This is Gaiben's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Gaiben's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Gaiben
Recent Activity
Dear Patently-O, I think the Google CEO will take a crap today, I am looking forward to a post that tells the world when he takes a crap. Please let us know how many times he wipes. Best regards, People who give a flying crap about design patents
1 reply
Yep, it's a design patent, please continue...Oh, that's all you had to say. Ok. Thank you for telling the world Goog got a DP? Thanks?
1 reply
Quotas? Maybe we should think about a "critical mass" or "discrete and insular minorities" to be examiners - this could truly save the system, look what is has already half-done for the presidency!
1 reply
Wow, that smacks of billables in firms! Oh-My-Gawd!
1 reply
6, Discovering a few genes that *may* be linked to causing one *particular* type of cancer is about as close to world peace as a U2 concert. You must have an electrical or mechanical background.
1 reply
Wait, never mind - I get it: "Clam 1: A method for denying insurance coverage comprising discovering the BRCA gene in the customer." "Claim 2: The method of claim one further comprising blacklisting said customer from cancer insurance coverage from any other carrier." Sorry, I was confused in the earlier post.
1 reply
How is the discovery of natural phenomena patentable?
1 reply
Dear 6: 1) Lay off the booze. 2) WoW is dead.
1 reply
Wait, I get it - I'll tell you how to make and use something but I'm not going to tell you what it is. I admit I'm not following this litigation, but how is this a relevant inquiry? Severability of WD and enablement aside, you need both to patent an invention so where are they going with this?
1 reply
Response: a. Yes. b. Assert an argument and do you own research. P.S. a. Is intent a separate requirement of a murder analysis? b. If so, what is the purpose of intent in a murder analysis. Give me a personal break. Why don't we just dig up the framers of the Constitution for a sit down on these matters?
1 reply
Noise, I just took the time to read your comments for the third time. If there is anything I can do to help you, psychologically, please let me know.
1 reply
Noise above Law, I must say, that is an impressive emotional reaction to my post, surprising to say the least. I am a patent lawyer and the Bilski case is couched upon whether an algorithm should be tied to an apparatus or not. Yes, and Pumping did make my point - he tied all his examples to machines and apparatuses and that may have been unfortunate if he wanted to argue that numerical transformations could exist in a netherworld not on paper nor in our heads, Should an algorithm be tied to a machine or apparatus or not? That is the crux of Bilski - which has been conveniently forgotten by many bloggers here. As such, thanks BigGuy, and your alter ego, "Pumping" for making my point. Please direct your anger toward a more positive place and not toward other lawyers that are trying to provide meaningful analysis under Bilski. This will be my last post as Patently-O is proving to be more of a flame war zone than a bastion for any discussion of substance relating to patent law.
1 reply
Yes, thank you for including the claims. THe claims are: "Blah, blah, blah, blah, algorithm not attached to any apparatus." - not patent eligible.
1 reply
PumpingLemmas, Thank you for making my point. All of your examples were tied to a machine or apparatus. I hope that you understand what I am saying now. An abstract algorithm not tied to a machine or apparatus should not be patentable under the current law. Until there are new laws made, the court should not stretch them to fit this case. Algorithms themselves are not useful inventions that fall under patent purview. It's like patenting a slogan. Sure, a slogan could be arguably useful for creating business, etc. and it is not tied to a particular display medium and it is not patentable. I think the closest example would be software. You cannot patent software code either.
1 reply
Breadcrumbs, That depends on how the claims are written. If you want to tie the cryptographic process to a machine, it's ok. The cryptology will always be tied to a machine unless it's done on paper or in your head. Otherwise, a cryptographic algorithm does not get a patent, either keep it a trade secret or copyright it. Utility patents are not the answer to every new idea people dream up.
1 reply
USEFULNESS IS INDEFINITE One question: How do you avoid "garbage in, garbage out?" If a transformation of numerical data can be separately patented, I can call it a "risk coefficient" or anything else I want - a line must be drawn when it comes to numerical transformations or usefulness will be indefinite. Look, numbers themselves are not useful, any process that is used to obtain a number is inherently not useful. What is useful is the APPLICATION of said number which is obtained from a transformation. The transformation and the number itself are not useful products or processes. It is the application of the number which is useful. I agree with the court and I hope that numerical algorithms themselves do not become patentable.
1 reply
Bob1: Hey, Bob, I just developed this new method for hedging risk. Just tell me how much of a commodity you want to buy, then the past average price for the last 5 years. Bob2: Wow, that's great Bob1! Ok, $100,000 and $50. Bob1: Ok, so multiplying $100,000 x $50 by my new method yields $5,000,000. So your hedge risk is $5,000,000! Oh, by the way Bob2, I am totally patenting this method! Bob2: Great! SO, ummm...Bob1, now what do I do with that number you calculated using your soon-to-be-patented method? Bob1: Well, you apply it of course! Bob2: Ohh...
1 reply