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
why put new snow tires on a car | 756 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
why put new snow tires on a car
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 23 2012 @ 11:12 AM EDT
My grandma did have wheels, she was still my grandma, and not a wagon.

You seem to refuse to understand that software improves a computer in exactly
the same way that a cookbook improves an oven.


Computers are not Magic.
Software is a series of instructions.
Nothing more.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

why put new snow tires on a car
Authored by: PolR on Monday, July 23 2012 @ 11:25 AM EDT
That's how adding software to a computer that can't actually do X so that it can do X is improving the machine.
The problem with the "computer can't actually do X" argument is that it implies the unprogrammed computer has no utility. Why would it be patentable then? Isn't utility a requirement in patent law?

I think your line of thinking is wrong in part because it dismisses the utility of the unprogrammed hardware. This utility exists and you can't brush it off like you do.

Another other error is that you can improve things without the improvement being an improvement to the machine. You don't show how the improvement is tied to a change in machine structure. The article explains why there is no change to machine structure.

[ 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 )