|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 08 2013 @ 06:59 PM EST |
If USPTO Lawyer Nathan Kelly truly believes that:
abstract is something
that can be done entirely in the human mind or with pencil and paper
then I
have to wonder what kind of software Kelly envisions could not be done by human
mind with pencil and paper.
RAS[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 08 2013 @ 07:07 PM EST |
Still enjoy your particular style of authorship.
Thanks for taking the
time to put in an appearance and report.
RAS[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Thanks Webster! - Authored by: AntiFUD on Friday, February 08 2013 @ 07:25 PM EST
- Thanks Webster! - Authored by: StrangeAttractor on Friday, February 08 2013 @ 08:12 PM EST
- Thanks Webster! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 08 2013 @ 08:13 PM EST
- Thanks Webster! - Authored by: Charles888 on Friday, February 08 2013 @ 10:44 PM EST
- Thanks Webster! - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 09 2013 @ 07:01 AM EST
- having an attorney in there helped a lot! - Authored by: designerfx on Saturday, February 09 2013 @ 07:45 AM EST
- Thanks Webster! - Authored by: lnuss on Saturday, February 09 2013 @ 08:21 AM EST
- Thanks Webster! - Authored by: Ian Al on Saturday, February 09 2013 @ 11:46 AM EST
- Thanks Webster! - Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Saturday, February 09 2013 @ 02:07 PM EST
- Thanks Webster! - Authored by: charlie Turner on Sunday, February 10 2013 @ 05:07 PM EST
- Thanks Webster! - Authored by: ukjaybrat on Monday, February 11 2013 @ 10:11 AM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 08 2013 @ 07:18 PM EST |
At least *one* Federal Circuit judge is listening to the Supreme Court's rulings
on the limitations of patents.
MSS2[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 08 2013 @ 07:37 PM EST |
Been there many times.
As to the court, they have a vested
interest in Patents. So don't expect
anything. The big question is will this be
appealed to the top, and if it is, will
the Supreme Court take it
up.
Waynehttp://madhatter.ca [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jvillain on Friday, February 08 2013 @ 08:25 PM EST |
Alice's patents describe specific ways a computer is configured to
run the company's trading platform, and contain detailed flow charts describing
the process, Moore said. The Alice patents are "so far" from an abstract idea,
she said.
This is the stupidest thing I have ever read on
Groklaw and believe me SCO's lawyers and witnesses said some truly stupid
things.
Flow charts? "Take a number" -> "Add a number" -> "Get
answer"
Please send my patent for addition to my home
address.
Reconfigures the computer? FAIL. First I really doubt she is about
to describe is "reconfiguring" the computer. Even if it did what are the odds
that their software reconfigures it rather than a library some one wrote or the
BIOS or drivers all with their own patents and copyrights? Oh their software
calls those libraries? Using the API or ABI that the libraries provide right?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Gringo_ on Friday, February 08 2013 @ 08:50 PM EST |
In the previous topic, "Judge Robart in Seattle Grants
Microsoft's Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment", I have
just added a comment at the bottom of the
page dissecting
the judge's ruling. The ruling involved an arcane subject,
and
it is likely few would understand the implications of
the judge's ruling. I
think my comment may be a contribution
overall to the debate so I wanted bring
it to the attention
of other Groklaw members who have been involved in
developing or critiquing Groklaw's official stand on
software patents. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 08 2013 @ 09:37 PM EST |
Most here will agree that software is maths but everyone should agree that an
algorithm is maths.
We have also heard some judges believe that an algorithm needs to be disclosed
for the patent to be valid.
Sadly, anyone can spend some effort and draw a flow chart defining an existing
bank process of calculating payments and keeping track of a mortgage taking
repayment risks into account. Something that has occurred manually for eons.
Such a flow chart can be very complex and may have required considerable effort,
but nothing has been invented, only documented.
What i fail to understand is how is it that by spending this effort to draw the
flow chart and adding some nice words to a patent documents, suddenly a patent
is granted on a bank managing a mortgage. Then a judge comes along with a
presumption that a patent is always valid and makes statements that effort =
invention.
Effort and timing can = a successful product but does not automatically equate
to an invention. If our legal eagles believe that effort always = invention, the
game is lost.
Also i don't believe anybody got a patent for the concept of a motorized vehicle
and in the same way, nobody should get a patent for a driver-less motorized
vehicle, regardless of the effort they spend developing one. They can possibly
apply for patents on individual components which they integrate but not on the
whole. But even then, for example, much of the vision detection system and their
mathematical algorithms already exist and have existed for years and years. The
very low computational power of older computers would result in vision detection
product being priced out of the market before one begins.
Locking up a complete industry because someone has spent some effort integrating
maths into now rather capable computers, resulting in a cost effective manner,
is not an invention, it's just good market timing based on well priced building
blocks.
But again the mantra we have seen in this En Banc that effort = innovation
doesn't inspire any confidence in the law. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, February 08 2013 @ 11:33 PM EST |
Oh sorry, it is gone now.
It was a really bright cloud that looked
like it had a Ravens logo on it!
It was really cool looking. I know you
would have been impressed. Oh well, at least
you have those really cool flowcharts. They
must be awesome, cooler than any of my flowcharts,
I'm sure.
If I find a really shiny rock, I'll let you know,
especially if it looks like a Raven.
Have a nice day!
"Only a few find the way;
some don't recognize it when they do;
some don't ever want to."
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Gringo_ on Friday, February 08 2013 @ 11:41 PM EST |
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Windows Phone 8 drops MS market share - Authored by: Gringo_ on Friday, February 08 2013 @ 11:50 PM EST
- U.N.'s ITU Internet plans 'must be stopped' - Authored by: Gringo_ on Friday, February 08 2013 @ 11:54 PM EST
- Flash Player - again - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 08 2013 @ 11:57 PM EST
- Patch Tuesday: IE at risk of malware attacks; 57 flaws in total - Authored by: Gringo_ on Saturday, February 09 2013 @ 12:01 AM EST
- Microsoft's Scroogled attack adverts - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 09 2013 @ 02:17 AM EST
- Where are all the gay animals? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 09 2013 @ 02:59 AM EST
- DHS we own all your device ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 09 2013 @ 06:37 AM EST
- Joe Nocera in NYT on Judge Posner & Patents - Authored by: jjs on Saturday, February 09 2013 @ 09:32 AM EST
- Patent wars and consequences - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 09 2013 @ 09:46 AM EST
- Drug does not work -> patent invalid -> Pharma sues government - Authored by: sciamiko on Saturday, February 09 2013 @ 10:37 AM EST
- Nexus Phone controls satellite - patent it quick! - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 09 2013 @ 11:22 AM EST
- Linux Foundation Secure Boot System Released - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 09 2013 @ 01:19 PM EST
- Unleash paralegals - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 09 2013 @ 02:39 PM EST
- Astronaut Chris Hadfield & The Bare Naked Ladies perform - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 09 2013 @ 05:05 PM EST
- Money Laundering - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 09 2013 @ 10:04 PM EST
- Windows bricks Samsung laptop .. - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 10 2013 @ 01:50 AM EST
- Gender Bias 101 For Mathematicians - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 10 2013 @ 01:35 PM EST
- ljrossia.org - spam website. PJ be aware - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 10 2013 @ 01:58 PM EST
- Debian Kit for Android - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 10 2013 @ 03:29 PM EST
- PACER capers: the sordid story of America's for-pay lawbooks - Doctorow - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 10 2013 @ 05:16 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 09 2013 @ 03:28 AM EST |
The whole thing goes off the rails from the moment the circuit granted the
appeal including the question
"when, if ever, does the presence of a computer in a claim lend patent
eligibility to an otherwise patent-ineligible idea?"
Um, NEVER.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: amster69 on Saturday, February 09 2013 @ 04:37 AM EST |
Judge Dyk then asked if there was a way to do "end of day netting"
transactions without using the patents. The lawyer for Alice, Adam Perlman,
refused to answer. He said he did not want to answer that question.
He can do that? Just plain refuse? What a system!
---
Bob[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: complex_number on Saturday, February 09 2013 @ 05:34 AM EST |
Don't forget to reference the item in question
---
Ubuntu & 'apt-get' are not the answer to Life, The Universe & Everything which
is of course, "42" or is it 1.618?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Saturday, February 09 2013 @ 05:35 AM EST |
How is this related to science fiction and all the awesome ideas blurted
incessantly by some authors, who may not have the time, incentive and money to
make it into a semi-working prototype?
How close do you need to be the real McCoy to make it patentable?
---
______
IMANAL
.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: macliam on Saturday, February 09 2013 @ 06:44 AM EST |
A salient point to bear in mind is that there are no recognized exceptions to
patentability for mathematics as such, or software as such, or business
processes as such. The usual exceptions are judicially created by Supreme Court
decisions going back about 150 years, and are recognized for laws of nature,
natural phenomena (or products?), and abstract ideas.
In Bilski v. Kappos, the Supreme Court declined to create an exception for
business processes as such. In so far as mathematics is excluded from
patentability, it is on the grounds of being an abstract idea. But case law
would need to develop the extent of this exception.
What is an abstract idea? If one accepted Berkeley, then the exception is a
dead letter, because, according to him, there is no such thing as an abstract
idea. My understanding (of the original meaning, and as discussed by
philosophers) is that an abstract idea is an idea abstracted from ideas or real
world phenomena and situations that constitute instances of that idea. The idea
would thus be arrived at through a process of abstraction, in much the same was
as an abstract or synopsis is abstracted from an academic paper or legal
opionion. Pace Berkeley, a triangle is an abstract idea that is abstracted from
numerous instances of geometric figures, such as might be drawn on the sand, or
occurring as architectural features, etc. In mathematics, the abstract idea of
a group is abstracted from various algebraic structures with the common property
that the structure includes a binary operation that is associative and has an
identity element and inverses. A mathematical formula suggesting near optimal
curing times for rubber would be abstracted from observations of natural
phenomena that occur during the curing process. Similarly a method of computing
an alarm limit in processes involving catalytic conversion would be an
abstraction from observations of potential dangers or breakdowns in industrial
processes.
One could argue that if a PHOSITA, or a person with capabilities that are not
exceptional (e.g.,photographic memory) can hold an idea in her mind, and
implement it, using at most pencil and paper to record intermediate steps and
calculations, and especially if that idea can be described in textbooks and
taught to students as a method that can be practiced using at most pencil and
paper, then it almost certainly qualifies as an abstract idea. Surely the
shadow transactions of the Alice patent, where the true accounts are balanced at
the end of the working day, are manifestations of an abstract idea.
One might ponder as to whether or not software performing the encoding and
decoding of images at issue in the Microsoft v. Motorola case discussed in the
previous Groklaw article on Judge Robart's ruling are abstract ideas in the
above sense.
But if one has a patent that claims a computer-implemented invention based on an
abstract idea (in the above sense) the decision in Mayo v. Prometheus suggests
that one should ask whether or not the claimed 'invention' adds 'enough' to the
abstract idea. On this line of reasoning, the claim does not satisfy the
requirements of Section 101 on the grounds that it is computer-implemented, if
the computer implementation contains no more than merely conventional steps. I
note that the Patent Office lawyer, Nathan Kelley, is reported to have said that
'simply using a reconfigured computer to run an abstract idea does not make it
patentable'. This, I suggest, is different from the assertion with the word
'simply' omitted. A claim for a computer-implemented implementation of an
abstract idea should not preempt all computer-implemented implementations of
that abstract idea (which would seem to be the message of both Gottschalk v.
Benson and Parker v. Flook). Thus Supreme Court decisions would suggest that
one needs evidence of an 'inventive' application of the abstract idea, and of
claim limitations to the scope of what would otherwise be an overbroad claim, to
pass muster with section 101 and move on to the requirements of sections 102 and
103. Such a line of reasoning would be anathema to Judges Rader and Newman,
based on their opinions, and their adherence to the different principles laid
down by Judge Rich.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Doghouse on Saturday, February 09 2013 @ 07:43 AM EST |
International Business Machines Corp., which has received the most
U.S. patents for the past 20 years, and a lobbying group whose members include
Microsoft Corp. and Apple Inc., said software needs legal protection because it
contributes to the nation’s economy.
