A few minutes ago, I attempted to make a rather time consuming post on the Politics board referencing three Supreme Court cases from their last session with quoted summaries of their holdings from scotusblog.com and links to the decisions.

There apparently was some kind of error in the forum code. Instead of posting the remarks, it came back with an invalid forum code message. I fixed what was apparently wrong and tried again. This time it was horribly mangled beyond belief with much of the code duplicated and links magically disappeared.

Naturally, with the forum code invalid, I cannot quote the mangled results here.

I think I mentioned this earlier in regards to another post.

I'm tempted to start writing such posts in a separate editor and then paste them into the reply on TexAgs. At least I'll be able to go back to the original and fix what is wrong without the really severe mangling that I encountered here. If I do, is there an e-mail address where I can send both the text as entered and then the mangled version from TexAgs?

Here is a similar version with a tag changed from /url to /ul:

quote:

---

At least the Supreme Court seems to be interested.

From this past year

In Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.:

quote:

---

A patent is
invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the patent's
specification and prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable
certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the
invention.

---

Decision at
http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Nautilus_Inc_v_Biosig_Instruments_Inc_No_13369_2014_BL_151635_US_

In Octane Fitness v. Icon Health and Fitness:

quote:

---

Section 285 of the
Patent Act authorizes a district court to award attorney's fees in patent
litigation in "exceptional cases" that is, cases which stand out from the
others with respect to the substantive strength of a party's litigating
position or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated. District
courts should determine whether a case is exceptional "in the case-by-case
exercise of their discretion, considering the totality of the circumstances."
The Federal Circuit's Brooks Furniture Mfg. v. Dutailier framework, pursuant
to which a case is "exceptional" only if the district court finds either
litigation-related misconduct of an independently sanctionable magnitude or
determines that the litigation was both "brought in subjective bad faith" and
"objectively baseless," superimposes an inflexible framework onto statutory
text that is inherently flexible.

---

Decision at
http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Octane_Fitness_LLC_v_ICON_Health__Fitness_Inc_No_121184_US_Apr_29

In Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International:

quote:

---

Because
Alice Corporation's patent claims involving (1) a method for exchanging
financial obligations, (2) a computer system as a third-party intermediary,
and (3) a computer-readable medium containing program code for performing the
method of exchanging obligations are drawn to a patent-ineligible abstract
idea under 35 U.S.C. 101, they are not patent eligible under Section
101.

---

Decision at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-298_7lh8.pdf

---

Let's see what happens

quote:

---

Here is a similar version with a tag changed from /url to /ul:

quote:

---

At least the Supreme Court seems to be interested.

From this past year

In Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.:

quote:

---

A patent is
invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the patent's
specification and prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable
certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the
invention.

---

Decision at
http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Nautilus_Inc_v_Biosig_Instruments_Inc_No_13369_2014_BL_151635_US_

In Octane Fitness v. Icon Health and Fitness:

quote:

---

Section 285 of the
Patent Act authorizes a district court to award attorney's fees in patent
litigation in "exceptional cases" that is, cases which stand out from the
others with respect to the substantive strength of a party's litigating
position or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated. District
courts should determine whether a case is exceptional "in the case-by-case
exercise of their discretion, considering the totality of the circumstances."
The Federal Circuit's Brooks Furniture Mfg. v. Dutailier framework, pursuant
to which a case is "exceptional" only if the district court finds either
litigation-related misconduct of an independently sanctionable magnitude or
determines that the litigation was both "brought in subjective bad faith" and
"objectively baseless," superimposes an inflexible framework onto statutory
text that is inherently flexible.

---

Decision at
http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Octane_Fitness_LLC_v_ICON_Health__Fitness_Inc_No_121184_US_Apr_29

In Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International:

quote:

---

Because
Alice Corporation's patent claims involving (1) a method for exchanging
financial obligations, (2) a computer system as a third-party intermediary,
and (3) a computer-readable medium containing program code for performing the
method of exchanging obligations are drawn to a patent-ineligible abstract
idea under 35 U.S.C. 101, they are not patent eligible under Section
101.

---

Decision at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-298_7lh8.pdf

---

Let's see what happens

---

That time, since I knew where the error was and changed it accepted the change and posted correctly. Next I'll try the same thing but not fix the error and see if it gets mangled.

Here is a version that got mangled with the brackets changed to braces so as not to be seen as forum code:

quote:

---

At least the Supreme Court seems to be interested.

