogance and ego
because they believe they are the final arbitrators on patentability as, in
CAFC's opinion, SCOTUS is a bunch of unknowledgable amateurs when it comes to
patent law. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 10 2012 @ 10:58 AM EDT |
The word Computer is derived from the word used for people
who did the job of computing before it was mechanised. There
have been middlemen around for thousands of years. So why is
a middleman who does calculations special enough to receive a
patent when that middleman is replaced by a computing device?
Honestly, I don't understand the sort of law that allows this
sort of thing.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 10 2012 @ 04:56 PM EDT |
35 U.S.C. 101 Inventions patentable.
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture,
or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain
a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
35 U.S.C. 100 Definitions.
When used in this title unless the context otherwise indicates -
(a) The term "invention" means invention or discovery.
(b) The term "process" means process, art, or method, and includes a
new use of a known process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or
material.
(c) The terms "United States" and "this country" mean the
United States of America, its territories and possessions.
(d) The word "patentee" includes not only the patentee to whom the
patent was issued but also the successors in title to the patentee.
(e) The term "third-party requester" means a person requesting ex
parte reexamination under section 302 or inter partes reexamination under
section 311 who is not the patent owner.
That's the law. Any insanity here is that people continue to assert that a list
of steps is not a process.
claim 33 is a list of steps. It is therefore a process. Therefore it falls
within a category of the kinds of things that are patentable. Get past it.
Whether it is a new process or an obvious process is a different question and
one that was apparently not at issue.
PLEASE STOP CONFUSING NOVELTY AND OBVIOUSNESS ISSUES WITH PATENTABLE SUBJECT
MATTER ISSUES.
By the way, Prometheus hinged on "law of nature" issues. Please don't
accuse claim 33 of trying to capture a law of nature. There is nothing natural
about the recited securities.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Perhaps you can explain - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 10 2012 @ 05:16 PM EDT
- you're almost right - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 10 2012 @ 05:23 PM EDT
- 35 U.S.C. 101 Inventions patentable - Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, July 10 2012 @ 05:45 PM EDT
- Something? - Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, July 11 2012 @ 01:58 AM EDT
- Something? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 11 2012 @ 10:10 AM EDT
- Something? - Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, July 11 2012 @ 12:29 PM EDT
- Something? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 11 2012 @ 12:36 PM EDT
- Something? - Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, July 12 2012 @ 03:05 AM EDT
- Something? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 12 2012 @ 05:27 AM EDT
- 35 U.S.C. 101 Inventions patentable - Authored by: cjk fossman on Tuesday, July 10 2012 @ 05:50 PM EDT
- Quoted in the OP - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 10 2012 @ 06:34 PM EDT
- Confusing how? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 10 2012 @ 07:20 PM EDT
- 35 U.S.C. 101 Inventions patentable - Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, July 10 2012 @ 08:27 PM EDT
- It's not confusion, patent law contains an absurd way to meet those requirements independently - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 10 2012 @ 09:28 PM EDT
- Wrong denotation - Authored by: jpvlsmv on Wednesday, July 11 2012 @ 10:15 AM EDT
|
Authored by: sproggit on Wednesday, July 11 2012 @ 03:42 AM EDT |
Through a tenure with one particular employer, I have experience of dealing with
CLS Bank and of actually using the mechanisms that I believe are covered by
these patents. For those who have not heard of CLS or are not familiar with
what they do, one [simplified] way of looking at it would be like
this...
A multinational company signs a deal with an overseas client
for product or services that runs into a very large sum of money. [ Very large =
anything over tens of millions of dollars, often hundreds of millions or more ].
The buyer and seller negotiate a price in a given currency. The seller operates
in a different currency, and as a result wants to get their funds exchanged.
Working with their bank, the seller sets up a deal on the CLS system to effect a
currency swap from one value (say Pounds Sterling) to another (say US Dollar).
To do this, the seller's bank needs to find a counterparty (another bank) and
agree an exchange rate for the swap. CLS bank creates the market in which these
currency swaps happen. They manage the transactions by allowing the subscriber
client banks to "pre-book" trades of a given value, on a given day, at a
negotiated exchange rate. Then, on the day, CLS bank executes the currency swap
and the deal is completed.
Now, what I've just described above,
whilst a simplification, is what CLS bank actually does. If you ignore the
aspect of this deal which involves the use of two [or potentially more]
different currencies, then really all you have is an Escrow service.
Even
more interesting, as the History of Escrow
shows, this type of service has been in operation since the 1930s.
In
other words, there is absolutely nothing new or innovative being performed by
the CLS Bank that warrants a patent.
I would go even further. If you
look across the globe, there are no other banks, financial institutions or
organisations that offer quite the same services as CLS Bank. There is no reason
why this is not the case. Except, of course, that CLS has made it harder for
competitors to enter the market through their acquisition of patents.
Look at it another way. What are CLS doing that could not equally
easily be achieved with a paper ledger and quill pens? Nothing. It would be
slower and require a lot more effort, but it could be done. So what has happened
here, in effect, is that CLS have been granted a patent by implementing all or
part of a pre-existing process on a computer.
The USPTO, with their
love affair with granting "patents for any old tat" (TM), have granted a patent.
The very act of the grant lends further credence to the "software patent meme"
and continues to act as further encouragement to other companies to try the same
or similar steps.
Going back to CLS... There is nothing new, unique or
innovative in the underlying financial transactions that has not been in place
for - at the very least - decades. In fact, at the most basic level, mechanisms
to do business this way have been in place for as long as their has been
international trade.
I am even reminded of a text book from my school
days which covered the period when the norther United States was being colonised
by Europeans, and "exchange rates" were agreed between the settlers and
indigenous tribes, so that e.g. rifles could be swapped for certain quantities
of fur pelts - an exchange rate of sorts.
I do hope that Alice
Corporation are willing to take up the gauntlet in the instant case, and get
another bogus patent overturned. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 11 2012 @ 02:01 PM EDT |
For example, she complaints that:
"The majority has failed to follow the Supreme Court’s instructions—not
just in its holding, but more importantly in its approach. The majority does not
inquire whether the asserted claims include an inventive concept."
OF COURSE NOT. THAT QUESTION WAS NOT BEFORE THE COURT!
No one challenged the existence of an inventive concept.
The issue before the court was 35 USC 101. Do the claims fall into one of the
categories of patentable subject matter. For example, does claim 33 recited a
method or process.
Clearly it does.
Whether or not there is an inventive concept is a different question and even
the accused infringer did not challenge the patent on that basis.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 12 2012 @ 01:06 AM EDT |
real time eh so
solomon sitting on his throne would have two parties to a
dispute....each has there say and wella real time solving
WAIT that's what judges do....ya don't need a computer and
there is a lot more then 400 years prior art.
try back to his time or like 2800 years....
or when ever that was...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Real Old Stuff. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 12 2012 @ 04:45 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 12 2012 @ 10:23 AM EDT |
Why is software not a "useful art"? What is the justification
from the constitution of the Judge made law that add
restrictions not in the text, to section 101? What is the
originalist arguement for the restrictions against natural truth
and abstract principles?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|