|
Authored by: nsomos on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 09:04 AM EDT |
Please place any needed corrections here in this thread.
It may please the readers to have a summary in the
posts title where possible and appropriate.
LInux -> Linux
Thanks[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 09:08 AM EDT |
The USPTO should be shut down completly for granting a patent
for that. Somebody needs to be punished for any financial
harm the that patent caused.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 09:21 AM EDT |
The funniest part in this is the fact that the Linux kernel does not use
floating point formats. Floating-point registers are saved and restored by the
kernel when scheduling, for example, and there are facilities to allow
floating-point computation within the kernel, but the kernel.org kernels do not
use floating point math. Wherever real numbers are used, fixed-point
calculations, often with 64-bit intermediate results, are used.
Thing is, "floating point" refers to a very specific format of numeric
values: one where there is a mantissa, and an exponent (of a base value, radix).
In the Linux kernel, non-integer numbers are either fixed point (i.e. integers
multiplied by e.g. 1/1000 or a negative power of two), or rational
(numerator-denominator pairs).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 09:22 AM EDT |
The patent may fail for technical legal reasons but what is actually described
is in fact detail on the design of hardware to perform floating point
operations efficently. The fact this is not understood shows the inability of
those deciding these sort of things to understand the language and context of
the subject matter. The whole point is a trade off in efficency of hardware
design versus numerical accuracy in certain cases with very small numbers.
On the other hand what is described is obvious to someone who knows floating
point representations and is interested in the limitations of it and practical
hardware implementations. It is quite common that hardware does not implement
IEE 754 sub-normals for reasons of efficency and cost benefit of high hardware
implementation cost versus low benefit. I am not even sure what they describe
makes any sense from a cost benefit point of view. Numerically you are in a bad
place if any of this makes a difference and in practical applications you make
sure you avoid it.
Just because the decision has for once gone in a direction we agree with does
not mean anyone should be happy with a continued demonstration that courts do
not understand the subject matter, the language that describes the subject
matter and the practicality of product developers and can therefore make
decisions that appear capricous or irrational. The big problem remains issung
patents that are obvious (and quite possibly not novel).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- "big problem remains issuing patents that are obvious" - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 09:43 AM EDT
- But then... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 10:10 AM EDT
- No, the court got it right - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 10:10 AM EDT
- Further - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 12:15 PM EDT
- Further - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 01:19 PM EDT
- Further - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 29 2013 @ 11:11 AM EDT
- Rackspace/Red Hat Hand Uniloc A Quick And Significant Defeat ~mw - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 10:11 AM EDT
- Look to the claim! - Authored by: macliam on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 02:44 PM EDT
- But it produces a poorer quality result... - Authored by: mtew on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 10:03 PM EDT
|
Authored by: kuroshima on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 09:55 AM EDT |
I assume that this will be appealed, if possible, so for those
who grok legal, how bullet proof is this? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: raiford on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 10:01 AM EDT |
Discussions about the news picks go here [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Entire library journal editorial board resigns, - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 12:46 PM EDT
- U.S. Defense Agency Feeds Python - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 02:49 PM EDT
- "Taking a stand on open source and patents" - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 03:40 PM EDT
- The Internet is not a surveillance state - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 10:01 PM EDT
- Microsoft publishes list of its entire patent portfolio - Authored by: Gringo_ on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 10:28 PM EDT
- War on the Wires - Is Spamhaus Spamming? Cloudflare Fibbing? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 29 2013 @ 03:13 AM EDT
- Sprint, Softbank to shun Chinese - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 29 2013 @ 05:44 PM EDT
- Forbes article on CFAA gets conversion wrong - Authored by: Tolerance on Saturday, March 30 2013 @ 01:18 AM EDT
- Tweet, tweet, tweet ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 30 2013 @ 04:11 PM EDT
- uh oh... the natives are getting restless - Authored by: dacii on Saturday, March 30 2013 @ 04:17 PM EDT
- Report: US Patent And Trademark Office Denies Apple’s iPad Mini Trademark Application, Deemed “M - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 30 2013 @ 07:06 PM EDT
- Matthew Garrett presentation video - Authored by: Nick_UK on Sunday, March 31 2013 @ 07:57 AM EDT
- Developer Freedom At Stake As Oracle Clings To Java API Copyrights In Google Fight - Authored by: JamesK on Sunday, March 31 2013 @ 03:55 PM EDT
- Being Google - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 31 2013 @ 04:20 PM EDT
- US to release Aaron Swartz papers - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 01 2013 @ 05:15 PM EDT
- US to release Aaron Swartz papers - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 01 2013 @ 05:18 PM EDT
- US to release Aaron Swartz papers - Authored by: 351-4V on Monday, April 01 2013 @ 06:04 PM EDT
|
Authored by: raiford on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 10:02 AM EDT |
Off topic discussions here [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- International Space Station migrating to Linux - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 10:05 AM EDT
- Friend of the Court: How Anthony Lewis Influenced the Justices He Covered - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 10:16 AM EDT
- FBI Pursuing Real-Time Gmail Spying Powers as “Top Priority” for 2013 - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 10:39 AM EDT
- Why so many Judges recuse from SCO case? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 11:29 AM EDT
- Difficulty loading Groklaw pages - Authored by: artp on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 12:07 PM EDT
- OT-Groklaw Physics Geeks - The Primer Fields? Q: Anything at all to this? Fiction or Fact? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 12:19 PM EDT
