Trading technologies v cqg
Until that happens, your opinion is just as worthless as mine. If the box could not previously run your new software, and you change it in some way so that now it can, then oldbox has new capabilities. If the oldbox can run software designed to be executed on it, regardless of what that software does, oldbox is still the same oldbox. How many ways does this need to be illustrated?
Lathes and CNC codes? If it can still only show that which is broadcast as TV signals, its oldbox. You can call something a music box or you can call it a pop goes the weasel player. If you invent a pop goes the weasel player you can claim the precise configuration of fingers on a drum and the precise dimensions of the harp elements. Is a manual typewriter different than an electric? Whats different about them? Well, for one thing, the electric has additional parts.
Yay — nothing like not paying attention to the point already made like so many times that even Malcolm has volunteered admissions against his interests as to knowing and understanding the legal points of the exceptions to the judicial doctrine of printed matter. This makes zero sense. Bolding the word inherency does nothing to clarify. It certainly is not. If you change the power supply, or the display driver, or the tuner, or the input interface, you have changed the TV.
If you merely change the input signal, you change nothing about the TV. It is still a screw. Just not when the software achieves utility by processing information consumed by human beings.
You want to patent mpegs and clever self-driving algorithms, and clever phone number algos and a million other things, have at it. The machines are still old machines unless there is new physical structure, because machines are physical things, as a child knows.
There are new physical structures. You just have difficultly seeing them because they are small. He refuses to acknowledge that software has — as it must, since it works — the critical part of the exceptions to the judicial doctrine of printed matter: Snyder will of course clench tight his eyes to such facts, simply because they do not align with his personal agenda.
Has the deadline passed for a cert petition to reverse McWrong? It must be getting close. This decision is just as bad as McWrong which was, unfortunately, precedential.
One reason to confine this case to non-precedent was surely to minimize its importance and decrease the otherwise phenomenal likelihood that the Supremes will crush the opinion into dust. Also, data was presented using graphics generated electronically eons before this patent was filed. The district court explained that the challenged patents do not simply claim displaying information on a graphical user interface. There is a things displayed on parts of the screen! The things are in locations for a reason!
But it sounds so much more … serious! The short version of the word salad I quoted is: Why not just say that? Well, we all know the answer to that question …. The claim tells you right off the bat what it is: As the CAFC itself has explained on literally dozens of occasions: The Supreme Court as well is crystal on this point. So where did Newman dig this up? Unbelievably, she tries to pin it on Mayo! The rest of the analysis is an absolutely unintelligible attempt to distinguish this case from reams of cases where the CAFC has found the claims ineligible and remember: In the olden days traders did not have a graphical display.
First everything was done over the phone and with little slips of paper Later there were text based alpha-numeric displays sort of a green on black motif. Also, there was a lot of yelling and slips of paper and offensive sport coats:. Since you and the Supremes keeps saying things are abstract because they are old…. Reread Bilski, including the Oral Argument… One of them said is was abstract because it was in his old text book.
They said it was abstract because it was old. My facts are straight. These are such absurd rulings, they are hard to forget. You and your cohorts have been telling everyone you are confused for years now. Part of the reason you are confused is because you have a reading comprehension problem. At least stop spreading the misinformation. Likewise, limiting the economic practice to some sub-field e.
You want to patent a new cash register? Just describe the new cash register in objective structural terms distinguishing its structure from prior art cash registers. Of course, that requires some skill in a patent eligible art. Too difficult for you? Boo hoo hoo hoo hoo. Just stick to writing software then and enjoy the special protection that Congress created for you. The issue is they ruled that it was abstract because it was old.
This is perfectly clear if you read Mayo and Alice and use your brain, instead of your wallet, to help you understand. It is not false.
I pasted the text. Why not just end the sentence with hedging is a fundamental economic practice period, full stop. The law of supply and demand might be fundamental. Bilski was a wake-up call. The maximalists tried to hit the snooze button but they got hammered with Alice.
Then the hit the snooze button again. Gee, I wonder what happens next. You are not being inte11ectually honest with the point that you and Les are talking about, Malcolm. No, it was to bolster the assertion that it is fundamental. The implication was, its old, therefore its fundamental, therefore its abstract. Bilski itself stands for very very little, by the way.
Maybe Malcolm once again , you are trying to dissemble about a point that you have volunteered admissions against your interest upon. You do know that such dissembling in a court would be unethical to say the least, and you would be sanctioned, right? MM, we agree on the last bit concerning novelty. Whether the ineligible subject matter is new or old is entirely beside the point.
Newman fundamentally does not get it, and the rest of the court will not sign on to this opinion, so it is rendered non dispositive. Fair enough, but they really should not have to in this case. I can understand the value of leaving the CAFC the option of making some opinions non-precedential, but that option should be used very sparingly as opposed to Rule 36 judgments, which may necessarily be used frequently when case loads are high.