From this past year

In {i}Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.{/i}:{quote}A patent is
invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the patent's
specification and prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable
certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the
invention.{/quote}Decision at
{url=http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Nautilus_Inc_v_Biosig_Instruments_Inc_No_13369_2014_BL_151635_US_{/url

In {i}Octane Fitness v. Icon Health and Fitness{/i}:{quote}Section 285 of the
Patent Act authorizes a district court to award attorney's fees in patent
litigation in }others with respect to the substantive strength of a party's litigating
position or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated. District
courts should determine whether a case is exceptional "in the case-by-case
exercise of their discretion, considering the totality of the circumstances."
The Federal Circuit's Brooks Furniture Mfg. v. Dutailier framework, pursuant
to which a case is "exceptional" only if the district court finds either
litigation-related misconduct of an independently sanctionable magnitude or
determines that the litigation was both "brought in subjective bad faith" and
"objectively baseless," superimposes an inflexible framework onto statutory
text that is inherently flexible.Decision at
{/url}{/quote}{url=http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Nautilus_Inc_v_Biosig_Instruments_Inc_No_13369_2014_BL_151635_US_

In {i}Octane Fitness v. Icon Health and Fitness{/i}:{quote}Section 285 of the
Patent Act authorizes a district court to award attorney's fees in patent
litigation in }others with respect to the substantive strength of a party's litigating
position or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated. District
courts should determine whether a case is exceptional "in the case-by-case
exercise of their discretion, considering the totality of the circumstances."
The Federal Circuit's Brooks Furniture Mfg. v. Dutailier framework, pursuant
to which a case is "exceptional" only if the district court finds either
litigation-related misconduct of an independently sanctionable magnitude or
determines that the litigation was both "brought in subjective bad faith" and
"objectively baseless," superimposes an inflexible framework onto statutory
text that is inherently flexible.Decision at
{url}http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Octane_Fitness_LLC_v_ICON_Health__Fitness_Inc_No_121184_US_Apr_29" id="wbbid_11">http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Nautilus_Inc_v_Biosig_Instruments_Inc_No_13369_2014_BL_151635_US_

In {i}Octane Fitness v. Icon Health and Fitness{/i}:{quote}Section 285 of the
Patent Act authorizes a district court to award attorney's fees in patent
litigation in "exceptional cases" that is, cases which stand out from the
others with respect to the substantive strength of a party's litigating
position or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated. District
courts should determine whether a case is exceptional "in the case-by-case
exercise of their discretion, considering the totality of the circumstances."
The Federal Circuit's Brooks Furniture Mfg. v. Dutailier framework, pursuant
to which a case is "exceptional" only if the district court finds either
litigation-related misconduct of an independently sanctionable magnitude or
determines that the litigation was both "brought in subjective bad faith" and
"objectively baseless," superimposes an inflexible framework onto statutory
text that is inherently flexible.{/quote}Decision at
{url}http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Octane_Fitness_LLC_v_ICON_Health__Fitness_Inc_No_121184_US_Apr_29{/url}{/quote}

In {i}Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International{/i}:{quote}Because
Alice Corporation's patent claims involving (1) a method for exchanging
financial obligations, (2) a computer system as a third-party intermediary,
and (3) a computer-readable medium containing program code for performing the
method of exchanging obligations are drawn to a patent-ineligible abstract
idea under 35 U.S.C. 101, they are not patent eligible under Section
101.{/quote}Decision at {url}http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-298_7lh8.pdf" id="wbbid_11">http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Octane_Fitness_LLC_v_ICON_Health__Fitness_Inc_No_121184_US_Apr_29" id="wbbid_11">http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Nautilus_Inc_v_Biosig_Instruments_Inc_No_13369_2014_BL_151635_US_

In {i}Octane Fitness v. Icon Health and Fitness{/i}:{quote}Section 285 of the
Patent Act authorizes a district court to award attorney's fees in patent
litigation in "exceptional cases" that is, cases which stand out from the
others with respect to the substantive strength of a party's litigating
position or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated. District
courts should determine whether a case is exceptional "in the case-by-case
exercise of their discretion, considering the totality of the circumstances."
The Federal Circuit's Brooks Furniture Mfg. v. Dutailier framework, pursuant
to which a case is "exceptional" only if the district court finds either
litigation-related misconduct of an independently sanctionable magnitude or
determines that the litigation was both "brought in subjective bad faith" and
"objectively baseless," superimposes an inflexible framework onto statutory
text that is inherently flexible.{/quote}Decision at
{url}http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Octane_Fitness_LLC_v_ICON_Health__Fitness_Inc_No_121184_US_Apr_29

In {i}Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International{/i}:{quote}Because
Alice Corporation's patent claims involving (1) a method for exchanging
financial obligations, (2) a computer system as a third-party intermediary,
and (3) a computer-readable medium containing program code for performing the
method of exchanging obligations are drawn to a patent-ineligible abstract
idea under 35 U.S.C. 101, they are not patent eligible under Section
101.{/quote}Decision at {url}http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-298_7lh8.pdf

---

It appears to happen when TexAgs changes a {url}http://examplecom{url} to a {url=http://example.com}http://example.com{/url} and there is a problem with the final url. Then when hitting post and it comes back with the forum code, I think that it interprets everything after that as being part of the url. Thus, the user sees everything from the {url} on repeated and it is very confusing to try to edit it.

So this should be relatively easy to fix. When a forum code error is detected, display the original message for editing instead of the first pass TexAgs modified version of the original message.