They're resorting to attacks on judges and courts now...

Summary: Frustration among the patent 'industrialists' (litigation 'industry') as guidelines maintain that abstract patents -- such as software patents and business methods -- are bunk and nothing is going to change any time soon (if ever)

The US Supreme Court has forced the USPTO to change its ways and in spite of very heavy lobbying like we've just mentioned, Section 101 isn't going away; it's not even being changed.

"...Section 101 isn't going away; it's not even being changed."Patent maximalists will carry on whining about Section 101 every week if not every day, but Justices at the Supreme Court aren't dealing with anything similar to Alice and Mayo. Their (almost) latest ruling in the domain of patents was WesternGeco (WesternGeco LLC v ION Geophysical Corp., a case regarding 'damages') and upcoming cases, picked only weeks ago, notably deal with prior art (§ 102), not patent scope. Kevin Dietz (Baker Donelson) has just mentioned the outcome in IAM, Joseph Robinson and Robert Schaffer did that over at Watchtroll and Richard Lloyd wrote about this again at IAM.

"....upcoming cases, picked only weeks ago, notably deal with prior art (§ 102), not patent scope."What we've been seeing recently are more attacks from the patent microcosm on the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) and its Justices. It's rather revealing. They attack the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), then the Federal Circuit (CAFC, recent example here), and now SCOTUS. Who next? Bullies is what they are. Here's a new example of attacks on SCOTUS: "The lack of any engineering or scientific expertise on the S.Ct. has led to some disasterous decisions for the software and medical diagnostics areas; i.e. Alice and Mayo."

No, they got it right and § 101 finally takes into account the need for something physical. Mr. Gross, a facilitator of patent trolls, wrote more rants about § 101, for example:

What #patent atty in their right mind wrote these claims? "...having an online user label an online product with a color; and outputting the product with the color to a display device, storage medium or network" http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220180181986%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20180181986&RS=DN/20180181986 … PTO: HELLO INVENTOR! PLEASE MEET 35 USC §101

Yes, well... they're cleaning up by undoing these grants (made in error). Inventors should be pleased about it; patent maximalists like Mr. Gross? Not so much... ⬆