Classic General Bullmoose
territory ("What's good for General Bullmoose is good for the USA"). IBM,
Microsoft and other large companies like large patent portfolios because it
gives them leverage and negotiating power. It has nothing to do with innovation,
the Suits and Bean-Counters having long-since replaced technologists in any role
that matters at both companies. I know (having worked for them for decades)
that IBM will happily patent any bright idea its employees come up with, no
matter what the subject matter - IBM has patents on things from traffic control
to sex toys. More is most definitely perceived as better. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Saturday, February 09 2013 @ 10:49 AM EST |
Never mind the quality, feel the width!
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: albert on Saturday, February 09 2013 @ 02:55 PM EST |
Here is a 'table' of backgrounds, highly condensed:
I left out things like
honors and awards.
A quick perusal of the Supreme Court justices highlights a
few generalizations:
1. SCOTUS justices have no technical
degrees.
2. SCOTUS justices have no discernable IP
backgrounds.
IMO, the problem with the Federal Circuit IS their IP
backgrounds. Recent SCOTUS decisions seem to be more rational regarding patents.
Logic seems to suggest loading the Court responsible for patent cases with
patent experts. Logic just doesn't work in this case. Note to Justice Scalia:
You are perfectly qualified to hear patent cases!
Federal
Circuit-Judges
Name, Age, Education, Background
Rader
(Chief), 64, BA-English-'74;JD-'78, Prof-teaching IP law; author-IP law.
Newman, 86, BA-'47;MA-'48;PhD-'52;LLB-'58, patent atty.
Lourie, 78,
PhD(chemistry)-'65;JD-'70, IP law.
Dyk, 76, AB-'58;LLB-'61, private
practice; author-patents.
Proust, 62, BS-'73;MBA-'75;JD-79;LLM-'74, NRLB;
IRS.
Moore, 45, BSEE-'90;MS-'91;JD-'94, IP law; author-patent
litigation.
O'Malley, 57, JD-'82, patent law
Reyna, 61,
BA-'75;JD-'78, private practice; int'l trade expert.
Wallach, 64,
BA-'73;JD-'76;LLB-'81, private practice
Senior Judges
Mayer,
72, West Point;JD(?)'71, private practice.
Plager, 82, AB-'52;JD-'58,
Prof-teaching law.
Clevenger, 76, BA-'59;LLB-'66, private practice.
Schall, 76, BA-'66;JD-'69, private practice; DOJ.
Bryson, 75,
AB-'69;JD-'73, DOJ.
Linn, 76, B.EE-'65;JD-'69, IP law; USPTO (examiner) '65
to '68.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: macliam on Saturday, February 09 2013 @ 03:33 PM EST |
The News Picks includes a link to the Court's website where an MP3
file of the oral argument is made available.
Although this is a
'news pick', maybe it deserves its own thread?
My impressions from
following CAFC decisions in recent years, is that Judge Moore would be a
potential swing vote. Many of the posters on blogs like PatentlyO do not seem
to have a kind word for her, regarding her as a judge who cannot be relied upon
to vindicate the rights of patent holders. At least, that is the impression
that I have gleaned. She seems to have interrupted right from the beginning
about the apparent detail of the system claims (UNIX workstations and the like.)
She was the fence-sitter in ACLU v. Myriad, who came down in favour of Myriad.
She interrupted right at the beginning of the oral argument, and I was
frustrated that she would not allow the CLA attorney to get a word in edgeways.
Was her mind made up irrevocably beforehand, or was she putting the Alice case
strongly to seek to elicit arguments that might possibly change her
opinion?
The concluding words of Mr Perry in rebuttal (obviously
referring to Alice Corporation), as accurately as I can transcribe
them:
There is no computer that they have invented. They don't
have a product. They are trolling for royalties. Thank you, your
honor. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kawabago on Saturday, February 09 2013 @ 04:51 PM EST |
Then NO would mean NO. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 09 2013 @ 11:39 PM EST |
And then there is Interval Research. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 10 2013 @ 05:54 AM EST |
appears to be to collect more reasons to make the Supreme Court toss the whole
nonsense with vehemence.