- Lindt loses German case over Easter bunny trademark - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 12:29 PM EDT
- Open Patent Non-Assertion Pledge - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 12:33 PM EDT
- MS? Apple? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 01:03 PM EDT
- I really like it - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 01:03 PM EDT
- Welcome back, MW - Authored by: fredex on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 01:52 PM EDT
- Piracy will kill the gread undustry [comic] - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 01:56 PM EDT
- Does first to file hurt people that don't file? Or make it harder to get a patent? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 02:10 PM EDT
- Linux Switching Week!! - Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 03:56 PM EDT
- Are top VC Firms good investments? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 04:00 PM EDT
- New CFAA Draft to Expand, Not Reform - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 04:37 PM EDT
- Monsanto Protection Act .. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 05:48 PM EDT
- Rackspace vs. PersonalWeb Technologies - Authored by: hardmath on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 07:02 PM EDT
- Media ignore the way new laws and regulations are enriching business at the expense of consumers - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 07:30 PM EDT
- Creeping Privatization of Justice - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 09:12 PM EDT
- Unique in the Crowd - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 09:44 PM EDT
- The largest computer ever built - Authored by: Gringo_ on Friday, March 29 2013 @ 07:23 AM EDT
- Three reasons Microsoft wants to kill the Windows Desktop - Authored by: Gringo_ on Friday, March 29 2013 @ 07:29 AM EDT
- Three reasons Microsoft wants to kill the Windows Desktop - Authored by: JamesK on Friday, March 29 2013 @ 11:09 AM EDT
- Got to remember something - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 29 2013 @ 11:20 AM EDT
- Three reasons Microsoft wants to kill the Windows Desktop - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 29 2013 @ 03:10 PM EDT
- Correct destination, but wrong direction to get there - Authored by: ailuromancy on Saturday, March 30 2013 @ 12:44 AM EDT
- And? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 30 2013 @ 05:48 AM EDT
- I love LXDE (fast, simple, stable), and would use it on portable device... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 30 2013 @ 08:18 AM EDT
- camera + phone in your pockets? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 01 2013 @ 05:34 PM EDT
- The problem with that theory - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 29 2013 @ 03:55 PM EDT
- my impression is... - Authored by: sumzero on Saturday, March 30 2013 @ 11:05 AM EDT
- Computing - Authored by: Ian Al on Saturday, March 30 2013 @ 12:09 PM EDT
- Computing - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 30 2013 @ 04:43 PM EDT
- your not alone.... - Authored by: dacii on Saturday, March 30 2013 @ 04:48 PM EDT
- Computing - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 01 2013 @ 12:05 PM EDT
- Computing - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 01 2013 @ 05:14 PM EDT
- Legal decision with literary flourish and dry wit making the rounds in Toronto legal circles - Authored by: JamesK on Friday, March 29 2013 @ 10:05 AM EDT
- Winnipeg judge jails juror for being late to sexual assault trial - Authored by: JamesK on Friday, March 29 2013 @ 10:17 AM EDT
- The Darwin-Hooker Letters - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 29 2013 @ 10:31 PM EDT
- w o r d s - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 29 2013 @ 10:53 PM EDT
- Judge Denise Cote being sued by bankers lawers. Or, One Judge to rule on them all ! - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 30 2013 @ 03:11 PM EDT
- 10,000 times faster than light - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 30 2013 @ 06:35 PM EDT
- Todays APOD (31/03/2013) is a must see - Authored by: Nick_UK on Sunday, March 31 2013 @ 04:27 AM EDT
- USPTO denies Apple's iPad Mini trademark - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 31 2013 @ 05:12 AM EDT
- The new SCO ?? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 01 2013 @ 03:45 AM EDT
- The Janet and John USPTO Guide to How Computers Work - Authored by: Ian Al on Monday, April 01 2013 @ 06:37 AM EDT
- India's top court rejects Novartis cancer drug patent "evergreening" bid - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 01 2013 @ 07:40 AM EDT
- Apple patents - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 01 2013 @ 07:45 AM EDT
- Dell admits being a PC maker is a dead end in new SEC filing - Authored by: JamesK on Monday, April 01 2013 @ 11:46 AM EDT
- Dell outlines the death of the PC in SEC filing - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 01 2013 @ 11:52 AM EDT
- Notebooks continue to shape the virtual word - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 01 2013 @ 04:18 PM EDT
- The game of Monopoly has a long and checkered history - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 01 2013 @ 05:53 PM EDT
|
Authored by: artp on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 10:17 AM EDT |
For posting in text mode those html-coded transcriptions of
the "Comes v. MS" case contained in the link above.
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 10:22 AM EDT |
Didn't they have GPL claims against Uniloc? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: lnuss on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 10:24 AM EDT |
"Now if that anything more than a mathematical formula with no specific
application, then I don't know what is one."
In any case, the description provided describes a known operation that's been
around at least 30 years, from personal knowledge (probably a lot longer).
---
Larry N.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: artp on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 10:27 AM EDT |
I note that the judge, in the second blockquote of the
article, uses both mathematics and arithmetic as terms to
describe the operations.
I worry that courts can understand arithmetic, but not
mathematics. (Despite the fact that some judges are skilled
programmers, cf. the Oracle case re Android.) Our poor
educational system is catching up to us.
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 10:29 AM EDT |
For example Johnson Matthey wa issued a patent for a Diesel Particulate
Filter where the caim was that this filter produced NO2 for reduction of the
C6. It did, but so did every other catalyzed particulate filter before
it.
Needless to say the USPTO issued the Patent, causing huge
problems in
the emissions control industry.
The entire Patent Office
is incapable of performing its functions. Part of the
problem is it isn't a
crime to lie on an application, nor does lying invalidate a
patent. Nor are
damages assessed when a patent is invalidated, nor are
the patent holders
required to pay back license fees plus interest that they
had revived before
the patent invalidation
occurred.
