The Upshot of Google v. Oracle: An Absurd Ruling Will Lead to Absurd Results

By Gene Quinn
April 9, 2021

“Perhaps patent attorneys should start citing Google v. Oracle for the proposition that performing tasks on a smartphone is highly transformative and, therefore, nonobvious compared to the same exact task on a desktop computer or other device. That is, after all, literally what the Supreme Court held.”

Google v. Oracle - https://depositphotos.com/458707220/stock-photo-absurd-word-made-building-blocks.htmlFor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, or so states Newton’s third law of motion. It is safe to say that Newton never met an intellectual property lawyer, and he never had to deal with the whims and fancy of an arbitrary and capricious Supreme Court.

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in Google v. Oracle, in which the Court ruled that Google’s intentional copying of 11,500 lines of computer code from Oracle was a fair use despite the fact that Google made many tens of billions of dollars in the process, and despite the fact that the record showed that Google consciously chose to copy, rather than independently create, because programmers were already familiar with the 11,500 lines of code they wanted to take.

A Matter of Convenience

Why independently write our own code, Google thought, when programmers already are familiar Oracle’s code? A perfectly legitimate question for Google to ask, and one that everyone will now ask given that cut and paste copying of software code is a fair use.

Yes, the Court attempted to create a distinction between “declaring code” and “implementing code”, but as software expert Bob Zeidman explained, “there are no such technical terms, and the court offered no useful definitions.” So, what is declaring code and what is implementing code? We can probably guess what the Supreme Court was thinking given the API context, but we can be certain that this Supreme Court fair use case will be applied well beyond the facts of the case. And even in other software cases, will what district court judges and circuit court judges think be what the Supreme Court thought, given the lack of useful definitions?

The better question the Supreme Court should have asked, however, was why shouldn’t Google be required to acquire the rights to the original code they wanted to take? After all, even with the attempted distinction between “declaring code” and “implementing code”, Google could have still written their own original code. The copying was not a matter of necessity, it was a matter of convenience.

[[Advertisement]]

Google v. Oracle and Unintended Consequences

Much has and will be written about how this case is a win for innovation because it allows programmers to copy code for the purpose of interoperability. And interoperability is definitely something that we all should want – but at what cost? Will those with valuable, original code put that code at risk for being cut-and-paste copied in the future? Newton’s third law of motion tells us that there will be an equal and opposite reaction, but we are not dealing with the physical world here, so be prepared for a disproportionate, unequal, and massive overreaction by creators of all types.

“Companies must now keep their software code secret and never release code to the public unless they are willing to give up all rights in it,” Zeidman said. And that is the reaction you would expect, to the extent possible, which will result in less sharing and less ability to copy. Business models will change.

Software: The Red-Headed Stepchild of Innovation

While the Google v. Oracle decision really does not have anything to do with Alice or software patents or the patent eligibility of computer implemented innovations per se, it does continue the trend of making software less protectable in the United States. Congress has, of course, done nothing to make software less viable or protectable, but the Supreme Court is an increasingly autocratic tribunal that legislates from the bench on matters of intellectual property.

The actions of the Supreme Court on software are puzzling, and Congressional inaction even more so. We are at a point in history when two-thirds of all innovations patented at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office relate to software, most believe China will dominate the market for artificial intelligence and machine learning innovations (see here and here, for example), and there is a growing fear that the United States’ lackadaisical approach to AI is already having national security implications. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is doing everything in their power to make software the red-headed stepchild of the innovation world in the United States. Why? So, a handful of very powerful and extraordinarily rich companies can copy without creating, which is exactly what happened when Google cut and pasted Oracle’s code.

Truthfully, the Supreme Court decision in Google v. Oracle will do far more damage to other copyrighted works because of the long-lasting damage it will inflict on the doctrine of fair use. There was really only protection for software against literal cut-and-paste copying and now that is a fair use, thanks to the ruling earlier this week. So, copyrights in software were already weak; now they are nonexistent.

But for other copyrighted works and other content creators, how courts will interpret this decision could be quite scary. Yes, the Court did find the Google use to be transformative, which seemed to turn the four-factor statutory fair use test into a single factor test. But no rational person could realistically believe that the Google cut-and-paste copying of the code was transformative. It is even difficult to believe that the Supreme Court in their disingenuous zeal believed Google’s cut-and-paste copying transformative.

A Distinction Without a Difference

The Supreme Court ruled Google’s copying transformative because Java is used on desktop and laptop computers and Google used the code on a smartphone, as if that is some kind of mind-blowing, revolutionary transformation. But both are machines, and as you would expect everyone in the developed world to understand in 2021, a smartphone is just a miniature computer. And the desktop versus smartphone distinction is a distinction without a difference in the patent context. Why? Because using a process, system or software running on one is not transformative or at all unique in comparison to using it on the other.

Perhaps patent attorneys should start citing Google v. Oracle for the proposition that performing tasks on a smartphone is highly transformative and, therefore, nonobvious compared to the same exact task on a desktop computer or other device. That is, after all, literally what the Supreme Court held. So, let’s force courts to either go all-in with the Google v. Oracle logic and rule that transformation under the Copyright Act can be obvious under the Patent Act. The law is a train wreck already anyway.

Absurd Results

Regardless, what we know today is it is a fair use to make tens of billions of dollars having engaged in cut-and-paste copying as long as you change the platform for distribution. So, it would seem clear that it is now not compensable copyright infringement to copy an article from an online only publication and put it into a print publication. Simply claim fair use and point out that what was taken was only a small fraction of the lines that were published that day, week, month, or year, and that you have significantly transformed the work because you have changed the platform from electronic to paper, taking it out of the digital realm altogether! If what Google did was transformative, this absolutely has to be transformative. And this is how you know the Supreme Court got it wrong; the majority ruling leads to absurd results.

Now, fair use exists even where the copyright owner’s market has been completely destroyed and transferred to the party who intentionally copied. Copyright owners, beware. If you are not exploiting a derivative market and a large entity like Google comes in and takes what you have created, it will likely be a fair use and there is nothing you will be able to do. Their use in the derivative market will destroy your value, but it will be transformative, and little else will matter.

The Author

Gene Quinn

Gene Quinn is a Patent Attorney and Editor and President & CEO ofIPWatchdog, Inc.. Gene founded IPWatchdog.com in 1999. Gene is also a principal lecturer in the PLI Patent Bar Review Course and Of Counsel to the law firm of Berenato & White, LLC. Gene’s specialty is in the area of strategic patent consulting, patent application drafting and patent prosecution. He consults with attorneys facing peculiar procedural issues at the Patent Office, advises investors and executives on patent law changes and pending litigation matters, and works with start-up businesses throughout the United States and around the world, primarily dealing with software and computer related innovations. is admitted to practice law in New Hampshire, is a Registered Patent Attorney and is also admitted to practice before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. CLICK HERE to send Gene a message.

Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on IPWatchdog.com 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 as of the time of publication and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of IPWatchdog.com. Read more.

Discuss this

There are currently 208 Comments comments. Join the discussion.

  1. Anon April 9, 2021 4:22 pm

    Spot.
    On.

  2. Pro Say April 9, 2021 4:27 pm

    So, our very own Supreme Court unleashes yet another unconstitutional IP cancer loose on American — and indeed World — innovation.

    Congress: What say you?

    I know. I know. How ’bout holding 3 days of hearings so you can hear from all stakeholders . . . and then . . . and then . . . do nothing.

    You know. Just like you didn’t do after promising that you’d take back the constitutional reins on patent eligibility that SCOTUS usurped from you with their Mayo, Alice, and other anti-patent decisions.

    You know.

  3. Sensible person April 10, 2021 8:36 am

    Not surprised a patent attorney is complaining about a ruling that makes sense for the industry but gives him less to litigate.

  4. Brandon April 10, 2021 8:36 am

    Spoken exactly like a patent troll who has never so much written Hello World.

    “Declaration” vs “implementation” is not only very real but.is required in many languages like C. OvG found that implementation (C files) are copyrighted, header files (public function signatures) are not.

    As a software engineer I look forward to the day you and your ilk are out of work forever.

  5. Software Pro April 10, 2021 8:40 am

    This is a bad take and shows how little most lawyers know about software. Those ~11000 lines of copied code you keep referencing are the interface to the code that does the real work. It is literally the name of a function in the software not the code that makes up the function. For an oversimplified example let’s say I have a function called MultiplytwoNumbers whose declaration looks like this: MultiplytwoNumbers(Number1, Number2). No the actual code of the function will look like this: Number1 * Number2. What this court ruling says is that someone else can make a function that looks just like mine: MultiplytwoNumbers(Number1, Number2), but the code inside the function must be different. Now this is a poor example because there are not many ways to multiply two numbers, but the code in question in this lawsuit is much more complex. Long story short this ruling says google is allowed to copy function names but not functional code. This is a good thing as this processes is used everywhere in the software industry to make new software compatible with old software.

  6. Anonymous April 10, 2021 9:25 am

    I think I smell a rat.

  7. Milind Rao April 10, 2021 9:35 am

    What a load of crock! Only a lawyer would look at this and find a problem. A ruling in favor of Oracle would have unleashed a tidal wave of lawsuits by companies who do nothing but sue. Oracle is almost turning into that company. The lawyers were no doubt the ones who were most thrilled about buying Sun.

    If you could freaking copyright an API all the wonderful open source software that has made the world a better place over the last 20 years would have come to a screeching halt. There would be little innovation and we would be back to the work of IBM and Microsoft of the 70s and the 90s.

    The entire software community heave a sigh of relief.

  8. JT April 10, 2021 9:40 am

    This post is highly ignorant. Google re-implemented interfaces in Java. An interface is a contract that specifies how things should interact, and re-implementing it with your you functionality and implementation is not, and was never intended to be copyright infringement. My source is being a software engineer for 20 years. What is yours?

  9. tom April 10, 2021 10:26 am

    There repercussions of the alternative would be even more profound. You complain about China gaining dominance but Oracle winning would be handing software dominance to China on a silver platter. I work with hundreds of “APIs” every day and if those all became encumbered with copyright law counter to their open source licences we would be in a world of hurt. It would be the dark ages of software innovation as everyone would fear some company asserting their copyright.

  10. Bemused April 10, 2021 11:15 am

    Yet another boneheaded result from the Supreme Court of the United States. Too bad I can’t wager on the outcome of intellectual property cases that are granted cert cause I’d be very wealthy just by picking whichever result will be the most detrimental to innovation.

  11. ffs April 10, 2021 11:24 am

    Written by a man who has clearly never written a single piece of code in his life. Claims there’s no such thing as “declaring code” but proceeds to use the term API immediately after. Like declaring there’s no such thing as ice but maybe this glacier is related to the stuff but who knows? Lmao
    He can’t distinguish the difference between copying the API and creating an entire new operating system system. I mean, code is code right? All you do is hit keys on the keyboard so it all must be the same.
    Can’t even do the basic due diligence eh? Do you need a link to a Java tutorial for children? (but it’s okay, you can teach them all a lesson by copy pasting Google’s android code onto a smartphone and sell that phone by the millions without paying royalties to Google. That’ll show em)

  12. Mitch Falvo April 10, 2021 11:28 am

    The whole IP model in fundamentally flawed. (Almost) All technology should be open source. I’m so sick of greedy companies trying to engaging in lawsuits.

  13. FOSS advocate April 10, 2021 11:34 am

    Wow, congratulations on having the worst possible take on this. Not sure who this “software expert” is but declaration vs implementation has clear and well-established definitions in the industry.

  14. Matthew Morrison April 10, 2021 11:55 am

    We have a front row seat to the blatant corporatism and authoritarianism warned long ago by the framers of the United States. This behavior was a known threat to our Constitutional Republic. The despots within the U.S. Congress, Executive Branch, and Supreme Court need to refresh their oaths. In my opinion, this outcome is a direct result of distorted and selective revisionist history. Unless it is exposed and rooted out, I predict more of the same to be hurled at law abiding Americans. We as a united people have been distracted and hypnotized for far too long. Let everyone WAKE UP and restore our great nation based on the Constitution as written, supported by an observed and respected Bill of Rights.

  15. Me April 10, 2021 12:26 pm

    You are an embarrassment to your profession if you can’t understand the difference between copying code (like copying a book) and copying an API (which is like writing your own unique book … whose page numbers line up with the first book’s table of contents).

  16. Bill Ralston April 10, 2021 2:01 pm

    Just as the supreme court starts their opinion with hyperbole (“Ask the computer … it will instantly give you the right answer”; “Those familiar with the Java language already know countless method calls that allow them to invoke countless tasks”) Gene also engages in hyperbole by pretending there is no difference between “declaring” and “implementing” code and that the court fails to provide any guidance. That’s wrong: pages 4-7 of the slip opinion provide plenty of guidance. In short, declaring code is like a header file in “C”. The distinction between declaring and implementing code is central to differences between the GPL and LGPL licenses for open source software. The crux issue in Google v Oracle is about copying the API (reframed as “declaring code”). Regardless of the name applied, API, header file, “declaring code”, we are talking about an interface definition. By analogy, should copyright protect the arrangement of a chip interface so that a drop in replacement part would infringe copyright? Using hyperbole undermines credibility. Gene obscures (or perhaps unintentionally makes) an important criticism: this decision will likely be misinterpreted and misapplied by judges and lawyers who lack understanding of the underlying technology.

  17. Bob April 10, 2021 2:03 pm

    The upshot of the google v oracle case was that it was the correct ruling without a doubt. No on has ever used over copyright of APIs In the past 40 years of the software industry existing, despite their being numerous examples of companies doing it. No one sued because it was obvious that APIs were not copyright protected .

    Oracle is the first, and thankfully the last, company that will ever attempt to sue over API copyright. And it is oracle that doesn’t innovate. Oracle bought java. There isnt a bone of innovation In oracle’s DNA.

  18. Mr 259 April 10, 2021 2:35 pm

    Gene, you nailed it! Now for public franchise.

  19. Oolan Zimmer April 10, 2021 2:46 pm

    With all due respect, this article proceeds from a flawed premise.

    The difference between interface and implementation in software design has been well-understood for 50 years. It is a core tenet of object-oriented programming, the software design methodology at the foundation of the Java language. It is one of the key concepts taught to new practitioners of the art, and anyone who claims to be a competent software engineer and who claims that there isn’t a clear distinction between interface and implementation is lying. I say this as a 20+ year veteran of the software industry who was teaching new practitioners before Java was first released. The so-called expert you quoted was a consultant for Oracle in this case and, to be charitable, was probably constrained to repeat Oracle’s ridiculous assertion.

    As for the distinction between mobile and personal computing, I agree that the distinction isn’t credible in this day and age. There was a time, however, when mobile was very different. Phone applications once required expensive licenses and expensive training in deliberately obscure mobile variants of software libraries. One of the innovations of smartphones is the use of widely accessible tools and software interfaces from personal computers for mobile devices. Crucially, Oracle relied on this distinction in this case by trying to claim that phones were fundamentally different and the open source release of the interface code in question did not apply to software for mobile devices. If Oracle had not opened the door to this distinction, Google would have been allowed to use the code in question.

  20. Potato power April 10, 2021 2:49 pm

    >> Yes, the Court attempted to create a distinction between “declaring code” and “implementing code”, but as software expert Bob Zeidman explained, “there are no such technical terms, and the court offered no useful definitions.” <> “Companies must now keep their software code secret and never release code to the public unless they are willing to give up all rights in it,” Zeidman said. <<
    I have to say, that's bs. No company or research institution that I've worked for, or programmer that I have known, has ever cared about people copying their APIs from code they open sourced, even when the copied APIs are used beyond the license terms. I certainly don't mind someone copying mine as long as it's their own implementation.

  21. Robert Aronoff April 10, 2021 3:26 pm

    Well argued. A truly shocking, devastating decision. The U.S. economy would be best served by entrusting these matters to its specialist highest-court (US Court of Appeals) for all matters of Intellectual Property. The Supreme Court has not shown itself to be capable of understanding the implications of its own rulings on these matters.

  22. ByronP April 10, 2021 3:30 pm

    Clearly you are not in the software industry because your claims are mostly wrong. Yes there will be further battles over definitions, that is to be expected. What held up is fair use of APIs. If they were not fair use we would all be screwed and nothing would play nice together unless a ransom was paid. That is not a future anyone should want. Also this is not what SUN would have wanted which is important to the moral constitution of the industry. Oracle needs to thinking just about $.

  23. Bill Wood April 10, 2021 3:39 pm

    “there are no such technical terms” – that’s just nonsense. Here are the delarations for Java’s Math API: https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/lang/Math.html

    In the link above, it states “… all implementations of the equivalent functions of class Math are not defined to return the bit-for-bit same results. This relaxation permits better-performing implementations where strict reproducibility is not required.”, showing that there are different implementations for Math’s declarations.

  24. Sam April 10, 2021 5:09 pm

    Thank you. Exactly. One point. Google and their backers claim that this decision was a good thing because of “interoperability”, as you cite. Google is using a bizarre definition of interoperability though. They don’t mean an Android app will be able to communicate with a Java app. That would have been possible without copying. They don’t mean every previous app written in Java will work on Android. Google purposely broke that capability. What they mean is that developers will be able to use their acquired skills in Java in writing Android apps, crucially, without Google having to pay for that obvious benefit to Google. No where else in history has this definition been used.

  25. Jason L April 10, 2021 5:53 pm

    “11,500 lines of computer code”

    This is a very small compared to the millions of lines that actually made up the Java implementation, which is a

    “rather than independently create, because programmers were already familiar with the 11,500 lines of code they wanted to take”

    This is irrelevant

    “Yes, the Court attempted to create a distinction between ‘declaring code’ and ‘implementing code’, but as software expert Bob Zeidman explained, ‘there are no such technical terms, and the court offered no useful definitions.'”

    There are no such exact terms. However, the concepts are very well-known. Any C programmer, for example, will recognize that function declarations are “declaring code”, while function definitions are “implementing code”. And broadly, they correspond to the terms “API”, and “implementation of that API”.

    “After all, even with the attempted distinction between ‘declaring code’ and ‘implementing code’, Google could have still written their own original code.”

    Realistically, any such code they would have written would be incredibly similar, if not identical to Oracle’s. For example, if you want to implement the POSIX open() function, as part of your implementation, you must have lines like this:

    #define S_IRWXU 00700
    #define S_IRUSR 00400

    and sure enough, various different implementations still have these lines because they have to.

    “Much has and will be written about how this case is a win for innovation because it allows programmers to copy code for the purpose of interoperability. And interoperability is definitely something that we all should want – but at what cost? Will those with valuable, original code put that code at risk for being cut-and-paste copied in the future? Newton’s third law of motion tells us that there will be an equal and opposite reaction, but we are not dealing with the physical world here, so be prepared for a disproportionate, unequal, and massive overreaction by creators of all types.

    ‘Companies must now keep their software code secret and never release code to the public unless they are willing to give up all rights in it,’ Zeidman said. And that is the reaction you would expect, to the extent possible, which will result in less sharing and less ability to copy. Business models will change.”

    First, businesses already do not release implementation code for closed-source products. Second, this would only affect declaring code, which is by its very nature hard to protect already–Oracle v. Google or not.

    Third, the “equal and opposite reaction” you describe would be far worse for a decision that copying Oracle’s “declaring code” was unlawful infringement. For one, it would mean that Oracle itself would likely be infringing due to its use of SQL.

    “The Supreme Court ruled Google’s copying transformative because Java is used on desktop and laptop computers and Google used the code on a smartphone, as if that is some kind of mind-blowing, revolutionary transformation. But both are machines, and as you would expect everyone in the developed world to understand in 2021, a smartphone is just a miniature computer.”

    Let’s go back to the 11,500 lines of code that were copied, and think about the millions of lines that weren’t–i.e., they were independently re-written by Google. Now, let’s think about why this was done. Smartphones are miniature computers, yes. But they are also substantially different. They are far more limited in processing power, memory capacity, and most importantly, battery energy. They also have additional sensors, such as accelerometers and touch screens, that desktop computers generally do not have. Running Java SE on Android would have produced a dog of a product–it wouldn’t have enabled the kinds of applications that people expected on a smartphone.

