decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books


Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

You won't find me on Facebook


Donate Paypal

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Questioner is confusing the Story (told by copyrighted code) v the PATENTS (methods and concept) | 380 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Math is equivalent to its own description, unlike physical objects
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 08:07 PM EDT
The difference here is that math is equivalent to its own description. Physical
objects are not. Software is a description of math, and as such, equivalent to
said calculation.

Also, saying that a program alters the function of a computer is like saying
that the route chosen by the driver alters the function of a car.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Questioner is confusing the Story (told by copyrighted code) v the PATENTS (methods and concept)
Authored by: PolR on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 08:24 PM EDT
Parent wrote:
The creation of a functional device utilizing the patented parts of the formula is what is required to be infringing, not copying a "patented formula".
This is correct in the sense that this is how the law is.

Part of the software is math argument is that no such device is ever made when a computer is programmed. The notion that such a device is made is fictional computer science. The entire computer industry is held to the legal consequences of this fiction.

Nowhere does that address why utilization of parts of this formula, once made into a functional device (i.e. a software program), should not be patentable just as with the first formula. Because it is "computations" is not a justification and nowhere could I really find anything which did try and justify that.
This justification has been provided when I wrote this.
For programmers the software invention is not physical. It is an abstract method of manipulating abstractions called symbols (the bits) pursuant to an algorithm which is further limited to specific meanings assigned to the symbols.
This means the justification is two-fold: first you can't patent a machine when the invention is not a machine and no machine is being made, second there is abundant case law that abstract ideas such as mathematical algorithms are not patentable.

I will add to that many software patents are ultimately patents on the language of mathematics because computations are part of this language. They are not exterior to the language.

The parent writes this:

A big difficulty is that lawyers use a different computer science than programmers
While those are in fact two viewpoints, they are by no means he ONLY two viewpoints. Go ask a high level (PHD, NASA, etc...) mathematician, chemist, and mechanical engineer, et al their opinion of this and you will get as many opinions as types of people you ask depending on who their specialty views the world. Not sure why CS is the one we should listen to?
This is not a matter of viewpoints. Case law is stating as true principles of computer science which are factually erroneous. We are not talking about diverging opinions on the same set of facts. We are talking about different and conflicting statements of the facts.

Computer scientists are the experts in matters of computer science. The law is not free to use fictional principles of computer science but it does.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Questioner is confusing the Story (told by copyrighted code) v the PATENTS (methods and concept)
Authored by: globularity on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 08:53 PM EDT
As for asking people from a different field what a computer is? out of naivety
they might have a different opinion to someone familiar with the intricacies and
theory behind computers. The problem with that is that computers do not care
about peoples opinions they operate the way they do regardless. Computer science
theories are well grounded and have stood the test of time, it only in the
virtual world of law where people can invent their own reality that there is
problem with these theories.

As for the software transforming the computer into a different machine, that
only happens in the mind of the user, every thing done by a computer is what is
was designed to do before any software was loaded. You are confusing and
abstract representation of a function with an actual function.

If you would like to give concrete examples of what you believe changes when a
particular piece of software is loaded I will endeavor to describe what is
actually happening.

A computer cannot do things that it was not designed to do meaning that it
cannot get new functionality just by loading software.

Windows vista, a marriage between operating system and trojan horse.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )