Brianna Wu / John Walker Flynt - "Biggest Victim of Gamergate," Failed Game Developer, Failed Congressional Candidate

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
fuckidunno said:
sorry "novel" I'll go edit that
ooh "butchered"
I have to replace the KB on my field compy
Click to expand...

don't let your powerlevel slip girlfriend. Phil is waiting in the shadows
Particle Bored said:
Lol I was just making an avatar joke.
Click to expand...
That movie where the adorable Leo is Howard Hughes?? he's just dreamy

Kind of reminds me of what bri bri pretends to be. Like her degree she only got half of it..the crazy ass shut in part
 
fuckidunno said:
Actually you can. In fact the patent office has kind of been cracking down on pure method claims since Bilski.
These would be apparatus (device) claims.
Click to expand...
Bilski is mainly about business methods. By method, I meant practical methods of actually doing something specific. "Business methods" are a lot more mushy. "Process" would probably have been a better word to use. Anyway the actual law has become kind of a mess since SCOTUS started actually fairly routinely overruling the Federal Circuit.
 
AnOminous said:
Bilski is mainly about business methods.
Click to expand...
It's actually about method in the abstract (sort of a principles or features of nature argument) . that's the thing, in the roaring 90s abstract method claims were becoming all the rage - these were often business methods, but that is was specifically a business method wasn't the issue.n Bilski it doesn't disginguish "business" as the deciding factor what the distinguishing factor was attaching an abstract method to an apparatus or physical transformation
AnOminous said:
By method, I meant practical methods of actually doing something specific.
"Business methods" are a lot more mushy.
Click to expand...
That actually fits a business method.. practical methods of doing something specific, it has specificity (otherwise it wold have been rejected on 112 enablement). Bilski is a 101 rejection due to the concept of natural phenomena, mental processes or abstract ideas as patentable subject matter.
They push the abstraction boundary not the venue of opertaion (busines vs non-business)
"method" is the correct term. It's a method claim (are you thinking product-by-process? since there the transformation is held by the product)

but that, actually speaks more FOR frank, as he, apparently has a "toy" (a product and/or product of a process)
 
Last edited:
fuckidunno said:
It's actually about method in the abstract (sort of a principles or features of nature argument) . that's the thing, in the roaring 90s abstract method claims were becoming all the rage - these were often business methods, but that is was specifically a business method wasn't the issue.n Bilski it doesn't disginguish "business" as the deciding factor what the distinguishing factor was attaching an abstract method to an apparatus or physical transformation
Click to expand...
It does because it's about the specific test applied and why a business method will seldom qualify.
 
AnOminous said:
It does because it's about the specific test applied and why a business method will seldom qualify.
Click to expand...
What (I think) hes saying tho is that the test isn't about biz/non-biz it's about being too abstract..immaterial???


That goes against your first thing tho that Frank needs to have a process attached to the thing.
Sounds more like Frank's got a thing, a toy, some sort of object (I'd kinda think bri bri would describe it as a game or something if it was some kind of event or something..then bri could talk about how it was all due to his own influence on the CHink)
 
Last edited:
Sonichu-choo trainwreck said:
What hes saying tho is that the test isn't about biz/non-biz it's about being too abstract

That goes against your first thing tho that Frank needs to have a process attached to the apparatus. It looks closer to the other way round
Click to expand...

correct. In fact in Bilski the court specifically admoishes it is not a categorical exception and goes on to affirm that there can be business method patents

p3 subsection 3 of the syllabus

ore other consulting other Patent Act limitations andthis Court’s precedents, may include at least some methods of doingbusiness. The Court is unaware of any argument that the “ordinary,contemporary, common meaning,” Diehr, supra, at 182, of “method” excludes business methods. Nor is it clear what a business method exception would sweep in and whether it would exclude technologiesfor conducting a business more efficiently. The categorical exclusionargument is further undermined by the fact that federal law explic-itly contemplates the existence of at least some business method pat-ents: Under §273(b)(1), if a patent-holder claims infringement basedon “a method in [a] patent,” the alleged infringer can assert a defenseof prior use. By allowing this defense, the statute itself acknowledges that there may be business method patents.

the "process" idea hinges on a product-of-process concept. hence the apparatus and/or transformation test
 
fuckidunno said:
correct. In fact in Bilski the court specifically admoishes it is not a categorical exception and goes on to affirm that there can be business method patents
Click to expand...
And then provides no actual test for when this is allowed. Tell me, what percentage of such patents are now granted after Bilski?
 
Not really sure why everyone is sperging out about patent law when the context of the conversation with Frank is that it didn't fucking happen and both of them spent the night jacking off in separate rooms while the empty fast food containers remained in the kitchen and the dogs were left unfed for the third night running.

teacher.png
 
AnOminous said:
And then provides no actual test for when this is allowed. Tell me, what percentage of such patents are now granted after Bilski?
Click to expand...

correct. they wouldn't put an undue restriction on it (esp in light of Chakrabarty did speak to breadth of patentable subject matter), but rather made sure they were not implying restriction as it could fall outside the scope of the case before them and strays into advisory opinion territory.
(yet they did cover the apparatus and/or transformation test germane to bilski)


No way to tell the percentage and more specifically if each rejection were based specifically only a 101 as per bilski
 
Last edited:
ladies ladies - doesn't sound like that would matter anyway.
It sounds like franks has a toy, not a method.
and that whole case looks like can you have just a method floating in space.

and then there's the design patent thing (which I didn't know existed)
 
AnOminous said:
You can patent methods, not designs. And a name can be a trademark but without federal registration you get none of the advantages of it. You might have common law remedies but you're missing most of the best Lanham Act remedies, and anyone who infringes your trademark can't be assumed to have been on notice that it's registered. If you register, anyone who infringes is expected to have done a trademark search before using a mark in commerce. A trademark is also not a design (generally), but a word or mark or nearly anything perceptible to the senses (which actually can include a design) that identifies a product as coming from a particular source. A character design would generally be copyrighted and is born copyrighted if it is copyrightable.
Click to expand...
Huh, neat. So in terms of "toy patent" it just doesn't really happen then, and John is just blowing smoke out of his ass to try and make it seem like something big is happening with the screaming asian.
 
HomerSimpson said:
Huh, neat. So in terms of "toy patent" it just doesn't really happen then, and John is just blowing smoke out of his ass to try and make it seem like something big is happening with the screaming asian.
Click to expand...
You could patent a toy, or at least some aspect of it. I just seriously doubt Frank has come up with anything that qualifies. Mattel got a patent on the mechanism for the pullspring disc player in Chatty Cathy dolls for instance.
 
"something deep in the human heart that enjoys feeling better than other people" do tell us more, John.

what is this incoherent bullshit

ubi1.png

ubi2.png
 
Peace and Harmony said:
"something deep in the human heart that enjoys feeling better than other people" do tell us more, John.
Click to expand...
I think John is talking about how he loves to boast about his material possessions like his "Porches" that prove he's better than other people.
 
AnOminous said:
There are actually a lot of these, like Owens-Corning owning the right to make pink fiberglass insulation, or John Deere owning the right to make green tractor equipment. They generally only own the distinctive shades of the color, though, and may not own it in places that don't recognize such things or where someone else has already been doing that before them.
Click to expand...
Louboutins also own the right to color the underside of their fancy high heels their distinct shade of red. They've gone to court several times against other companies trying to use the same shade on their shoes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom