Decisions have determined the limits of the statutory classes. Examples of subject matter not patentable under the statute follow:
A. Printed Matter For example, a mere arrangement of printed matter, though seemingly a "manufacture," is rejected as not being within the statutory classes. See In re Miller, 418 F.2d 1392, 164 USPQ 46 (CCPA 1969); Ex parte Gwinn, 112 USPQ 439 (Bd. App. 1955); and In re Jones, 373 F.2d 1007, 153 USPQ 77 (CCPA 1967).
B. Naturally Occurring Article Similarly, a thing occurring in nature, which is substantially unaltered, is not a "manufacture." A shrimp with the head and digestive tract removed is an example. Ex parte Grayson, 51 USPQ 413 (Bd. App. 1941).
C. Scientific Principle A scientific principle, divorced from any tangible structure, can be rejected as not within the statutory classes. O"Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. (15 How.) 62 (1854).
Section C disallows abstract mathematics from being the subject of patents.
Patents cover implementations, not ideas, i.e. algorithms. This is why software patents are written "algorithm x run on a computer". This provides the implementation. The algorithm is NOT patented, you can still freely use the algorithm by hand, on an abacus, etc.
The Bayer process is not presented as a formal mathematical statement. It's not possible to present it as such because the physics and chemistry behind it is not axiomized. The steps of building a machine to carry out the Bayer process do not involve abstract coding of a representation of the Bayer process which is then implemented on a general purpose chemical processor. Instead the process is implemented on a special purpose physical instrumentality. It is this special purpose physical instrumentality that is patented. Not the abstract laws of chemistry that the process is based on. And the result? The physical reality of a flow of molten metal.
This is very different from the CS algorithms that are patented as formal mathematical steps that are coded in an abstract processing language and carried out on a general purpose Turing machine. No physically specialized machine is needed and no physical product results.
In fact it is stunningly obvious that such an abstract algorithm be processed on a computer. This obviousness itself is a major problem with software patents.
The courts are starting to realize this. Hopefully it will become widely accepted and this era of abstract process patents that really have no distinct implementation will come to an end.
Nobody likes DRM. But we've got plenty of experience with DRM provided as part of proprietary software packages.
It reeks badly. You get root kits, various spy features, ads, you name it.
If I'm going to have DRM in order to get online delivery of media I sure as the dickens would rather have as part of an open source product that is subject to code review rather than the alternative.
Um no. In this case the Congress voted for legislation that contained provisions that prohibited the president from spending money on civilian trials and on prison facilities in the US for the GITMO detainees.
The vote came up and it was resoundingly against closing GITMO.
While Obama had majorities in the House and Senate for two years, saying he had control is overstating the situation considerably because his majority in the Senate was not enough to force cloture.
Uh... the sponsors of this bill are all Democrats. The reason this won't pass is because the House of Representatives is a bunch of knuckle dragging CISPA voting creationists otherwise known as Republicans.
The Legislature makes laws. The Executive makes laws in the form of executive orders which have power of law because of powers granted in Constitution or by laws passed by Congress. The Judiciary makes decisions based on a hierarchy of laws that have the power of law.
Executive orders have been held to have force of law in US History except under two cases:
1. Congress passes a countervailing law with a veto-proof majority.
2. The Supreme Court invalidates the order as unconstitutional.
1952 was the first time (2) occurred.
There have been some pretty significant executive orders, including Jackson's specie circular requiring that payment for federal lands be done in gold or silver, and FDR order that the military round up Japanese and German Americans in military zones.
Harry Truman desegregated the military via executive order, and Eisenhower did the same for public schools by executive order.
George Bush's order to restrict access to presidential papers was equally controversial.
I'd like to find out how the House of Representatives manages to pick creationists and climate change deniers for the Science and Technology committee. And hopefully this will go back into the Bush administration so we can see how much of a Halliburton sock puppet that was.
I happen to think a limit of $1 million in sales is ridiculously low. On that lets say you collect 5% sales tax. That's $50K. Some of those checks you are cutting are going to be in the $100 range.
The record keeping plus the exposure to audit for a tax liability of $100 is flat out absurd.
Don't forget people that are now doing $500,000 a year in sales may have to start collecting on the chance that they hit the limit.
It's not well thought out.
To start the de minimus should be much more like $50 million.
The Supreme Court has already provided guidance that the Commerce Clause gives the Federal Government power to allow states to apply taxes to these interstate purchases. See 1992 Quill Corporation.
The key thing is that it isn't the states who are regulating commerce in this manner. The power resides with the Federal Government as per the Commerce clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause.
Slashdot Mirror
Decisions have determined the limits of the statutory classes. Examples of subject matter not patentable under the statute follow:
A. Printed Matter
For example, a mere arrangement of printed matter, though seemingly a "manufacture," is rejected as not being within the statutory classes. See In re Miller, 418 F.2d 1392, 164 USPQ 46 (CCPA 1969); Ex parte Gwinn, 112 USPQ 439 (Bd. App. 1955); and In re Jones, 373 F.2d 1007, 153 USPQ 77 (CCPA 1967).
B. Naturally Occurring Article
Similarly, a thing occurring in nature, which is substantially unaltered, is not a "manufacture." A shrimp with the head and digestive tract removed is an example. Ex parte Grayson, 51 USPQ 413 (Bd. App. 1941).
C. Scientific Principle
A scientific principle, divorced from any tangible structure, can be rejected as not within the statutory classes. O"Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. (15 How.) 62 (1854).
Section C disallows abstract mathematics from being the subject of patents.
Patents cover implementations, not ideas, i.e. algorithms. This is why software patents are written "algorithm x run on a computer". This provides the implementation. The algorithm is NOT patented, you can still freely use the algorithm by hand, on an abacus, etc.
The Bayer process is not presented as a formal mathematical statement. It's not possible to present it as such because the physics and chemistry behind it is not axiomized. The steps of building a machine to carry out the Bayer process do not involve abstract coding of a representation of the Bayer process which is then implemented on a general purpose chemical processor. Instead the process is implemented on a special purpose physical instrumentality. It is this special purpose physical instrumentality that is patented. Not the abstract laws of chemistry that the process is based on. And the result? The physical reality of a flow of molten metal.
This is very different from the CS algorithms that are patented as formal mathematical steps that are coded in an abstract processing language and carried out on a general purpose Turing machine. No physically specialized machine is needed and no physical product results.
In fact it is stunningly obvious that such an abstract algorithm be processed on a computer. This obviousness itself is a major problem with software patents.
The courts are starting to realize this. Hopefully it will become widely accepted and this era of abstract process patents that really have no distinct implementation will come to an end.
They would discover it when the patents are published, which happens before FDA approval.
Nobody likes DRM. But we've got plenty of experience with DRM provided as part of proprietary software packages.
It reeks badly. You get root kits, various spy features, ads, you name it.
If I'm going to have DRM in order to get online delivery of media I sure as the dickens would rather have as part of an open source product that is subject to code review rather than the alternative.
Um no. In this case the Congress voted for legislation that contained provisions that prohibited the president from spending money on civilian trials and on prison facilities in the US for the GITMO detainees.
The vote came up and it was resoundingly against closing GITMO.
Life isn't as black and white as you have painted it.
It seems to me you have FULLY embraced the package offered by the right.
Bullshit. It's questioned all the time.
http://nation.foxnews.com/media-matters/2012/09/19/congressman-says-media-matters-may-lose-tax-exempt-status
It's not Nixonian until you come up with the tape of Obama telling his aides to sic the IRS on the people on his enemies list.
I'm getting tired of conservatives stereotyping liberals.
The third choice would have been impeachment. I think there is a good chance it would succeed if Obama released the GITMO inmates.
While Obama had majorities in the House and Senate for two years, saying he had control is overstating the situation considerably because his majority in the Senate was not enough to force cloture.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-06-16/news/ct-oped-0617-zorn-md-20120616_1_minnesota-democrat-al-franken-filibuster-proof-majority-barack-obama
Really.
For example this poll conducted by the Economist. 67% of voter deemed Obama to be a centrist.
http://www.economist.com/economist-asks/barack-obama-centrist
Uh... the sponsors of this bill are all Democrats. The reason this won't pass is because the House of Representatives is a bunch of knuckle dragging CISPA voting creationists otherwise known as Republicans.
In every other nation on earth Obama is considered center-right or moderate.
What about Vince Foster?
Still that doesn't come up to the 100,000 or so that died because of the WMD lies.
The Legislature makes laws.
The Executive makes laws in the form of executive orders which have power of law because of powers granted in Constitution or by laws passed by Congress.
The Judiciary makes decisions based on a hierarchy of laws that have the power of law.
Executive orders have been held to have force of law in US History except under two cases:
1. Congress passes a countervailing law with a veto-proof majority.
2. The Supreme Court invalidates the order as unconstitutional.
1952 was the first time (2) occurred.
There have been some pretty significant executive orders, including Jackson's specie circular requiring that payment for federal lands be done in gold or silver, and FDR order that the military round up Japanese and German Americans in military zones.
Harry Truman desegregated the military via executive order, and Eisenhower did the same for public schools by executive order.
George Bush's order to restrict access to presidential papers was equally controversial.
I'd like to find out how the House of Representatives manages to pick creationists and climate change deniers for the Science and Technology committee. And hopefully this will go back into the Bush administration so we can see how much of a Halliburton sock puppet that was.
No, it was not a mandatory lockdown.
http://nation.time.com/2013/04/19/was-boston-actually-on-lockdown/
So is the letter you hand to the postman. You don't get to read that without a warrant.
This is clearly frog cooking, eviscerating the intent of the 4th amendment.
I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further.
I happen to think a limit of $1 million in sales is ridiculously low. On that lets say you collect 5% sales tax. That's $50K. Some of those checks you are cutting are going to be in the $100 range.
The record keeping plus the exposure to audit for a tax liability of $100 is flat out absurd.
Don't forget people that are now doing $500,000 a year in sales may have to start collecting on the chance that they hit the limit.
It's not well thought out.
To start the de minimus should be much more like $50 million.
Yes if you read the link it's very eye opening. GE stated they paid over $1 billion in US taxes in 2010, some of which was Federal Income tax.
That's a heck of a lot more than ZERO.
The Supreme Court has already provided guidance that the Commerce Clause gives the Federal Government power to allow states to apply taxes to these interstate purchases. See 1992 Quill Corporation.
The key thing is that it isn't the states who are regulating commerce in this manner. The power resides with the Federal Government as per the Commerce clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause.