Sources: USPTO , , Network World
quote: First of all, you are pointing to the wrong statute. It's 35 USC 101 that talks about patentable subject matter, not 102. Did you even glance at the supreme court case? Read the very first line of the opinion. You're looking at the wrong statute (35 USC 102 discusses novelty and what is prior art). Who's clueless?
quote: Second, that isn't a recent interpretation, that goes back a long time. Again, second paragraph of the Supreme Court Opinion citing cases from 1841 and 1854.
quote: Third, obviousness is 35 USC 103 and has nothing to do with patentable subject matter.
quote: Fourth, thank you for making a sane argument regarding it potentially being an abstract idea. However, this has no bearing on novelty (35 USC 102) or obviousness (35 USC 103). It's a 35 USC 101 question. If you want to make the argument, you need to compare the claimed subject matter in the Apple patent to the Diehr and Flook case that the Court starts talking about on page 11. Unfortunately, the law here is changing frequently and right now we are left doing a compare and contrast with Diehr and Flook to determine if something is an abstract idea or not. Not easy to do for a lawyer, let alone a patent examiner.
quote: In 2007, Samsung, HTC, Google and all others in the industry didn’t have a smartphone with the likes of Apple’s iPhone features. They didn’t have the solutions that Apple eloquently brought to market to make a smartphone truly smart. Apple carefully and meticulously crafted a full end-to-end smartphone solution. So when the copycats and their followers whine in public and on blogs that Apple should learn to compete instead of initiate litigation – I bowl over with laughter.
quote: Leave the law to the judges and the courts, they are the professionals. Reading DT on patents is like listening to somewhere who plays Fifa 12 lecturing Sir Alex Ferguson on how to manage Manchester United. Embarrassing, obsessive and a bit weird.
quote: Leave the law to the judges and the courts, they are the professionals.
quote: Sec. 102 makes Sec. 101 more explicit by spelling out what conditions disqualify something that might seem like an invention per Sec. 101. Hence all of these kinds of cases first mention Sec. 101, then move on to discuss quotations from Sec. 102, when discussing disqualification.
quote: You just completely agreed with my point and still called me clueless. Patentable subject matter = 35 USC 101; Novelty = 35 USC 102. Obviousness = 35 USC 103. Stop conflating them and blurring the lines. I get paid a lot of money for this and am quite good. Trying to help you out as I am an long time reader of the site. Take the help and improve rather than conflating concepts and arguing nonsense.