[A2k] Re: [Patents] Re: [Upd-discuss] SCOTUS Overrules Rigid US AppealsCourt Approach to Patentability of Combinations of Existing Elements

[Seth Johnson]

LOL

It's actually the moment when victory finally strolled into the town
square.  In Europe, we have been lucky enough to have been guarded by
the prescience of common sense, writ by the lawmakers of an earlier
age.  It's been a long time, but victory is here, reclining on a park
bench, chewing on a grassblade, waiting for us to notice.

The MS v ATT finding recognizes that code is the representation of
pure abstraction.

Game.  Set.  Match.

It couches its argument as if to provide space for Congress to play
its legislative role and develop such policy related to the issues
raised by the case as it may choose, but nevertheless proceeds to
exercise the role of the judiciary and renders a decision by eliciting
the common sense fact that this is the nature of code.

The gag is, in truth, you can't actually write a law that bottles that
up, once that's the acknowledged issue.

It's over.

As long as this key point was not acknowledged in the three governing
branches (specifically for software), one such as you could blather
on.  But now, it's actually as good as over.  The rest is inexorable.
Just watch, Mr. Modern-Science-Disproves-Reason.

Now that the judiciary has formally made this key recognition of this
basic inexorable truth, none of your silliness will make a sweet bit
of difference.  You're finished, Gregbot.

It will be interesting watching you flounder about and bluster.

If this seems mean, know that when the time arrives, one can only call
things as they are.  The Gregbot was a devious tool designed to help
in a massive, decades-long effort to rob us of our computers and the
most intrinsic aspects of our nature as free human beings in the
information age.


Seth

Gregory Aharonian wrote:
>
> Jonas Bosson writes about the Microsoft/ATT decision:
> >I think the AT&T vs MS ruling is much more interesting as it could
> >nullify program claims (=record on a carrier/publication).
>
> I think in the long run, the Microsoft/ATT decision will have little impact
> on anything - there are too many scientific and engineering mistakes in the
> decision.  For example, in the concurring opinion, you see the following
> statement:
>
>         During the Windows writing process, the program exists in
>         the form of machine readable code on the magnetic tape
>         fields of Microsoft's computers' hard drives.
>
> "Magnetic tape fields of ... hard drives"?  That's nonsense, and shows how
> little the Supremes know about computer science.  The decision also has
> nonsense about source code and blueprints, etc.  Anyone trying to use the
> decision in the future can be attacked by pointing out the false science
> and engineering in the decision.  From Benson to this case, it is clear
> the Supreme Court has major problems understanding computing.  As do
> many other judges on both sides of the Atlantic.
>
> Greg Aharonian
> Internet Patent News Service

--

RIAA is the RISK!  Our NET is P2P!
http://www.nyfairuse.org/action/ftc

DRM is Theft!  We are the Stakeholders!

New Yorkers for Fair Use
http://www.nyfairuse.org

[CC] Counter-copyright: http://realmeasures.dyndns.org/cc

I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or distribution
of this incidentally recorded communication.  Original authorship
should be attributed reasonably, but only so far as such an
expectation might hold for usual practice in ordinary social discourse
to which one holds no claim of exclusive rights.