alice : ignorance is bliss
ignorance is not bliss: alice corp. v. cls bank international * - urltoken | patents & patent law
ignorance is not bliss point no. 3 still no definition yet of what is / is not an “abstract idea. ”
ignorance is not bliss point no. 1 comingling the separate patent statutes on patent - eligibility and patentability .
ignorance is not bliss point no. 5 concurring opinion says congress’ implicit / express intent on what is patent - eligible may be ignored .
ignorance is not bliss point no. 2 no adherence to the fundamental principle of diehr that the claimed invention must be “considered as a whole. ”
the supreme court’s decision in alice corp. operates from the view that “ignorance is bliss” when it come to the patent statutes, as well science and technology. i don’t share that view and never will. so in the format that i began with in shredding justice alito’s “comedic” opinion in limelight networks, here are my “ignorance is not bliss” candidates for alice corp. , in all their ugliness .
ignorance is not bliss point no. 4 claims will be deemed patent - ineligible even though implemented by a “machine, ” i. e. , a computer .
our judicial mount olympus may subscribe in alice corp. to the popular belief that “ignorance” of science, computer technology (as well as the patent statutes) “is bliss. ” but such “ignorance” is mucking up our patent law jurisprudence, as well as “not so blissfully” impeding the creative spirit of our innovative davids, our real hope for job growth in america. and that’s no “red herring, ” justices sotomayor, ginsburg, and breyer !
johnny depp and tim burton interview about alice in wonderland 24. 2. 2010 bbc1
alice lewis - ignorance is bliss out march 17 / 2014 available on itunes: urltoken - directed by nicol despis linesession: (re) discover the finest indie music selection. line session is your channel for all the indie, electro music, where you can experience music, in high audio quality. subscribe to stay connected to our channel and receive all of our video updates! - line session: urltoken urltoken
i would suggest you accept what a rational person says @ 16. it’s right on point as to why alice corp. is a disaster and a disgrace .
added vachon, “we’re like cockroaches after a nuclear blast. we do whatever it takes, even if it means eating plaster. we keep trying to figure out ways to keep doing what we want to do, and that’s to tell visionary stories. we hustle and work hard at everything we do. also, ignorance is bliss. it’s absolutely helped us. if you don’t know how scary it is, then you’re not afraid. ”
based on the supreme court’s decisions in alice and prometheus, it is not possible for an examiner to determine if a claim passes the 101 test before conducting the 102 and 103 analysis .
but the decision in the alice case holds that a claim to an apparatus, i. e. , the claim to a computer, is not patent eligible. furthermore, because the supreme court in alice mixes together 102 and 103 with 101 an examiner cannot determine whether the apparatus is patent eligible without doing a search under 102 and 103 to determine the state of the art .
i can find no useful guidance anywhere in alice as to how an applicant could successfully but a rejection based on either ground (1) or ground (2) above .
and if you think that the decision in alice is anything other than a subjective test of patentability, i would ask you to explain what arguments a patent applicant could use if an examiner rejected a claim under 35 usc 101 based on the ground that (1) the claim is directed to an abstract concept or (2) the claim is merely being an application of a natural law .
in comparison with the supreme court’s decision in alice, my decision: (1) is more consistent with the language of 35 usc 101. (2) is more consistent with the intent of 35 usc 101. (3) provides a more objective test for determining patent eligibility. (4) would cause less chaos in the uspto .
a rational person at 10. i’m just saying the flaw is not in the framework, it’s in the analysis. as stated, the framework is (1) “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent - ineligible concepts”; and (2) “search for the ‘inventive concept’. the first step, “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent - ineligible concepts” if applied correctly is clearly a 101 test. the second sterp “search for the ‘inventive concept’, poorly worded i concede, is a 102 / 103 analysis if applied correctly. alice decision is flawed for the analysis, not the framework .
i have noted that the cafc is but a pawn in this chess match. created by congress under constiutional authority, but subjugated nonetheless by the top dogs. witness the brow beating they receive. witness the fact that the en banc alice decision specifically asked for help – and that no such help was forthcoming .
