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
Patent chief to software patent critics: "Give it a rest already" | 209 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Patent chief to software patent critics: "Give it a rest already"
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 20 2012 @ 07:31 PM EST
I think we're saying the same thing, here. (and the question was not that of
inquiry, but simply following Mr. Kappos ill-proposed logic with a bit of
sarcasm)


Our patent law was perverted by a judge that overstepped his bounds by expanding
the same to include something that it was designed to NOT include (ie. software
or any other mathematical algorithm). This perversion has the effect, intended
or otherwise, of killing off our smaller competitors and slowly bringing
frostbite to our country's ingenuity as a whole. If this does not stop, our
ingenuity (or should I say, "What remains of it") will cease it's
present functionality and will serve as nothing more than a cold and bitter
reminder of what we once were.

The notion that we should wait to see if that perversion can be undone by an act
that doesn't undo the perversion is absurd. But, let's suppose that the act
could eventually bring about a new revision of patent law that DOES do away with
software patents specifically so that no future judge confuses software for
something that is NOT math... What good is that?

Being that there is a more immediate need here, I really don't think that taking
our wet matches and "shutting up about it" is going to do us any
good.

Being that the judicial has botched this beyond it's capacity to repair it,
legislation needs to do something about this, something substantial and
something soon. But legislation won't do their job if we place our hopes in wet
matches, remaining silent all the while.

[ 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 )