Waynehttp://madhatter.ca
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 11:23 AM EDT |
Any chance that this lawsuit can be held as frivolous?
If so, would it gain Red Hat anything?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Frivolous lawsuit? No Chance. - Authored by: webster on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 12:04 PM EDT
- semi-OT... not just me - Authored by: mcinsand on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 12:05 PM EDT
- Me, too - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 12:19 PM EDT
- Me, too - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 01:45 PM EDT
- Patent Office, not lawsuit, is frivolous - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 12:16 PM EDT
- Frivolous lawsuit? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 29 2013 @ 06:16 PM EDT
|
Authored by: inode_buddha on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 11:54 AM EDT |
Isn't this the same thing that Poir and a few other users were developing as an
argument here? that software is math?
I seem to recall that first article of his some time ago. Either way,
Congratulations on making a big point!
---
-inode_buddha
"When we speak of free software,
we are referring to freedom, not price"
-- Richard M. Stallman[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 12:59 PM EDT |
These clearly imply the involvement of hardware, i.e., a machine, including
memory and a register. Therefore, the claim passes the machine or
transformation test. Passing the machine or transformation test goes a long way
toward proving 101 eligibility. Moreover, the recited method is not abstract.
Accordingly, this is apparently not one of those cases where claim construction
was not necessary....
This will be appealed.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rnturn on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 01:32 PM EDT |
Holy cats... I was doing stuff like that back in the early '80s while
simulating the effects of different number representations (different # bits for
exponents and mantissas, different sized integers, etc.) on the weightings used
in agile SAW filters. I think doing that kind of thing back then would have been
sufficient prior art to kill any such patent application dead dead dead. (The
fact that FORTRAN was the preferred language for that work should indicate just
how prior that art was.) Unfortunately, it was done under a contract (to
USAF/WPAFB) and I'm pretty sure it wasn't was published in widely read journals.
Even without publication, I do highly doubt that I, alone, was doing anything
that was beyond what others practiced in the art would not have come up with or
hadn't already come up with.
Of course the legal departments at some of
these NPE companies would probably decide to patent the process of hammering on
a piece of heated iron to fashion an item useful as a protective device for
horses' hooves only because they hadn't done it before themselves.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 01:34 PM EDT |
...that the patent was thrown out, and the discussion above written, *without
even mentioning the vast quantities of prior art* on the subject.
This patent appears to cover material that can be found in any textbook on
numerical analysis...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 02:07 PM EDT |
The ruling concludes:
"Even when tied to computing, since floating-point numbers are a
computerized numeric format, the conversion of floating-point numbers has
applications across fields as diverse as science, math, communications,
security, graphics, and games. Thus, a patent on Claim 1 would cover vast end
uses, impeding the onward march of science. Benson, 409 U.S. at 68. Under Flook,
the improvement over the standard is insufficient to validate Claim 1’s
otherwise unpatentable subject matter."
"a patent on Claim 1 would cover vast end uses, impeding the onward march
of science. "
NO! It wouldn't. Everyone can still use the old technique of rounding the
result instead of the operands.
If blocking the world from using this very particular technique is valid grounds
for declaring the method ineligible for patenting under 35 USC 101, then all
things claimed by all patents are ineligible because all patents block everyone
from using the claimed invention!
This ruling is based on nonsense and will fall.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 02:25 PM EDT |
Trying to do the same thing to the health IT community on a patent that should
never have been issued. Should be next up for a 12(b)(6).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- MMR Global - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 02 2013 @ 10:59 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 02:51 PM EDT |
Stupid question time.
How did lawyers ever get involved with patent applications
in the first place?
It seems to me that the aplication process should be handled
by those who are demonstratedly competent in the particular
field of the proposed patent. Professional engineers,
doctors, establshed people who have PhD's, etc. Somehow
just because one has a JD doesn't make them anymore
competent to construct a patent application than my
neighbor's dog. They may know the law, but unless they
have an equivelent degree and professional experience in
the applicable subject matter, they should not be involved
at all.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Rackspace/Red Hat Hand Uniloc A Quick And Significant Defeat ~mw - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 03:02 PM EDT
- Patent Layers Have Engineering or Science degrees - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 03:32 PM EDT
- Evidence? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 05:13 PM EDT
- Evidence? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 05:44 PM EDT
- Evidence? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 07:03 PM EDT
- Evidence? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 07:05 PM EDT
- Patent Layers Have Engineering or Science degrees - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 05:14 PM EDT
- Not quite all - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 29 2013 @ 10:29 AM EDT
- A caveat - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 29 2013 @ 11:27 AM EDT
- Rackspace/Red Hat Hand Uniloc A Quick And Significant Defeat ~mw - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 07:02 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 06:05 PM EDT |
I'm reminded of Tom Lehrer's New Math.
"It is more important to understand what
you are doing rather than to get the right answer".
:)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, March 29 2013 @ 05:34 AM EDT |
There is great doubt in my mind whether it is technically likely that any OS or
application would infringe on this patent.
My Amiga uses a Motorola
68040 processor accelerator card which integrates a hardware floating point
unit. The Intel and AMD processors have had such integrated FPU hardware for
many generations.
Most of the Amiga computers were supplied with 68000
or 68010 processors which did not have a built-in FPU. Here is what Wikipedia
says about the 68000 series of processors.The Motorola 68881 and
Motorola 68882 were floating-point coprocessor (FPU) chips that were used in
some computer systems in conjunction with the 68020 or 68030 CPUs. The addition
of one of these chips added substantial cost to the computer, but added a
floating point unit that could rapidly perform floating point maths
calculations. At the time, this was useful mostly for scientific and
mathematical software.
Some Amigas came with a 68020 or 68030, but
without the FPU coprocessor. Amiga provided software maths libraries for those
systems. Here is a description of the Amiga RKM math libraries.This
chapter describes the structure and calling sequences required to access the
Motorola Fast Floating Point (FFP), the IEEE single-precision math libraries and
the IEEE double-precision math libraries via the Amiga-supplied
interfaces.
In its present state, the FFP library consists of three
separate entities:
the basic math library,
the
transcendental math library, and, C and
assembly-language interfaces to
the basic math library plus FFP conversion
functions.
The IEEE
single-precision, introduced in Release 2, and the double-precision libraries
each presently consists of two entities: the basic math library and the
transcendental math library.
So, my question is; which computer
systems in wide use today would choose to not use the hardware FPU unit built
into the processor, and which uses the standard Motorola/IEEE floating point
algorithms, either for the OS or for the applications?
I seem to
remember that the math errors in Pentium and later Intel processors were to do
with the built-in hardware coprocessors and not some sort of software
glitch.
Here is some info from ARM:Home > The Cortex-M4
Instruction Set > Floating-point instructions
3.11. Floating-point
instructions
Even if this fabulous math was statutory matter, I
think there is a vanishingly small chance that there was any widespread use of
the math algorithm. Perhaps there is some specialist scientific programs that
might use it. IIRC financial programs
use double precision math and the advice
is to not use floating point for any financial spreadsheets.
Since the
court case was fought by RedHat under its indemnity scheme, it can only be the
RedHat provided software that was at issue and not some specialist scientific
software running on RedHat Linux. So, what could Uniloc point to in any part of
the RedHat distributions that might infringe?
Uniloc say this about
themselves:We have focused on technology that is incredibly complex
to develop, but elegantly simple to execute. And it fits our straightforward
development model. Look at many ideas. Pick an outstanding one. Patent it.
Commercialize it. Reap the rewards...
Uniloc is not a huge company in
the number of people we employ. But we hope to make a huge impact on the way
people live and the way companies operate. Innovation doesn’t need a big team to
thrive, just the right team. And we think we have it here at
Uniloc.
One wonders how this small team has time to develop many
ideas that are incredibly complex to develop. They sound just like a Non
Practising Entity with a patent extortion plan.
--- Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Friday, March 29 2013 @ 09:26 AM EDT |
Unlike the Federal District, someone in the Eastern District of Texas seems to
be listening to the Supreme Court and taking their opinions seriously. But
perhaps they are also reacting to the widespread criticism of their court.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: macliam on Friday, March 29 2013 @ 09:56 AM EDT |
I checked the date of patent 5,892,697 asserted
against Rackspace. The patent application was filed on December 19, 1995, and
the patent issued on April 6, 1999.
The issue date is almost a year
after the notorious decision of the Federal Circuit in State Street Bank & Trust Co.
v. Signature Financial Group, 149 F. 3d 1368 (1988)
I would
suggest that any patent examiner who was holding back on these claims had no
choice but to pass the claims following the State Street
ruling.
The sins against accepted principles of statutory interpretation
in Judge Rich's opinion in State Street seem so numerous, and so gross,
that one might expect that they would cause Justice Scalia's hair to stand up on
end on reading the opinion. Justice Scalia is a Textualist when it comes to
statutory interpretation, and the approach of the Supreme Court to statutory
interpretation is set out in Statutory Interpretation:
General Principles and Recent Trends.
First, for context, the
nature of the ‘invention’ in State
Street:
“Signature is the assignee of the '056
patent which is entitled ‘Data Processing System for Hub and Spoke
Financial Services Configuration.’ The '056 patent issued to
Signature on 9 March 1993, naming R. Todd Boes as the inventor. The '056 patent
is generally directed to a data processing system (the system) for implementing
an investment structure which was developed for use in Signature's business
as an administrator and accounting agent for mutual funds. In essence, the
system, identified by the proprietary name Hub and Spoke®, facilitates a
structure whereby mutual funds (Spokes) pool their assets in an investment
portfolio (Hub) organized as a partnership. This investment configuration
provides the administrator of a mutual fund with the advantageous combination of
economies of scale in administering investments coupled with the tax advantages
of a partnership.”
State Street Bank & Trust Co. v.
Signature Financial Group,
149 F.3d. 1370
(1998)
Apparently the patent ‘preemted’
computer-implemented systems implementing provisions of the U.S. Tax Code. The
specification discloses much movement of money, and a number of flowcharts
depicting ‘software routines’ and ‘the flow of information
through modules of software’ (specified in terms of the business
transactions involved, with no coding details). CLS v. Alice really is
State Street redux.
The holding of the Federal Circuit in
State Street:
“We reverse and remand because we
conclude that the patent claims are directed to statutory subject matter.”
(Ibid.)
Of course it is essential to show that a computer is
needed for this useful invention:
“It is
essential that these calculations are quickly and accurately performed. In large
part this is required because each Spoke sells shares to the public and the
price of those shares is substantially based on the Spoke's percentage interest
in the portfolio. In some instances, a mutual fund administrator is required to
calculate the value of the shares to the nearest penny within as little as an
hour and a half after the market closes. Given the complexity of the
calculations, a computer or equivalent device is a virtual necessity to perform
the task.”
State Street Bank & Trust Co. v.
Signature Financial Group,
149 F.3d. 1371 (1998)
An
accountant with an account book or a spreadsheet program, or an army of clerks
in a counting house, could not achieve what this invention can
achieve.
“Each claim component, recited as a
‘means’ plus its function, is to be read, of course, pursuant to
§ 112, ¶ 6, as inclusive of the ‘equivalents’ of the
structures disclosed in the written description portion of the specification.
