that holding would expand the one i want to abstract analysis from abstract ideas to new computers a machine only when you say new much computers are machine you don't actually mean th claims are quire any kind of actual new computer it's the configuration of generic computers that's no that's right old hardware new software and that's why i think it would also if it's not reversed if this court affirmed call that when you have claims that are directed to it the question is whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea do you want to talk about whether your claims are directed to an abstract idea why or why not yes ron i agree with you it's not just well i didn't want to make the same stakes so when i looked in your brief for the claims i couldn't find them there is so i missed something no your honor that they are there to have a listing of the claims and i don't know if i have a would say here is the reason we argued it the way we did is if our independent claims that specifically talk about the new functionality of the computer and how it creates a hive engine and a fabric there is plenty of inventive and  that claim one is directed to an abstract idea and doesn't meet step two of alice in our you know the district court that there are different claims that are separately eligible now we did argue that and i am not saying if claim one goes down what i'm saying is the reason we didn't try to put all the claims in the brief was in the interest of space and given that we thought we have some that the arguments that it's not an abstract idea come across even applying them just to the claims that we did discuss let me try to ask you that i don't see argument is before us that please tell me if i'm wrong yes sure i think that argument is in front of you you think you've argued these claims separately well i've argued them separately because i've appealed each one of the decisions my point is because they all here was to take commodity computers and change the functionality of them so they can work together in a specific way to solve massive computing problems and replace mainframes and those kind of things but commodity computers breakdowns and so you needed fault toleran i don't know what's going on  detail to talk about how the different components operate he did actually talk about that because this is where i think your argument i have some difficulty with that if we're looking at claim one of the seven forty six it doesn't seem to have much detail r and most specifically in fish because i think you're trying to argue this is a step one case and fish was very specific it had a specific algorithm that created a new database it was a means plus function clane it didn't say here are these general ways of doing things let's do it on a computer which is what i see here it's let's have this idea of dividing up tasks to be done by different entities and then bring it all back together and if one person is not busy or one computer is not busy it let somebody know and can take more work and things like that i mean it seems very abstract to me well though here to answer it's a distinction between a platform that ties these commodity computers together and allows them to receive an application software all the kate the other cases including and it was a specific application software running on a computer this instead is a platform that a this discussion specification allows computer programmers to load onto our system their program and then our system has the overlay that allow multiple computers to carry it out give an example of federal express and this is in the complaint they say they developed an algorithm so that when you load up the plane they have to figure how much how much time it was going to take and what the route was and what package you structured go out they tried to use mainframe computers all harbor their program their applications for didn't work took six hours by the pound coin land they didn't have they used our system it ran in less than an hour and that's what they used today from twelve years ago that's what they used t so the point was when my client went to test the system fed ex unplug some of the computers just to see if it was still worth and that's that's the key the key is your harnessing the processing power of multiple computers but because you're exchanging state information which is in claim one of all the patterns you're changing state information they all know what's going on i mean what the inventors were thinking of at this time the reason these were to have engine is the hive survives even if any worker bee does so even if one computer is unplugged so what's not abstract is a new system a new platform on which you can run computer applications that's not abstract that it's certainly not command and control these computers it's egalitarian system all these computers have the same functionality and anyone can step up and handle what the other one's doing that's what's described in the specification so i agree with you that that claim one appears like there's not much there but when you is what a request in are those were processing or does and even though we didn't argue the dependent claims the dependent claims do inform the scope of the independent client so so what i'm saying is if you look at the request concept or something that's well known an economic principle and doing it on a generic computer or doing it on the internet that's the mail in the ultimate case so here we don't have some prior prior art cost effectiveness now of an interrupt you for a minute at your claims don't say what kind of computers they are because it's not clear in the high hedging to be a supercomputer or to be a p c i mean just as a high bang well this is correct your honor but but but the point is if you took any one of those computers and network them together so it was a supercomputer by giving them the functionality that didn't exist before so they all know what's going on with each other and anyone can step up and finish a task whatever the heart of the hive engine is it will work because it has to be imbued with that new functionality that didn't exist before now column two and three of the patent top about things that didn't exist before in your  briefing you talk about the novelty aspects or things that are conventional and i think those are what the idea of retraining state information and the idea of having three tiers yes and i also  think having self organization where where is that found in the claims those concepts i know where the state information and but what about the the other two ok the other two i'm sorry the other two were  organising your honor the state information is what provides them with the self organization so every computer when it receives state information it knows what all the other computers are doing and so it can volunteer and say and some of the dependent claims expand on this and i again i'm not arguing that those elements are in claim one my point is one is broader than that but what it would do is it would say for example a particular computer would say hey i need help doing this task and five computers would say would know that because it needs help doing that task because they're all communicating together in in a in a network and they can all be self organize and volunteer to help with that with that process the simon you have back is tough you're a set up boundaries i'm having a hard time putting this one in the set of things to me it doesn't seem like it falls under the in fifth up on a perfectly but it might even though it's using a bunch of conventional hardware applying them in unique and different ways that doesn't exist here there is no teaching at all that there is anything done out of the ordinary what we've got in the claims is your honour's i think that's the problem