The machine-or-transformation test has been derided by some as being a cold and unappetizing leftover from the Industrial Revolution no long applicable to the digital complexities of the Information Age, but praised by others as being a practical guide to whether an idea is more than a mere abstract concept and instead an actual, verifiable, and practical process.
No other patent application has drawn the kind of interest worldwide as the Bilski case has. And no other patent suit has drawn into the debate, various industry interests, academia, the legal fraternity and the open source community. Filed 12 years, the Bilski case has put under the scanner the flood of business method patents issued in the US in the past decade, and as the case found its way to the Supreme Court, websites and the blogsphere has become cluttered with a plethora of opinions on the merits of the patentability business methods or processes. An indication of the high interest in the Bilski outcome was the long line of people wanting to attend the public hearing — it turned out to be a brief 30-minute session ultimately — in the Supreme Court last Monday.
The video prominently features BU law professor and economist Michael Meurer whose book Patent Failure (with Jim Bessen) uses economic analysis to make the case that patents (particularly software patents) are a net drag on innovation. The video is purely one-sided.
"People who work for Facebook / Xitter / Bytedance's Tiktok / Microsoft / Oracle / IBM / Apple / Uber / Lyft / Wolt / DoorDash / AirBnB / Bolt / and so on are doing some world-class projection when they have the audacity to call others Bad People(tm)"
It certainly does seem like they receive money from taxpayers for nothing, or for IBM to do mass layoffs/closure at Albany under the guise of "making a new spinoff"...
If the election is run by platforms that have back doors "baked-in" and if the communications are overseen by GAFAM, you would not have to be a "nutty MAGAt" to dispute the outcome