Thus, claim 1, properly construed, claims a machine, namely, a data processing
system for managing a financial services configuration of a portfolio
established as a partnership, which machine is made up of, at the very least,
the specific structures disclosed in the written description and corresponding
to the means-plus-function elements (a)-(g) recited in the claim. A
‘machine’ is proper statutory subject matter under § 101. We note
that, for the purposes of a § 101 analysis, it is of little relevance
whether claim 1 is directed to a ‘machine’ or a
‘process,’ as long as it falls within at least one of the four
enumerated categories of patentable subject matter, ‘machine’ and
‘process’ being such categories.”
State Street Bank & Trust Co. v.
Signature Financial Group,
149 F.3d. 1372 (1998)
The
claims are expressed in ‘means plus function’ language, so Judge
Rich needs to
find ‘structure’ in the specification
to meet the
requirements of § 112 ¶ 6.
Judge Rich duly finds the structure:
“a
personal computer including a CPU”;
“a data
disk”;“an arithmetic logic circuit configured to prepare the data
disk to magnetically store selected data”;“an arithmetic logic
circuit configured to retrieve information from a specific file, calculate
incremental increases or decreases based on specific input, allocate the results
on a percentage basis, and store the output in a separate file”;“an
arithmetic logic circuit configured to…” etc. (At this point, a
disciple of Judge Rich would retort that proving that the specification provides
sufficient information to enable the skilled artisan to make and use the
invention is a question of enablement under § 112, not
subject-matter eligibility under § 101.)
Note that it doesn't
matter whether the claim is drawn to a machine or to a process (according to
Judge Rich). Provided that the claim is drawn to some sort of product/process
chimaera, that is sufficient for meeting the ‘subject matter’
requirement.
This does not end our analysis, however, because
the court concluded that the claimed subject matter fell into one of two
alternative judicially-created exceptions to statutory subject matter. The
court refers to the first exception as the ‘mathematical algorithm’
exception and the second exception as the ‘business method’
exception. Section 101 reads:
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.
The plain and
unambiguous meaning of § 101 is that any invention falling within one of
the four stated categories of statutory subject matter may be patented, provided
it meets the other requirements for patentability set forth in Title 35, i.e.,
those found in §§ 102, 103, and 112, ¶ 2.
State Street Bank & Trust Co. v.
Signature Financial Group,
149 F.3d. 1372 (1998)
Thus
Title 35 has shrunk down to sections 102, 103 and 112. What happened to all the
other sections of the statute?
Also what happened to the requirement
that the purported inventor must ‘invent or discover‘ something
‘new and useful’?
The principles of statutory interpretation
(or ‘canons of construction’) that guide the Supreme Court (see
above), include the following:
Statutory Language Not to be
Construed as ‘Mere Surplusage’: “A basic principle of statutory
interpretation is that courts should ‘give effect, if possible, to every clause
and word of a statute, avoiding, if it may be, any construction which implies
that the legislature was ignorant of the meaning of the language it employed.’
The modern variant is that statutes should be construed ‘so as to avoid
rendering superfluous’ any statutory language. A related principle applies to
statutory amendments: there is a ‘general presumption’ that, ‘when Congress
alters the words of a statute, it must intend to change the statute's
meaning.’
It would appear to me that, under Judge Rich's
interpretation of the section 101, it would be possible to paraphrase that
section as follows:
Whoever devises something useful falling
within one of the four stated categories shall receive a patent, subject only to
the requirements of §102, §103 and §112 ¶
2.
Well that cuts out a lot of ‘surplusage’! Can
we cut out a bit more? Time for some legislative
intent:
The repetitive use of the expansive term
‘any’ in § 101 shows Congress's intent not to place any
restrictions on the subject matter for which a patent may be obtained beyond
those specifically recited in § 101. Indeed, the Supreme Court has
acknowledged that Congress intended § 101 to extend to ‘anything
under the sun that is made by man.’ Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447
U.S. 303, 309, 100 S.Ct. 2204, 65 L.Ed.2d 144 (1980); see also Diamond v.
Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 182, 101 S.Ct. 1048, 67 L.Ed.2d 155 (1981). Thus, it
is improper to read limitations into § 101 on the subject matter that may
be patented where the legislative history indicates that Congress clearly did
not intend such limitations. See Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 308, 100 S.Ct.
2204 (‘We have also cautioned that courts should not read into the patent
laws limitations and conditions which the legislature has not
expressed.’).
State Street Bank & Trust Co. v.
Signature Financial Group,
149 F.3d. 1373 (1998)
Well the
wording essentially dates back to the patent acts of 1790 and 1790, the latter
of which was apparently drafted by Thomas Jefferson. “The Act embodied
Jefferson's philosophy that ‘ingenuity should receive a liberal
encouragement.’ 5 Writings of Thomas Jefferson 75-76 (Washington ed.
1871).”
Diamond v. Chakrabarty,
308-309. We can
then move forward to legislative intent, as evidenced in the deliberations of
Congress in 1952. What was said in the debates?
In accepting
the Jefferson Medal, Judge Rich explained how the Patent Act, which he and Pat
Federico had drafted in 1952, came into being. The Codification Counsel to the
Coordination Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee of the House, Charlie Zinn,
“had worked on several codifications for the Judiciary Committee.”
As Judge Rich said of the Committee: “When it got a law all written up and
approved, it liked to see it enacted, and Charlie knew how you got it done. You
got it on a Consent Calendar at the appropriate moment, and that meant no floor
debate. It was because of this little technique that you got a new patent
statute when you did.”
