decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

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


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
I disagree with your conflation of definitions | 627 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
I disagree with your conflation of definitions
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 04:23 PM EDT

I say conflation of definitions because I believe you are attributing to the software the honor that belongs to the hardware!

In your example of software routing, I'd say the potentially patented item1 is the hardware in both cases that you define. Never the software!

To allow the patenting of specific software as applied to hardware is the equivalent of allowing the patenting of entering a specific math formula as applied to a calculator!

If the hardware was designed such that you can apply a software solution in order to extend your ports: it's still the hardware change that made the allowance! The previous hardware had a limitation that was broken with the new hardware!

You can not use software - ever - to do something the hardware simply was not designed to do. The hardware totally defines the limitations that you can apply to software as attached to said hardware.

    You can use software to draw a picture on your current standard desktop computer that shows a computer walking away from the desk.
    But you will never, ever, ever be able to design your software on your current standard desktop computer to actually cause that computer itself to sprout legs and walk away! Ever!
    You can use software to draw a picture on your current standard desktop of the making of a cup of hot coffee complete with steam!
    But you will never, ever - ever - be able to use software to create a physical cup of coffee with said hardware so that you can actually smell the coffee and drink the coffee!
The device that makes it possible for one to provide such a software solution is the potentially patentable hardware. The software itself is just "using the device for exactly what it was built for and no more".

There's no difference in applying that software to make use of additional ports once the hardware was built to allow that already-known task then it is to applying a math formula to a calculator!

And a patent on the "process" of "enter 2+2= into the device and read the display to find out the result" should never - ever - be patentable subject matter.

The very act is the reverse of the exchange that is supposed to exist for a patent:

    It takes knowledge already disseminated to the public and wraps it into a Monopoly grant!
The exchange is supposed to be:
    Disseminating knowledge to the public that the public doesn't have in exchange for a temporary Monopoly grant!


1: You consider the idea to have software ports novel. I consider the idea to have software ports obvious once the hardware was adapted to allow for a concept already known!

To take that a step further, I'd say once the public learned you can take any informational process and automate it via the means of a computer - any application of software (even on physical processes yet to come where the designers realize they're just processing information) are blindingly obvious!

RAS

[ 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 )