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
that mathematician agrees that software IS math | 158 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
that mathematician agrees that software IS math
Authored by: nsomos on Tuesday, July 17 2012 @ 02:28 PM EDT
I wrote
"If I were aware of any non-design patents on fashion dresses
I would not have used those as an example. And if you happen
to find any, I will withdraw that as an example."
Perhaps you missed that.

You wrote
"ergo, the mathematics professor does not believe software is mathematics.
Q.E.D."

You are wrong.


You wrote
"4)As soon as you identify a legal argument that is new and not obvious,
I'll set
about patenting it."

Why wait. The patent office has proved over and over and over
again that NOT NEW and PERFECTLY OBVIOUS things qualify for
software patents. So why should legal argument be any different.
Why wait for a new and not obvious argument.

[ 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 )