[ verse 1 ] wake up! miss toadstool, it is i, your one and only king bowser koopa i' m a turtle as you' ve seen a little slow and a little green but on the whole i' d say super duper [ chorus 1 ] princess toadstool, i know you' re frightened if you knew just why you' re here your fear would just be heightened so let' s just say ignorance is bliss [ verse 2 ] oh, well, i hate to be a bummer i' ve brought you here to bring me plumbers you know those brothers oh, what' s their names? oh yes, mario and luigi just the sound of them makes me queasy i' d like to take that monkey wrench i' d play my own game [ chorus 2 ] princess toadstool, you' re so misguided i' ve never been fond of bookworms but then again this one does make good mario bait i can' t wait ignorance is bliss! [ verse 3 ] with my magic book i' ll shower those clumsy lizards with my power until dinosaur land is nothing but fossil fuel my only problem with these spells is that i know not what they tell so every hex leaves me perplexed and all i want are those plumbing fools [ chorus 3 ] princess toadstool, you' re not so clever all your words are alphabet soup a picture tells it better i' ll say it again ignorance is bliss haven' t you heard? a picture' s worth a thousand words [ bridge ] you call yourself a princess but you' re a brainiac in a dress i can' t believe you waste time with these books you remind me of my kid sister she read so much she got a blister a big one, i mean big, on her brain, what a snook! (i' d like to get my hands on ...) (just one time with a monkey wrench ...) (i' d fix their plumbing ...) [ chorus 1 ] princess toadstool, i know you' re frightened (you' re so misguided)' cause if you knew just why you' re here your fear would just be heightened [ chorus 3 ] princess toadstool, you' re not so clever (pictures say it better) all your words are alphabet soup a picture tells it better for the last time - on second thought, i think i' ve made my point
spaces are allowed; punctuation is not allowed except for periods, hyphens, apostrophes, and underscores .
this question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions .
near the end of part a of the opinion of the court, thomas makes the following statement: “we need not labor to delimit the precise contours of the ‘abstract ideas’ category in this case. put differently, what thomas essentially does in alice corp. (as justice kennedy did before in bilski) is “punt” on providing any meaningful definition of what is (and more importantly is not) an “abstract idea. ” so much for providing us “mere mortals” with any “framework” of how to distinguish “abstract” from “non - abstract” ideas other than “we know it when we see it, but we in the ivory tower are not going to tell you mere mortals’ what our ‘secret’ is for so determining. ”
in footnote 3 of the opinion of the court, thomas makes the following statement: “because the approach we made explicit in mayo considers all claim elements, both individually and in combination, it is consistent with the general rule that patent claims “must be considered as a whole, ” (citing to diamond v. diehr). that statement is astonishing because it is utterly nonsensical. by separating out the alleged “abstract idea” in the first step of the analytical “framework, ” thomas, in alice corp. continues the disingenuous failure of mayo to adhere to this fundamental principle of diehr that “ [ i ] t is inappropriate to dissect the claims into old and new elements and then to ignore the presence of the old elements in the analysis. ” so much for following binding scotus precedent by our judicial mount olympus .
seeking redress of government actions is one of our fundamental rights in our form of government. but we must be clear in our understanding of when – or how – that seeking is futile and when – or how – seeking redress has a chance of being effective .
on sunday night, veteran indie film producers christine vachon and pamela koffler — the duo behind academy award - nominated films such as “still alice, ” “far from heaven, ” “boys don’t cry” and the critically - lauded “ carol ” — celebrated the 20th anniversary of their production company killer films at an intimate cocktail party held at new york’s roxy hotel .
on sunday night, veteran indie film producers christine vachon and pamela koffler — the duo behind academy award - nominated films such as “still alice, ” “far from heaven, ” “boys don’t cry” and the critically - lauded “carol” — celebrated the 20th anniversary of their production company killer films at an intimate cocktail party held at new york’s roxy hotel. [ … ]
i think the framework is flawed is well. step (1) requires determining if a claim is directed to a “patent - ineligible concept. ”. for an examiner to easily apply step (1), there would need to be a well - defined list of things that are “patent - ineligible. ” otherwise, you are requiring an examiner to make a subjective decision based on no evidence as a first step in the examiner’s analysis .
each of the claims at issue claim a “process”, a “machine” or a “manufacture” and therefore claim patent eligible subject matter under 35 usc 101. the decision of the court of appeals for the federal circuit is reversed and this case is remanded to the court of appeals for further proceedings consistent with this opinion .
international association of master penmen, engrossers, and teachers of handwriting, iampeth is a leader in calligraphic education, and dedicated to helping novices and experts alike improve their lettering and artistic skills. our archive collection of the works of past masters is the richest and most comprehensive collection of american penmanship in the world .
“every single movie is its own epic tale of war, ” said vachon. “something big always happens, but you forget about it and move on. your focus is on how to get your film out into the world. getting every single movie greenlit is an act of extreme precision and intensity. it’s so hard. it’s like childbirth. you remember how bad it was and you wouldn’t want to do it again, but at the end, it’s worth it. ”
with the supreme court’s most recent foray into the patent - eligibility world in alice corp. v. cls bank international, we now have a complete and utter disaster as to what data processing claims can (or more unfortunately cannot) survive scrutiny by our judicial mount olympus under 35 u. s. c. § 101. i once had respect for justice thomas’ view on patent law jurisprudence, having considered his substandard opinion in myriad on the patent - eligibility of certain “isolated” dna claims to be an “isolated” aberration. but having now read his mind - boggling opinion for the court in alice corp. , i’ve now thrown my previously “cheery” view of thomas’ understanding of patent law jurisprudence completely into the toilet. i have even less kind words to say about the three justices that signed onto justice sotomayor’s disingenuous concurring opinion that accepts retired justice steven’s equally disingenuous suggestion in bilski that 35 u. s. c. § 273 (in which congress acknowledged implicitly, if not explicitly the patent - eligibility of “business methods” under 35 u. s. c. § 101) is a mere “red herring. ” see section 273 is not a red herring: steven’s disingenuous concurrence in bilski .
typethursday is a meeting place for people who love letterforms. join us in chicago, london, los angeles, new york, philadelphia, seattle, and san francisco .
on another thread, i note that asking the executive branch for help (in the manner of writing to the uspto regarding their implementation efforts) is a waste of time .
“christine is a very rare person in our industry because she has equal doses of talent and taste, ” clarkson told variety at the event presented by refinery29 and rag & bone. “the films she has made are important and have an impact on the world. i owe her a lot. i have a better career because of her. she is extraordinary. ”
the most startling statement in alice corp. occurs in justice sotomayor’s concurring opinion (joined by justice ginsburg and breyer): “i adhere to the view that any ‘claim that merely describes a method of doing business does not qualify as a ‘process’ under §101, ’” citing retired justice steven’s concurring opinion in bilski. in other words, these three justices have bought “hook, line, and sinker” steven’s disingenuous view that congress’ at least implicit, if not explicit acknowledgement in 35 u. s. c. § 273 that “business methods” are patent - eligible subject matter under 35 u. s. c. § 101 “is a red herring. ” so much for these three justices giving anymore than “lip service” to the expressed will and intent of congress .
at urltoken our focus is on the business, policy and substance of patents and other forms of intellectual property, such as copyrights and trademarks. today ipwatchdog is recognized as one of the leading sources for news and information in the patent and innovation industries. in january 2014 we were honored to be inducted into the aba blawg hall of fame after being recognized for 3 years as the top ip blog on the internet .
my frustration with the royal nine (as some call them) is that: (1) they simply refuse to adhere to any reasoning on patent - eligibility under 35 usc 101 that is rational and logical, as well as consistent with where the current growth in technology (data processing) is heading; and (2) provide no understandable guidelines or definition for establishing when a claimed method is no longer “abstract” so that it can reach the patent - eligibility zone. in other words, our judicial mount olympus provides no meaningful or logical guidance on patent - eligibility under 35 usc 101, but also won’t let the federal circuit do that job either, even though it was commissioned to do so by congress in 1982. instead, scotus simply exerts judicial fiat over patent law jurisprudence which doesn’t gain my respect, only my disgust and censure .
congress seems unaware that there is even a chess match in progress. in this chess match, the white of the congress does not seem able to see the black of the judiciary (or the black of the executive) .
the framework noted in 1 is unreasonable as it comingles patent - eligibility (35 usc 101) with patentability (35 usc 102 / 103); these are distinct statutes that need to be addressed separately. it also encourages what i noted in point number 2, namely the violation of the fundamental principle of diehr that “ [ i ] t is inappropriate to dissect the claims into old and new elements and then to ignore the presence of the old elements in the analysis. ”
letter west 2018 will take place at silver springs lodge in the beautiful mountain town of heber city, utah. the upscale lodge is a 30 - minute drive from park city, utah, and an hour drive from salt lake international airport .
a valid e - mail address. all e - mails from the system will be sent to this address. the e - mail address is not made public and will only be used if you wish to receive a new password or wish to receive certain news or notifications by e - mail .
while i agree with points 2 - 5, i do not find the framework in 1 unreasonable. breaking the analysis into descrete steps, with the first being a 101 analysis, is an efficient approach. if you pass the 101 test, then you move to 102 / 103. what are the alternatives, doing the 102 / 103 first ?
at page 11 of the opinion of the court, thomas states that “ [ t ] he introduction of a computer into claims does not alter the analysis of mayo step two. ” while such “introduction” may not “alter the analysis of mayo step two, ” that so called “analysis” is fundamentally flawed in that a computer is nonetheless a machine, and machines are definitely within the statutory classes of subject matter denoted in 35 u. s. c. § 101. while the process steps implemented on such computers may be known (i. e. , may lack novelty under 35 u. s. c. § 102 or may be obvious under 35 u. s. c. § 103), that process implemented on the computer is nonetheless a machine implemented process when considered “as a whole” as mandated by diehr. that gottschalk v. benson and parker v. flook (cited by thomas to support this quoted statement) say otherwise simply ignores the fundamental fact that computers are patent - eligible machines. accordingly, processes implemented on such computers do not change those computers (so altered) into patent - ineligible machines .
101 only works as a good first step in a patentability analysis if step (1) only requires that the examiner determine that the claim is directed to a patent eligible subject matter, i. e. , if the claim claims “process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof. ” but for the judicial exceptions, this would be a relatively easy determination for an examiner with respect to most claims .
supportive guests like michelle monaghan, parker posey, tony kushner, cory michael smith and zosia mamet raised a glass for the producing partners, who have financed nearly 100 motion pictures, documentaries and television projects together in the past two decades. considered trailblazers in the indie film world, their latest project, todd haynes’ lesbian romance “ carol, ” may be their most critical and commercial success yet. the movie is expected to nab oscar nominations come announcement time in january .
“there is no cookie cutter formula on how to do it, ” koffler told variety about the secret to their success, over a glass of champagne. “it may be about being adaptable and doing what you really love. we get really invested in what we do and we don’t say yes to a project just because we have to. we only do certain projects that we want to do and really love. there has to be passion and i think that’s helped us for the past 20 years. ”
( 1) determine if the claim claims a “process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof”, subject to explicit exceptions from the court cases. if the subject matter is in one of the categories set forth in 101 and does not clearly fall into an explicit court - made exception, the claim should be determined to claim patent eligible subject matter. (2) determine if the claim meets requirements of 112, 102 and 103 in that order. some 112 deficiencies may make it impossible to determine if claim meets requirements of 102 and 103 .
the river cities' reader, started in 1993, is independently and locally owned. we publish a monthly printed tabloid size magazine, available for free throughout the quad cities at over 300 locations. the reader provides keys to the quad cities' culture in print and online with exhaustive events calendars and coverage of arts, music, theatre, festivals, readings, lectures, meetings, exhibits, museums, dance, sports and classes for all ages. commentaries on business and politics, locally written theatre and movie reviews, advice columns, astrology, cartoons and crosswords are also published in print monthly, and refreshed weekly, onlinne .
justice thomas’ opinion for the court relies upon (unfortunately) the “framework” of mayo collaborative services v. prometheus laboratories, inc. for separating patent - ineligible “claims to laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent - eligible applications of those concepts. ” thomas describes this “framework” as a two - part analysis: (1) “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent - ineligible concepts”; and (2) “search for the ‘inventive concept’ — i. e. , “an element or combination of elements that is “sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ ineligible concept ] itself. ” but this second part of the analysis (i. e. , search for the “inventive concept”) essentially commingles patent - eligibility under 35 u. s. c. § 101 with patentability that includes novelty under 35 u. s. c. § 102, as well as obviousness under 35 u. s. c. § 103. in other words, the feared comingling of patent - eligibility with patentability when justice breyer announced the term “inventive concept” in mayo in judging claimed methods under 35 u. s. c. § 101 is now (regrettably) fully bloomed .
a young filmmaker paints an affectionate portrait of his grandma, who has dementia .
your current browser isn' t compatible with soundcloud. please download one of our supported browsers. need help ?
we are updating our terms of service, privacy policy, and cookie and internet advertising policy effective may 25, 2018! you can preview the new version and see details about the updates here .
hello! we have selected english as your language preference. if you would like to browse in a different language, please choose a language using the dropdown. deutsch english español français italiano 日本語
for sync please creaminal: + 33 1 43 72 42 70 www. creaminal. com
i feel like a very broken record. in an ipwatchdog article i wrote back in 2012, i commented on the currently fractured patent - eligibility landscape in the split federal circuit panel decision in
. where a claimed trading platform for exchanging business obligations survived a validity challenge under 35 u. s. c. § 101. see
. that fracture got even worse in the subsequent en banc ruling which can only be described as lengthy, tumultuous, and confusing, with a brief per curiam opinion, as well as six full opinions .
eric guttag mr. guttag has over 38 years of corporate and private intellectual property law experience on patent, trademark, copyright, trade secret and unfair competition matters, computer and internet law, including patent application drafting, prosecution, and patentability studies; infringement and validity studies; international patent prosecution; patent and know - how licensing; consulting, confidentiality, clinical study and research agreements; trademark searches and opinions; trademark registration and prosecution; trademark freedom - to - use studies and trademark litigation and dispute resolution .
warning & disclaimer: the pages, articles and comments on urltoken do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney - client relationship. the articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of urltoken. read more .
maybe (just maybe) someone in congress will take note and realize that the measures taken in 1952 have not only been undone, but have been undone purposefully and with spite .
large money interests (more commonly code - named: special interests) are simply getting what they paid for .
it has been long pointed out that we are witnessing a power struggle between the branches of the government .
should i note the irony of the year of the release of the movie dune… .
it might make sense to do 112 before 101 – if one does not construe the claims appropriately… .
until the supreme court added judicial exceptions thereby making the 101 determination more complicated and more subjective, doing a 101 analysis first would be okay. there was no need for an examiner to determine the state of the prior art, and it was easy to determine whether a claim was patent eligible .
for example, if the claim claimed an apparatus, it used to be easy to determine that the claim covered patent eligible subject matter. no need to look at the prior art .
a rational person at 12. so if you were thomas’ law clerking, what framework would you have written in place of (1) “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent - ineligible concepts”; and (2) “search for the ‘inventive concept’ ?
rational person at 14. no, i meant write it like an opinion, as if you were a supreme court judge. its not that easy .
our website uses cookies to provide you with a better experience. read our privacy policy for more information. accept and close
from larry clark’s controversial drama “kids, ” to the imaginative movie musical “hedwig and the angry inch, ” to the five - hour hbo miniseries “mildred pierce, ” the storytellers are involved in every step of the filmmaking process. they face huge challenges (in script development, financing, casting and location scouting) with each project, but say it’s worth the stress and sleepless nights .
oscar - nominated actress patricia clarkson has appeared in three killer films - produced movies, “far from heaven, ” “cairo time” and the 2014 drama “october gale. ” she applauds vachon for shepherding “unique and female - driven films. ”
© copyright 2018 variety media, llc, a subsidiary of penske business media, llc. variety and the flying v logos are trademarks of variety media, llc. powered by urltoken vip
since 1981 john neal, bookseller has supplied calligraphers, lettering artists, illuminators, bookbinders, type and papercraft enthusiasts worldwide with books, tools, and materials. we also publish letter arts review, a full color journal on the lettering arts, and bound & lettered, a quarterly magazine on making books and making letters .
send an artist' s name, website or social media account url. to prove you' re not a robot please include the following message ,
character counts
. thanks !
privacy & cookies: this site uses cookies. by continuing to use this website, you agree to their use. to find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: cookie policy
an annual membership to access premium content and local and regional quad cities' event and calendar data services from the reader .
a monthly membership to access premium content and local and regional quad cities' event and calendar data services from the reader .
subscribe to our weekly e - mail updates, delivered to your inbox every thursday .
you' ll get a run down of what' s happenin' along with your keys to the quad cities' culture.
alice : ignorance is bliss is a 2014 short documentary by thomas mcnaught . it was featured on bbc three ’s fresh scheme . the documentary was nominated for best british short film at the 28th leeds international film festival – where it received a special mention – and was shortlisted for independent age ’s " best factual new media content " at the older people media awards . 
alice: ignorance is bliss is a 2014 short documentary by thomas mcnaught. it was featured on bbc three ’s fresh scheme. the documentary was nominated for best british short film at the 28th leeds international film festival – where it received a special mention – and was shortlisted for independent age ’s " best factual new media content " at the older people media awards.
alice: ignorance is bliss is a 2014 short documentary by thomas mcnaught. it was featured on bbc three ’s fresh scheme. the documentary was nominated for best british short film at the 28th leeds international film festival – where it received a special mention – and was shortlisted for independent age ’s " best factual new media content " at the older people media awards.