even if the populous voted
The populous what?
It's "the intentional creation of the apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact"
Your interpretation of that seems overly broad. All actions are intentional, and some of them create the apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact, but does that imply that all intentional actions (which are all of them) creating the apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact intend to create the apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact? If I ask someone at night what's the time, 1) it's intentional, and 2) that person might mistakenly get the apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact, but 3) is it my intention to create the apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact? It's not the same thing as throwing a stone at someone and missing, where a misunderstanding is much less likely.
I suspect he's been trying out some new laws on my wife.
In your place, I'd become suspicious somewhere around the 69th law.
Why? Microsoft has a long history of hiring many top researchers, and then doing very little with the results.
Well, as long as they publish papers, who cares if they're doing very little with the results? Someone else is going to do it for them.
As people age their politics tends to become more conservative.
Yes, conservative, but in relationship to what? If you're conservative relative to average late 21st century values, you'll be awfully progressive in the early 21st century. What do you think, does this shift to conservatism include actual regressing in values, or is it simply staying in place?
The sun is setting in the British Empire's back yard.
But will anyone notice through the clouds?
You mean that the Federal Circuit actually followed Congressional intent and the statutory law (35 USC 101) -- apparently against the wishes of the Supreme Court.
Foolishness. Section 101 is broader than you give it credit for. Patent attorneys love to overlook the language.
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
One may very well look at the Alice patent (or any of a whole series of the business method/software cases) are realize that those claims are drawn to things that the patentees neither invented nor discovered, were not new at the time, etc. What's more Section 101 is entirely permissive "may obtain" which is hardly a requirement: shall or is entitled to, etc.
And, in any case, Congress is bounded by the Constitution's copyright clause: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 8). Extending patent rights to abstract ideas, general principles, etc., would arguably be unconstitutional. So, to avoid the constitutional question, it's best to resolve the broad language against that patentability.
... at trial, yes. Not at the USPTO or before the PTAB.
I rarely care about non-issued patents, other than my own. Patent examiners can do their thing. Alice gives them a tool now too.
IPRs are a possible strategy. But people don't willy-nilly file those either. They're more part and parcel of modern patent litigation now to get a stay and hopefully wreck claims. A good IPR is still 5 figures.
And in KSR, SCOTUS pushed that way back. Now it's actually quite easy, unless the claims recite an element that you just can't find a reference for, anywhere.
And that's still an issue for mid- to late-90s patents. Words are different. Language is different. Experts and lawyer arguments are expensive.
Plus, a wealth of everyday computer stuff from the 90s is still pretty hard to come by or expensive or time consuming to retrieve.
That'd be an easy 103 rejection: you can prove it's been "done previously," right? You can prove that the platform existed previously, right? Where's the problem?
If that's all that was required, woo-boy.
How do you define "actually inventive"?
Here are the questions I ask when contemplating patent filings, post-Alice, for a software method (or computer implemented method):
* Can I reasonably determine the bits and pieces you put together a specific solution to a specific problem based on your claims?
* Do the claims give me all of the pieces of the puzzle or does it give me a flowchart?
* And, to entirely avoid an Alice question, are you using generic bits of technology for their ordinary purpose to solve an old problem the old way?
"Good" answers to these questions should avoid a 101 issue.