As Judge Rich put it: “And that is
the way you got a lot of your laws. It is a great way of conserving hot air. Can
you imagine what debates on the floor of the House or Senate about most of the
cardinal points of patent law would sound like?”
Judge Rich
continued, “[t]he New Patent Act went through both houses on consent
calendars, and those houses relied on the unanimous recommendations of their
respective committees, and when Truman signed the bill, we got the new
law.”
Legislative intent was supplied later, as Judge Rich
explained, in the form of the Reviser's Notes, included with the Bill, which
were written by Pat Federico in consultation with Giles Rich. Years later Judge
Rich wrote a memorial article to Pat Federico after his death in 1982, just as I
write this memorial today.
Rememberances and Memorial: Judge Giles S. Rich, 1904-1999, by
Neil A. Smith, Berkeley Technology Law Journal
So where did
the “everything under the sun” cite bite
originate?
The University of New Hampshire School of Law
maintains a History
Archive which includes the reports of the Senate and the House recommending the 1952 Act.
Part II relates to patentability of inventions and the grant of
patents.
Referring first to section 101, this section specifies the
type of material which can be the subject matter of a patent. The present law
states that any person who has invented or discovered any 'new and useful art,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new or useful improvement
thereof: may obtain a patent. That language has been preserved except that the
word 'art' which appears in the present statute has been changed to the word
'process.' 'Art' in this place in the present statute has a different meaning
than the words 'useful art' in the Constitution, and a different meaning than
the use of the word 'art' in other places in the statutes, and it is interpreted
by the courts to be practically synonymous with process or method. The word
'process' has been used to avoid the necessity of explanation that the word
'art' as used in this place means 'process or method,' and that it does not mean
the same thing as the word 'art ' in other places.
The definition of
'process' has been added in section 100 to make it clear that 'process or
method' is meant, and also to clarify the present law as to the patentability of
certain types of processes or methods as to which some insubstantial doubts have
been expressed.
Section 101 sets forth the subject matter that can be
patented, 'subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.' The
conditions under which a patent may be obtained follow, and section 102 covers
the conditions relating to novelty.
A person may have 'invented' a
machine or a manufacture, which may include anything under the sun that is made
by man, but it is not necessarily patentable under section 101 unless the
conditions of the title are fulfilled.
The final words were
quoted to validate ‘legislative intent’ in the Supreme Court case
Diamond v. Chakrabarty. The case
concerned whether a living organism, namely a genetically-engineered bacterium
useful for cleaning up oil spills, was a manufacture eligible for
protection under the patent laws. In such a context, the “everything
under the sun that is made by man” is obviously relevant to those who find
legislative history useful.
Nevertheless Justice Rehnquist parroted the
cite bite in Diehr:
“Not until the patent laws were
recodified in 1952 did Congress replace the word ‘art’ with the word
‘process.’ It is that latter word which we confront today, and in
order to determine its meaning we may not be unmindful of the Committee Reports
accompanying the 1952 Act which inform us that Congress intended statutory
subject matter to ‘include anything under the sun that is made by
man.’ S. Rep. No. 1979, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., 5 (1952); H. R. Rep. No.
1923, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., 6 (1952).”
Diamond v. Diehr,
450 U.S. 182
(1981)
Note the sleight of hand! The original quote pointed
out that someone who has ‘invented’ a machine or a manufacture
cannot get a patent for it unless they satisfy the conditions of the statute.
This was applied to Justice Rehnquist to justify the broad patentability of
processes.
The quotation is in fact a slight paraphrase of a remark
(transposing the words ‘under section 101’) that was made in the
Statement of P. J. Federico, Examiner in Chief, United States Patent Office,
Washington D. C. on 1
3th June 1951 to the Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary House of
Representatives, (page 37).
Hardly convincing evidence of legislative
intent on the part of members of Congress. The ‘intent’
appears to be that of P.J. Federico and Giles S. Rich.
Back to State Street Bank & Trust Co. v.
Signature Financial Group. It is first necessary to put mathematical
algorithms in their place:
The Supreme Court has
identified three categories of subject matter that are unpatentable, namely
‘laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas.’
Diehr, 450 U.S. at 185, 101 S.Ct. 1048. Of particular relevance to this
case, the Court has held that mathematical algorithms are not patentable subject
matter to the extent that they are merely abstract ideas. See Diehr, 450 U.S.
175, 101 S.Ct. 1048, passim; Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 98 S.Ct.
2522, 57 L.Ed.2d 451 (1978); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 93 S.Ct.
253, 34 L.Ed.2d 273 (1972). In Diehr, the Court explained that certain types of
mathematical subject matter, standing alone, represent nothing more than
abstract ideas until reduced to some type of practical application, i.e.,
‘a useful, concrete and tangible result.’ Alappat, 33 F.3d at
1544, 31 USPQ2d at 1557.
Note that even Judge Rich in State
Street acknowledges that “laws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas.” are not patentable. But he surreptitiously transitions
to home ground in the form of his own opinion for the Federal Circuit Court in
In Re Alappat
33 F.3d 152. 1544 (1994).
The unwary reader might
well suppose that the requirement for ‘a useful,
concrete and tangible result.’ derives from one of the Supreme Court
cases.
So now Judge Rich is in position to launch one of his poisoned
darts at the dreaded mathematical algorithms. He claims that
abstract equals useless:
“Unpatentable
mathematical algorithms are identifiable by showing they are merely abstract
ideas constituting disembodied concepts or truths that are not
‘useful.’ From a practical standpoint, this means that to be
patentable an algorithm must be applied in a ‘useful’ way. In
Alappat, we held that data, transformed by a machine through a series of
mathematical calculations to produce a smooth waveform display on a rasterizer
monitor, constituted a practical application of an abstract idea (a mathematical
algorithm, formula, or calculation), because it produced ‘a useful,
concrete and tangible result’—the smooth waveform.”
