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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

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


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

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

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Well, of course, I vehemently disagree | 396 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Well, of course, I vehemently disagree
Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 03:45 AM EDT
Everything you say is absolutely true, but completely false. There is not an
interface in an auto used for 'driving'.

You mention the phrase 'accepted interface' and the word 'convention'. Those are
ideas used by humans for the implementation of autos and the driving of autos.

The auto would be unmoved... unconcerned by having the accelerator on the roof
and the steering wheel under the hood. All the functions would still work just
as well. Humans implement autos to match the idea or concept of the 'accepted
interface' for the human driver. It's an idea used for function implementation.

Abiding by that user convention for the selection, sequence and organisation of
the 'driving control functions' that is key for the human action of 'driving' is
ever so wise. The auto does not care. There is no additional 'interface' applied
to different classes of functional access in order for the implementation to
comply with human concepts and ideas for driving controls.

Now, all we need is for an 'accepted interface' for the wretched car radio
control class. All the radio functions work just fine. This human has no concept
of how the radio control interface provides some of the more obscure features.

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ 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 )