It's annoying enough to see the repeated game of "the constitution's
wording says x but we really think its authors meant y". But at least
there is the excuse of a time difference.
The Federal Circuit, in contrast, has a back-and-forth with the Supreme Court.
And here the game is "the Supreme Court's wording says <<You got it
wrong again, knuckleheads>>, but I think they mean we really got it again,
knock on wood". How long are they going to keep up this game of "we
can handle more cases than you can, so we get to set the rules, and you can only
overturn a tiny fraction"?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 10 2013 @ 10:20 AM EST |
The argument was spectacularly interrupted by the twelfth judge of
the Court, Judge Kimberly A. Moore. "How can this not be patentable? Look at
these long elaborate flow charts! Look at this list of hardware specifications:
controllers, a Unix Sparc Station, data storage, connectors ...!" She was
whole-hog into the patentability of the technology. It is too vast and complex
not to be. It is hard to call her clueless when she is one of the ones who makes
the clues.
Judges with no clue what software is or how it
works, are rubber-stamping the patents that are strangling the U.S. software
industry by supporting patentability of basic mathematical functions. They
believe flowcharts are innovative, and that software "reconfigures" a computer.
Heaven help us.
I wonder if this handful of judges can even comprehend the
magnitude of damage they are doing the U.S. economy. The consequences of their
stupidity are going to be felt for decades. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: macliam on Sunday, February 10 2013 @ 03:54 PM EST |
I took a look through the '720 patent, to be found at http://www.google.com/patents/US7
149720
There are 157 pages in all.
The claims determine the
bounds of the patent, but one might as well work through from the beginning.
There are 4 pages of front matter, followed by 117 pages of
figures.
Figure 1 depicts a circle of (what later turn out to be)
'stakeholders', that can interact with 'Processing Units'. The stakeholders
include 'counterparty guarantors', 'regulators', 'product ordering parties'
etc., and even include 'miscellaneous parties'.
Then comes the diagram
(Figure 2a) that apparently wowed Judge Moore with its wondrous technical
complexity. A miscellaneous array of what might be telephones, fax machines,
personal computers with modems connected to a back office system which
(according to the details of thelater specification) might consist of three Sun
workstations running SunOS networked together. The realisation that one could
run a financial information system on a small network of workstations must have
represented an impressive conceptual advance fully worthy of patent protection
in the early 1990s! But wait, there is more! The specification subsequently
teaches that, whilst such a system might be 'broadly indicative', it would also
be possible to implement the system in an 'alternative configuration' where each
stakeholder has an individual workstation, and where the workstations are
networked to each other. Indeed a network diagram for six such stakeholders
could have the structure of a complete graph on six vertices, as taught in
Figure 2b. Amazing technical stuff! No wonder at least one of the CAFC Judges
seemed so impressed! How could such a system not be patentable?
With
regard to technical disclosure, it is all pretty well downhill from here. The
next diagram portrays the data processing system INVENTCO (a name apparently
lifted from a later Walt Disney film called Meet the Robinsons, as I
discovered on googling on 'inventco' to discover if there was an Alice
Corporation product sold under that name). The patent discloses that INVENTCO
has components with names like M-INVENTCO, I-INVENTCO, AXSCO, VIRPRO, INVENTCO
SYSTEM #1, INVENTCO SYSTEM #2 etc. M-INVENTCO in turn has components such as
CONTRACT APP #1 and MARKETS COLLECTION #2. CONTRACT APP #1 even has components
like PROCESS #1, PROCESS #2 and PROCESS #9.