Ideally, where there are more than e. There was nothing about this case that was similarly hard to follow, however. That is to say, it appears to ignore the controlling SCotUS precedent. If the CAFC really is going to cabin Alice thusly, they need to have the courage of their convictions and do so. This case drives a truck right through Supreme Court precedent. Not that it matters much. McWrong is also completely inconsistent with the Supremes and plainly opened the gates for Newman and her handful of like-minded colleagues on the CAFC to reach whatever decision re eligibility that they wish, at least when the claims have plenty of extraneous verbiage.
It trespasses against the underlying logic of stare decisis to have lots of non-precedential decisions. And lately there are a lot. It is hard to maintain stare decisis when decisions are not made precedential.
Those Rule 36 opinions are published without listing the claims that were at issue and found ineligible, and without any statement whatsoever as to the basis for the holding. MM — I agree with you but would add a slight correction — the R. Hm, for whatever little it is worth, I disagree. If someone files an appeal, the CAFC has to decide it. If the opinion below is sound, and the issue at stake is bog ordinary, there is no reason for the CAFC to use up the valuable time of its judges or clerks re-inventing the wheel.
Just let the ruling below stand. Rule 36 affirmances are a perfectly sensible way to do that, and to dispose of the mass of cases that really do not merit an opinion. This is just a basic courtesy to people who are trying to get a grasp on what the CAFC is doing. Dennis, overall the opinion is sound.
This fully explains why the opinion was not and will not be listed as precedential. If a similar graphical representation were used in dozens or hundreds of other instances where changing one variable affects one or more other variables, and none of those were found in patent documents, how would prior art be uncovered? Next, how does this differ from a slide-rule or any two-dimensional new, non-obvious and described technical graphic in terms of subject matter?
Next in what world is this an improvement to the capability of the system as a whole? If someone uses the same display concept not for bond trading, but say for forecasting hotel room occupancy based on nearness to a holiday, are they infringing too?
This is a perfect example of where my proposed doctrine would be simple to apply: When a graphics engineer improves the screen resolution, does that improve the bond-trading system? When the bond trader minimizes her trading screen and brings up Facebook, is it still a bond trading system?
How about if instead of minimizing the trading app, she unloads it? Is it still a bond trading system? How about if she loads the trading app from a USB stick that she then puts in her pocket. Is the computer on her desk still a bond trading system? Is it the interface designer, who may know nothing about bond trading whatsoever? Or is it a bond trading expert we would have to frame the obviousness inquiry around?
Kind of odd that a person who knows nothing of bond trading might be the person skilled in the art of improving bond trading systems…. Some claim terms do not have equivalents. If it really is as hard as you say to identify the relevant equivalents, then that may merely mean that there are not any.
It is not objection to the validity of a claim that certain elements may simply lack equivalents. Once again, this strikes me as a weak objection. Innovation does not confine itself to our pre-defined categories. Sometimes a given claimed invention draws on several different categories, in which case the PHOSITA simply will not fit neatly into one category either.
On the other hand, we all knew people in college who were double majors in e. A computer loaded with software does many more things than a computer without software. This point hardly seems worth asserting.
I am not a comp. The two experiences were discernibly different. I have turned on a computer before that had no operating system loaded, and also turned on a computer with an operating system loaded.
They are structurally identical. I have looked at my TV when it was tuned to channel 9, and it was all static.
I have looked at it when it was tuned to channel 3, and the football game was on. Judge Newman did not say that a computer with the claimed software is a second, new computer.
I would say that tuning to a station with a signal improves the function of your t. Those TV channels must meet the precise specifications for wavelength and digitization; if they do not, they are something other than TV channels for that TV.
Those instructions must meet precise specifications for syntax, and if they do not, they are something other than program instructions for that computer. If you devise improved TV channels or improved instructions, independent of the content of those channels or instructions, you have improved the systems.
If you modify the content, you have created new content for use by those systems, and you should have some protection for your content so that it may not be stolen and used by others without reward to you.
The proper intellectual property for content is copyright. Because machines cannot be said to have minds, and only minds can host abstractions, if information is consumed by non-human actors and contributes to a functional result, the nature of the abstraction is materially different. This is a perfectly fair point, and it seems to my mind to bespeak a sort of gestalt shift in how one looks at software.
The statute is written in a way that it can be construed consistent with either view. As it happens, the SCotUS favors your view at least for the moment , and therefore your view is the law or at least closer to the law than my own view.
I will say this in defense of my view. Fundamentally, the patent system has three goals: That is to say, you want to find out new things, tell them to other people, and make the practical applications of those discoveries available to the relevant markets.
When someone writes new code for the computers in my car that makes the car more fuel efficient, that is just as much in furtherance of those three goals as when someone else changes the shape or size of some engine part in a manner that also improves the fuel efficiency.
