Now mind you, the “article” can REPRESENT something physical, but that is the precise difference that you are missing. Astounding is your oversight on this, as the discussion in Bilski even gives examples of non-physical transformations (think pictures of x-rays and mathematical type transformations on data (integral to the claim) – these types of “articles” are explicitly NOT included as items that Bilski would outlaw).

and yes, we can agree (I think) on Bilski going away – the saying “bad facts make bad law” comes to mind.

As far as Microsoft – I believe they would more than gladly sacrifice their PHD (not short for doctorate) set of patents to eviscerate the patent landscape. They are the established power and patents are more a threat to them than a useful tool, no matter how many they collect. What’s ironic is that they are a prime source of the kool-aid of anti-patent fervor to the software world while they are perfectly willing to plunk down the bucks and pursue patents. The rank and file software people blindly lap up the anti-patent rhetoric from the very source they despise.

Would you have any interest in writing an article on Bilski? I am happy to publish it under your pseudonym – “Old Timer.” I would love to publish more on the transformation prong. Whether you are right or wrong (I sadly tend to agree with you but wish I didn’t and don’t think that is what “transformation” should me) it would be great to get more out on the transformation prong. Right at the moment in litigation that seems to be the only hope for passing muster for the patents caught in the middle.

I agree with you that much of Microsoft’s portfolio is gone unless Bilski is altered, so they may curse the days they complained about trolls! I think many of the big companies will lose a lot of patents. A lot of what are likely Microsoft A patents are implicated, and for others it is probably mainly their B and C tier that are in the crosshairs.

-Gene

Nay, I think it is you who are misreading Bilsky. The specific language in Bilsk is: “it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing” which is precisely contrary to your interpretation. Maybe we’re just not communicating effectively, but I’m astounded that you could interpret language which explicitly requires “transform[ing] a particular article into a different state or thing” to mean that it does not require a physical transformation of subject matter to a different state or thing. Can you elaborate?

Review the case law on Bilsky. I cannot recall a single pure software case that has survived the Bilsky “transformation” test, indicating that a transformation from one data state to another is not sufficient. The cases that are getting by the Bilsky transformation test have claims that recite a physical transformation. You’re dangerously off base here.

Hopefully Bilsky will go away and this will all be academic. I suspect we can agree on that.

@ Gene, I sure hope you’re right. In one respect MS is on the horns of a dilemma here because a strict interpretation of Bilsky would invalidate a huge portion of their patent portfolio.

I understand what you are saying, but I don’t see that happening for several reasons. First, Bilski is hardly something new, at least insofar as this trial and appeal are concerned. It came out in the Fall of 2008. The jury verdict came out in Spring 2009 and the final order in August 2009. Microsoft had ample time to bring up the Bilski case and apparently did not. So I cannot see any reason why there would be grounds for a new trial.

I also think the Supreme Court will do away with Bilski altogether. Regardless of whether it is the correct test (which I don’t think it is), Bilski is certainly not the right case for saying what was said. The Supreme Court will almost certainly dial it back. If nothing, this court is conservative in every sense of that term, and Sotomayor kept referring to the decision as “extreme” and even Breyer said he was more than a little troubled by how far the CAFC went.

I definitely agree with you about reexamination though. If it is to be an alternative to litigation then it simply cannot only focus on patents and printed publications. Of course, the USPTO will need more resources to do reexam or any post-grant review properly. Unfortunately, I think Congress is of the mind to force an unfunded mandate onto the USPTO.

-Gene

I deleted that comment. Feel free to repost the link if/when it gets working.

Thanks.

-Gene

MS will bide their time until the Bilsky decision comes down from the Supreme Court. Then they’ll file a motion for a new trial, which probably should be granted. These claims will be held invalid on summary judgment at the new trial.

Plaintiff i4i would be well advised to settle this case for whatever they can get.

This is also a case-in-point for why reexamination should be broadened to cover reasons other than prior art.

Oops, sorry – the link (currently in moderation) doesn’t work… (well, I broke it actually)

A method for producing a first map of metacodes [WYSIWYG format codes] and their addresses [Cell addresses] of use in association with mapped content [Spreadsheet data in a .WK3 file] and stored in distinct map storage means [the .FM3 file] , the method comprising: providing the mapped content to mapped content storage means [stored Spreadsheet data]; providing a menu of metacodes [WYSIWYG menu accessed through the ":" GUI] ; and compiling a map of the metacodes in the distinct storage means [Save the .FM3 file for the WYSIWYG formatted spreadsheet], by locating, detecting and addressing the metacodes [the format codes applied through the GUI being stored in the ASCII .FM3 file by cell location/range]; and providing the document as the content of the document and the metacode map of the document [merging the .FM3 file with the .WK3 file in the WYSIWYG representation].

The Lotus format allowed you to:

1) Save a formatted spreadsheet (.WK3 data file with .FM3 formatting metacodes)
2) Delete the .FM3 metacodes while preserving the .WK3 spreadsheet data
3) Import the metacodes from a different spreadsheet (or simply a different .FM3 file) to give the spreadsheet data (.WK3) a new “look”

You could also keep a master “look” which could be applied to any spreadsheet data file.