There follow diagrams
specific to the Examples later expounded in the specification. These include
flow charts with steps like "Select counterparty bid prices from short list and
queue order" and decision boxes like "Matured contract processing required?" A
minority of such diagrams seem to disclose actual calculations with financial
variables:
- PRICE(SID) =
CALC_FUNC(PRICEFUNC(SID),PAYFUNC,PAYPARAM)
- MT_DAY = PMAT -
CUR_DATE
Then follow 43 pages of what appear to be printouts of a
heterogeneous assortment of financial records. Working through these the
thought occurred to me that Alice Corporation have apparently been granted a
monopoly on financial information systems software for US-based banks, since
banks could not perform the transactions preempted by the patent with financial
information systems other than that provided by or licensed by the patentee.
Suppose that the patentee decides not to license the invention, but sells
computer products that turn out to be buggy and reliable. What recourse do the
banks and other financial institutions have against the holder of the
monopoly?
Following innumerable pages of these sample financial records
one reaches the body of the specification. The section on 'Background Art' is a
platitudinous essay on 'risk' and risk management. It is then asserted that
'management techniques for the "less tangible" forms of risk are in their
infancy'. There follows a short paragraphs listing patents in the prior
art.
The DISCLOSURE OF THE INVENTION begins with what is surely a
discussion of abstract principles of risk management, and descriptions of
various types of transactions between stakeholders. The inventors seem proud of
the fact that
in another preferred form, the invention provides
that the phenomenon for an offered contract is specified such that the elemental
entitlements for a range of outcomes are the same for each
outcome.
This impressive technical achievement is then
elucidated using the language of basic calculus. Apparently the data processing
system can cater for situations in which financial variables x and y related by
an equation of the form y = mx + b. (They return to this characteristic
of the invention several times in later parts of the specification: presumably
it adds a bit of technical spice to what otherwise would appear to be mundane
descriptions of financial transactions.)
The patent does not attempt to
claim an 'abstract' idea. How could it? Such a claim would not be eligible for
a US patent, as everyone now seems to agree.
However
Embodiments of the invention significantly advance the
state-of-the-art of formulating and trading risk management contracts.
Essentially this is achieved by a computing/telecommunications infrastructure
that is capable of being accessed worldwide by any enterprise/individual having
access to a computer and telephone network. Furthermore, a virtually infinite
number and range of risk typescan be [sic] accommodated.
After
a BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS we come onto a DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF A
BEST MODE FOR CARRYING OUT THE INVENTION. As mentioned before, the 'systems'
configuration could consist of stakeholders interacting with an institution
whose back office runs a network consisting of three Sun SPARC workstations. Or
alternatively each stakeholder can have a workstation that is networked with
those of the other stakeholders.
It is stated that 'the "virtual" level
of the system 10 is termed INVENTCO'. One wonders whether or not the 'virtual'
level of a 'system' qualifies as an 'abstract idea'. There follows a
description of INVENTCO, M-INVENTCO, AXSCO, CONTRACT APPS and friends. This all
seems to be at the level of processes somehow related to risk management and
trading. There follow five examples following the history of financial
interactions of one sort or another. The discussion is couched in terms of
descriptions of financial trades, involving contract bid prices, discount rates,
contract maturities and the like.
The third example is perhaps the most
detailed at a technical level (ignoring the purely financial stuff divorced from
computer-implementation). The programmer wishing to avail of the teaching of
this particular patent could at least glean from it that certain transactions
involving counterparties could be programmed using operations of addition,
subtraction, multiplication and division applied to elements of associative
arrays representing financial variables (prices, exchange considerations,
payments) that are indexed by counterparty identifiers (represented by the
variable SID). This example is probably the most technical part of the
specification from a computer programming point of view. But would the
programming techniques and structures disclosed to the PHOSITA be equally
applicable in the other five examples of the Best Mode?
There is a
Glossary of Agreed Terms. This does not appear to define the shadow credit
record and shadow debit record that is central to the
claims.
Finally we come to the claims. Claim 1 is to a 'data processing
system', and requires a 'data storage unit', a 'computer' capable of 'receiving
transactions', 'electronically adjusting' credit and debit records stored in the
'data storage unit' and 'generating instructions'. There is an explicit claim
limitation: the 'instructions' must be 'irrevocable time-invariant
obligations'.
Obviously a human working with pen and paper cannot
infringe this claim, since infringement would require use of a computer capable
of 'electronically adjusting' credit and debit records. But suppose that a
human carried out the steps described in the claim, with the assistance of a PC
with an Intel 80386 microprocessor, a 3.5 inch floppy disk to serve as a 'data
storage unit', Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet software and WordPerfect word-processing
software. Would the claim be infringed? Would the need to use at a minimum
such basic home-office computing technology be sufficient to vouch for the fact
that the claim is not drawn to an abstract idea?
This particular
particular machine seems omnicapable for just about any sort of
computerized risk-management scenario involving shadow records. It could be
used where the transaction is 'linked to a share price' (claim 2), 'linked to a
weather event' (claim 3), 'linked to a market event' (claim 4), 'involves the
transfer of shares in financial or physical assets' (claim 5), 'involves a
wager' (claim 6), 'involves the transfer of a commodity' (claim 7), 'arises out
of a transaction involving money for goods, services, promises, credits or
warrants' (claim 8), 'arises out of a collateralization payment obligation'
(claim 21), 'wherein said period of time is part of a day' (claim 9), wherein
said exchange institution is a 'credit card company' (claim 12), 'debit card
company' (claim 13), 'bank' (claim 14), 'central bank' (claim 15) or is merely a
'guarantor offering credit to one or more parties involved in said exchange
obligation' (claim 16). Moreover the particular machine has no problem dealing
with transactions in which institutions operate in different time zones (claim
19). Maybe institutions might be interested in purchasing this super-flexible
risk management system. But the Alice Corporation website only appears
of offer a list of patents available for licensing.
Finally, I should
point out that the US7725375 does look very similar, but includes as independent
claim 39 a 'Beauregard' claim to a computer programming product comprising a
computer-readable storage medium with computer-readable program code for
implementing the invention.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 11 2013 @ 02:44 AM EST |
Judge Dyk then asked if there was a way to do "end of day netting"
transactions without using the patents.
Dear me, I used to do this
sort of thing with pen and paper when I was working as a volunteer with Trade
Aid. Part of what was required was summing up the day's transactions, which
required simple maths.
Later I discovered the various other techniques, such
as matrix computations, etc, which are again, mere mathematics; and of course
the long-winded calculations - but mathematically simple - that an elementary
knowledge of statistics requires.
All that adding a computer does, to this
task, is add speed and sheer number of calculations.
The
argument was spectacularly interrupted by the twelfth judge of the Court, Judge
Kimberly A. Moore. "How can this not be patentable? Look at these long elaborate
flow charts! Look at this list of hardware specifications: controllers, a Unix
Sparc Station, data storage, connectors ...!" She was whole-hog into the
patentability of the technology. It is too vast and complex not to be. It is
hard to call her clueless when she is one of the ones who makes the
clues.
Indeed! let us examine the subject matter again, shall
we?
PJ has sent out the order. Go to the Federal Circuit for the
en banc oral argument of CLS Bank v Alice Corporation. This is a Biggie for
software patent haters, right up there with Bilski. This adventure will shorten
the usual commute, one of the most wondrous a dutiful worker could have. If he
eschews the speed and risks of the subway, as he often does, he can take the
express bus down embassy row to Dupont Circle, then cross downtown on H Street
to Madison Place on Lafayette Square situs of the Federal Circuit and the White
House.
How could this algorithm he can take the
express bus down embassy row to Dupont Circle, then cross downtown on H Street
to Madison Place on Lafayette Square not be patentable?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 11 2013 @ 11:50 AM EST |
Judge Kimberly A. Moore. "How can this not be patentable? Look at these
long elaborate flow charts! Look at this list of hardware specifications:
controllers, a Unix Sparc Station, data storage, connectors ...!"
OMG are the judges that make our patent law so utterly gullible that they are
snowed this easily? Whatever happened to the LEGAL STANDARD that requires that
it advance the state of the art, not just impress the judge with meaningless
fluff! These clowns would grant a patent on the retroencabulator![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 12 2013 @ 07:20 AM EST |
Hi I have made a transcript of the oral arguments. Its rough but I'm working on
cleaning it up:
www.alatageneral.com/cls-v-alice-en-banc-oral-arguments.php [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|