Therefore, from the bluntly practical point of view, it seems to me sensible to treat the software invention the same as the mechanical invention. I confess, however, I cannot offer a logical refutation of the argument you offer. It seems logically sound enough to me.
I am just not sure that your approach ends up giving the sort of liberal encouragement to innovation that we should want to give. Greg if I did not agree with this When someone writes new code for the computers in my car that makes the car more fuel efficient, that is just as much in furtherance of those three goals as when someone else changes the shape or size of some engine part in a manner that also improves the fuel efficiency.
Non-humans cannot consume content as abstractions, because only the human mind may host abstractions. Even if we manage to create machine sentience, and even if the technology we use is wet, I draw that line at the human mind as a universal principle. If someone invents an assay that lets me know whether my son will have peanut allergies when he is older, that is just as much in furtherance of those three goals as when someone else invents a vaccination to prevent peanut allergies.
If the assay method is a new structure or use of existing structures, non-obvious, and fully described, it should be patented. Assuming the PTAB and the court are using the same claim construction. Can anyone think of scenarios under which the PTAB could now possibly hold these same claims ineligible? They then go about their merry business of invalidating the claims without a care in the world.
Thus throwing another year or more of delay into the litigation that started in Justice delayed is once again justice denied.
Ned — and yet again I find you whining about something — without as yet showing that you understand that what you are whining about happens because certain sticks in the bundle of property rights that belong to a granted patent are taken at a very particular instant of time. The difference in standard would be one way of saying, yeah, CAFC found them eligible, but we are operating under a different standard. I, generally, think collateral estoppel and the variants should be stronger — one attempt by a party and done.
Perhaps it will help close the seemingly endless argument on these pages, whether writing code for a computer is, per se, a technologic act. The court distinguished this system from the routine or conventional use of computers or the Internet, and concluded that the specific structure and concordant functionality of the graphical user interface are removed from abstract ideas, as compared to conventional computer implementations of known procedures.
The court went on to say: Precedent has recognized that specific technologic modifications to solve a problem or improve the functioning of a known system generally produce patent-eligible subject matter.
These statements make clear that a specifically claimed user interface that ties a functional operation to a particular graphical structure to provide a solution to an information related activity, is patent eligible technology. Alice , S. Nonetheless, some courts, and many patent examiners, have interpreted this court's statement in Enfish that the invention results in "faster searches, and required less programmer time and memory than other tables" as requiring mechanical improvements in the operation of the computer, for example, faster processing, more efficient memory or networking operations, or the like.
An eligible improvement in computer functionality includes making the overall operation on the computer as a tool easier, faster, or more accurate, without in any way making the computer itself perform physically faster.
This analysis is particularly important because, as a general rule, a graphical user interface rarely makes the computer itself operate physically faster—rather it enables users to perform complex functions more quickly, more easily, and with less error.
Just as an inventive hand tool such as a wrench or saw itself does not operate faster, but enables a user to perform a manual task more quickly, a specifically designed graphical user interface can likewise enable user to complete a task more quickly or accuratelyand in some circumstances the task can be life-saving or life-threatening e. One of the questions in determining whether a claim is directed to an abstract idea is whether the concept identified in the claim must be of well-known and of long standing.
In Alice , the Court made repeated statements that suggested this requirement. The Federal Circuit appears to have endorsed this requirement. Wells Fargo Bank, N.
Indeed, humans have always performed these functions. However, these statements are all in the context of specific individual examples of abstract ideas. Trading Technologies corrects this oversight by stating: We agree with this conclusion, for all of the reasons articulated by the district court, including that the graphical user interface system of these two patents is not an idea that has long existed, the threshold criterion of an abstract idea and ineligible concept , as the court explained in Mayo C o ll abo rati ve S erv i ces v.
Trading Technologies , slip op, at 6 emphasis added. This clarification is necessary because the USPTO and some courts have taken the position that it is not necessary for the abstract idea in the claim to be long-standing or prevalent. Kappos , U. These aspects of Trading Technologies are not cumulative of the existing body of the Federal Circuit post- Alice eligibility cases.
Rather, each one highlights a key and distinct contribution that the case makes to the law. By extension, courts should not use basic knowledge or common sense to answer the legal question of whether something is an abstract idea. Laws of nature are like seams of gold hidden underground: Abstract ideas on the other hand are created entirely by the human mind. They never exist beforehand. The general categories are the abstract ideas of concern. Trading Technologies is the First Patent Eligible Functional User Interface Invention Found by this Court Graphical user interfaces are the core mechanisms by which we functionally interact with physical devices—from our computers and smartphones to our appliances and automobiles.
Subscribe to our Intellectual Property mailings and other Fenwick mailing lists. Subscribe to Bilski Blog Enter your Email: Neapco Ruling Thawing in the s? LG Did you hear about the statistician who drowned in a lake with an average depth of two feet?