If something's not new, it's invalid under 35 USC 102. If something is obvious, it's invalid under 35 USC 103. Both of these would apply to "old process + computer", and the patent should have been invalidated on those grounds...

But, you have to prove that it's an old idea with some evidence in the form of prior art. And because SCOTUS can't do their own prior art searches, even though they knew it was an old idea, they couldn't invalidate it under 102 or 103... So, instead, they turned to 35 USC 101, and said that this was not a patent eligible method because it was directed to an "abstract idea"... But what's an abstract idea? According to Thomas, anything super super old, like you said. But that's what the other statutes are for.

It's the right outcome - the patent was clearly invalid - but for the wrong reason.

There's something seriously ironic about you claiming that the slur is a word of honor for a group that you refuse to be associated with.

You had a great grandmother with "coal black hair", right?

... one post later:

So, which is it? Not one person is offended, or some people are offended? Frankly, if you can't keep your story straight between two consecutive posts, why should we believe you about anything? Are you really even of native american descent, or is this one of those "my family has lived here a long time, and everyone intermarried several hundred years back, so I must be of native descent (even though I couldn't pinpoint a single actual ancestor and no tribe recognizes me)"?

It got reversed because of unreasonable delay by the plaintiffs - the Laches doctrine. Here, the plaintiffs are 18 and filed suit as soon as they were able. When it goes to appeal, the court may or may not toss it based on the merits, but they most certainly won't reject it for the same reason as last time.

On the contrary, Sparky. A department of the US government has refused to treat an entity differently than all other entities. Dan Snyder can use the word "Redskins" on his merchandise, and so can anyone else. This is the elimination of a government-imposed monopoly on commercial speech.

Nope, they won on appeal because of unreasonable delay by the plaintiffs before bringing suit - the Laches doctrine. Here, the plaintiffs are 18 and brought suit as soon as they could. Even if they may win for an entirely new reason, they most certainly will not win on appeal for that reason.

... you're really helping your side with the whole "this isn't disparaging" thing...

Not at all... The word is not offensive. The simple collection of letters is not offensive. It's the intent behind the use of the word that is offensive. And so, when you put on your pointy white hat and call a black guy the n-word, it's highly offensive, because you intend it to be. When the same black guy calls his friend that, it's not offensive, because he does not intend it to be.

This is the same reason you can make the post you did on Slashdot and not be thought of as offensive, because, despite using the terms, you're using them in a context of a discussion about the terms. But it's also why when you do call someone those names, you can't fall back on your, "bu-bu-but I heard someone else use that word!"

Actually, you're the one that sounds like a whiny biatch: "Oh, woe is me! I'm so white and anglo-saxon, and I don't get to use terms that are highly offensive to people without being thought of as highly offensive! Boo hoo! Boo hoo! I'll just have to cry myself to sleep on my bed made of unearned privileges, dreaming of encountering police without trepidation, and earning 10-20% more the same work! Boo hoo!" Get over yourself. You're whining about the fact that you can't call people names that you know will offend them with impunity. That's one of the most pathetic things I've ever heard.

Yep. Full versions of the letters are available here. Also notice that the "Girl" letter states that a computing class may be required for any "science and math fields", while the "Boy" letter notes that a computing class may be required for any "science, engineering, and math fields." Even the signature blocks are different, with the "Boy" letter signed by GT's Director of Computing Outreach, while the "Girl" letter is signed "Teacher Name". There are many subtle differences throughout the letters that really have no place to be there.

The Board of Directors? And yeah, lobbying decisions are absolutely due to the CEOs. I'm not sure what big business experience you have, but even the general counsel isn't pulling the strings that much.

What does that have to do with lawyers? It sounds more like the proposed reforms would have impacted pharma and biotech firms in an way that they viewed negatively, because the harms to them are not balanced by the marginal benefit to them of avoiding troll suits.

Without knowing specifically what they're complaining about, my guess is one of the definitions of trolls as "non-practicing entities" also scoops up many research universities, like Johns Hopkins (since they do research, get patents, and then license or sell them without making any products). And research universities are big R&D labs for pharma. If those JHU patents that they are exclusively licensing to make a drug suddenly become invalid, then their competitors can start making the drugs too... and without paying any royalties to the university or providing them grants for the initial research.

That has nothing to do with fucking lawyers, though. That's a business consideration... Why aren't you saying "fucking CEOs"?

Apparently spelling isn't one of those areas?

With all due respect, isn't it a bit ironic that you suggest I lack knowledge of this issue, and then you recommend I check out the youngest woman to sail solo non-stop around the globe? You really have no idea what you're talking about.

And before you hastily Google the correct name and then rush back claiming it was "just a typo" and you really knew it all along, no, you've never actually read anything by her. You saw mention of the elevator incident on some forum like the Spearhead, and lumped her in with this mythical feminist/social warrior anti-geek conspiracy you've created. You don't need to actually research issues, because you have gut feelings that happen to perfectly coincide with your prejudices.

Can you please copy and paste a quote from him saying that 1 in 6 women are "raped" or that there's a "rape rate" of 1 in 6? No, of course not. Because it's not there.

Any post that misleadingly paraphrases what it's replying to in order to make a claim about a lack of research about some statistic that wasn't actually cited is obviously being written off-the cuff with no legitimate interest in debating the issue. As a polemic rather than an argument it should be discarded as the waste of bandwidth it is.