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, what you say is right! | 312 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Well, what you say is right!
Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, September 28 2012 @ 05:01 AM EDT
Unfortunately, the courts and the USPTO confirmed that a machine and method patent held by Oracle (about when a software writer chooses to resolve a label identifying executable code) is valid,

Of course, it was narrowed to the resolving of virtual machine instruction code labels when the 'executable' file only contained the labels in text form and not the numeric instruction code or the hardware processor instruction blocks that do the virtual machine execution.

Apparently, it was a stunningly novel invention to do it when the program user decided to run the program, but boring old hat if the programmer decided to do it when the program was installed rather than when it was run. Did I mention that it was only protected if the computer was a mobile phone?

The Fonar opinion said that:
As a general rule, where software constitutes part of a best mode of carrying out an invention, description of such a best mode is satisfied by a disclosure of the functions of the software. This is because, normally, writing code for such software is within the skill of the art, not requiring undue experimentation, once its functions have been disclosed.

It is well established that what is within the skill of the art need not be disclosed to satisfy the best mode requirement as long as that mode is described.
Oracle's stunning invention of the software writer choosing to resolve labels just before running a program was an exception to the rule. The spectacular invention was a new way of writing code: it was all about the skill of the art (although I don't think that the patent actually discloses the skill of the art. It restricts itself to describing the functions. It should be invalid on those grounds, alone, if Fonar is to be taken at all seriously).

The stunning invention was not even a patent protectable function whereby software constitutes all of a best mode of carrying out an invention. It was a patent on the method that the software writer uses to write software that runs software in a virtual machine. Well, not on the method. It is a patent on when in his overall program he decides to use the method of resolving the text-based labels.

Of course, the courts understand this stuff so well, but I am left confused. Apparently, the patent not only protects the timing of the method used by the software writer, it is also an infringing machine whenever the software writer puts the software written using the protected timing of the method, on any computer that is also a mobile phone.

I have to stop there: I am back in my unhappy place.

of a best mode of carrying out an invention

---
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 )