    But most importantly, re-implementing the implementing code (which made up over 99% of the code of Java SE) is a transformative use in and of itself. In fact, the proportion of declaring code to implementing code is lower than the ratio of words to their definitions in most print dictionaries! Would you say it’s illegal or even immoral to copy the list of words (and their alphabetical ordering) from a dictionary, but write your own definitions for them? After all, the word simply declares what the definition corresponds to–it is the definition itself that actually implements the action of defining the word.

    Finally, under US copyright law, effort alone is not enough to make a work protected by copyright. It must actually be creative. The Court came close to declaring that “declaring code” is not creative and therefore, is not protected by copyright at all.

  26. Greg Retallack April 10, 2021 5:58 pm

    Wow. You are really upset about not being able to upend the entire software industry with endless lawsuits.

    Is it your position that software innovation has been stifled for the entire modern history of programming? Because the re-implementation of existing API’s has been the bedrock upon which numerous tech companies have been built, including Microsoft and Compaq.

    Larry Ellison himself tried to re-implement the API of IBM’s SystemR early in his career but couldn’t pull it off. Oracle did successfully copy the API of Amazon’s S3 cloud storage platform recently.

    It’s almost as if re-implementing API’s is a standard practice that encourages competition and the creation of products that extend and improve the functionality of existing systems.

  27. Phil April 10, 2021 6:10 pm

    Agree that the distinction between smartphone and desktop is unfortunate and open to legal misinterpretation. But for the opposite reason than I think you’re going for.

    To a developer, the idea that an API could be copyrightable–regardless of what context it is being adapted for–is absurd.

    Just to clarify, the ruling in no way suggests that any and all code is uncopyrightable. For software developers, the distinction between declaring code and implementing code isnt ambiguous at all. It’s a fundamental part of how software is written, and without understanding that distinction… well, you couldn’t really be a developer. Are there some gray areas that could benefit from stronger legal definition? I’m sure there are. Such is the case with almost anything. (Can you find a gray area in the distinction between an oven and a refrigerator? Probably. But for most people in most situations, the difference is pretty obvious, and when a recipe says to bake at 350, a chef will generally know what that means.) I’m sure tighter definitions will emerge as fringe cases are tested in the lower courts, but the important thing is that we’ve now formally established that there is a distinction when it comes to copyright law. And rightully so.

  28. Chris Evans April 10, 2021 7:51 pm

    As a software engineer I have to disagree. It really seems like you don’t understand what was copied or how it applies to software development as a whole.

  29. Jmac April 10, 2021 8:45 pm

    Google copied an API, not lines of code. Oracle has done the same thing in copying the AWS S3 API.

  30. Curious Reader April 10, 2021 8:54 pm

    Soooo…where do you stand on Oracle copying the API of Amazon’s S3 cloud storage service? Which they did to (checks notes) make it easier for developers with S3 experience to transition to their platform.

    Wait, what?

  31. George April 10, 2021 10:07 pm

    They appear to have made their decision based at least in part on the ‘proportion of code’ actually copied by Google, compared to all the other ‘innovation’ Google made to result in their product, which was otherwise not questioned as being original.

    This (as well as most software ownership disputes) should have instead been brought as a straightforward copyright theft case and rather than a patent theft case, especially since Oracle doesn’t appear to have ever patented the specific code in question.

    Now according to Gene’s analysis (and apparently that of many others here who love the idea of ‘software patents’, if the decision had come out differently, then MILLIONS of software patents would have to be issued (that would necessitate searching and carefully evaluation before any other ‘software patents’ could ever be issued). Under ‘Gene’s rule’, any invention that ‘borrows’ even 1% of the elements from another invention, could be found to infringe that other invention by the analogous reasoning he uses above. Of course we all know this isn’t how patent law works when talking about tangible inventions. You are freely allowed to take even many part from earlier inventions to make new inventions that do new things. If the courts had gone the other way, as everyone here seems to think they should have, then that would just be the end of invention, since anything that uses prior art wouldn’t be allowed to get patent. Every element and function would have to be 100% novel and unique. But we all know that every new invention is based on the prior work of others.

    So, when it comes to software, the only real way to protect one’s contributions and code is to either try to keep it a trade secret for as long as possible, or to copyright the machine code version of it and keep it unpublished (which makes it harder to reverse engineer and can also be used to prove the original code was JUST reverse engineered, not written from scratch).

    Yet another way to ‘now’ protect code is to make it accessible only on a cloud computer, which wouldn’t allow any downloads of any code or provide any other way to directly access the code (which couldn’t even have been done a decade ago). The code would still be able to be used by others, but it would also be protected by both copyright, trade secret and also be protected against both physical and cyber theft! The are also some other variations possible for protecting code on a cloud and thereby basically making it invisible to users.

    It’s also important to remember that most other countries don’t even allow patenting software or business method ‘inventions’. So, even getting a US patent on software would offer to protection in all the other countries around the world – especially in China, who could get access to it and copy it all they wanted!

    Let’s be practical once in a while too, folks! I think that’s how the courts viewed the issue. Had Google copied 50% or 80% of Oracle’s code, things might have been different, but that’s not what Google did! It made significant additions, improvements enhancements to that code that allowed many new things to be possible. This was ‘maybe’ copyright infringement, but certainly not patent infringement.

    It seems people here are making arguments that might have been more relevant 30 or 40 years years ago, but isn’t anymore. Technology has now moved on (again) and there are new and better ways to protect software now. Patents are probably ‘obsolete’ for doing this in the 21st century! They are also the ridiculously expensive and ineffective way to even ‘attempt’ doing it anymore.

    We won’t even consider trying to patent software on its own, anymore, although we still may disclose basic original ‘algorithms’ if they are needed for the ennoblement for of tangible new inventions, as decided in Alice (although we have always done this even well before the Alice decision – and it even seemed like a ‘no-brainer’ to us). We have no problems at all with the Alice decision and it doesn’t slow us down or prevent us from obtaining future patents at all. Alice just makes software and original algorithms another component of ‘patentable’ inventions.

  32. George April 10, 2021 10:17 pm

    Apologies for all the errors made in the above hastily written comment, but the gist of it should still have come through. I didn’t have time to go slower and proofread tonight but wanted to post what came to mind before I forgot it (which often happens).

  33. Software Developer April 10, 2021 10:25 pm

    The implementation of a set of APIs (application programming interface) on a desktop and then on a smartphone operating system is in fact a massive undertaking that is a transformational adaptation of the simple API used by the application developer. What the author has missed is that the API is in fact a trivial component of a software system relative to the runtime implementation that manifests the APIs. SCOTUS showed surprising clarity in grasping this concept. A patent attorney should be rejoicing that the problem has been moved to one of copyright to patentable implementations.

  34. Eddie T. Head April 10, 2021 10:50 pm

    This completely misses the point. Declaring APIs is not “copying code”. It is sad that an attorney is displaying such willful ignorance.

  35. Brian April 10, 2021 11:13 pm

    This is irresponsible reporting. It was a publicly shared interface, intended to be used by anyone. Oracle doesn’t get to just change their mind because someone made money off of it.

  36. Randy Magruder April 11, 2021 7:44 am

    This piece was clearly written by a non coder who doesn’t understand the difference between a declared API and an algorithmic implementation. And based on his bio someone who has a profit based interest in not understanding.

  37. concerned April 11, 2021 8:14 am

    George:

    Personally do you believe a business method should receive a patent if the process solved a problem that experts and working professionals in the field could not solve for decades?

    Thank you.

  38. DMS April 11, 2021 9:38 am

    The only flaw in your example is that cutting and pasting a digital article and republishing in paper is not “transforming”a anything. It is the same product being distributed.

  39. Buffy Lyon April 11, 2021 10:45 am

    Fortunately the court seems to understand declaration vs implementation better than the author. Probably fortunate for Oracle as well; should they succeed in retroactively copyrighting an abstract declaration I’d think IBM could sue them for use of SQL.

  40. Anon April 11, 2021 10:46 am

    George.

    Once again a torrent of words that show simply that you do not grasp intellectual property law, nor how to read a case, nor how to read an analysis of a case.

    Any “expertise” that you may have in a technical sense does NOT translate to the legal world, and your long-winded ramblings are — frankly — embarrassing.

    That you don’t even have enough sense to be embarrassed only compounds the inanities that you put forth.

    Most will likely be “polite” and not point this out to you.

    They are not your friends by letting you continue on in such a manner.

    Once again, not everyone that disagrees with you is your enemy.

    Slightly modified: not everyone who agrees with you, or is quiet in view of your ramblings, is your friend.

  41. Brian April 11, 2021 1:16 pm

    LOL, Thank goodness nobody was ever allowed to copy the incandescent bulb or internal combustion engine.

    *Written on my Morse telegraph.

  42. John Mark April 11, 2021 1:17 pm

    Your diatribe above is a perfect example of why attorneys shouldn’t inveigh on a technology matter until they understand the basic principles under discussion. You should start with “what is an API” because you very clearly do not understand this most basic foundation of computing. I suspect it’s not really a matter of ignorance, but rather a symptom of who pays you. Can’t expect someone to understand something when their paycheck demands that they not understand it.

  43. Bill Wood April 11, 2021 2:24 pm

    Somewhat surprisingly, the Supreme Court absolutely nailed it.

  44. Paul McHugh April 11, 2021 7:32 pm

    Hi Gene,

    I am a programmer. I disagree with the statement that the meanings of “declaring code” and “implementing code” are indeterminate. Those words are not commonly used by programmers, but they clearly refer to “function declarations” and “function implementations”(or the more technical term “function definitions”). (In Java functions are called methods, There are some minor differences between functions and method that are not relevant to the case.)

    Function declarations are directives to the compiler(the program that converts from human readable code to machine/object code) which declare that the user’s computer will contain a function with a specific name and properties(eg: what data needs to be passed to the function to use it).

    When the program is running on the users computer encounters a non-statically linked function call It will search the user’s computer for the function implementation that corresponds to the name of the function that was called(if it was not already loaded), load it, and then execute it.

    The “implementing code” is the instructions that the computer actually executes. The declaring code is a mere factual assertion(that the compiler is directed to take as true) that the user’s computer will contain a function with a specific name.

    I agree that the fair use analysis was likely wrong, but I think that the google was right on the first question. In either case I think that allowing copyrights of API’s or “declaring code” would be horrifically bad policy, and all other programmers that I have discussed case this with agree.

  45. Alex Vilensky April 12, 2021 12:03 am

    I’m not sure the author understands the difference between APIs and the implementation of them. His entire argument boils down to “let’s copyright the idea, and create more copyright trolls” going after small companies that don’t have enough money for protracted court battles and can be blackmailed to settle just to stay in business. The best analogy would be trying to patent the idea of a steering wheel, and force everyone who puts it in his car to pay up.

  46. B April 12, 2021 12:13 am

    @ Gene “the Supreme Court is an increasingly autocratic tribunal that legislates from the bench on matters of intellectual property.”

    Autocratic, yes.

    “Increasingly,” no.

    The SCOTUS gets the occasional IP case right (KSR was rightfully decided imho) but something happens to the Supreme Court every time they touch Title 35 or Title 15.

  47. B April 12, 2021 12:16 am

    @ George “We have no problems at all with the Alice decision and it doesn’t slow us down or prevent us from obtaining future patents at all.”

    Great.

    Can you tell everyone what an “inventive concept” is (without relying on a circular argument)?

  48. Purwa Rathi April 12, 2021 1:12 am

    Why such a blunder by SCOTUS…Truly, its not that they never knew where they are heading towards with this decision. Rightly said Gene, every work can now be made pretty transformative. Let’s wait and watch what holding will the courts have then!

  49. Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? April 12, 2021 4:41 am

    Although it sounds very reasonable, I am happy for the court’s verdict and I would hate to end up in the opposite situation, where “some” Taxi Service patents a way to stop a car on the street by calling “Taxi!”.
    What about us, we ordinary programmers, who wouldn’t even call a car to take us home after the night party, without infringing copyright …

  50. voster April 12, 2021 7:02 am

    Bob Zeidman said:

    “Companies must now keep their software code secret and never release code to the public unless they are willing to give up all rights in it.”

    Utter bollocks. How much money would Zeidman put in this actually happening?

    APIs are APIs. They will continue to be exposed, because it’s often within company’s interest to do so. When it isn’t in their interest, they won’t

    This is the status quo for a reason – it makes sense

    The distinction between “implementing” and “declaring” code is well known by software engineers. The concepts are further elucidated in the case

    And APIs have existed for ages

    The entire tech industry will not have achieved the growth it has had without the distinction, and the open nature of APIs

    I, for one, am thankful the the SCOTUS made the distinction, and not failed to as you have. Otherwise, you’d see more and more companies taking credit for innovations that have very little functional gain, and profitting from actual innovators

  51. Rackham Karlsson April 12, 2021 10:04 am

    “Much has and will be written about how this case is a win for innovation because it allows programmers to copy code for the purpose of interoperability.”

    That’s not what the opinion says or allows. In fact, as the opinion notes, Google’s *opposition* to interoperability was part of what tanked its talks with Sun.

    The person arguing that the Court did not provide definitions of “declaring code” and “implementing code” apparently did not look as far as Appendix B, which explains the terms and provides clear examples in the context of the Java API.

    I do agree that after this opinion, the copyrightability of declaring code in general is on very shaky ground. It would have been better if the Court had tackled the question head-on and not left it in legal limbo. But I don’t think the decision’s implications reach as far into other kinds of code as this article implies.

  52. Gene Quinn April 12, 2021 10:22 am

    Wow! Thank you all for clearing up that an API is not code. I suppose it is just 3 random letters in an alphabet. LOL.

    And just to be clear for all those who think they understand but obviously are really extraordinarily clueless… an API stands for application programming interface. An API defines interactions between multiple software applications, for example.

    So, what the Supreme Court has ruled is that copying interfaces is a fair use. This ruling is not limited to an API. You will learn to LOVE this decision as your works are copied indiscriminately.

    On an aside, I always find it funny that people like those who have commented on this thread are so in love with the idea of copying when they are the ones who are taking, but then when they create something original they want to protect it and prevent others from copying. The mind of a programmer!

  53. Ryan April 12, 2021 10:42 am

    Interesting straw man argument. Except this was a copyright case not a patent case and the fact that software is an algorithm/business process and can’t be patented

  54. Rackham Karlsson April 12, 2021 11:01 am

    “So, what the Supreme Court has ruled is that copying interfaces is a fair use. This ruling is not limited to an API. You will learn to LOVE this decision as your works are copied indiscriminately.”

    Respectfully, this misrepresents the holding. The Court held that *in this instance*, it was fair use to copy the declaring code of an API. The ruling explicitly does not extend to the implementing code or other instances of copying declaring code. For example, we do not know if it would be fair use to make an open-source competitor of a commercial product that uses the same API and therefore can be swapped in on the exact same platform. We know that the Court has a skeptical view of the copyrightability of declaring code in general, but that is not enough to say that *all* copying of declaring code is fair use.

  55. Rackham Karlsson April 12, 2021 11:16 am

    “So, what the Supreme Court has ruled is that copying interfaces is a fair use. This ruling is not limited to an API. You will learn to LOVE this decision as your works are copied indiscriminately.”

    Respectfully, that’s not what the Court ruled. They found fair use on these facts only, and explicitly did *not* extend the ruling to (a) other kinds of code, (b) other parts of an API, including implementing code or (c) other instances of copying declaring code.

    For example, while the Court expresses considerable skepticism toward declaring code generally, it is not at all clear that one could get away with copying declaring code to create an interchangeable open-source competitor for a commercial product on the exact same platform.

  56. Gene Quinn April 12, 2021 11:48 am

    Rackham Karlsson…

    You say: “Respectfully, that’s not what the Court ruled. They found fair use on these facts only…”

    Response: You are wrong. There is no such thing as the Supreme Court ruling only on the facts of the case before them. The Supreme Court takes cases of importance and the ruling of the Court will be applied far and wide to all cases that in any way relate to the same topic or at all relate to similar facts. Your certainty is cute, but completely mistaken as a matter of fact and reality. You might want to inform yourself before you comment.

    You say: “copying declaring code to create an interchangeable open-source competitor for a commercial product on the exact same platform.”

    Calling desktops and smartphones different platforms is a distinction without a difference. And copying is exactly why one joins an open source consortium, so I have no idea what it is that you are really trying to say, but your comment makes no logical sense.

  57. Gene Quinn April 12, 2021 11:50 am

    Ryan-

    You say that business processes can’t be patented. That is wrong. See Bilski v. Kappos.

    What is highly transformative under copyright law is obvious under patent law because everyone, even a programmer, should know that code for a desktop and code for a smartphone is a distinction without a difference. But thanks for trying.

  58. Pete Fenner April 12, 2021 12:25 pm

    Well you can all argue the legal ramifications and justification for your positions, but it was Oracle that caused the problem.

    For years Sun gave away or licensed for free the Java code which they did Copyright. It was used in hundreds of software product made by Microsoft and many others. Then Oracle bought Sum and allowed the free use to continue. Oracle did not even try to change that free use policy for everyone. Instead, they decide to sue ONE user of that free code for Copyright infringement? My first question 10 years ago was what are the damages?

    If the issue was a movie a company made and they let anyone show the movie and did not change any of them. They even let companies take sections of their movie and embed them in their own productions and did not charge for those uses. the suddenly they decide to sue a company that used less than 10% of their movie in another movie and that company collected a fee for their production. Waht are the damages?

  59. Anon April 12, 2021 2:09 pm

    While it is very interesting to see the ‘outpouring’ of tech comments (who somehow feel completely unrestrained to think that they should have some legal understanding to talk about a legal issue), there are a few things that could probably be made a bit more clear.

    For example, ALL application of the Four Factors of Fair Use are heavily factually dependent.

    So facts of any ‘next case’ will be important.

    That being said, one does NOT constrain the Rule of Law to ONLY the immediate facts of this case. That is just not how law works.

    Rather, to reach the “Rule of Law,” one must distill facts from application of law to those facts.

    Important points then:

    1) Transformation is the critical driver (as it overwhelms several independent Factors that quite frankly, should have been found in the exact opposite result).

    2) API’s were treated as copyrighted. This is also critical as it dispels many of the Tech people’s stated feelings and (undeveloped) views of such legal terms as Merger Doctrine.

    3) The Court, in stressing that “all software is functional,” undercuts the actual distinction between the dry facts of this case in the two functions of “declare” and “implement.” Too much emphasis on what is purely a “this case” fact misses the Rule of Law announced by the Court.

    There MAY WELL BE other arguments that could have been made – but that were not. Mr. Fenner’s point about “Oracle that caused the problem.” speaks to a very different legal point NOT within the Rule of Law of this decision (dereliction of enforcement resulting in dedication to the public). While that MAY make for an interesting separate discussion, it has no intersection with the present case, nor how the proper legal understanding that results.

  60. Bill Wood April 12, 2021 2:31 pm

    @Gene Quinn said, “So, what the Supreme Court has ruled is that copying interfaces is a fair use”.

    Actually, and you can look at this in the ruling, they said: “To determine whether Google’s limited copying of the API here constitutes fair use, the Court examines the four guiding factors set forth in the Copyright Act’s fair use provision: the purpose and character of the use; the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.”

    That’s far from a blanket endorsement of copying interfaces.

  61. Gene Quinn April 12, 2021 2:38 pm

    Bill Wood…

    When I am proved correct (which I will be and every lawyer with half a brain knows it) I expect you will return and apologize. Supreme Court cases are always used beyond the limited facts of the case and the question presented.

    It is, however, cute to see all you programmers think you understand the law enough to challenge me. For a bunch of people unwilling to admit that what Google copied was code your hubris is astonishing.

  62. Pete Fenner April 12, 2021 2:59 pm

    Well all you legal eagles may rejoice in concluding us “technologists” have no clue about such legal issues. However, we are the are consigned to live tht Copyright box. If you cannot give constructive assistance as to where the walls of the box are now constructed, then you are useless to us.

    The whole premise of the original article was the decision will usher in wholesale API copying into “transformative work.” Does this decision help define “transformative work?” Nothing I have read so far seems to address that issue in terms useful to my software development efforts.

    I will certainly not start using an API from any source without fully understanding the IP position and licensing of that API along with its long term cost. I suspect most other software developers will follow a similar path.

  63. George April 12, 2021 3:50 pm

    @Anon 40

    I won’t even dignify your constantly insulting comments, since many other posters here (who clearly know something about software and copyrights) agree with me and not you! Besides the courts obviously don’t agree with your ‘brilliant legal analysis’, so anything you say is basically mute and probably will never be revisited anyway. No amount of arguing will change anything now – it’s over! And, don’t count on Congress doing anything either, since they know even less than you do about computers, software and AI. They will defer to the courts on that!

    So, why not just ‘shut up’ for a change (especially when talking about things you clearly know nothing about). By comparison I I have had a successful R&D consulting company for over 40 and have NEVER been the ’employee’ of anyone else – since college!

    I must have done some things right and also must be pretty smart about what I do and don’t do (like trying to get patents on just software or business methods, which can almost never be defended).

    As far as my knowledge of patent law goes, I have successfully prosecuted and obtained several ‘good’, ‘broad’ and definitely enforceable patents, over the course of those 40 years and I’ve not only written their specifications and claims, but also drafted their drawing figures. I have prosecuted them through many Office Actions and several continuations as needed, and have never had to abandon one or accept amendments that I didn’t want to accept! That’s not how most patent prosecutions go and I’m sure you (and most patent attorneys) have NEVER gotten ‘everything’ a client wanted in their claims (but I have).

    Because I intimately know and understand every detail and aspect of my inventions and what they can be applied to, I can effectively deal with and argue any issues that can come up and effectively defend any claims, providing up to a dozen defenses for each one and even graphical examples of why they are valid in the face of the prior art. I have also spent 10-20 times as much effort in doing this, as any attorney could possibly think of billing their clients for. When I am finished with this prosecution, hundreds of pages may have been written and sometimes over a hundred arguments may have been overcome (after sometimes a dozen separate searches and dozens of ‘attempted’ prior art combinations). When I finally get a patent, I get an enforceable ‘PATENT’ (which I’ve never had challenged – only referenced.) Bottom line, Anon: I know more than you do (about a lot of things)! Believe me (or don’t)!!!

    I don’t just talk the talk, I walk the walk and have plenty of first hand and hands-on experience with what I’m talking about – including computer coding and AI! Given that I’ve NEVER LOST a patent argument (even against the most incompetent, ‘green’, persistent, and determined of examiners) I think my record might be a lot better than yours. But then I’d have to look at a sample of patents you have prosecuted to see how many accommodations and ‘capitulations’ you may have had to agreed to. I never agree to ‘screwing up’ my claims – I only make them broader and stronger over time! LOL! Is that hard to do??? Hell yeah – it’s REAL HARD TO DO (especially after the AIA)! But then, I’m a patient guy since you have to be to become a good and successful inventor! The ‘good inventions’ always take a lot of time and effort! It’s not about just getting a worthless piece of ‘official looking paper’ to hang on a wall! I could care less about that.

  64. George April 12, 2021 4:08 pm

    @Anon #40

    “. . . not everyone who agrees with you, or is quiet in view of your ramblings, is your friend.”

    Well, I guess all my past clients must have just been ‘polite’ then, when listening to my ‘rants’, Anon! Of course the fact that they also ended up making them lots of money, must not have hurt either! LOL! Maybe you should start listening more too – especailly about AI and law??? After all, you don’t want us to end up making all the money from that, do you? LOL!

    Also, have you ever heard of ‘business disparagement’, Anon? Might want to read up on that a bit more! Dominion Voting Systems has recently demonstrated just how big a land mine that can be and one you always want to avoid at all costs! But then you’re a lawyer, right – even though that didn’t seem to help Rudy Guliani, or Sidney Powell. LOL!

  65. George April 12, 2021 4:09 pm

    @Brian #41

    LOL!!!

  66. George April 12, 2021 4:10 pm

    @John Mark #42

    Yup!

  67. George April 12, 2021 4:12 pm

    @Bill Wood #43

    Yup, especially since it wasn’t a totally trivial decision.

  68. Gene Quinn April 12, 2021 4:13 pm

    Pete Fenner…

    You say: “However, we are the are consigned to live tht Copyright box. If you cannot give constructive assistance as to where the walls of the box are now constructed, then you are useless to us.”

    I think what you are trying to say is that programmers need to deal with copyright law and if lawyers cannot give you a clear explanation of what the law allows then we are the problem. Spoken like a completely clueless and ignorant person who is way out of your depth. Fair use is a statutory four-factor test created by Congress that defies definitive construction, thanks in part to the test itself and because of the clear as mud interpretations by the Supreme Court. So, the fact that you haven’t read anything useful to software development efforts means you understand the situation. That is why is is laughably stupid for some on this thread to believe this decision will result in less litigation.

  69. Gene Quinn April 12, 2021 4:17 pm

    George…

    You say: “I won’t even dignify your constantly insulting comments…”

    The insulting comments have been from programmers who don’t understand the law and who don’t even know enough about their own craft to understand that an API is code. What do you all think it is? A poem? A letter to the editor?

    And since you are such a patent genius, why don’t you provide a cite or two to your patent numbers so we can bask in the glory of your genius? Unless of course you are too afraid to hear how much you screwed up and all the mistakes you made that you didn’t even understand.

  70. George April 12, 2021 4:23 pm

    @Paul McHugh @44

    Excellent exposition!

    Maybe patent lawyers should be required to take at least 1-2 courses in computer programming and AI, especially since most also believe that software should be protected by not only copyrights and trade secrets, but patents too. When it comes to copyrights, you have to generally ‘steal’ at least 50% of more of the material, to be found guilty of it. Unfortunately, we don’t have laws against plagiarism, which would require a showing of much less than this! If we had laws against plagiarism (including of ideas), then Oracle might have had a better case against Google (for doing THAT). Have you ever had your ‘new ideas’ stolen Paul? It’s not fun and should be prohibited (especially if money or promotions are involved)!

  71. Phil April 12, 2021 4:23 pm

    “It is, however, cute to see all of you programmers think you understand law enough to challenge me”

    A) Yes, there’s a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding in the comments, but the patronizing tone still isn’t really warranted.

    B) Part of the reason this an interesting and thorny case is that there’s a lot of misinformation on both sides and among the public in general. It’s equally frustrating from the perspective of developers, ISVs, and tech companies to hear a bunch of lawyers arguing about details of the case without really, actually understanding what it is they’re arguing over. E.g., the difference between declaring code and implementing code. That distinction is HUGE, but frequently glossed over, ignored, or misrepresented. We hear bizarre statements like “the difference between declaring vs implementing code ill-defined and nonobvious, which means that any code can be copied.” For somebody not in the industry, I’m sure it is nonobvious, just like I couldn’t tell you the difference between a positron and a neutron. But it’s a pretty foundational difference to anybody in the industry.

    So we’re in this weird place where many technologists fail to understand some basic legal constructs like copyright law vs patent law, and where many lawyers (and judges) will fail to understand some basic technical constructs.

    I think it’s easy to argue that a lawyer need not fully understand the technical constructs, because this is a legal issue, not a technical issue. But the nuances (which really aren’t that nuanced) actually are important. For the same reason that there’s a difference in copyright protection between a list of ingredients and the descriptive/creative elements of a recipe book. Or between a directory of names/numbers and an original arrangement of those names in a phone book. Or between the shape/cut of a piece of clothing and the design printed on the fabric. We make these kinds of distinctions all the time. The difference, of course, is that we all generally know what a recipe, phone book, and shirt are. Other domains, unfortunately, require a deeper understanding.

  72. George April 12, 2021 4:29 pm

    @Alex Vilensky #45

    Ideas can’t be copyrighted. That’s always been the case. Ideas can be plagiarized though (and easily be proven to have been, too). Unfortunately we don’t have laws against plagiarism (or even lying your ass off) in America, or that would be different. Some other countries do have laws against plagiarism and people can even get jail time for it. Time to think about it again (and about the legality of ‘deliberately lying’ to gain something – like the Presidency).

  73. George April 12, 2021 4:45 pm

    @B #47

    Well, that’s not easy to answer in a trivial way, but basically my ‘opinion’ of what an ‘inventive concept’ would have to have to qualify for a patent (which is different from being a potentially ‘valuable ‘idea’), is that it would have to be tied to a some tangible and material ‘thing’ or process, that does something or produces something new, useful and non-obvious (and not trivial). It can’t be just ‘anything’ that hasn’t been done or thought of before. I think the ‘tangible’ part of what an invention has to have is the most important criterion. That’s why medical procedures alone aren’t allowed to be patented, unless they are connected to some new medical technology or device. For instance new dance moves can’t be patented but they can be copyrighted (if original).

  74. George April 12, 2021 4:49 pm

    @voster #50

    Agree!

  75. B April 12, 2021 5:11 pm

    @ George “I won’t even dignify your constantly insulting comments, since many other posters here (who clearly know something about software and copyrights) agree with me and not you!
    .
    .
    .
    Given that I’ve NEVER LOST a patent argument (even against the most incompetent, ‘green’, persistent, and determined of examiners) I think my record might be a lot better than yours.”

    Respectfully, if you actually knew what you’re talking about, you’d know that an examiner can be idiotically wrong to the point of absurdity, and the PTAB will still affirm the examiner. Also, the CAFC will affirm the PTAB on an Alice/Mayo rejection 100% of the time.

    Not 99.99999% of the time. 100% of the time.

    Obviously, you’ve never had an Alice/Mayo rejection handed to you.

    However, I (as a seasoned patent attorney) invite you to reference a few of your applications so that I can be humbled and learn the mysteries of the inventive concept.

    Give me something I can throw at the CAFC next year. I’ll gladly give you credit.

    When it comes to copyrights, you have to generally ‘steal’ at least 50% of more of the material, to be found guilty of it.

    Hahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaagh. Do you work for the EFF?

  76. George April 12, 2021 5:18 pm

    @ Gene Quinn #52

    “An API defines interactions between multiple software applications, for example.”

    Not at all. It just describes the input and output to that API – not how the method or function works! The actual code that executes the intended purpose of the function or method could be complete garbage in one case (using the very same API), and work great in another case. That happens a lot in CAD design code. Some companies have really good low level code and some don’t, even though the API’s might be the same! It’s the ‘code’ that counts,. not how it gets called on by other parts of software! For instance a method called:

    MakeMeMoney(my_name, my_address, my_initial_investment, my_deposit_number)

    Could either work or bankrupt me. The ‘function declaration’ tells me nothing about if it will actually work, or how it works (or tries to work). BIG DIFFERENCE!

    What the ‘algorithm part’ of an algorithm (it’s implementation) and how you name it and describe its elements and how you’d ‘like it to work’, or expect it to work, can’t be captured in a copyright (or patented). It’s not even an ‘idea’, just a way to use an idea (if it actually works), without having to know any details about how it works.

    So, you can only copyright what you ‘call’ your idea and it’s specific implementation, not the general idea itself. The actual text used to define an API doesn’t really matter at all. It’s just a completely ‘arbitrary name’ and an ‘arbitrarily named’ set of parameters. If the names or parameters are called something else, by someone else (like renaming the ‘MakeMeMoney’ function the ‘MakeItRain’ function) and then making that function work well, while the original doesn’t, then it’s not a violation of any copyright and certainly not the infringement of an ‘idea’.

  77. B April 12, 2021 5:21 pm

    @ Jason L “Realistically, any such code they would have written would be incredibly similar, if not identical to Oracle’s.”

    Yes, and most reputable companies (that would exclude Google) go through a process to avoid copyright infringement while producing similar or even the exact same code.

    ” The Court came close to declaring that “declaring code” is not creative and therefore, is not protected by copyright at all.

    The SCOTUS has done a lot of things far more stupid than that.

  78. George April 12, 2021 5:26 pm

    @Rackham Karlsson #54

    Correct! Lawyers somehow think they know everything and how the courts will decide things, even though when they actually have to go to trial (which is almost never), they lose half their cases or more! They have to since it’s always a zero sum ‘game’! Either way they always make money though! Not so for programmers, who if their code doesn’t work will probably just get fired! Talk about ‘pressure’ and the need to be right and above all ‘logical’ all the time! No room for ‘opinions’ when coding, or that rocket ship could explode! No room for endless appeals either!

  79. B April 12, 2021 5:28 pm

    @ Gene “And since you are such a patent genius, why don’t you provide a cite or two to your patent numbers so we can bask in the glory of your genius? . . . .”

    Gene, as you know I have more than a passing acquaintance with the mysteries of Alice/Mayo, and we both know some really smart people who’ve written some great Alice/Mayo articles.

    However, it doesn’t take an all-knowing master of law and technology to KNOW George is blowing smoke.

  80. Into Thin Air April 12, 2021 5:33 pm

    “Fair use is a statutory four-factor test created by Congress that defies definitive construction, thanks in part to the test itself and because of the clear as mud interpretations by the Supreme Court.”

    That is not even correct as a legal matter. Fair use is not a pure statutory doctrine! It is an element of common law that the statute codified!

    The transformative standard has been around for quite a while now. And you are being deliberately disingenuous. Google’s argument did not come from the statute. It made an argument from the statute … which was soundly rejected at oral argument.

    Its argument was based in common law, the notion that AT COMMON LAW, you cant copyright labels and dictionaries and the rest. Which declaring codes essentially are.

    You are of course free to disagree by adopting a textualist argument, but failure to do so does not make one ignorant of how law works. Breyer, Gorsuch, Kagan, etc … are all accomplished lawyers, are they not? It is a reasonable legal argument but it is not the only obvious one.

    And what does it matter what lawyers think for this? Isn’t the purpose of copyright here to promote innovation? If almost everyone in the programming industry knows it won’t if Oracle wins … should that not be the basis for what the law should be? Copyright doesn’t exist to enrich IP lawyers.

  81. George April 12, 2021 5:35 pm

    “I have no idea what it is that you are really trying to say, but your comment makes no logical sense.”

    Them’s fighting words to a computer programmer! And pretty silly too! If anything, programmers are logical! They better be or they’ll starve (unlike you, who can charge billable hours sitting on the toilet for just coming up with legal ‘opinions’ and theories that don’t have to work in court). Code has to always work, Gene, or you don’t get paid! Same for inventions and ideas!

    Maybe coding isn’t for you and some others here.

  82. B April 12, 2021 5:52 pm

    @ George “Correct! Lawyers somehow think they know everything and how the courts will decide things, even though when they actually have to go to trial (which is almost never), they lose half their cases or more!”

    How silly of me to rely on an attorney for my divorce.

    I should have consulted a software engineer.

    Well, that’s not easy to answer in a trivial way, but basically my ‘opinion’ of what an ‘inventive concept’ would have to have to qualify for a patent (which is different from being a potentially ‘valuable ‘idea’), is that it would have to be tied to a some tangible and material ‘thing’ or process, that does something or produces something new, useful and non-obvious (and not trivial).”

    Now I know 100% for sure you’re CLUELESS.

    PS: It was a trick question. No one knows what an “inventive concept” is. It’s a b.s. phrase judges and mentally-ill homeless people mutter while trying to discern reality from fantasy. Justice Stevens used the term to resurrect a patentability standard written out of the law in 1952, and that the CAFC repeats but refuses to explain.

    That said, the term “invention” as originally used in Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (1851) is non-obviousness.

    Now here’s where I praise you. As wrong as you are, you’re still closer than Judge Taranto and all his short-bus level clerks.

  83. B April 12, 2021 6:11 pm

    @ George “If anything, programmers are logical! They better be or they’ll starve (unlike you, who can charge billable hours sitting on the toilet for just coming up with legal ‘opinions’ and theories that don’t have to work in court)”

    Now, George, aside from the stupid insult above I’m going to praise you.

    I thought you actually applied logic and a fair amount of intelligence in your attempt to define “inventive concept.”

    Your failing is not a lack of intellect or logic.

    Your failing is assuming that judges and justices are remotely capable of applying logic in a consistent fashion. We attorneys KNOW that the law ranges from well-thought-out bright-line rules to the utter chaos of insane judicial exceptions handed out by judges who couldn’t spell “logic” if you spotted them an “l,” “o,” and “g.”

    I know law school professors that profess to tremble whenever the Supreme Court takes up an IP case.

  84. Gene Quinn April 12, 2021 6:14 pm

    George…

    You say: ” It just describes the input and output to that API – not how the method or function works!”

    Your responding to my saying what an API is (which is correct). Notwithstanding, let’s dissect what you say just to prove how stupid it really is. You say: “An API just describes the input and output to that API – not how the method or function works!”

    First, I don’t know what you are taking issue with. I said an API defines interactions between multiple software applications, which is correct. Second, you define API by using the term API, so in other words in your considered opinion an API describes the input and output of an API (circular feedback alert!)

    The one thing you do have right is API is code, something other programmers here don’t understand.

  85. Gene Quinn April 12, 2021 6:18 pm

    Into Thin Air…

    You say: “That is not even correct as a legal matter. Fair use is not a pure statutory doctrine! It is an element of common law that the statute codified!”

    You are wrong. I assure you that fair use is a statutory doctrine. Common law has nothing to do with fair use. But if you knew the law you would know that. Take a look at 17 USC 107. The statute is what matters, not common law. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107

    As for the rest of your comment, you really are quite proud in your ignorance. How someone who knows nothing about the law can think they can understand the law or a Supreme Court decision is breathtaking. The Supreme Court employed the four part test that you say doesn’t exist. The common law played no part in this decision, which is why the Supreme Court engaged in the four part statutory inquiry.

  86. Gene Quinn April 12, 2021 6:22 pm

    George…

    You say: “Them’s fighting words to a computer programmer! And pretty silly too! If anything, programmers are logical!”

    They might be fighting words, but reread what you actually typed. It made no sense. I can guess what you were trying to say, but clarity was something that was elusive for you.

    You say: “Code has to always work, Gene, or you don’t get paid!”

    That is just plain ignorant. If code always works why are patches necessary? Why do security breaches occur? Why do projects always take longer than predicted to deliver and why is debugging the code and providing maintenance to fix buggy code always a part of every development agreement?

    Look, if you want to be stupid that is fine, but don’t expect that the lawyers here know nothing about the technical subject. We are legal and technical experts, and from the commentary on this thread is seems we not only know more about the law we know a lot more about software than any of the so-called programmer experts do. What utter nonsense. Code always works. That is as laughable as it is insulting.

  87. George April 12, 2021 8:36 pm

    Pete Fenner

    It was less than 1/2% not 10%, Peter! Basically just one ‘loose leg’ on stool. Not something I would trust to stand on its own, much less spend millions on, that’s for sure. But then some people made money on this by telling Oracle they had a good case! Do you think the law firm took it on contingency?

  88. George April 12, 2021 9:16 pm

    @Anon #59

    The problem we have in the 21st century that didn’t exist in the 19th century, is that patents SHOULDN’T BE mostly a legal issue, much less the ONLY issue! They should mostly be about technical issues & questions of technical novelty, like they were in the beginning. They’ve only been treated as mostly legal documents over the last 80 years (I wonder why?) In the ‘old days’, it only mattered what technical experts thought of your invention (which often were the patent examiners too – like Einstein was). If they and the public’ thought something was ‘really new’ (based on what was known at the time) you usually got a ‘broad patent’ on it. You didn’t need to get 100 more over the next decade! You didn’t have to ask lawyers or the PTO if you should be able to get a patent on your invention which also happened to win you a Nobel Prize (maybe)! The Nobel Committee doesn’t ever consultant patent lawyers or the courts when it decides who should get a Nobel Prize (which can include inventions like Graphene, Teflon, Velcro?, and CRISPR). If you get a Nobel Prize, you sure don’t have to worry much about getting a patent, since if any lawyer argues you shouldn’t get one (or several), they’ll look like fools and will probably be out of the legal profession the next day!

    Inventions are ‘at their heart’ about science and technology and not about the law or what lawyers think about the science or technology involved, or the various ‘clever ways’ to legally disenfranchise inventors from their IP rights.

    When it comes to evaluating the ‘significance’, ‘novelty’ and ‘usefulness’ of an invention, that should only be done by experts in each field, and any legal descriptions of the work should take a back seat to how experts would describe and characterize it and what they would conclude about its significance and value to society.

    Only the public, experts and economists can decide whether or not an invention should be entitled to a patent, not just lawyers and judges, because in the end society, scientific experts and the marketplace decide what’s new and what’s not. And deciding that doesn’t require a bunch of legal ‘mumbo jumbo’ that takes weeks to even make any heads or tails of (intentionally). That’s all just a means to obfuscate what would otherwise be pretty clear and obvious (by just reading the spec and looking at detailed drawings of what’s being claimed).

  89. George April 12, 2021 9:22 pm

    Are some people here maybe mixing up ‘API’s with ‘GUI’s? GUI’s are still protected by copyright (last time I checked). I guess the Supreme court just said that API’s aren’t now. Are we all on the same page about that at least?

  90. George April 12, 2021 9:36 pm

    “The one thing you do have right is API is code, something other programmers here don’t understand.”

    NO! Saying that API is ‘code’ is like saying the hood ornament on the care is important to the car! I showed you, you could completely change what you call the API and its parameters and it would still work exactly the same – so how the API ‘reads’ doesn’t matter as far as the code goes. It tells you little or nothing about what the ‘actual code’ does!!! It’s like what a steak might be wrapped in (in fact there are also things called ‘wrappers’ in coding that can wrap up another API).

    If the API is code, then it’s pretty useless, that’s for sure. Anyone who knows anything about programming knows that you can just start with a ‘stub’ that contains noting but is still defined by an API. It’s ‘fake’. It’s just a placeholder for the code that needs to come later. It’s like the ‘skin of a rocket’ without it having any rocket inside! Again, the API is NOT the code that the API ‘attaches to’ and interfaces with, and it doesn’t have to be original either. Many people could use the same API for their code.

  91. George April 12, 2021 9:49 pm

    “Second, you define API by using the term API, so in other words in your considered opinion an API describes the input and output of an API (circular feedback alert!)”

    What??? Does anyone else here understand this, or not understand what I said (without any circular reasoning, including with examples).

    It seems that you consider ANY part of software that involves text as being equivalent to actual code! It’s NOT, anymore than comments included with the code constitute part of the ‘code’. The API is something the code ‘plugs into’, that’s all – it doesn’t do anything different than any other ‘plug’ does. All API’s are basically the same thing. a means to send something into and out of an algorithm. Those ‘plugs’ are basically all alike – nothing ‘original about them’! Some may be wider than others or carry different ‘types’ of information, but that’s all an API does. You can’t patent or copyright a rubber hose, no matter what color or width it is. All that hose does is allow ‘stuff to into it’ and ‘stuff to come out of it’. I don’t know why you and some others here seem to think that should be protected. Now any actual code attached to that ‘hose’ can be protected (provided you didn’t already make it public and free to use).

    When I pay for a ‘car’, I don’t want to just get the hood ornament or name plate! And also in the case of that car analogy the ‘API’ would be the ‘key’, gas pedal and steering wheel (or computer screen) that lets you drive it! That’s not proprietary!

  92. George April 12, 2021 10:23 pm

    “And since you are such a patent genius, why don’t you provide a cite or two to your patent numbers so we can bask in the glory of your genius? Unless of course you are too afraid to hear how much you screwed up and all the mistakes you made that you didn’t even understand.”

    Well, I’ll leave that to the news media if they decide any of them are newsworthy AFTER we are finished commercializing and making them public and AFTER we get ‘good’ and clearly ‘enforceable’ patents. Like I said, I don’t accept ‘junk’ from the PTO. I don’t care if it takes 10 years!!

    But maybe the press won’t think they are newsworthy. All I can tell you now is that in the past we mostly did consulting rather than much of our own inventing. Now we’re exclusively doing our own R&D and inventing so a lot more patents should also result. Apart from that all I can do is describe some of things are focusing on. They include green energy, climate change solutions, pollution solutions, new manufacturing methods (started 25 years ago), new 3D printing and prototyping methods, and maybe some new drone and space technologies (we’ll see). We’re also interested to see what we can do with Sodium-Sulfur batteries for utility scale storage purposes (rather than for vehicles). I started working on those batteries about 40 years ago too. So, in summary, all the kind of things that could make us a lot of money and get us grants! LOL! We’ve never worked on ‘gizmos’ or sex toys (despite how vitally important all those things are)!

    Also, I never said I was a ‘patent genius’ – just that I was ‘patient’ – real patient and persistent! Why, aren’t you? LOL!

    Ever hear the story about the tortoise and the hare, Gene? Yeah, I like that one because I actually started working on alternative energy and high-tech batteries 40 years ago – during the Jimmy Carter era! Where were you when Carter was talking about saving energy? Anyway, I finally see the finish line now and the ‘hares’ are all behind me . . . and bankrupt! I’m not! I’m doing better than ever and have survived several ‘valleys of death’ already. Somehow they don’t scare me anymore!

    By the way, so far I’m 3 for 3 in settling legal disputes in my financial advantage (and in my own very creative and original ways)! Have another BIG ONE coming up later this year. Especially can’t wait for that one! Might make it 4 for 4. In fact, if the news media covers it, you could find out who I am that way and see some of my (published) too (but only the issued ones, since I never let applications get published). I guess then you can really laugh then (or maybe not)! But try to tone down your insults at least till then, OK? I don’t want to have to embarrass you too much!

  93. George April 12, 2021 11:21 pm

    @Rackham Karlsson @Gene Quinn

    “Calling desktops and smartphones different platforms is a distinction without a difference. And copying is exactly why one joins an open source consortium, so I have no idea what it is that you are really trying to say, but your comment makes no logical sense.” – Gene to Rackham Karlsson

    I was referring to you saying this to Rackam: “Makes no logical sense” I was defending HIS abilities at ‘logic’ (even though I don’t know him). Just assuming he must e pretty good at it if he’s a programmer (for the reasons I stated).

  94. George April 12, 2021 11:21 pm

    @Rackham Karlsson @Gene Quinn

    “Calling desktops and smartphones different platforms is a distinction without a difference. And copying is exactly why one joins an open source consortium, so I have no idea what it is that you are really trying to say, but your comment makes no logical sense.” – Gene to Rackham Karlsson

    I was referring to you saying this to Rackam: “Makes no logical sense” I was defending HIS abilities at ‘logic’ (even though I don’t know him). Just assuming he must be pretty good at it if he’s a programmer (for the reasons I stated).

  95. George April 12, 2021 11:27 pm

    @B 83

    “I know law school professors that profess to tremble whenever the Supreme Court takes up an IP case.”

    I know lots of lawyers who tremble any time they have to actually walk into a courtroom (especially by themselves). Trial lawyers make fun of them on TV all the time, So does Gerry Spence in his books! How many times have you done it (on your own)? Be honest, because we both know 97% of cases are usually settled out of court.

  96. George April 12, 2021 11:30 pm

    @Phil #71

    Very true!

  97. B April 12, 2021 11:43 pm

    @ George “I know lots of lawyers who tremble any time they have to actually walk into a courtroom (especially by themselves).”

    I take back the nice things I said about you.

    You’re just a petty horse’s rear end.

    P.S.: Settling out of court isn’t a bad thing contrary to your ignorant attitude to the contrary.

    Next time you’re sued, make sure to represent yourself. Don’t settle no matter what.

  98. B April 12, 2021 11:56 pm

    @ George “Well, I’ll leave that to the news media if they decide any of them are newsworthy AFTER we are finished commercializing and making them public and AFTER we get ‘good’ and clearly ‘enforceable’ patents. . . . “

    Patent Attorneys to George: No one here seriously thought you’d provide a single app #. We know you weren’t telling the truth.

    “By the way, so far I’m 3 for 3 in settling legal disputes in my
    financial advantage (and in my own very creative and original ways)! Have another BIG ONE coming up later this year.”

    All settlements are financially advantageous for both parties or there wouldn’t be a settlement.

    “But try to tone down your insults at least till then, OK?”

    Ditto

  99. George April 13, 2021 12:03 am

    @B #76

    That’s exactly why I’d NEVER appeal to the PTAB (and would never even had to before the AIA). But what I do, instead, I’ll keep to myself for now! I don’t give out free legal advice or patent strategies either! A little hint though – has something to do with the tortoise and the hare fable that I mentioned above! Like I said, I really like that one when it comes to pretty much ‘everything’ – including death (and that’s why I won’t buy any Bitcoins or NFT’s or invest in ‘fusion energy’, just yet)! Works for me!

  100. George April 13, 2021 12:24 am

    @B #77

    “Yes, and most reputable companies (that would exclude Google) go through a process to avoid copyright infringement while producing similar or even the exact same code.”

    If it’s just ‘similar’ (even very similar) it’s NOT copyright infringement! Similar is not good enough, or everyone would be infringing everyone else! Especially anyone who ever wrote a vampire story (or really ANY story)! At least that’s the way it works for ‘copied’ movies, anyway. At least 80% of a script, plot and characters have to be almost exactly the same for you to be able to win a copyright suit. Several recent cases proves that (for good or bad). Same for songs. How many songs are really all that different today? The ones that are become ‘classics’. The ones that aren’t you never even remember (and there are a LOT of those) . Now ‘just similar’ WOULD be enough to win a ‘plagiarism’ charge, but unfortunately in America we don’t have any laws against that, or lying your head off when claiming you came up with something all on your own (as I mentioned somewhere else). Like I said, that needs to change! We need to do what many other countries do in those cases (send people to jail).

  101. George April 13, 2021 12:31 am

    @B & @ Jason L

    ” The Court came close to declaring that “declaring code” is not creative and therefore, is not protected by copyright at all.

    “The SCOTUS has done a lot of things far more stupid than that.”

    You’re mixing up API with GUI again, B! Stop doing that! API’s are almost never ‘creative’ – they are just ‘informational’ and ‘administrative’. How many administrators do you know who are ‘creative’ – REALLY? Take a course in software development if you want to specialize in software law, B. It sure wouldn’t hurt (and you might actually win some cases then).

  102. George April 13, 2021 12:34 am

    @B

    “However, it doesn’t take an all-knowing master of law and technology to KNOW George is blowing smoke.”

    LOL! Time will tell, won’t it? Keep a copy of your comments till then, OK? I always do! I have comments going back at least 10 years!

  103. George April 13, 2021 12:42 am

    Correction at 92: “In fact, if the news media covers it, you could find out who I am that way and see some of my (published) patents too – but only the issued ones, since I never let applications get published prior to allowance.” “They remain worldwide trade secrets up to that point, even though any patents can only be enforced in the U.S. But, we really don’t care if China gets to see them any sooner than that! LOL!”

  104. B April 13, 2021 2:07 am

    @ George “That’s exactly why I’d NEVER appeal to the PTAB (and would never even had to before the AIA). But what I do, instead, I’ll keep to myself for now!”

    Translation: you’re full of it

    “That’s exactly why I’d NEVER appeal to the PTAB (and would never even had to before the AIA). But what I do, instead, I’ll keep to myself for now! I don’t give out free legal advice or patent strategies either!”

    Translation: you’re really full of it

    “A little hint though – has something to do with the tortoise and the hare fable that I mentioned above! ”

    Yes, b/c examiners are so willing to reverse themselves after 10 RCEs and a dozen repeated arguments.

    “LOL! Time will tell, won’t it? Keep a copy of your comments till then, OK? I always do! I have comments going back at least 10 years!”

    Translation: you’re incredibly full of it

    PS: no one in 10 years will care or remember what you post today.

    “You’re mixing up API with GUI again,”

    I wasn’t referring to copyright, APIs, or GUIs, Kreskin.

  105. Jason L April 13, 2021 2:37 am

    @B

    “Yes, and most reputable companies (that would exclude Google) go through a process to avoid copyright infringement while producing similar or even the exact same code.”

    Why would Google need to do that? It’s not morally wrong to re-implement an API. Many companies (including Oracle) have been, and are doing that.

    Then, the only thing left to stop them is whether it was legally wrong. First, it wasn’t believed to have been legally wrong by many major players in the industry, such as Microsoft. And now we have a definitive answer: it was not legally wrong. So why shouldn’t have Google done the morally and legally correct thing?

  106. B April 13, 2021 2:53 am

    @ “Why would Google need to do that?”

    To avoid a copyright infringement lawsuit.

    “It’s not morally wrong to re-implement an API. Many companies (including Oracle) have been, and are doing that.”

    I’m 10000000% sure I never made any such claim

    “First, it wasn’t believed to have been legally wrong by many
    major players in the industry, such as Microsoft.”

    Riiiight, because MS has never brought about a copyright lawsuit.

    Seriously, get a clue

  107. Bill Wood April 13, 2021 9:57 am

    @Gene Quinn you said, “The one thing you do have right is API is code, something other programmers here don’t understand.”

    The programmers here do understand that. An API is code defining an interface. So what? It is limited to the interface, which can be copied for fair use. We know that now.

    However that still leaves a lot of uncertainty that people like you can profit off of. This kind of uncertainty is one of the main reasons programmers prefer and use open source software.

  108. Gene Quinn April 13, 2021 11:18 am

    Bill Wood…

    If you read up in the comments you will see that some of the commenters here said that an AIP is not code and arrogantly laughed at the notion that copying those 11,500 lines was copying code. So, not all programmers seem to know what an API really is.

    Yes, there is no doubt programmers prefer open source and copying to creating things originally. The problem, of course, is that with everyone copying pretty soon there is little original.

  109. Anon April 13, 2021 11:55 am

    George, a whopping 4,885 words in your set of posts — saying pretty much nothing.

  110. B April 13, 2021 1:29 pm

    @ Anon “George, a whopping 4,885 words in your set of posts — saying pretty much nothing.”

    Don’t be silly.

    George has developed a sure-fire patent prosecution process that is so beyond amazing that he never needs to amend or compromise, and never needs to go to the PTAB. He did this with no legal education other than reading an unknown number of books penned by the Maharishi Gerry Spence.

    Unfortunately, George can’t share his awesomeness with anyone until ten years into the future.

  111. Lior April 13, 2021 3:39 pm

    Gene Quinn,

    Original works doesn’t mean reinventing of the wheel because someone else patnet it or copyright it.

    It mean to creat an improve version of the wheel.

    That is why software patent and copyright are bad

  112. Riol April 13, 2021 4:59 pm

    @ Lior

    Copyright law has no requirement for improvement. Do your own work instead of stealing the work of others.

  113. Anon April 13, 2021 5:50 pm

    Lior,

    Your post does not make any sense whatsoever.

    Why in the world would you think that any type of creative protection is somehow a “bad thing?”

    You sound instead like the type of mindless lemming that requires an ability to NOT be creative in order to get paid for coding.

  114. Bill Wood April 13, 2021 10:16 pm

    @Gene Quinn, I would have to disagree that “with everyone copying pretty soon there is little original”. I’ve heard that argument before but there is little, if any, evidence of that.

    I think a more convincing argument could be made that copying is how things evolve and become richer. Isn’t that how evolution works? Copying with small variations?

    “Protecting” things too much can lead to stagnation.

  115. George April 13, 2021 11:10 pm

    @B

    Just got a call from the Examiner two weeks ago (something he has never done before). Was VERY interested in allowing the (now even broader claims) after several years of senseless refusal to allow our original patent claims (which were narrower)! In exchange for a ‘minor’ amendment (with no further objections being raised) all 20 (broad) claims would be ‘immediately’ allowed – that day!

    Of course I rejected that offer too and impressed on him how it would look if he refused to allow the patent without the amendments and also reminded him how he would get 2 points if he just wrapped things up! I also told him to think about it, given that he had exhausted ALL POSSIBLE searches and objections and so he’d just have to start repeating himself (with NO ‘new’ grounds for objection), which definitely wouldn’t look good and would probably make his SPE mad! I also mentioned that we might be prepared to go court (not the PTAB) at some point in the future, if necessary! We’re now waiting for his next OA and will take things from there! LOL! We’re good for at least another round or two – if he is! We can do this forever (well almost) because we’re allowed to! The best thing? Our Application has never been published, to our country will never get this technology until and unless we are granted a patent on it (as it should be and was the ‘social contract’ in the past)! It also means China can’t have at it and that our Senators have a reason to be concerned about this unjustifiable delay in issuance, since it can’t be (or won’t be) commercialized without us getting a ‘good’ patent – not a ‘junk’ patent that’s invalid on delivery.

    We don’t give up ‘B’!!! So that’s ‘part’ of our strategy post AIA! Have to fight fire with fire (and patience now). Also, who said anything about ‘RCE’s’??? LOL! Maybe that’s what YOU do but not us! RCE’s are a complete waste of time (unless you’re just willing to concede to the Examiner). We don’t concede, either! We take it to the mat! Haven’t failed yet!

    So, maybe stop with the insults, OK, or you might find yourself very embarrassed one day! None of what we have said is B.S. and you know it!!! It works! But then none of your clients will ever find out, right?

    The PTAB is for ‘suckers’ and is just a ‘rope-a-dope’ TRAP (because the Examiner can just find new grounds for objection and start the process all over again)! They can continue examination indefinitely, unless the Applicant finally acceeds to their wishes and demands.

    Do you ‘surrender’ your clients to the PTO and PTAB? Do you allow your applicant’s claims to be ‘sabotaged’ by incompetent and/or unscrupulous examiners who hate their jobs, would love to get another one, or just like to hold grudges against applicant’s and attorneys who give them a hard time?

    Have you maybe allowed your clients to be subject to the ‘secret’ SAWS program, too? We intend to find out if it ever happened to us, that’s for sure! Will you try to find out if that ever happened to any of your clients and will you tell them about it if they were?

    If any of our applications got caught up in that, there will be hell to pay and we intend to hold the PTO accountable. For now, we don’t know. Interestingly, it was only after contacting our Senators that this Examiner seemed to become ‘very interested’ in ‘quickly’ allowing our outstanding application (but while still trying to save face too). That’s another, ‘out-of-the-box’ way to go if you’re having problems with the PTO! It’s called outside ‘pressure’ and the possible threat of an OUTSIDE investigation by members of Congress – one NOT carried out by the PTAB or anyone at the PTO! Only way to go if you want to uncover corruption at any agency of government!

    But then, lawyers never blow the whistle on anyone, do they, especially any of their colleagues. Must have adopted that policy from the cops! LOL!

  116. George April 13, 2021 11:33 pm

    @B

    “Next time you’re sued, make sure to represent yourself. Don’t settle no matter what.”

    In all these years I’ve NEVER been sued (or even audited)! How about you? Of course I’ll usually fight – since it won’t cost me much at all, I can always appeal if I lose, can file bankruptcy if I have to, and can make the other side spend MILLIONS (if it involves ‘big guys’). A jury is also much more likely to sympathize and be ‘impressed’ with my defending myself or prosecuting Goliath’s and their dozens of lawyers, myself. Even the judge might get impressed since he knows 95% of lawyers would pee their pants if they had argue actually go to court to settle a dispute! Maybe that’s why I won my 3 disputes without having to go to court (but was prepared to)! One was against a huge utility company. A 20 year employee of the utility company said he never saw that happen before!!! Made my day! Another was a contract dispute with a big manufacturer of some expensive equipment. I got to keep that equipment without having to pay them anything! In fact, after their top lawyer heard the argument I would make against them, he just said ‘OK I guess we can’t do anything then’ and I never heard from them again!!! LOL! I guess my arguments are pretty good after all (including my legal arguments). Again, 3 for 3 so far! Another major lawsuit coming next year! That’s going to be an 8-9 figure one, so I think the press might cover it! Why not look out for it B – you might learn something!

