I am on the last leg of the Intellectual Property Law course – and had to laugh at the case.
I am long over believing the instructors who teach these course and/or practice professions such as law are anything but human, and came across a marvelous example on the wonderful insane ‘rational’ logic of a professor of law.
Now here’s what the professor, and from what I have seen – MANY in the legal community have to gripe about something called the ”
We need tests.
If you’re asking a court or the PTO, an examiner, to evaluate whether something is patentable under the abstract ideas exception, they need a test. They need some way to evaluate whether or not this particular claim meets the standards or not.
The machine or transformation test, although flawed– and the Supreme Court said it was deeply flawed– at least is a test.
At least it provides some sort of structure, some framework by which you can analyze these claims.
I think (this) speaks a lot to how poorly the Supreme Court did at analyzing and explaining the reason that the Bilski claims were unpatentable.
“They didn’t provide any tests to gauge future claims”
So what happened was – the Supreme Court took a case which had one company claiming the other had ‘infringed on its software patent’ based on an algorithm being used and something referred to as ‘abstract ideas’ infringement.
The claim was this: That one company had used the same algorithm in the development of their material that the patent holder held a patent to.
First, let me define a word:
Abstract (Adjective): Existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence.
It’s an interesting problem the lawyers have with the supreme court’s decision – as they are asking the court, in a literal sense, for their definition of what a thought or idea is.
This, in poker terms, is what we call a tell.
Not long after my cousin was admitted to law school. His facial features began changing. His jaw elongated. He obtained the first girlfriend I had ever heard about, a debutante for all intents and purposes.
This boy – grew up in front of my eyes and transformed from a smart ass kid to on his way becoming a lawyer….
Something didn’t make sense.
My big brother at the Pike House at Arizona State University – wasn’t the most blazingly intelligent of men either, and as he pursued law school, his personality changed dramatically. And with this personality change came weight loss – and again – a development of a longer and more slender jawline.
I’d noticed the jawline before.
As for the tell, it’s simple.
The professions we choose form collectives.
Those collectives tend to dictate our thought processes, align our thought processes with a collective norm, guide our behavior, influence the parters we take and lifestyle, and in certain cases – tend to alter the physical structure of our bodies to optimize our presence in that field.
Which all has a tendency to make an individual with a chosen profession highly predictable.
Particularly when logic becomes fundamentally flawed.
In this case, we have a professor of law.
Who is rationally pursuing a one size fits all test for what is abstract.
Here’s a hint: It’s not concrete.
A couple years ago, I wondered why J. Chris Gooch would tell Rachel Gooch, his wife, to invite me over and have sex with me. He sat in the bedroom while she gave me a blowjob on the patio of their home. He was supposed to be in DC, that’s what Rachel had told me, but I could ‘feel him’ in the back room watching us.
Chris is a prominent lawyer in the Phoenix area, and yes, he has the jawline too.
Prior to then, I had met Rachel at the University of Phoenix where we would have frequent team meetings, to which Rachel offered to have one at her house, and Chris had set ‘The Economist’ down on a stool in the library of his house in highly calculated way.
He knew to some extent this might inspire me to pursue business.
He knew I would be showing up.
And he had Rachel take the class where he knew her and I would meet.
Chris had calculated much of this. Or had assistance, I suspect with the influence of a man by the name of John McCain, his mentor.
Rachel had ‘confided in me’ that Chris really didn’t like sex.
And that’s why she was pursuing me.
Rachel, I know you’re reading. I can feel you and it almost feels like you are standing over my shoulder reading this.
I suspect there’s more to it than what Chris claimed.
What, I am not entirely certain.
And Chris, I know you’re reading as well.
When you’re formulating a result based on the input stimulus of the world around you, that process you go through to arrive to your conclusion and resultant action is what we humans refer to as thought.
When you increase the volume of information through experience and education, consumption and assimilation, both direct and indirect, the conclusion you arrive to and resultant probability arrives to many possible ‘right and wrong answers’ on how to move forward.
A 50% probability if you will.
What makes something abstract is this: When there’s sufficiently varied information you have accumulated and experienced which causes the potential conclusion that you as an individual will arrive to in contrast to what I will arrive to creates a difference between your concepts of right and wrong in contrast to mine….
So when you set Rachel up with me.
You blessed me with the gift of a lifetime.
I saw, firsthand, the value in your actions and cherished it and made it my own on my own terms with my own experiences.
But looking at this professor, and coming to understand you more.
I do not agree with your perspective.
It’s not necessary to disassociate yourself from emotion and to rationalize everything.
There is no pinnacle of evolution.
There’s merely the life we choose to lead.
When you run for President in 2020.
You’re going to be confronted with a highly predictable decision that all presidents are confronted with.
I’m not going to judge you, one way or another for the decision you make.
But I would like to be there with you and your wife as you make it and present to the public an open relationship before then that I suspect all three of us AND the public need for our own reasons.
And maybe – with sufficient change – the public won’t present that situation at all.
Yes, I am crazy.
But with law professors and an entire professional trying to ask for clear cut definitions on what is abstract.
I know I am in good company.
Lawyers form a collective which influences themselves.
The public forms a collective which influences us.
As well as diminishes our choices until we’re left with none.
Chris and Rachel. Please quit hiding and pretending you’re not listening. I get my information from my sources just like you do about me.
Well not just like. In my own way.
I feel it
Proximity. That will help you understand. But I have to know you’re there. Not just assume.