i have is that it does seem to me that this notion  linking together a bunch of different computers and and kind of distributing the task processing is something that had never been done before and as a novel use of generic computers well your honor their own specification identifies the distributed computing which is the idea of separating the past into its constituent parts predates their environment fact as we know from the specification as well that this notion of distributed processing dates back to even before computers undertook distributed processing this is something that client column one of the specification itself for first was using armies of individuals to undertake those armies used to have the titles of systems analyst we don't have those folks anymore they come from an era where computers cost as much as a house and sometimes were twice as big in that environment it was very poor we're going to be able to take that finite resource because that's what we're talking about a finite resource and then  methodology is it that i get that i mean that's that of excessive isn't the novel thing here is that they're programmed in a way to distribute different parts of the same tasks and to cut  is with the inquiry of the claims which is your honor identify very early on is what we're here to evaluate the claim language itself these notions aren't there now indeed the claims do have technical language genom they're dressed up in the are got of innovation but which when we really do you construct what it's talking about the find only would a computer or a network does its it doesn't to find the way or the methodology or the how to do what your honor has just described there isn't any of that present in the claim language your own heard that from opposing counsel who couldn't answer that question because he couldn't because it's not there the talking about these concepts of transferring data and state information that's what a computer does that's what a general purpose computer is designed  take in information on request process that information the purpose of a general let me ask you this and this is something i've been struggling with i don't i mean it pertains to this case was kind of a more general point if that kind of very specific city as they are and actually shows an actual concrete invention that tends to satisfy infests that why what's the universe then for these software claims where it still doesn't satisfy stuff but it could satisfy safe case for example your honor because in that instance what we saw the court say is that these notions of what a computer does transmit information collect information state information is part of that information process and that's how a computer moves from one step to another i guess command could responding back and saying hey this is how much i've done so far i'm dying could that be part of the abstract idea certainly it's one of the things the lower courts looked at as well your honor where they understood that the command and control is a two way street that the orders slow down but then something has to pass back up which is the information itself that would be the saddest command and control can't function without that return information and the computer is the same way that a computer simply be the basis upon which there is an event of step here because all it's really been doing is claiming the computer itself that's all that is defining as it's characteristic what it does for you saying that all software which is contrary  is abstract and not eligible certainly not your honor that's and that's not the test that we're asking this court to apply here either what we're asking this court to do is simply take the the existing jurisprudence that  abstract ideas with goals with ideals with results but nothing in those claims in either of those two cases i mentioned aptest affinity labs or sam isn't or electric power is there any indication that there analyze more in for me it was an idea one could argue with that's different than the situation you asked here are where it's the idea of using this computer in a certain way and having them perform different cast me organize a certain way that we hear it's being argued by your adversary is that it's resulting in a network that's improved a technological improvement to the network itself doesn't that distinguish electric power well i think you're over we're back to the same story of that's a result i understand the factual distinction of collecting data versus processing data but those are two things that the computers just automatically do we're talking about general purpose computers across a general purpose network that's what the flames identify and in that environment passing of state information is just what happens the passing of information related to the processing is what happens it's why computers are network together to be able to speak with one another i i wanted to make sure that i fully answered your question and bascomb i know we've really had that i just would like to clarify if you've got any follow up on that thank you sir one other thought i'd like to leave us with here as well is the notion of imbalance the imbalance that exists here between what is claimed and what the monopoly seeks to cover this is the bargain for exchange that we hear all the time a sharing of technical information in exchange for a monopoly on it these claims speak to a very very small if any technical innovation but what they're trying to capture here is an idea that thousand speaking to the idea that someone is putting something very small in the pool and getting something very large out one way to think of it would also be a construct of preemption that what we're really seen here is that these little claims with these little pieces of innovation allow for a very large footprint of technology that is on earned by these applicant i'm happy to answer any further questions well you'll have another chance mr fish with slightly different claims so thank you very much thank you mr simon we'll give you two minutes thank you thank you for for accommodating m four met with my client ten amazon engineers and their and their their person in charge of system architecture or for a period over six months at several meetings and asked the questions about how the system covered by these patents operated in two thousand  conventional and routine is a dish record found why in two thousand and four did the amazon engineers not understand it secondly my client received to a horse or a system that covers this patent the america business award for most innovative company computer software and services this is their only product and the software information industry association tony awards it was a finalist for outstanding vision those are both in two thousand and nine for this product so is it inventive certainly it's invent i'd like to get to that with respect to the claims the claims need to be read in light of the specification when the claims talk about a request him a process he and and even though they are short you need to go to the specification the real ascription and understand what those plain terms mean when you do that that that's what enables these claims and that's what gives the functionality the last thing as we talk we talk about the exchange of what do we disclose and what is the preemption or monopoly we get we disclosed a specific distributed computer system in claim construction amazon admitted this this these things claim a specific hardware i'm sorry specific implementation of a computer system with this specific functionality and that's all that the patent covers is this particular thing and what i would say is it when you read the claims in light a specification and the statements in the specification and the statements in the complaint there's