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

[Seth Johnson]

I see.  You could just keep repeating yourself.  Why didn't I realize
that's what an automaton would do?

Just keep on going.  Your commentary is irrelevant, as I explained.
It can't be countered by Congress, by subsequent SCOTUS findings, or
by a bot.


Seth


Gregory Aharonian wrote:
>
> Seth Johnson writes:
> >The MS v ATT finding recognizes that code is the representation of
> >pure abstraction.
>
> There are many incorrect statements about source code and object code
> in the Microsoft/ATT decision.  So it is clear that the Justices don't
> understand the fundamentals of computer science.  Applying good legal
> thinking to false science results in a decision impossible to practically
> apply.
>
> It is similar to the Benson decision, which was so bad that the Supremes
> had to repudiate the decision with Diehr, and then let the Court of Appeals
> of the Federal Circuit clean up the mess over the next few decades.
>
> Microsoft/ATT repeats this.  Within a few years, the Supremes will have
> issue a decision that counters Microsoft/ATT, and the Federal Circuit will
> then have to clean up the mess.  There is no justice in a decision about
> science that is based on false science.
>
> If you want to win this debate of science and engineering, don't rely on
> judges who don't understand the science and engineering.  Eventually the
> law catches up with the mistakes.  This statement about magentic tape
> fields on a hard drive is a horrible mistake.
>
> Greg Aharonian
>
> --
> Subscription management: https://www.aful.org/wws

--

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.