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: dio gratia on Thursday, November 01 2012 @ 06:23 PM EDT
I agree with almost the entirety of your original comment, although find I've not got my point across to which you most recently replied.

I say conflation of definitions because I believe you are attributing to the software the honor that belongs to the hardware!
Patent law makes no such distinction. Stallman points out that clever patent practitioners can and will overcome any such distinction.

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!

No. I do not consider software ports novel. The point I was attempting to make is that neither is your special purpose calculator by contrast. My previous comment should otherwise line up with the second para of your foot note.

The only other point of disagreement with your original comment is limited to your belief that Stallman's proposal couldn't work. I consider the ability for it to work limited by political process. Also you're example of a special purpose calculator isn't novel, other than as exercises in hardware description languages calculators today are microprocessor based and virtual hardware isn't novel either.

There is only one way software addresses patentable subject matter, through the transformation of matter, otherwise the only product is abstract ideas (e.g. signals of transient duration). We likewise see the novelty of 'on a computer' as lacking through saturation, though we're now seeing a spate of 'it can't be done anywhere but on a computer' or on a computer having specific properties (as in having software to perform particular functions) showing up in litigation.

Software can't be patented per se and Stallman's proposal has the effect of preventing the class of matter transformation effects that encloses transformation of magnetic reluctance, e.g. hysteresis patterns on disk platters or alignment of crystalline structures or positioning of doping hole traps (FPGAs, FLASH, etc.) by exemption when performed on a general purpose computer, where these transformations are the equivalent of subsequently recording a mental process results with pencil and paper. The overall purpose to prevent the patenting of abstract ideas through semantic antics by association with a computer when a computer would be the first choice of implementation anyway.

It's a Ferengi Rules of Acquisition problem. Where there is no profit there is no incentive to play creative semantic games. I've yet to meet a lawyer who will do so for recreation, although you get lawyers and law professors doing so for purposes of recognition just as we get slightly differing ideologies arguing dialectic differences as here or in say a Monty Python skit.

[ 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 )