  117. George April 14, 2021 12:02 am

    @Anon

    I love it!!! You actually counted all the words in my comments and responses??? Boy you must not have very may clients, Anon! But I can do better than that. I keep copies of all my comments going back years – Want to know how many words are in those too? And, I don’t think I’ve ever even deleted any of them, either. You never know, might come in handy if I ever want to refer back to one of them again just to see when I posted it and to see if I was right or wrong about what I said (or about ‘predictions’ I made long ago). See, I like to know what my track record and lifetime ‘score’ is. Don’t you? Don’t you keep track of your wins and loses and your track record, Anon? Don’t you let your clients know what your track record is and how many ‘courtroom’ arguments you won, or how many times you went before the Supreme Court? LOL!!!

    In the past I used to sometimes work on pure contingency including on a few very difficult, time consuming and expensive projects! I only got paid (but a lot more) if I succeeded – not if I failed! Maybe that’s why I don’t like to fail and can’t remember the last time I’ve had a major one (actually I’ve never had a ‘major’ failure). I have solved some of the toughest problems around, so I think I can handle a lawsuit that I would bring as a ‘plaintiff’, against a bunch of unethical and cowardly ‘weenies’ (who could go to jail thereafter too)! LOL!

    By the way, I’ve read over a dozen academic law books to date and should I ever have to actually go to trail, I’ll be sure to read at least another dozen (along with all the latest ‘relevant’ case law). I actually enjoy some of it (but not as much as problem solving and inventing, which takes a LOT MORE creativity and intelligence)! LOL!

  118. George April 14, 2021 1:30 am

    @B & Anon

    ‘Sticks and Stones . . . ‘ don’t work in a courtroom, just good and valid arguments and evidence that a judge and/or jury accepts (and according to Gerry Spence, maybe a ‘good story’ too)!

  119. George April 14, 2021 1:32 am

    @B & Anon

    ‘Sticks and Stones & Insults’ don’t work in a courtroom, just good and valid arguments and evidence that a judge and/or jury will accept (and according to Gerry Spence, maybe a ‘good story’ too)!

  120. Anon April 14, 2021 8:46 am

    I love it!!! You actually counted all the words in my comments and responses???

    Now why in the world would a person so steeped in technology turn to that type of reasoning in a first instance?

    It did not occur to you that the ultra simple copy of the comments into Word, and deletion of non-George comments automatically provides a word count?

  121. AAA JJ April 14, 2021 9:13 am

    “… it was only after contacting our Senators that this Examiner seemed to become ‘very interested’ in ‘quickly’ allowing our outstanding application (but while still trying to save face too). That’s another, ‘out-of-the-box’ way to go if you’re having problems with the PTO! It’s called outside ‘pressure’ and the possible threat of an OUTSIDE investigation by members of Congress – one NOT carried out by the PTAB or anyone at the PTO! Only way to go if you want to uncover corruption at any agency of government!”

    Would love to know the serial number of that app.

  122. Lior April 14, 2021 10:31 am

    lawyers want to stifle innovation because it can make them money.

    Originality doesn’t come from reinventing the wheel.
    It come from taking something that exist and creating a better version of it

  123. B April 14, 2021 11:37 am

    @ Anon “Just got a call from the Examiner two weeks ago (something he has never done before). . . . . Of course I rejected that offer too and impressed on him how it would look if he refused to allow the patent . . . which definitely wouldn’t look good and would probably make his SPE mad! I also mentioned that we might be prepared to go court (not the PTAB) at some point in the future, if necessary! . . . .”

    Anon, you want to tell George just how many mistakes he made in his fantasy prosecution story?

  124. B April 14, 2021 11:56 am

    @ Loir “lawyers want to stifle innovation because it can make them money.”

    Respectfully, who will be willing to develop code or technology at great expense if their competitors can simply steal the fruits of their labor?

    Think I should just be able to take MS Word, break the security, and resell it at a fraction of the price?

    Would MS be stifling innovation by bringing a lawsuit against me?

    These are serious questions.

    @ George “. . . so I think I can handle a lawsuit that I would bring as a ‘plaintiff’, against a bunch of unethical and cowardly ‘weenies’ (who could go to jail thereafter too)! LOL!”

    George, no one believes you. Your statements are too idiotic.

  125. BP April 14, 2021 12:34 pm

    Great posts Gene,

    Here’s some of Breyer’s pre-SCt writings: Stephen Breyer (1970). “The Uneasy Case for Copyright: A Study of Copyright in Books, Photocopies, and Computer Programs”. Harvard Law Review. 84 (2): 281–355. doi:10.2307/1339714. JSTOR 1339714.

    Breyer’s position was dismantled: Landes, William M.; Posner, Richard A. (1989). “An Economic Analysis of Copyright Law”. Journal of Legal Studies. 18 (2): 325–363. doi:10.1086/468150.

    Prof. Mennell is Breyer v.2.0. Mennell probably hoped his work for Google would form a basis for the question Breyer wanted to answer (copyrightability). Clearly, Breyer is pro-illegal monopoly and anti-individual rights.

  126. B April 14, 2021 2:37 pm

    @ BP “Clearly, Breyer is pro-illegal monopoly and anti-individual rights.”

    I agree, and recognize that Breyer has many bad decisions under his belt. However, this was a 6-2 decision with enough amicii weighing in to field a football league. Breyer is not the problem. The problem is that the SCOTUS is clueless about the software industry, and there were a substantial number of freeloaders financing the Whatever Foundation for the Outraged Who Demand Free Software et al. that shill for the destruction of intellectual property rights.

    The most important amicii are those who compete in software including large and small developers. IMHO, the best summation of the policy behind the relevant copyright law is stated as follows:

    “In other words, a competitor can take an original work, strip out the parts that are most attractive to consumers, and use those parts to create a new application. If a competitor purports to offer a better version of popular original software, consumers will inevitably shift their product preferences, leaving the original creator with a reduced share of the market and the lion’s share of the development costs.” https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-956/133412/20200219121543104_18-956%20Brief.pdf

    This is reflected in Justice Thomas’ dissent, which recognized, “Oracle spent years developing a programming library that successfully attracted software developers, thus enhancing the value of Oracle’s products. . . . Google simply copied verbatim 11,500 lines of code from the library. As a result, it erased 97.5% of the value of Oracle’s partnership with Amazon, made tens of billions of dollars, and established its position as the owner of the largest mobile operating system in the world. Despite this, the majority holds that this copying was fair use.”

  127. Pro Say April 14, 2021 9:35 pm

    George: “Also, who said anything about ‘RCE’s’??? LOL! Maybe that’s what YOU do but not us!”

    O.K., I’ll bite. How is one able to go multiple (claiming) rounds with Examiners without having to resort to RCEs?

    Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? Ferris Bueller? 🙂

  128. George April 15, 2021 3:04 pm

    “Anon, you want to tell George just how many mistakes he made in his fantasy prosecution story?”

    ‘B’, the above is just a ‘lie’! How can they be ‘mistakes’ when they are just plain FACT and the outcome of my latest prosecution WILL BE true, as well?! Are YOU nuts? Why would I make any of this up? How does that help me any, especially since most people don’t know who I am.

    Everything I have ever stated here (regarding my personal history, credentials, and actions) are true. Are you REALLY calling me a liar and someone who engages in ‘fantasies’ and just makes things up, as part of his professional work and career? REALLY? Are you saying what I say is incorrect and/or false? What the hell do YOU know about me or how I and my company prosecute patents?! You really want tp go there, ‘B’?

    Please remember what’s happened to those who claimed Dominion Voting Systems were lying (including at least two well known attorneys). Don’t EVER call me a ‘liar’ or insinuate that, or state as fact, that I am someone who ‘fabricates’ things. I am an inventor and my ‘claims’ are always backed up with facts – and that’s WHY I get ‘good’ patents on my inventions! I have a ‘vested’ interest in ALWAYS telling the truth! Do you, ‘B’?

    I have made NO mistakes (so far) B!!! None (otherwise I won’t be getting anymore patents).

    Also, unlike you and Anon (seem to be), I am VERY concerned about what the PTO’s ‘secret’ SAWS program was all about and WHY it was kept so secret! I’ll be one of the people who will demand to know the ‘truth’ about it and won’t stop until the public (and inventors) learn more about it and its reason for having existed at all. For all we know the PTO may be hiding other secrets, such as that they may have been hacked one or more times already. Wouldn’t you and Anon want to know that? Wouldn’t your clients want to know that? Wouldn’t the American people want to know of China or another country may have already gotten ALL of our latest technologies – including the latest in military and national security tech? I sure do!

  129. George April 15, 2021 3:07 pm

    “I take back the nice things I said about you.”

    LOL! Makes my day! My work here is done! Gerry Spence would be proud, I’m sure!

  130. George April 15, 2021 3:07 pm

    @B

    “I take back the nice things I said about you.”

    LOL! Makes my day! My work here is done! Gerry Spence would be proud, I’m sure!

  131. George April 15, 2021 3:18 pm

    @Anon

    “It did not occur to you that the ultra simple copy of the comments into Word, and deletion of non-George comments automatically provides a word count?”

    LOL! I knew you would come back with that EXACT response (as any good lawyer would), but the point is . . . don’t you have much better things to do with your time??? Like maybe actually representing someone and getting some billable hours (for a change)? You’re not being paid (at least not by me) to count my words are you (using ‘software’ that you didn’t write by the way)? I sure hope not! LOL!

    Why not do something ‘useful’ for a change, Anon! Say something or propose something really ‘novel’, ‘creative’, or even ‘controversial’ for a change! Make some waves, like I do all the time! Take on people who like to ‘keep secrets’ and like to cheat people (like the PTO does all the time). LOL!

  132. George April 15, 2021 3:31 pm

    @B

    “Patent Attorneys to George: No one here seriously thought you’d provide a single app #. We know you weren’t telling the truth.”

    Another intentional LIE, ‘B’ (I guess I’ll have to start keeping count now).

    I never said I would provide any patent or applications numbers, which if you are really a ‘patent attorney’ you’s know you NEVER make public, unless an application has already been published, since those numbers are confidential and we NEVER allow those to be published! Are you a disciple of Gulianni or Powell, maybe?! Yeah, lying doesn’t really work to ‘discredit people’ (who are telling the truth)! Might want to read up on that, B!

    By the way, you just ‘broadcast’ YOUR LIES to lots of attorneys here, B!!! That ‘s REALLY not a good idea, is it? LOL!

  133. George April 15, 2021 3:36 pm

    @Lior #122

    Basically agree except for them ‘wanting’ to stifle innovation. They DO want to make (as much) money as they can, though! That’s their main motivation (as it’s always been). You think they would work 1000’s of hours on what’s probably a lost cause and labor of love?!! LOL!

  134. George April 15, 2021 3:45 pm

    @B & @Lior #124

    “Respectfully, who will be willing to develop code or technology at great expense if their competitors can simply steal the fruits of their labor?”

    They OBVIOUSLY do it all the time, ‘B’!!! What world do you live on, anyway??? Ever hear of ‘public domain’ software that involves the work of dozens or even 100’s of people? Ever hear of ‘commercial’ software like super-expensive CAD programs that are never patented but are still protected very well and can now be made almost bulletproof, by limiting their available only on the cloud (thereby preventing almost any chance of copying)?! No? Why not learn how the cloud (anything computer related) works, OK? You might make less embarrassing remarks, then (but I wouldn’t count on it – you seem to have habit of that).

  135. George April 15, 2021 3:50 pm

    P.S. @B & @Lior

    I spoke of patents on software above, but copyrights are free and automatically apply to software or any original writing. So just copying software, verbatim, or even slightly modifying copied software is already illegal and easily prosecuted. Don’t need lawyers to do anything to allow that (not even the ‘boilerplate’ licensing agreements anymore).

  136. George April 15, 2021 3:55 pm

    @Pro Say

    Did your lawyers or Nolo ever tell you about CIP’s? No? LOL!

    Big difference between RCE’s and CIP’s. With the former you have to ‘concede’ something to the Examiner. With the later you don’t have to!

  137. Anon April 15, 2021 4:18 pm

    even slightly modifying copied software is already illegal and easily prosecuted.

    Someone missed the Google case.

    And George, if you “knew” that was exactly what I was going to say, why did you not post your original – a clearly errant – thought differently?

    Maybe you should have added an “lol” as those apparently resolve any issue.

  138. George April 15, 2021 9:59 pm

    @Anon

    “Maybe you should have added an “lol” as those apparently resolve any issue.”

    Oh, those work great! You should try that sometimes, along with maybe some IMO’s when you’re ‘not sure’ of what you’re saying (because you might one day be asked to prove what you’re saying is ‘true’ rather than total bull crap)! Usually people get the point when I just use one or two ‘lol’s’, but I guess you require more of them to be safe. Good for others to know as well!

  139. George April 15, 2021 10:22 pm

    @Anon!

    Was it YOU that missed it’s conclusion (completely)??? The (very conservative) SCOTUS, DECIDED API’s aren’t really code and so aren’t covered by copyright (at least not in it’s strongest incarnation). A ‘suggestion’ or ‘claim’ or mere ‘description’ of what ‘should be expected’ to be delivered upon ‘inputing’ something into to a routine (which IS code), isn’t considered ‘identical to’ or even analogous to ‘actual code’. I think you have sorely underestimated the intelligence of the justices in this case and the ‘expert’ input they no doubt got from actual ‘experts’ on computers, software, and coding and how they work together to do things and how the ‘same API’ can even do different things or do things ‘better’ than another, because its actual code has been modified to allow doing that! By the way, that’s called ‘innovation’ LOL!

    Learn the difference between a good analogy (which IMO you don’t seem to do especially well) and a not so good analogy for what is actual at issue. They can be helpful and useful, but only if properly constructed and relevant. Can’t use an apple to make a (great) analogy to an orange (even though both have seeds)! It’s an OK analogy, but not a great one!

    Yes, API’s and the ‘algorithms’ they ‘name’ and provide text-based ‘instructions’ for how to use them (along with comments that also aren’t part of the ‘code’), both involve text, but the ‘meat’ of any algorithm is the actual code attached to that ‘named thing’ that’s called an API.

    Just because you hand someone a ‘picture of an apple’, doesn’t mean you gave them an ‘apple’ (much less a ‘copyrighted apple’)! I suppose can ‘now’ do that with a NFT of a ‘picture of an apple’, though. But that’s a topic for another day! LOL!

  140. George April 15, 2021 10:35 pm

    @Anon

    “even slightly modifying copied software is already illegal and easily prosecuted.” – George

    I clearly said SOFTWARE and not just API’s! I also meant COPYING – in whole cloth – at least 80%-90% of that software or at least copying an entire (non-generic or non-public) copyrighted ‘routine’, of which the software could contain 1000’s.

    If you want to get sued by someone for copying their software, then copy or ‘reverse engineer’ 80%-90% of it! That should do the trick (under current copyright law).

    Under the ‘plagiarism laws’ (that I would like to see at least some states enact) you wouldn’t have to prove all that! You could just prove that a large or ‘significant portion’ of your ‘original ideas’ (including ‘maybe’ API’s) were stolen and used by someone not authorized to do that! What’s a ‘significant portion’? It would be left to a court to decide, in ‘the same way’ they decide about obscenity, child pornography, or attacking the Capital, Anon. Right? LOL!

  141. George April 15, 2021 10:37 pm

    @Pro se

    “later” ===> latter

    I always get that messed up!

  142. George April 15, 2021 10:55 pm

    @Anon #137

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Franklin_Computer_Corp.

    Compared to what Vtech did with their ‘Laser 128’ clone! a ‘clean room’ approach made all the difference!

    “Unlike the Apple II clones from Franklin, VTech reverse-engineered the Apple Monitor ROM using a clean room design rather than copying it. The company licensed an Applesoft BASIC-compatible version of Microsoft BASIC. Apple carefully studied the Laser 128 but unlike its efforts directed at Franklin, Apple was unable to force the Laser 128 off the market.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_128

    Maybe Oracle should have studied these ‘famous’ cases a little more!

  143. Anon April 16, 2021 7:33 am

    aren’t really code and so aren’t covered by copyright (at least not in it’s strongest incarnation)

    That is not what Fair Use means.

    Your attempt to hedge with “strongest” is noted.

    As to other comments here, may I recommend that you apply to the point presented on the actual thread in which the point IS presented? Your comments on this thread in relation to “lol’s” is easy enough to follow, but others will wonder why you go on tangents of obscenity here (while I will note that you first went on that tangent in another thread and lead in with a false presumption that I had somehow argued that point (your Strawman fallacy).

    Speaking of strawmen, your attempt to bring up “isn’t considered ‘identical to’ or even analogous to ‘actual code’.” is also a strawman, as it is not connected to any of the arguments that I have presented.

    You also appear unhinged by launching into a lecture on analogies, without actually stating any analogy I may have offered that is deficient.

    Also deficient is your attempt to walk back your statement on “software” vis a vis your new statement of, “I clearly said SOFTWARE and not just API’s!” — as clearly no one said that you had said “just API’s,” but that still does not excuse the error of your statement because your statement is still wrong.

    To wit (and to use your analogy), it would be like you trying to walk back a statement of “the Supreme Court did not allow the copying of Fruit” when the Supreme Court DID allow the copying of Apples.

    Sure, the Supreme Court may not have been explicit about the copying of Oranges, but since Apples ARE Fruit, the first statement is false.

    Additionally, there is nothing in your statement about “whole cloth.” Sure, you may have intended to say something else, but that intent did not make it into the black and white of which I responded to. The proper rebuttal then from you would be to acknowledge what I stated, and then ADD to the dialogue with a new or additional point (and not try to insert a missing item that you had neglected to include).

    Also, your statement of “If you want to get sued by someone for copying their software, then copy or ‘reverse engineer’” is unclear, as you seem to want to misuse a term of art (in single quotes) that is decidedly NOT a form of copy. While you may be attempting to be cheeky, you only end up being unclear as to what type of point you are making (and also unclear on the fact that mere quantity is not necessarily determinative of violating copyright law).

    Lastly, any attempt by you to slide back into your “plagiarism” control state needs for you to revisit the other thread and respond to the deficiencies that I have pointed out to you. If you do not, then all that you do here is reference a position known to be faulty.

  144. Anon April 16, 2021 10:24 am

    George @ 142 (10:55 pm),

    This is another example of you leading in with a position that nowhere I have taken a different view to.

    This is a fallacy – a strawman fallacy.

    It also does not help your attempted point – with the insertion of reverse engineer in single brackets, because the brackets indicate that you are attempting to use the known term of art differently, but your attempted use is flat out in direct contradiction of the term of art.

    Perhaps you meant to say more, or to tie this together to make some larger point, but you have failed to do so.

    This along with the rest of your rambling comments (replete with errors) indicates that you simply have not thought through your position enough to write a cogent response.

    I “get” that you feel that you have a lot to say.
    But you would be far better off by taking more time and saying less (in the diarrhea manner that you currently use).

  145. George April 16, 2021 1:05 pm

    @Anon – blah, blah, blah!

    You lost ALL your attempted counterarguments and put-downs. It all started with your insults directed against me, not the other way around. You never sought to engage in just respectful ‘debate’. This isn’t a ‘courtroom’ (which you’ve likely rarely visited – lol)!

    Quit being so defensive and just actually ‘debate’ the issues raised here rather than always just complaining and crying when you’ve been ‘spanked’ and quit asking questions that you don’t already know know the answers to (it doesn’t make you look good or smart)!

    Also, I don’t care about your ‘grading’ of my arguments or rebuttals, since you’re probably not one of the ‘great legal minds’ out there (but if you are, please correct me and others). I will leave it to others to grade me if anyone else even wants to bother! Also, the protocols here aren’t those of a courtroom, are they?

    People should be allowed to voice their opinions and thoughts about our patent system and how it works (or doesn’t) without being immediately attacked, bullied, made fun of, or much less being accused of lying or fabricating things. I don’t like being called a liar – do you?!

    P.S. the Franklin Computer and VTech cases are VERY relevant to this topic and I’m surprised none of you legal eagles ever brought it up (or even heard of it)! Franklin lost, but VTech didn’t. Both copyright cases – both involved software (that ‘had to’ include API’s as well).

  146. Anon April 16, 2021 1:16 pm

    Your rant — and decision not to tie that rant to any of the actual points already on the table for discussion is noted.

    I “get” that you don’t like the feeling that you are being picked on, but it is just not personal — it is merely that your diatribes are way too much of your own “stream of conscience,” and are so easily dismissed as the hodge podge that they are. Instead of taking criticism constructively, you simply lash out, and even that is simply mis-aimed.

    I have been generous to you, and you don’t even realize it. Instead of merely not liking the questions put to you, and the comments exposing your weaknesses, you should be thanking me, taking a (deep) moment to contemplate what I share with you, and improve your own message. This is a free education for you, but your must be cognizant enough to grasp it.

  147. B April 16, 2021 6:24 pm

    @ George “P.S. the Franklin Computer and VTech cases are VERY relevant to this topic and I’m surprised none of you legal eagles ever brought it up (or even heard of it)!”

    So relevant even the Supreme Court missed those cases. By the way, your Franklin and VTech citations actually work against your “fair use” premise. Also, they’re off-point.

    BTW, “clean room” design is what honest companies do.

    “Why would I make any of this up?”

    Great question. I speculate you’re in great need of attention.

    “Big difference between RCE’s and CIP’s. With the former you have to ‘concede’ something to the Examiner. With the later you don’t have to!”

    No, George, you don’t need to concede anything in either.

    “They OBVIOUSLY do it all the time, ‘B’!!!”

    No, George, they don’t. However, please feel free to name a single fortune 500 company that donates its code to the public.

  148. George April 16, 2021 10:28 pm

    @B

    “Big difference between RCE’s and CIP’s. With the former you have to ‘concede’ something to the Examiner. With the later you don’t have to!” – George

    “No, George, you don’t need to concede anything in either.”

    Again, what planet do you live on??? LOL! That’s ridiculous (if you actually want to get a patent) and you know it! It is exceptionally rare that you don’t have to give in to the Examiner at all and at least toss them a ‘bone’. That always requires ‘accepting’ at least some of his/her ‘required’ amendments (unless you know some ‘special tricks’ to get around that requirement)! You’re also not allowed to ‘add’ ANYTHING to your spec or drawings with a RCE and you just get ONE MORE CHANCE, to make the Examiner happy! Even the MPEP states that to get through the RCE process you pretty much have to make at least some of the Examiner specified amendments, or your chances of success are slim to none! You certainly can’t make claims ‘broader’ (unless you’re totally nuts and like pain and frustration). All that is easy with a CIP. You can file CIP’s till the cows come home, or the Examiner finds a better gig or just retires! I have NEVER used a RCE! Besides the ‘filing fees’ are about the same for either (RCE 1st $680, then $1000, CIP $860 each – small entity). You get to keep claiming ‘patent pending’ just the same and for some inventions that might be better than actually ‘spilling the beans to the world’, while you actually make some money with your invention (which of course patent attorneys don’t help you do). Also, competitors have to then use their ‘imaginations’ and ‘nightmares’ to try to guess what your (eventually) issued patent will all cover and what they could spend a lot of money trying to engineer around, only to that later learn they can still get sued, because what they’ve spent all that time and money on doing, got patented too! LOL!

    Where did you learn to get ‘good’, ‘robust’, ‘bullet-proof’ and most of all ‘enforceable’ patents? Where did you learn to handle even the most stubborn Examiner and inane objections (much less how to beat the PTO at its own game)?! Glad I didn’t go there and wouldn’t take your advice on how to boil water! At the very least, you don’t seem to be able to think much ‘out of the box’! You appear to just do the ‘same thing’ over and over again!!! How boring is THAT?! Wouldn’t last long at my firm, that’s for sure! I only work with brilliant people!

    And by the way, care to apologize for all your insults and LIES (including about my credentials, knowledge and 100% factual statements)?! No? Then F-you, too! I don’t LIE about people – or dispute what they say UNLESS I actually know better and can prove it! Anyone who’s actually dealt with me or my firm knows that! If I give my word, people know they can take that to the bank! Can people take your word for anything, or do they need a 50 page contract for you to walk their dog? That’s why I’ve never had any trouble getting clients (who pay me very well) for my consulting services and problem solving abilities (without ever having to advertise). In the ‘good old days’ I actually did a couple of deals with just a handshake! Too bad we can’t do that anymore! I wonder why?

  149. George April 16, 2021 10:53 pm

    @B #147

    “No, George, they don’t. However, please feel free to name a single fortune 500 company that donates its code to the public.”

    First of all, WHO the ‘F’ cares?! Lots of companies were formed USING ‘donated’ code (otherwise called public domain software like Unix & Linux – that Apple used to become hugely profitable). The people that wrote Unix and Linux never asked Apple for ‘their cut’! Most fortune 500 companies don’t even try to patent their software or business methods (anymore) and most don’t even develop their own software! The auto companies used to, but not much anymore! However they may try to patent their driving GUI’s and displays (unlike API’s). They rely on copyright and trade secret law – which is free, automatic, easy and ‘instant’!
    They can also rely on the ‘cloud’ now, which you apparently know nothing about!

    And how’s Tesla for a fortune 500 company that has no problem ‘donating’ their patents, if not their software that I don’t think they even bother trying to patent? Indeed Elon Musk has ‘no respect’ for patents at all anymore (even though his company gets them for self-protection) and could care less about them. He has also said he will never try to ‘assert’ them against anyone even if they use them without a license! Now, how ‘generous’ is THAT? More specifically he’s said he would only sue someone for patent infringement, if they tried to sue him first! Is Elon Musk a successful enough capitalist for you? You see he makes his money by actually DOING THE THINGS he says he will (with or without patents).

    Most innovative and creative people aren’t even driven by money, did you know that, B?! Can you BELIEVE THAT?!! LOL! Can you even ‘imagine that’, B?! . . . Didn’t think so! I mean, what else is there to live for, right??? LOL!

    Software patents (on their own) are lost causes, ‘B’! Please tell your clients that!

  150. B April 17, 2021 2:41 am

    @ George “First of all, WHO the ‘F’ cares?!”

    Every fortune 500 software company and every small software developer I ever met.

    “The people that wrote Unix and Linux never asked Apple for ‘their cut’!”

    You can’t donate then ask for a cut. Go figure. BTW, the trouble with open source code. No tech support. Also, the trouble with Unix – almost anything is Unix.

    Think Sun’s version of Unix is free? HPE’s? Apple’s?

    “And how’s Tesla for a fortune 500 company that has no problem ‘donating’ their patents, . . .”

    Elon Musk’s choice. Doesn’t justify theft however

    “Didn’t think so! I mean, what else is there to live for, right??? LOL!”

    People who “LOL” their own posts are never funny or remotely amusing.

    “Software patents (on their own) are lost causes, ‘B’! Please tell your clients that!”

    I’ll tell that to the next examiner out of TC 2100 I talk to

  151. B April 17, 2021 3:14 am

    @ George “Again, what planet do you live on??? LOL! That’s ridiculous”

    There’s that idiotic “LOL” again.

    “It is exceptionally rare that you don’t have to give in to the Examiner at all and at least toss them a ‘bone’.”

    That depends on the client, how close the applied art is, and what the client actually want to protect.

    I’ve created whole portfolios w/o having to “toss the examiner a bone.”

    “That always requires ‘accepting’ at least some of his/her ‘required’ amendments”

    Nope. Not at all. Further, sometimes the examiners actually provide more clear language in a way that doesn’t narrow a claim as compared to the construction from a Markman hearing.

    “You’re also not allowed tov’add’ ANYTHING to your spec or drawings with a RCE and you just get ONE MORE CHANCE, to make the Examiner happy!”

    Earth to George. That’s not giving anything up.

    “Even the MPEP states that to get through the RCE process you pretty much have to make at least some of the Examiner specified amendments, or your chances of success
    are slim to none!”

    I’m pretty sure it doesn’t. https://bitlaw.com/source/mpep/706_07_h.html

    “All that is easy with a CIP. You can file CIP’s till the cows come home, or the Examiner finds a better gig or just retires! I have NEVER used a RCE!”

    Filing a CIP when an RCE will do? Plain stupid unless perhaps when facing a second RCE and/or there is no IDS to consider. Check the USPTO fee schedule to figure out how much money you wasted.

  152. Anon April 17, 2021 9:43 am

    B,

    As you are more than capable of responding to “George’s” inanity, I will but merely point out that his addition of “lol’s,” (as in: “People who “LOL” their own posts are never funny or remotely amusing.”) was recently revealed to be him thinking that he is somehow inoculating the post from being a “serious” post, and thus should only be taken in some kind of “just kidding” manner.

    In other words, every time you seem him using “lol,” it is on an item that is a “throw-away” item, and one that he will not defend.

    He is the veritable empty wagon being pulled down the old, uneven sidewalk, clanging away just to hear his own posts, and absolutely uninterested in any actual dialogue.

  153. George April 17, 2021 2:04 pm

    @B #150

    “BTW, the trouble with open source code. No tech support.”

    LOL!!! That’s because ‘real programmers (who came up with Unix & the Internet) don’t need no stink’in ‘tech support’ – THEY WRITE THE STUFF and 100’s contribute to it all the time – for free! See, they care more about what software does and allows others to do, than how much money it will make! There are 1000’s of people like that out there, ‘B’! Maybe you need to get out more, or at least make some other friends (who aren’t all about the money)! LOL!

    “Also, the trouble with Unix – almost anything is Unix.”

    LOL!!!!!! You’ve answered your own question and complaint there!!! Yes – it is!

    Also – software patents WILL be obsolete and ‘useless’ very soon, if they’re not already! And they’re NOT EVEN ALLOWED in most countries besides the U.S.! Do you tell your clients that? And do you tell them that they don’t have to allow publication of their applications without getting a patent in the U.S., too (since they can’t apply in other countries)? That’s REALLY IMPORTANT, ‘B’! But I bet you DO tell them all that, right? LOL (again)!

    The only software that should ever (maybe) be allowed to be patented, would be truly ‘breakthrough’ software that allows doing something never before possible – like actually ‘thinking’ or having consciousness (which would be not only ‘revolutionary’ but scary too). So let’s allow the ‘scary’ software to be patented, but not the 99.99999% of other stuff that’s easily reproduced by 1000’s of other programmers, because it’s not that hard to do, not very original and/or ‘surprising’. I think even in Europe they might allow that!

    Where again did you attend law school? Trump University, maybe? Mail order? Yikes! LOL!

    And about Elon Musk . . . he’s a pretty smart and VERY rich guy, isn’t he, even without being ‘paranoid’ about his patents (and profits) being stolen, right?! His making money doesn’t depend on patents, ‘B’ – not at all. And, who knows, other companies may soon follow suit and file less and less patents (unless they’re really ‘great’ and ‘fundamental’ ones). Those are the ONLY ones we file anyway! Maybe that’s why one or more of them got ‘tagged’ by SAWS (but we don’t know – yet).

    I’d probably listen to Elon Musk a little more than I would you, unless you’ll soon be in the billionaires club tool (even though that usually requires actually ‘making something’ of value). Maybe others should too.

  154. George April 17, 2021 3:13 pm

    @B #151

    “Nope. Not at all. Further, sometimes the examiners actually provide more clear language in a way that doesn’t narrow a claim as compared to the construction from a Markman hearing.”

    Have never seen that happen – EVER! In fact they’d get in trouble if they ‘helped’ an applicant ‘improve’ and ‘strengthen’ their patent, since they’re not even attorneys and so not allowed (by law) to give legal advice.

    Furthermore, on at least three occasions now, two different Examiners and groups tried to ‘sabotage’ our applications and claims, by ‘demanding’ that extraneous, completely unimportant, ‘non-essential’ and even ‘generic elements’ be (unnecessarily) introduced into our independent claims (all of them), at which time the SPE would be ‘immediately’ and ‘happily’ allow all 20 claims to issue with no further objections, all the while knowing, full well, that doing so would OBVIOUSLY render all the claims totally worthless and just trun them into ‘a cruel joke’ (and you know why).

    That’s why we refused to do it, and when we explained precisely why, he just lost it and hung up the phone (because he was absolutely convinced we would happily and enthusiastically accept it – in a flash – but then was totally caught off guard when I immediately figured out what the ploy was and that all he would actually allow would just be a ‘worthless’ piece of ‘official looking paper’ and the joke would be on me!

    He did a great ‘sales’ job in the beginning, though, and I almost fell for it, because he started off with just a couple of totally harmless amendments that I could easily accept. It wasn’t till the last suggested ‘tiny amendment’ that I figured out what was really going on and what trick he was trying to pull on me and why he was all of a sudden being so nice to me (which he never was before)! Pretty embarrassing for Examiner (who was silent the whole time) the SPE was ‘peddling his magical solution’ and his great bait and switch trick (which the Examiner never proposed in his n’th 25+ page OA).

    At least they both now know that particular little trick won’t work anymore and that we’re not that gullible or ‘desperate’ to get just any old (worthless) patent and that we won’t accept ‘crap in bag’ being peddled to us, instead of the good and enforceable patent that we paid to get and that we fully deserve to get. No thanks PTO!

    In fact, we want Congress (and/or the FBI) to look into such ‘tricks’ that may now be being used by many Examiners (and in our cases being demanded to be use by SPE’s), so as to be able to ‘neuter’ potentially broad patent claims that otherwise might cause problems for their best ‘repeat customers’ and those who generate the most revenues for them and who now, post AIA, the PTO appears to want to help protect. All these ‘tricks’, ‘secret programs’ and ‘unwritten policies’ at the PTO (that never existed before) have to get exposed! They are not just myths or wild conspiracy theories. We have at least some of the evidence to prove they are not! Hopefully others will have more of this evidence and hopefully the SAWS lawsuit will be allowed to proceed to trial, so the truth can become known. We all should want to know of the SAWS program was the ‘innocent and harmless’ program it is claimed to have been and what it was all about in the first place. I know how much you and other attorneys here want to see that happen too, right?

    “Filing a CIP when an RCE will do? Plain stupid unless perhaps when facing a second RCE and/or there is no IDS to consider. Check the USPTO fee schedule to figure out how much money you wasted.”

    LOL!!! (again) Haven’t wasted anything, ‘B’, compared to having to file a PTAB appeal (maybe more than once), or multiple RCE’s (after one or more useless trials) or going to Circuit Court! How much does all THAT cost?! And, you are clearly choosing to simply ignore all the other (many) ‘advantages’ of going the CIP route instead, including getting two bites at the apple again, rather than just one ‘very risky’ one (that you don’t want to blow)!

    No thanks, we’ll keep doing things our way! We’ll keep being a pain in the ass to the PTO, if that’s what it takes to actually get a ‘good’ patent, rather than a ‘fantasy’ professionally prepared GARBAGE that 50% of the time will be found to have no real legal value at all, and will likely also be found to be ‘invalid’ to boot. That’s what (often poor) inventors get for their money today! Say it isn’t so, ‘B’! . . . LOL! It’s largely a scam now! Wasn’t a 100 years ago!

  155. George April 17, 2021 3:26 pm

    @Anon,

    “As you are more than capable of responding to “George’s” inanity,”

    There you go again (without even the LOL’s or IMHO’s)!!! That’s not good, Anon! I’ll have to start keeping count I guess! On what basis are you calling me (and by direct association, my company) ‘insane’??? What proof of that do you have, Anon? You DO know what ‘proof’ is, don’t you? Or didn’t they teach you that at Trump University? Are you SURE you’re a lawyer! You didn’t answer that ‘simple question’ by the way, Anon! I did!

    I don’t think ANY ‘lawyer’ would go around calling people, they know nothing about, ‘insane’ (at least without using the more colorful and jocular ‘crazy’), do you? Especially not after being SPECIFICALLY WARNED about doing that and told not to anymore! But then if you are one of those far-right ‘nut jobs’ then that wouldn’t stop you from doing it, I guess. It didn’t stop Guliani, or Powell anyway!

    I don’t know about ‘insane’ but you sure don’t seem to be too smart!!! You didn’t even learn anything from recent the Dominion Voting Systems ‘spanking’ or what happened after Jan. 6. Oh, well, I guess it takes you a lot longer to learn things (and maybe more paddling), that’s all! LOL!

  156. George April 17, 2021 3:35 pm

    @Anon #152

    “In other words, every time you seem him using “lol,” it is on an item that is a “throw-away” item, and . . .”

    “one that he will not defend.”

    One more LIE to add to the rapidly growing list of them, Anon!

    I’d kick your butt in any court in the land – you little jerk – and you know it! LOL!!! Learn how NOT to defame people (and their companies), OK?! If you don’t, it could cost you in the end (big time)! Giuliani and Powell are going to learn that lesson very soon!

  157. Anon April 17, 2021 6:13 pm

    George,

    Inane and insane are two different words.

    That you miss this (and instead go on your rant) is a direct example of inanity.

    Thank you for proving my point.

    Especially not after being SPECIFICALLY WARNED about doing that and told not to anymore! ” Sorry – but your feelings do not rise to a limitation of my truthfully describing your actions here. You want a different description? Then you are going to have to change how you post.

    That’s up to you.

    As to “Trump University,” (as well as “But then if you are one of those far-right ‘nut jobs’ then that wouldn’t stop you from doing it, I guess“) I have no idea what slight you might be intending.

    Are you suggesting that ALL people on the Right are ‘nut jobs?’ That anyone not adhering to the orthodoxy of the Far Left are ‘nut jobs?’

    Is that your ‘thinking?’ If so – you have again proven for me your inanity.

    As to “Are you SURE you’re a lawyer!” you appear to have omitted your “get out of slander” card of “lol” – and you have had this already answered in the positive. – Quite in fact I have answered it, and yes I am an attorney in good standing and am registered with the USPTO. Thank you for asking (again).

    Are you taking another shot at me in a Moral Rights offensive manner then?

    You didn’t even learn anything from recent the Dominion Voting Systems ‘spanking’ or what happened after Jan. 6.

    Again, you have led in with arguments that I have never ascribed to. For someone clamoring about the other person no being smart, YOU are the one that is showing up deficient in that regard. The “lol” does not save you in the false attribution of a position that I have never advanced.

    And how is the characterization of your use of ‘lol’ a “LIE?” and what is this “list” of LIEs that this is purportedly being added to? Please be specific. You are accusing me of conduct unbecoming an attorney, and you should be quite clear as to the substance of such an accusation.

    I’d kick your butt in any court in the land – you little jerk

    That would be a sight to see.

    It of course would never happen (outside of your own mind), but hey, your posting style is what it is.

    As to “(and their companies),” since your identity is not fathomable from merely a first name (even with ALL of your other boasting), how exactly is it that your companies have been “defamed” (which of course – since you do not include any “lols” or “IMOs,” I presume that you intend to use in the legal sense.

    Or is this one of** your own “not defend” points?

    **For other “not defend,” see your sojourn into Moral Rights at: https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2021/04/13/view-courts-2-live-crew-examining-thomas-alito-dissent-google-v-oracle/id=132230/

  158. George April 17, 2021 7:48 pm

    @B #147

    “So relevant even the Supreme Court missed those cases. By the way, your Franklin and VTech citations actually work against your “fair use” premise. Also, they’re off-point.”

    It’s very relevant but just an old case, which maybe has been superseded now, or just not remembered by any lawyers under the age of 60 (don’t know, didn’t check). Obviously, in the VTech instance, even Apple grudgingly had to concede it was fair use of their API’s and ‘reverse engineered’ code, because they couldn’t sue VTech, but they ‘won’ against Franklin. How much more relevant would those cases have to be??? They’re spot on! They also involved API’s to all of Apple’s embedded operating system ‘routines’. Couldn’t call VTechs routines without using Apple’s API’s either, or else software would never run compatibly on both computers – but it did! The Laser 128 from VTech ran exactly the same as the Apple II. So did the Franklin but the Franklin version was found to be illegal, while the Laser 128 wasn’t!

    This case in particular, very specifically, and in great detail, lays out how you have to go about ‘copying’ someone else’s ‘software’ without violating their copyright! It sets out ‘precisely’ how you have to go about that without getting into trouble. I don’t know how or why THAT wouldn’t be totally relevant to software copying in general and the copyright issues involved in this case!

    That’s because even ‘ancient’ software would have had API’s – they just wouldn’t have been called that at the time, so if you copied someone’s software, you would have had to copy their ‘API’s’ too!