State Street Bank & Trust Co. v.
Signature Financial Group,
149 F.3d. 1373 (1998)
Time to
proclaim the new charter for the patentability of information and information
processing for the foreseeable future:
Today, we hold that the
transformation of data, representing discrete dollar amounts, by a machine
through a series of mathematical calculations into a final share price,
constitutes a practical application of a mathematical algorithm, formula, or
calculation, because it produces ‘a useful, concrete and tangible
result’—a final share price momentarily fixed for recording and
reporting purposes and even accepted and relied upon by regulatory authorities
and in subsequent trades.
But hang on! Not so fast! What
about Benson and Flook, not to mention the
Freeman-Walker-Abele test, hitherto the test used by the Federal Circuit
to isolate those unfortunate ‘inventions’ that might fall prey to
the ravening jaws of Benson and Flook?
The
district court erred by applying the Freeman-Walter-Abele test to determine
whether the claimed subject matter was an unpatentable abstract idea. The
Freeman-Walter-Abele test was designed by the Court of Customs and Patent
Appeals, and subsequently adopted by this court, to extract and identify
unpatentable mathematical algorithms in the aftermath of Benson and
Flook. See In re Freeman, 573 F.2d 1237, 197 USPQ 464 (CCPA 1978)
as modified by In re Walter, 618 F.2d 758, 205 USPQ 397 (CCPA 1980)
State Street Bank & Trust Co. v.
Signature Financial Group,
149 F.3d. 1373-1374 (1998)
But
that is all past history now, thank goodness! Thank you, Justice
Rehnquist:
After Diehr and Chakrabarty, the
Freeman-Walter-Abele test has little, if any, applicability to determining the
presence of statutory subject matter. As we pointed out in Alappat, 33
F.3d at 1543, 31 USPQ2d at 1557, application of the test could be misleading,
because a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter employing a
law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is patentable subject matter
even though a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea would not, by
itself, be entitled to such protection. The test determines the presence of, for
example, an algorithm. Under Benson, this may have been a sufficient indicium of
nonstatutory subject matter. However, after Diehr and Alappat, the mere fact
that a claimed invention involves inputting numbers, calculating numbers,
outputting numbers, and storing numbers, in and of itself, would not render it
nonstatutory subject matter, unless, of course, its operation does not produce a
‘useful, concrete and tangible result.’” (citation omitted)
State Street Bank & Trust Co. v.
Signature Financial Group,
149 F.3d. 1374 (1998)
And
“in one bound, Jack was free!”.
So, Diehr and
Chakrabarty changed the
law established by the Supreme Court in
Benson
and Flook, so that the latter case were no longer
to be
considered as good law?
What was so significant about
Chakrabarty? The case concerned patentability of a
genetically-engineered bacterium. Justice Douglas, who delivered the Opinion of
the Court in Flook was one of the majority in Chakrabarty. Chief
Justice Burger mentioned Flook several times in his Opinion of the Court
in Chakrabarty, and said that he found nothing there to contradict
Chakrabarty.
What about Diehr? The real issue in Diehr,
it seems to me, is whether there was any inventive concept of any
description that would merit the award of a patent. The computer in Diehr
repeatedly recomputed the curing time using the Arrhenius Equation
that was prior art almost a century old at the time of Diehr, and a Law
of Nature to boot! The numerical procedure for calculating the curing time
simply involved calculating the value of the exponential function using the
usual Taylor Series that goes back to the era of Newton and
Leibniz three centuries ago. To suggest that performing this calculation
on a computer in 1981, or in 1975 when the patent was filed, was
innovative is ludicrous. At that time there would have been three
decades or so of prior art on computing such functions with a digital computer.
Thus, if there was any inventive concept at all, must have been the
concept of constantly monitoring the activation energy constant with a rheometer
and the temperature with some sort of thermostat and feeding the information
into the computer to calculate an updated curing time. Thus, if there were
enough to merit a patent, the subject matter would fall well within the
scope of Section 101.
By contrast, Flook was about as
‘abstract’ as ‘abstract ideas’ can be. There is a
process. (Improvements to processes are patentable inventions, subject
to the conditions and requirements of the Patent Statute.) The state of the
process is measured using certain process variables (such a temperature,
pressure, concentration of chemicals, neutron density, etc.). Such a process
variable has a normal value B0 and a critical value B0 + K
at which the process may become unstable and dangerous. There is an alarm
system. But rather than waiting till the critical level is reached before
setting off the alarm, one measures the value of the process variable at some
given time, and sets an alarm limit (say) 40% of the way to the critical value.
Thus one gauges the process variable at regular intervals and resets alarm
limits accordingly. If the alarm limit has been reached, steps would be taken
to damp down the process. This is surely a useful idea, since, if
implemented, the process will run more smoothly, with fewer serious alarms. The
method is abstract, because is concerned with the safe operation of an
abstract process whose state is gauged using process variables,
and, in this context, the ideas of process and process variables
are clearly abstract ideas that have been abstracted from
reflection on a variety of industrial processes and physical and chemical
quantities.
And the method for updating the alarm limit barely qualifies to be
described as mathematical, though it is certainly itself abstract.
Flook claimed this method of updating alarm limits, but in the field of
catalytic conversion of hydrocarbons. Thus if you employed this method of
updating alarm limits in a nuclear reacture you would not infringe the
patent, but if you employed it in the oil or gas industry for a
process of catalytic conversion, you would infringe the
patents.
