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
Reduction to practice of quantum theory -- the laser-- very patentable | 478 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Reduction to practice of quantum theory -- the laser-- very patentable
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 08 2012 @ 04:17 PM EDT
I am certainly in agreement with the majority of Groklaw that software patents,
as practiced, are complete bunkum.

I like the part of the british approach that allows you to sue a patent holder
for a license, especially if they are not a practicing entity.

But there's a huge gap between quantum theory and reducing it to practice in the
form of an optically-pumped laser. I don't think many here would disagree with
the proposition that inventors deserve SOME protection for their inventions,
particularly with the likes of Microsoft, Google, and Apple prowling about.

Quoting the Copyright clause of the US constitution:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited
Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings
and Discoveries

The Lotus 123 interface was a significant discovery, bringing the ability to
operate a spreadsheet to almost everyone with a computer.
I claim a very good anti-virus OS has a good chance of being just as
significant.

So my question, for both of those inventors, is, in the spirit of the copyright
clause, how should the legal encouragement work?

And, I suppose, where do I get the resources, which will be *much* less than the
$50M expended on OraGoogle....

[ 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 )