I like the link, but one really has to be in a “tech mode” to engage in active listening there (truth be told, I will have to come back for that mode).

Notwithstanding THAT, I do want to add a parallel layer here — and one that is critical for those that actually are involved in writing and prosecuting applications that protect innovators: that of the (should be common) analog of the Ladders of Abstraction in not only capturing what an innovation is, but in capturing the FULL legal realm of the innovation.

While Night Writer does like to occasionally provide these deeper thinking links as to the technical underpinnings of innovation in the computing arts — and I will be the first to say that these types of things are very important, I will add that the larger discussions on this blog are those that wish to push legal views that for which the type of intense technical thinking need not be grasped at the level one should expect anyone willing to pontificate in the computing arts should grasp.

In other words, if you are one that wants to pontificate on patent law matters in the computing arts, you SHOULD be able to follow along the discussion that the link that Night Writer provides.

If you want to pontificate on patent law matters in NON-computing arts, applying the level of active listening and critical thinking may not be fully necessary — AS LONG AS YOU REALIZE — that there ARE more “general”

patent law equivalents that you SHOULD be able to apply active listening and critical thinking: and in particular, is the notion that patent claims are written after attorney who have a foot in both the technical world and in the legal world USE the technique of Ladders of Abstraction in order to properly capture the full legal effect of an innovation — BOTH for that innovation’s technical merits, as well as that innovation’s legal merits.

It is by NO means to be limited to the judges of the CAFC to listen and to be tested to the video presented (especially on technical merits of innovation in any such affected arts that may appear before them). The Justices of the Supreme Court (which are guilty of attempting to train the CAFC judges) should every bit have to listen and be tested.

And again – THIS type of technical listening and testing is important for any case that is involved in the computing arts.

But aside from any such case in the computing arts, ALL judges and Justices should listen to and be tested as to the analog of this type of video on the LEGAL Ladders of Abstraction and the critical relation of that technique to protecting the legal aspects of innovation (and ALL types of innovation, not just innovation in the computing arts).