    Neither the justices, nor their clerks would be expected to be experts in software development, especially going back more than 45 years, and computer experts might not have known about that old case either, since they are not lawyers and probably never owned one of those specific computers (so why would they?). In addition, internet-based case search might not have brought that famous case up in the latest 20-30 cases discovered. Maybe if such searches would have gone back a bit further they would have considered it one of the important cases. I’d love to be able to ask the justices, or lawyers for Google (but obviously not Oracle) if they even glanced at that old case and if not, why not. Of course, knowing Google and the average age of their employees and salaried attorneys, they were probably all under the age of 60 too! Not sure they would trust lawyers over that age. LOL! ?

    In any case, might be worthwhile remembering Apple v. Franklin followed by VTech & when it comes to other similar software copyright disputes. The motto being that not all software copying is equal or even violates copyright law!

  159. Mr 259 April 17, 2021 8:05 pm

    Hard to believe this BS string is still ongoing. Genes article was on point. Either you believe software can be patentable or you don’t. Programmers say no, because they are mechanics not inventors, inventors (like myself w 18 patents) say yes, because we had the idea. Anon was right, all along, but about 100 posts ago.

  160. B April 17, 2021 9:02 pm

    @ Anon “Are you suggesting that ALL people on the Right are ‘nut jobs?’ That anyone not adhering to the orthodoxy of the Far Left are ‘nut jobs?’”

    Unfortunately, polite disagreement is a thing of the past. Departures from CNN rhetoric get you branded “radical” and “racist.”

    Some irony: two of my high-school teachers marched with MLK, and were both believers in equality of opportunity (not equality of outcome). Today, certain people we’ve encountered would refer to them as “racist,” and “white supremacist” (despite their skin color) while hinting at them being inbred because, you know, Mississippi.

    The people who’ve seen real racism and oppression in America, like the people who lived under communism or have seen the inside of a NAZI work camp (you get to know a few living in the DC area), tend to have very different outlooks than the Twitteratti.

  161. B April 17, 2021 9:09 pm

    @ George “I’d kick your butt in any court in the land – you little jerk – and you know it! LOL!!!”

    George, LOL, I have vast LOL disagreements with Anon, LOL, but you’re clueless LOL – so LOL clueless LOL that you don’t know how LOL clueless you are. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!

    Oh, and “LOL”

  162. B April 17, 2021 9:29 pm

    @ George “It’s very relevant but just an old case, which maybe has been superseded now, or just not remembered by any lawyers under the age of 60”

    Funny, the term “fair use” doesn’t appear in either decision, and lawyers have these things called “Westlaw” and “Lexis.” A few years ago I cited a Supreme Court case from 1851 to the Supreme Court. Golly, everyone was too young to remember it, yet . . .

    Stop pretending you know the time of day.

  163. George April 17, 2021 11:31 pm

    @Anon

    First of all, what kind of LAWYER (much less high paid lawyer) spends/wastes their Saturday night posting attacks against anyone, much less just ONE person here?! Really don’t you have better things to do, Anon?! Will you also do that on a Sunday? LOL!!! What, no clients – genius??? LOL!

    Also I may have misread your comment but ‘inane’ is also an insult to both me and my company, and so it is not only derogatory, but adds to your ‘litany of liable’, since at least MOST of what I post here is definitely NOT ‘inane’ or insane’ and if you want to call me a liar – just go ahead – I DARE YOU (especially since you are clearly making such statements as one’s of ‘fact’ for which you have absolutely no evidence at all). In case you forgot libel is defined as “The legally indefensible publication or broadcast of words or images that are degrading to a person or injurious to his or her reputation”. Yours are textbook examples of that!!! Why not try and call one of your colleagues any of those things and see how long it would take them to respond!

    “Are you suggesting that ALL people on the Right are ‘nut jobs?’ That anyone not adhering to the orthodoxy of the Far Left are ‘nut jobs?’ ” – Anon

    Absolutely not, just that MOST OF THEM are (as proven by the statements and events of the last 6 years) and as will be proven in the trials of the Jan 6 attackers and their fearless leader Donald Trump, and legal representatives, Rudy Giuliani & Powell Now, you’ll have to agree (as an attorney NOT just educated online) that they all ARE ‘nut jobs’ aren’t they?! Let’s get that on the record! That might be the most important thing you might say here! Come on, let’s have it! Yes or No? You’re not representing any of these people, are you? If not then you can speak freely – just as I have!

    Also, unlike yours apparently, my identity won’t stay ‘top secret’ for long. Indeed it will have to be revealed at some point next year! That’s when some of our press releases start going out! LOL! How about you, when will the press cover anything (important) of yours?! ROTFL

    “I’d kick your butt in any court in the land – you little jerk” – George. “That would be a sight to see.” – Anon

    Be careful what you wish for, Anon!!! It could happen one day, especially if you keep up these clear attacks on me, my reputation, and that of my firm! It’s not good for my business (if people do find out who you are referring to – and I might even help them do it). And remember, I beat both a very large Japanese Manufacturing company, and a very large utility company! In both cases I came out WAY ahead financially, because I didn’t have to pay for lawyers and their martini lunches and first class flights! LOL! But next year will certainly dwarf all that! That was all peanuts! Stay tuned, OK?! It’s not nice to ‘defraud’ over 90 people by engaging in a RICO ‘conspiracy’ against them (and me), Anon! That’s not nice at all! It’s great that RICO can be litigated in both civil and criminal court! Real nice, because after you win in civil courts, you can ask the AG to follow that up with criminal charges and significant of jail time too!!! That should at least help to loosen up some tongues (especially if the defendants have families)! up, have been working on that case for over two years now! But enough of that for now, that one’s not about patents. Let’s stick to that here!

    Not sure why I didn’t see your answer to my question about you being a lawyer, but I accept your acknowledging that again. Now how about patents? Have any of them Anon? How many? When was the latest one?

    By the way, have you written any articles here? If not, why not if you’re such a brilliant patent attorney and have so much to pass on to others (even if that would mean giving up your secret identity)? It’s called marketing, Anon! I don’t claim to be a ‘professional’, so it’s not as important for me to do that in this forum. On other forums people know who I am already and, like I said, probably by next year some people here might find out too, though as I said elsewhere, doesn’t matter to me one way or another. This is not my main gig or day job, I’m just here to find out what other people think and know – not to necessarily to agree with them (especially if it doesn’t jib with my personal experience and professional knowledge about science and technology). One thing’s for sure though, it certainly doesn’t seem like I will agree with much of what you’re saying! I do agree with many others here though, both attorneys and inventors (and also ‘real’ programmers)! I guess they don’t know what they are talking about either – but you’re to ‘chicken’ to say that to any of the attorneys here at least, or to insult them in any way! Why not grow a pair, Anon?!! Why not at least be an equal opportunity insulter?

  164. George April 17, 2021 11:35 pm

    @Anon

    Do you agree with all the attorneys here? If not why don’t you insult them too?! Seems only fair! At least some can’t possibly know as much as you do, or can’t possibly be able to argue their case as effectively as you do, right? So go after them!!! Show them how ‘stupid’ they are! You’re not afraid of them, are you Anon! You’re not afraid they might kick your butt too, are you?! Let’em have it for once! I love to read your insulting critics of their articles or comments too! Would be very entertaining! LOL!

  165. George April 17, 2021 11:50 pm

    @B

    So, Anon and I have answered the question, what about you?! Are YOU a lawyer too?

    “Unfortunately, polite disagreement is a thing of the past. Departures from CNN rhetoric get you branded “radical” and “racist.””

    Well, whether you are a racist or not is not for CNN alone to decide, is it? I have never seen where they are the lone deciders of that or anything! LOL!

    “The people who’ve seen real racism and oppression in America, like the people who lived under communism or have seen the inside of a NAZI work camp (you get to know a few living in the DC area), tend to have very different outlooks than the Twitteratti.”

    What the hell does THAT mean??? By the way, my parents were victims of Nazis (at least one of them directly)! Maybe that’s why I hate them so much – especially American Nazis!!! You’re definitely not one of those are you, ‘B’?!

    Boy oh boy is this getting WAY off topic by the way. My apologies to Gene! I will be happy to stop if others stop ‘attacking’ me (as I have always done in the past)! You see, I also don’t like ‘bullies’ (especially bullies that are also attorneys)! And, if they don’t insult me first, I won’t insult them! Seems fair, doesn’t it? Let’s all try to keep it civil! And, I DON’T lie, so you shouldn’t either, because then things AREN’T fair!

  166. Anon April 18, 2021 4:30 pm

    George,

    You keep on proving my point about your inanities.

    Here, you seem to want to take issue with the fact that I am actually spending time engaging you – and top that off with a comment even at a later time than my comments. How many attorneys do you know that are billing on a Saturday evening? Do you not understand how silly that alone makes you look?

    Yes you did misread, and then you compounded that with an ill-aimed rant – and NOW compound that even further by not recognizing that your past post proves my point. There is NO “derogatory” that is not found in mere fact, and my stating mere facts is a perfect defense to any silly Trumped up [pun intended] charge that you want to make that somehow I am defaming you.

    What does your (goal-post moved) label of “litany of liable” even mean? YOUR OWN POSTS are what you are calling “injurious to his or her reputation.” My pointing out your shortcomings are actually “textbook examples” of NOT defamation. I have no need of calling one of my colleagues, and would put to you that you just might want to actually sound out your silliness to an attorney of your choice (as opposed to your own armchair quarterbacking).

    Now, you’ll have to agree (as an attorney NOT just educated online) that they all ARE ‘nut jobs’ aren’t they?!

    You are either purposefully conflating (and confusing yourself) or you don’t get the point at hand. You have again labelled anyone not believing the mantra of the Left as ‘nut jobs.’ The direct point at hand was: “That anyone not adhering to the orthodoxy of the Far Left are ‘nut jobs?’” Somehow you either do not want to respond to the point that I made, or you want to try to make it such that I have said things that I have not said (which is a very common occurrence coming from you). Instead of wanting to talk about things as you want me to be speaking, I suggest that you talk about things as I am actually speaking. This will have the added benefit of you understanding what I am actually saying (and help lessen the chances of your rants being so off target).

    my identity won’t stay ‘top secret’ for long. Indeed it will have to be revealed at some point next year!

    Non sequitur to the here and now and ANY of your accusations based on somehow ‘your real identity’ – and the ‘real identity’ of your companies – being maligned.

    That you want to play the “out yourself” game AGAIN only shows that you are violating the notion of my Moral Rights as they apply to anonymous and pseudonymous writings. Not only is this a logical fallacy of a type of argument (ad hominem), you have been put on notice of violating a tenet that you yourself actually introduced.

    By the way, that’s yet another inanity of yours.

    Be careful what you wish for, Anon!!! It could happen one day, especially if you keep up these clear attacks on me, my reputation, and that of my firm!

    Again – truth is my defense, and any counsel would advise you to not pursue this line of “reasoning” or action. In the (far) off chance that you want to be your own attorney and strike out on this course, you are on notice that any such action would be the epitome of frivolous, that you would be met with sanctions (yes, pro se can be sanctioned), and you will certainly NOT be chuckling.

    Your Japanese Manufacturing and utility company experiences are non sequiturs to our exchange.

    As to patents, I have none to my name, but actually lead my firm in obtaining them for our clients. I also ran an R&D business unit (as a business manager) prior to becoming an attorney, and leveraged their intellectual capital. One NEED NOT BE an actual inventor to understand innovation, the business of innovation, and the legal tools of innovation. If you think otherwise, well, then you just added yet another proof of your own inanity.

    As to articles being written, I have been approached several times TO write articles. For my own reasons, I have declined. As you spent more and more time reading the comments though, I advise you to pay more attention to the actual points provided by others (instead of being in such a rush to pat yourself on the back), and you just may learn a thing or two in the give and take that can occur AFTER the articles.

    This is not my main gig or day job, I’m just here to find out what other people think and know – not to necessarily to agree with them (especially if it doesn’t jib with my personal experience and professional knowledge about science and technology).

    I can easily say that your mission of “finding out” is NOT the best approach for you to actually learn something. And while you certainly make clear that this is not your main gig or day job, you are WAY too quick with insults of others who have nowhere near the amount of words that you have gushed forth in your limited time (and upon your limited viewpoint).

    In fact, I have attempted to have you explicate what I considered to be a potential interesting point, and that effort was only met with your obstinacy and shallow rhetoric (of which you have repeated noxiously).

    As to “I guess they don’t know what they are talking about either – but you’re to ‘chicken’ to say that to any of the attorneys here at least, or to insult them in any way!” – more proof of your inanity, as I take issue with posters across the board, including at times Gene Quinn.

    You are in such a hurry to triple down with repeats, but have not bothered to read a few of the past posts. Here’s a hint to help you out: look for articles on eligibility with scores of comments. Or (gasp), you can actually just try to pay attention. For example, perhaps you were in too much of a hurry to insult “B,” to notice that he pointed out that he and I have disagreed. By the way, “B” is ALSO an attorney and has shared his ‘real identity’ and case transactions here. But you cannot be bothered with any actual legwork, when ‘ready insults’ are more your style now can you?

    Why not grow a pair, Anon?!!

    LOL – and there’s another inanity. Why don’t YOU grow a pair and actually respond – on point – instead of whining about ‘how attacked’ you feel?

    And, if they don’t insult me first, I won’t insult them! Seems fair, doesn’t it? Let’s all try to keep it civil! And, I DON’T lie, so you shouldn’t either, because then things AREN’T fair!

    I am going to out and out call B$ on that statement, as you have more readily than most been quick with insults. ANYTHING not Left Liberal is met with an insult from you. ANYTHING not seeing things from your world view is met with an insult from you.

    And I am still waiting for you to provide the particulars of a list of LIES that you think that I have made. You have suggested that this was a long list, and yet, you have provided no actual lie.

  167. B April 18, 2021 5:26 pm

    @ George “So, Anon and I have answered the question, what about you?! Are YOU a lawyer too?”

    Obviously, you haven’t been paying attention

    “Maybe that’s why I hate them so much – especially American Nazis!!! . . . . You’re definitely not one of those are you, ‘B’?!”

    You really are a low-life, but you prove my point precisely about the Left demonizing people they disagree with.

    “Boy oh boy is this getting WAY off topic by the way.”

    Yes, you started it

  168. B April 18, 2021 7:43 pm

    @ Anon “You have again labelled anyone not believing the mantra of the Left as ‘nut jobs.’”

    George is the symptom of a problem we’ve seen a lot lately. The problem being that certain people cannot intellectually defend their positions. Ergo, they provide insults as a proxy for rebuttal, and calling people some form of bigot is now nothing more that an intimidation tactic designed to shut one’s opponent down.

    Remember ACB using the term “sexual preference?” The online definition on Webster’s changed that very day to smear her, and forget the fact that RGB used the same term two years earlier. Math is now racist, Spongebob is racist, veganism is racist, milk is racist, PB&J sandwiches are racist. Heck, even Bernie Sanders’ mittens were called out as a symbol of white supremacy.

    I do miss common sense, polite society, and actual 1960’s liberalism.

  169. George April 19, 2021 11:03 am

    @Mr 259

    How many software ONLY patents do you have (that would still pass Alice)??? When did you get all those ‘great’ inventions, the 1980’s? How many have you licensed, or used? Did you ever start a company to use any of them? Create lots of jobs with them? How many jobs?

    And how CAN Anon and you be ‘smarter’ than the SCOTUS (all the time) and actual professional computer scientists (many of whom ARE inventors too – me included)??? Neither of you have ever been ‘judges’ for even a traffic court!!! LOL! I would NEVER second guess the SCOTUS, even if I ‘didn’t like’ their decision! What I would do instead would be to go to Congress and ask them to pass new legislation to make things more to my (and others’) liking! That’s how to change things (and not by attacking the Capital).

  170. George April 19, 2021 11:12 am

    @Anon

    “You keep on proving my point about your inanities.”

    You’d never say that to any named attorneys here (even if they said the same things), would you? So, you’re both a coward AND someone who has no problem with ‘defaming’ people you don’t know! LOL!

    YES, you have ‘defamed’ me and – by association – my company, on at least a half-dozen occasions now! I guess when it gets to a dozen we might have to find out who you are pull your pants down to let others find out what you may be compensating for! You of course know how that can be done, right?

  171. Mr 259 April 19, 2021 11:24 am

    Why all of course
    2004/2021
    18 and thanks for saying they are great.
    yes
    yes
    many

    I think almost everyone on this blog is second guessing you, no one else. Good luck in all your future and past enterprises. I’m sure they are numerous and well known.

    George has way to much time on his hands.

  172. George April 19, 2021 11:24 am

    “There is NO “derogatory” that is not found in mere fact, and my stating mere facts is a perfect defense to any silly Trumped up [pun intended] charge that you want to make that somehow I am defaming you.”

    But you HAVE stated easily proven LIES ‘as fact’, Anon (and I am not the only one you’ve done that too)! Also, I wouldn’t even bring up Trump in jest here (or anywhere)! But see, the difference between you and me is that I’d be happy to leave it to a judge and jury to decide the issue Anon, while you seem to think (and obviously displayed here) that all that matters is what YOU think about anything (even computer science and programming)! Hate to break it to you Anon but if a court doesn’t agree with you – you’re ‘toast’ and you become basically ‘irrelevant’ (at least as far as history goes)! Only those who ‘win’ before the SCOTUS have any chance of being remembered! Don’t think that will ever apply to you! So sad! But rant on, Anon (just don’t think of attacking the Capital, OK?)

  173. George April 19, 2021 11:52 am

    @Anon

    “You keep on proving my point about your inanities”

    There you go again, Anon!!! LOL! Why not let others make up their minds about that? Why do you keep trying to make up their minds for them?! Why do you keep making ‘declaratory statements and judgments’ about me – and keep presenting them as ‘fact’ (when they’re not)?!

    Anyone reading your insults and ‘provably false’ claims about me, would be inclined to believe those false statements, wouldn’t they? Would readers think you were just ‘joking around’ or engaging in ‘trash talk’? I don’t think they would. I think they would ‘assume’ you must know what you are talking about and that you were more than likely right about them and that I must be all wrong, wouldn’t they? I don’t think they would see any of this as just ‘joking around’, or that you didn’t mean the insulting and derogatory things you’ve said ‘about me’ here – especially since you’ve also done it to others for years. Of course you are careful to avoid doing the same thing to any attorneys here – because it’s clear you don’t have the GUTS to do that, do you?! Why not, if it’s not serious or defamatory? Would you say the same things about, say, Elon Musk? Would you have the ‘guts’ to do that and insult hos ‘opinions’ about patents and patent law? Would you go on the record doing that?

    Because you have not just engaged in this super-unprofessional behavior with regard to me (that includes spending weekends specifically targeting and attacking just me) but you’ve also done this to others, it establishes a clear ‘pattern of’ insults and potentially defamatory speech, which can’t just be brushed aside, with all you hand-waving now!

  174. George April 19, 2021 12:49 pm

    @B

    “Funny, the term “fair use” doesn’t appear in either decision, and lawyers have these things called “Westlaw” and “Lexis.” A few years ago I cited a Supreme Court case from 1851 to the Supreme Court. Golly, everyone was too young to remember it, yet . . .”

    Yes, but if the search terms that are used are ‘API’ and ‘fair use’, then the Apple v. Franklin case would never show up (or would be last on the list of such cases) – even though it would certainly be a relevant one does clearly involve both the issues of ‘fair use’ and API’s under copyright law!

  175. George April 19, 2021 12:53 pm

    @B #161

    Just goes to prove how ‘juvenile’ you are!!! I’d say your ‘advice’ and ‘expertise’ isn’t even worth minimum wage ‘B’! LOL!

    See, how (intelligent) ‘adults’ do that!

  176. B April 19, 2021 12:55 pm

    @ George “Neither of you have ever been ‘judges’ for even a traffic court!!! LOL!”

    Has LOL anyone LOL ever LOL used LOL you LOL to LOL judge LOL so LOL much LOL as LOL a LOL hotdog LOL eating LOL contest? LOL!!!!!!!!!!

    “I would NEVER second guess the SCOTUS, even if I ‘didn’t like’ their decision!”

    It’s not everyone who lacks the intestinal fortitude so as to be so completely obsequious to a judicial opinion.

    Justice Taney loves you. Now take your Kool-Aid and sit at the small table in the back of the room.

    “YES, you have ‘defamed’ me and – by association – my company, on at least a half-dozen occasions now!”

    You can’t defame, i.e., damage the reputation of, an anonymous person and company. That said, you do a marvelous job of discrediting yourself.

  177. B April 19, 2021 1:01 pm

    @ George “Just goes to prove how ‘juvenile’ you are!!!”

    Self-awareness is lost to you

  178. George April 19, 2021 1:06 pm

    @B

    “Stop pretending you know the time of day.”

    Sounds like a ‘declaratory statement’ to me, ‘B’, leaving no room for ambiguity or even jest!!! ‘Pretending’ is a very specific and ‘damning’ charge, isn’t it (i.e., clearly defamatory in nature). It’s also in keeping with other similar statements you’ve made that are, in fact, easily proven WRONG and defamatory!

    But then, you wouldn’t know anything about how to actually ‘prove’ something (instead of just making stupid remarks), would you?! At the very least, it requires getting a MAJORITY consensus from others! I don’t see any ‘consensus’ here, do you? I just see the same old ‘cranky’ and, ‘unhappy’ campers! Didn’t get enough love as kids, maybe?! (see how I said ‘maybe’ there)? Learn something about how you ‘debate’ in a civil way (and how you’d have to do it in a courtroom – without getting fined for contempt of court)! LOL!

  179. George April 19, 2021 1:10 pm

    @B

    @ George “So, Anon and I have answered the question, what about you?! Are YOU a lawyer too?”

    “Obviously, you haven’t been paying attention” – ‘B’

    OK, maybe so, but please remind me again of the link that makes that crystal clear – or just say yes or no again (that would also do).

  180. George April 19, 2021 1:22 pm

    @B #167

    “You really are a low-life . . . ” – ‘B’

    Another ‘declaratory’ defamatory statement (i.e. “You really are”) made in response to a simple question (that wasn’t answered by the way). No – it wasn’t just a rhetorical question, either! I really did expect to get a simple answer, such as Yes, or No! After all, it wasn’t a hard question at all! I might have answered ‘Hell NO – how dare you even ask me that!” Would YOUR answer have been accepted in any court of law, ‘B’? Would you answer a lawyer in that way?! Would you have the GUTS to do that?!!! LOL!

  181. George April 19, 2021 1:26 pm

    “You can’t defame, i.e., damage the reputation of, an anonymous person and company. That said, you do a marvelous job of discrediting yourself.”

    Unless they are no longer anonymous and agree to identify themselves and their past statements (of fact)!!! You would then also be ‘forced’ to do the same (by court order if necessary)! LOL!

  182. B April 19, 2021 1:27 pm

    @ George “But then, you wouldn’t know anything about how to actually ‘prove’ something (instead of just making stupid remarks), would you?!”

    I know a complete absence of evidence when I see it.

    “At the very least, it requires getting a MAJORITY consensus from others!”

    No, it doesn’t. Argumentum ad populum is a classic logical fallacy.

    I just see the same old blah blah blah . . . ”

    Feel free to leave.

    “Another ‘declaratory’ defamatory statement . . . ”

    Said the low-life who tacitly accused me of being a NAZI

  183. George April 19, 2021 1:42 pm

    @B

    “That said, you do a marvelous job of discrediting yourself.” – ‘B’

    But that too requires a ‘consensus opinion’ – not just YOURS! Otherwise it could be taken as a ‘defamatory statement’ again! Where’s your proof?! Certainly not on this blog! That wouldn’t be enough! In fact, relying on that would just be embarrassing for you – since I clearly make some great ‘observations’ and at least occasionally posed some interesting questions (that others haven’t yet made). Again, that would have to be decided by consensus opinion, rather than just yours and Anon’s (i.e. – birds of a feather).

    I think it would be you and Anon that would come out a LOT worse than me – especially since you are ‘famed attorneys’ who should know better (or at least care even more about their images and reputations and what they chose to do on weekends). I’ll be happy to go over my track record and professional career – when the time is right (which isn’t just yet). Why wouldn’t I want to do that? How about you guys?! When might that happen? When can we go over all your past comments, once everyone learns you names (and all the cases you have won in court)?! Oh, that’s right, arguing cases is a lot easier here (where’s there’s no judge or jury)! LOL!

    But I’m busy now watching the Chauvin closing statements. My guess is the jury will find him guilty! How about you brilliant people?

  184. B April 19, 2021 2:43 pm

    @ George “Unless they are no longer anonymous and agree to identify themselves and their past statements (of fact)!!! You would then also be ‘forced’ to do the same (by court order if necessary)! LOL!”

    Feel free to dox yourself, then file a suit on behalf of yourself and whatever sandwich shop that employs you for all the mean things Anon said about you.

  185. George April 19, 2021 5:48 pm

    @B

    “At the very least, it requires getting a MAJORITY consensus from others!” – George

    “No, it doesn’t. Argumentum ad populum is a classic logical fallacy.” – ‘B’

    What??? You don’t believe in the wisdom of crowds – ever?! You mean a jury decision is NOT enough?! LOL! Sure it’s enough if that’s all you have! It’s always been enough! How do you think we ended up with religion (and human sacrifice)?! And, besides, YOU wouldn’t be able to ‘prove yourself’ out of a wet paper bag (and I’m ‘pretty sure’ I could easily ‘prove’ that too)!

    You don’t know what the first thing is about proofs and how you go about making one (especially if you ever supported Trump)! LOL! At least I studied mathematics in college and had to write lots of them! Highly recommended for all lawyers and would-be lawyers. That, or at least a formal course in logic and how truth tables work!

    “Said the low-life who tacitly accused me of being a NAZI”

    No, I didn’t accuse you of anything (certainly not being smart) – I just asked you a simple (and very relevant) question, because we now seem to have lots of Nazis in America, that we didn’t have 50 years ago! Maybe as many as 25% of Americans are now either racists, bigots, white supremacists, KKK sympathizers and/or members, ‘militia members’, Oath Keppers, QAnon believers (and enthusiasts), or just plain Nazis! I just like to know who I’m dealing with! If you’re none of those – that’s great!!! If you are, that’s NOT so great! Simple question – simple answer. I’ll answer most of your questions! No big sweat!

    Also, ask Anon if you can’t be sued for defaming someone who isn’t using their real name?! Think McFly . . . THINK!

    Why not just stop embarrassing yourself – in more ways than one?! After all I’m NOT an attorney, so I can’t be expected to know everything about the law. But saying I don’t know ANYTHING, is just going too far (especially since I won three legal disputes already, with two of them against big companies having millions of dollars and dozens of lawyers). How many have you won (on your own)?! How many have you lost?! Again very simple questions (and ones your ‘clients’ might like to know the answers to, BEFORE they decide to hire you – for anything).

  186. George April 19, 2021 6:09 pm

    “Feel free to dox yourself, then file a suit on behalf of yourself and whatever sandwich shop that employs you for all the mean things Anon said about you.”

    Oh, but you’d be sure to be included too! You guys work as a great team, don’t you! And, it’s safer that way too! LOL! By the way, have you figured out yet HOW and WHY you could still get sued for defamation, even if I’m anonymous for now and not using my entire (or even real) name? Anyone else know?

    “. . . on behalf of yourself and whatever sandwich shop that employs you” – ‘B’

    No . . . it isn’t a ‘sandwich shop’, B, wrong again! How many times can you get things all wrong, ‘B’?! Although there’s nothing wrong with working for any the sandwich shop, or even the one YOU might be working at (now). Nothing wrong at all, B.

    By the way, with the above comment, you’ve just insulted every sandwich shop in America, so I’d be careful eating at any of them, once they find out your name and where you live! LOL!

    Don’t think I’ve ever put down any workers anywhere! In fact, I think most Americans should be getting paid better, don’t you?! Maybe at least 1/4 of what patent attorneys make?

  187. Anon April 20, 2021 3:01 pm

    By the way, with the above comment, you’ve just insulted every sandwich shop in America,

    I can see why every sandwich shop in America would indeed be insulted to think that the bombastic ranter known as George would be an employee of said shop.

    Your words – with an accurate description of your actions here.

  188. B April 20, 2021 9:17 pm

    @ George “What??? You don’t believe in the wisdom of crowds – ever?!”

    The power to think for myself is not something I voluntarily surrender to sheep.

    @ Anon “I can see why every sandwich shop in America would indeed be insulted . . . ”

    George no tiene ni idea

  189. George April 21, 2021 4:31 pm

    @Anon

    “I can see why every sandwich shop in America would indeed be insulted to think that the bombastic ranter known as George would be an employee of said shop.”

    Except I never said ANYTHING about sandwich shops in this forum! LOL! Are you sure you’re really a lawyer? You don’t seem to know the rules of evidence, or how to make a good argument, or how to ask questions (that don’t get you surprising answers) and don’t seem to know what constitutes a ‘proof’ and don’t seem to know when you’ve lost an argument and just have to concede that (i.e. be a good loser). Worse yet, you seem to have a long record of all of this! It’s not the kind of track record I’d want to have, that’s for sure! Not good for business!!! Also, I haven’t been commenting (‘ranting’) here for years, like you have! How many people have you put down so far? Over a dozen (but none of them lawyers)? LOL!

  190. George April 21, 2021 4:39 pm

    @B

    “The power to think for myself is not something I voluntarily surrender to sheep.”

    So the majority of Americans are ‘sheep’, ‘B’??? I’m sure they’d all love to hear that – especially after yesterday!!! So, juries are just sheep to you (any time you don’t like their ‘verdicts’)? I guess you (as the great lawyer that you clearly are) don’t believe in our justice system at all then, do you? How can you, if juries are just ‘sheep’ to you? Does the Bar know your views about juries and our justice system? They might want to have a talk with you! I tend to respect Judges, juries and their legal opinions (when not obviously racially based)!

    “not something I voluntarily surrender to sheep.”

    But you WILL surrender it when order to do so by a court, right?! You will abide by orders form a court, right?!

  191. George April 21, 2021 4:44 pm

    “George no tiene ni idea”

    Would you EVER say that to any lawyers here? Translating libel into a another language doesn’t change it! So, ‘prove’ that I don’t anything! Should be easy to prove, right? Isn’t it you who doesn’t even know how defamation works? Want to find out?

  192. B April 21, 2021 6:13 pm

    @ George “So the majority of Americans are ‘sheep’, ‘B’???”

    Apparently, some of those sheep are just children looking for something to be outraged about.

    “But you WILL surrender it when order {sic} to do so by a court, right?! You will abide by orders form {sic} a court, right?!”

    No. There are four lights.

    “Would you EVER say that to any lawyers here?”

    It depends.

    “Translating libel into a another language doesn’t change it! . . . Want to find out?”

    Feel free to file suit. Make sure to launch an investigation into the missing strawberries.

    @ George “Except I never said ANYTHING about sandwich shops in this forum! LOL!”

    smh

    @ Anon — There’s no bottom to this rabbit hole.

  193. Anon April 21, 2021 7:23 pm

    George,

    You have jumped the shark from inane to insane.

    Look at your post at 186 April 19, 2021 6:09 pm. What you rant on and on about is plainly there. My direct quote is your words 154 to 168 of that post.

    What were you saying about evidence?

  194. Anon April 25, 2021 8:36 am

    B,

    As with most such folk, George will tuck his tail between his legs and be quiet.

    For a while.

    But he will return to his “standards” as evidenced in this thread (and other recent threads), and post in the same exact manner — without learning a single thing.

    The empty wagon simply rolls on to another uneven sidewalk.

  195. George April 26, 2021 5:47 pm

    @Anon

    Luckily NO ONE listens to you – especially about legal matters (or patents and inventions)!!! You couldn’t invent the ‘wheel’ – with instructions!

  196. George April 26, 2021 5:59 pm

    @Anon

    “The empty wagon simply rolls on to another uneven sidewalk.”

    But one containing some actually ‘valuable’ inventions and patents!!! LOL!

    So, let’s hear about some of your great inventions ‘B’ and ‘Anon’. No numbers required – you can keep ‘hiding’ your identity for your protection! Or do you mainly work with late-night ‘patent promotion’ companies? LOL!

    Anyone here know what ‘B’ and ‘Anon’ actually do for a living? Just having a law degree doesn’t mean much! Lots of bartender’s have law degrees! Lots of people who don’t even practice law do and many (former and failed) lawyers do to. So do many alcoholic lawyers! But these two in particular sure seem to have lots of time on their hands and even on weekends don’t have better things to do than try to make fun of others. Pretty sad! Maybe they should marry each other!

  197. Anon April 27, 2021 7:31 am

    That’s it George?

    The sum total is your “response” is ad hominem?

    And you – yet again – want to attack by attempting to defame my Moral Rights in the ability to post in anonymous or pseudonymous manner? After YOU provided a link that extolled the “right” of so writing?

    And you think that some future “great reveal” makes your pseudonymous posting any better?

    Can you really be that much of a mental dullard?

  198. George April 28, 2021 12:10 am

    Moral rights have NOTHING to do with the right to remain anonymous! If you commit a crime, you have no right to remain anonymous! If you are REPORTING a crime, then you may have a right to remain anonymous (especially if you are a minor) but it’s not a civil right. Anyway, are you EVER reporting a crime here, Anon? Are you ever ‘blowing the whistle’ on wrongdoers? You seem to be confusing moral rights with the right to be a coward! Yeah, I guess you have the right to be a coward!

    But moral rights have to do with the enforcement of ‘ethics’. I don’t think you know much about that, do you? In fact, many people (lawyers included) either don’t know much about ethics or they just don’t care. Less and less people care about ethics in this world. For them, the ends justify the means – period. Unfortunately the laws (in the U.S.) also protect those people. I wish they didn’t.

    “Can you really be that much of a mental dullard?”

    This is just some kind of disease with you, isn’t it? Why not get some help for that! It’s not normal to go around insulting everyone you disagree with or don’t like! It’s not normal at all! Stop it!

    “After YOU provided a link that extolled the “right” of so writing?”

    What link was that, that talked about anonymity as it relates to moral rights (#)?

  199. Anon April 28, 2021 10:31 am

    Moral rights have NOTHING to do with the right to remain anonymous!

    simply wrong — per the link that YOU YOURSELF originally supplied. That you seem unable to remember a link that you yourself introduced – that’s a “you” problem. It is rather not surprising that you appear to lack the intellect to even note that I have already provided the link – at post 157 of this very thread.

    If you commit a crime, you have no right to remain anonymous!

    Great – a complete non sequitur to anything that I have ever said, and not a position that I have ever taken against.

    You are falling back to your bad habits of asserting a strawman only to knock it down. You then launch into a screed about whistle blowing that has no connection with our discussion, and to which, you attack on a completely unsubstantiated (and for you – completely unknowable) ad hominem basis.

    This then is simply you providing ever more evidence of your own inanity.

    You are the one that insults on insulting yourself. I am merely using your own provisions against you.

    Don’t like it? Well, that is entirely within your control. You control how you present yourself. You just don’t get to control the ramifications of your choices.

  200. Anon April 28, 2021 6:50 pm

    ‘Celebrating’ a 200th post on this thread, I went back and read the actual story written by Mr. Quinn, and the words that still come to mind are:

    Spot.
    On.

  201. George May 9, 2021 5:40 pm

    Moral Rights have NOTHING to do with being anonymous (dummy)! Choosing to remain anonymous has a lot more to do with being a coward and wanting to lead a ‘secret life’, in addition to a public one! I don’t know any famous ‘advocates for ethics and morality’ that chose to be anonymous (since that would be an oxymoron)! So, are you an oxymoron Anon?!

  202. B May 10, 2021 1:18 am

    @ George “Choosing to remain anonymous has a lot more to do with being a coward and wanting to lead a ‘secret life’”

    Soooooo, that makes you a “coward” trying to lead a secret life? Seriously, George, it’s time to stop being a silly child and grow up.

    “I don’t know any famous ‘advocates for ethics and morality’ that chose to be anonymous”

    History is replete with such people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pseudonyms_used_in_the_American_Constitutional_debates

  203. Anon May 12, 2021 6:22 am

    Moral Rights have NOTHING to do with being anonymous (dummy)!

    More inanity.

    George, you were the one in your Trumping [sic] of Moral Rights that provided a link that discussed that there are moral rights in one’s anonymous and pseudonymous writings.

    You.

    That you seem oblivious to the content of your own links that you supplied in your quest to leverage “moral rights” as some distinction that “should” be there in the realm of US Patent rights is beyond strange.

    As for “George” being your real name, the lack of full attribution makes it NO LESS of a “hiding” mechanism than using a consistent pseudonym.

    You want to scold and throw rocks as you stand in the shards of your own former glass house….

    Inane.

  204. George May 21, 2021 2:18 pm

    “An Absurd Ruling Will Lead to Absurd Results”

    This WOULDN’T happen with computers making most of the decisions using ‘consistent rules’ and ‘algorithmic TESTS (like ‘Alice’)’.

    We don’t have these problems when it comes to even complex tax issues, do we? Most tax assessments AREN’T challenged, are they? Most taxes are prepared by computers now, not ‘fallible’, ‘error prone’, and ‘less than honest’ humans, aren’t they? Don’t think anyone wants to go back to doing their taxes by hand, do they?

  205. Jzuken May 21, 2021 5:14 pm

    What a lot of people here miss, lawyers and programmers alike, is that Java APIs simply couldn’t be copyrighted or patent protected by US law.

    There are a few obstacles to make them copyright or patent protected:
    1. API is non-original, the idea of API existed since the beginning of programming, they have been implemented in multiple languages in multiple different versions. Protecting APIs by copyright is close to trying to protect idioms or catchphrases by copyright.
    2. APIs are too abstract. The whole programming field is quite abstract, and is therefore protected by copyright laws instead of patent laws, as under US law abstract ideas and algorithms are UNPATENTABLE. The API itself is an abstract idea, that exposes a name by which one program can call other program, this part therefore is too abstract and too generalized to be patentable or copyrightable.

    Now what is interesting is not API itself, but the underlying code, that answers to API calls, belonging to Oracle. That code is actually copyrightable, but what I am most certain Google employees did – they used a “clean room design method”, which consists of multiple people – one group that can look at the code that Oracle produced, tell the other group what the code does without telling them any specifics, and a group that given those specifications writes a “clean code” that doesn’t infringe on copyright. Now because the specifications, which say “if this is the input, we get this result” is essentially an algorithm, the code gets cleaned of any copyright infringements at the moment that a specification-drafting group translates the code into specification or mathematical notation – after which another group going by those specifications implements a clean code, that already relies on algorithm, and not on the other code.

  206. Anon May 22, 2021 2:16 pm

    George,

    You have found yet another area that you know nothing about. I showed your comment to my brother (a senior VP of tax at a privately held 2B$ firm), and he could not stop laughing.

    Jzuken,

    I suggest that you check again, as you have both law and the facts very much wrong.

    The Court here did find copyrightability. That was a given in order to reach Fair Use (if you don’t have copyright, there is no need to even entertain the Fair Use analysis).

    Also, Google admitted to NOT using a clean room approach. They did admit to taking the matters lock, stock and barrel.

  207. George May 28, 2021 5:32 pm

    @Anon

    How many people want to go back to doing their taxes WITHOUT computers – even your brother?! LOL!!!

    Are you BOTH liars and fabricators of the truth now (I thought it was just you)?! Computers have made doing taxes (accurately and correctly) easy for most people! So has online filing and direct deposits! All made possible by computers and the internet – NOT ‘humans’ (whose incomes depended on doing those things)! We are all living better and easier thanks to computers and all those who helped invent them (which I don’t think included any lawyers).

  208. Anon May 29, 2021 8:19 am

    Yet again George, you insist on strawman positions that I have never advanced.

    Stop beating up strawmen and start paying attention to what I have actually stated.

Post a Comment

Respectfully add to the discussion.

Name *
Email *
Website