Both Benson and Flook reaffirmed the
long-standing prohibition in the common law against patenting basic principles
and the “handiwork of nature”, and warned against the very real
dangers of ‘preemption’ that would result if this prohibition were
ignored. There was nothing in either Chakrabarty or Diehr to
contradict the principles laid down in Benson or
Flook.
To return again to State
Street:
“The question of whether a claim encompasses
statutory subject matter should not focus on which of the four categories of
subject matter a claim is directed to—process, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter—but rather on the essential characteristics of the
subject matter, in particular, its practical utility. Section 101 specifies that
statutory subject matter must also satisfy the other ‘conditions and
requirements’ of Title 35, including novelty, nonobviousness, and adequacy
of disclosure and notice.”
State Street Bank & Trust Co. v.
Signature Financial Group,
149 F.3d. 1374 (1998)
Is the
above consistent with the principle that statutory language is not to be
construed as ‘mere surplusage’?
Judge Rich moves on to
discuss whether business methods are exempt:
As an alternative
ground for invalidating the '056 patent under § 101, the court relied on
the judicially-created, so-called ‘business method’ exception to
statutory subject matter. We take this opportunity to lay this ill-conceived
exception to rest. Since its inception, the ‘business method’
exception has merely represented the application of some general, but no longer
applicable legal principle, perhaps arising out of the ‘requirement for
invention’—which was eliminated by § 103. Since the 1952 Patent
Act, business methods have been, and should have been, subject to the same legal
requirements for patentability as applied to any other process or
method.
In what way was the requirement for invention
eliminated in § 103?
Back to the Senate committee report from 1952:
Although the
principal purpose of the bill is the codification of title 35, United States
Code, and involves simplification and clarification of language and arrangement,
and elimination of obsolete and redundant provisions, there are a number of
changes in substantive statutory law. These will be explained in some detail in
the revision notes keyed to each section which appear in the appendix of this
report. The major changes or innovations in the title consist of incorporating a
requirement for invention in sec. 103 and the judicial doctrine of contributory
infringement in sec. 271.
Section 103, for the first
time in our statute, provides a condition which exists in the law and has
existed for more than 100 years, but only by reason of decisions of the courts.
An invention which has been made, and which is new in the sense that the same
thing has not been made before, may still not be patentable if the difference
between the new thing and what was known before is not considered sufficiently
great to warrant a patent. That has been expressed in a large variety of ways in
decisions of the courts and in writings. Section 103 states this requirement in
the title. If refers to the difference between the subject matter sought to be
patented and the prior art, meaning what was known before as described in
section 102. If this difference is such that the subject matter as a whole would
have been obvious at the time to a person skilled in the art, then the subject
matter cannot be patented.
To those who find legislative
history useful, the above only shows that “a requirement for
invention” has been incorporated into section 103. It constitutes scant
evidence to prove that the Act 1952 eliminated any necessity for an inventive
concept in a purported invention for which patent protection was
sought.
That is enough for now! I had intended this to be a relevant
short post on how the PTO had no option but to approve these seemingly trival
patents following State Street. I had not intended a massively long
posting. I shall leave the final word with Justices Breyer and
Scalia:
“Fourth, although the machine-or-transformation
test is not the only test for patentability, this by no means indicates that
anything which produces a ‘useful, concrete, and tangible result,’
State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc., 149 F.3d
1368, 1373 (C.A.Fed.1998), is patentable. ‘[T]his Court has never made
such a statement and, if taken literally, the statement would cover instances
where this Court has held the contrary.” Laboratory Corp. of America
Holdings v. Metabolite Laboratories, Inc., 548 U.S. 124, 136, 126 S.Ct. 2921,
165 L.Ed.2d 399 (2006) (BREYER, J., dissenting from dismissal of certiorari as
improvidently granted); see also, e.g., O'Reilly v. Morse, 15 How. 62, 117, 14
L.Ed. 601 (1854); Flook, supra, at 590, 98 S.Ct. 2522. Indeed, the introduction
of the ‘useful, concrete, and tangible result’ approach to
patentability, associated with the Federal Circuit's State Street decision,
preceded the granting of patents that ‘ranged from the somewhat ridiculous
to the truly absurd.’ In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 1004 (C.A.Fed.2008)
(Mayer, J., dissenting) (citing patents on, inter alia, a ‘method of
training janitors to dust and vacuum using video displays,’ a
‘system for toilet reservations,’ and a ‘method of using
color-coded bracelets to designate dating status in order to limit the
embarrassment of rejection’); see also Brief for Respondent 40-41, and n.
20 (listing dubious patents). To the extent that the Federal Circuit's decision
in this case rejected that approach, nothing in today's decision should be taken
as disapproving of that determination. See ante, at 3231; ante, at 3232, n. 1
(STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment).’
Bilski v. Kappos,
130
S.Ct. 3259 (2010)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rnturn on Friday, March 29 2013 @ 10:02 AM EDT |
... how they selected Rackspace as the target of this patent suit?
Was it
their plan to sue everybody who used a computer and Rackspace -- with all those
systems and, probably, multiprocessor motherboards -- looked like they would be
a nice target: N processors that might be doing FP calculations =
N patent violations = triple damages (or something)?
-- Rick [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 01 2013 @ 02:45 PM EDT |
... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- See here:- - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 01 2013 @ 05:00 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 01 2013 @ 05:16 PM EDT |
Plaintiffs reiterate that Claim 1 recites no particular
mathematical formula.
My facetious (oh I hope it's facetious and
not real) interpretation:
2+2=4 isn't math because I say it isn't!
How
about the old "english math":
Sally had two apples, John gave Sally two
more... figuring out how many apples Sally now has is not math!
RAS[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|