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
Can both sides be satisfied? | 354 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Can both sides be satisfied?
Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Saturday, November 24 2012 @ 02:15 PM EST
Ehh, I don't think that is a good idea.

Sounds like it will simply exacerbate the problem by formally inaugurating it.

Also, what if the company changes it's mind? Gets bought out by a company that
didn't make that election? Buys a company that didnt?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Why would anyone, ever, be in the side that sues people?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 24 2012 @ 02:58 PM EST
Right now it is profitable to have patents because you can sue other people who
don't have patents and they can't sue you back. Once you remove those company's
and put them in a separate pool though there is no money to be made. You get a
cascading effect where first the smallest company's become unsueable, then as
there is no money to be made suing and lots of money to lose the slightly bigger
companies decide to become unsueable. And so on.

This would certainly not make Microsoft of Apple happy.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The fatal flaw
Authored by: Ian Al on Sunday, November 25 2012 @ 02:46 AM EST
There are no software patents.

As my byline has stated for years, the patents are for abstract ideas (abstract
functions) expressed as over-broad claims with the magic words 'a method and/or
a system comprising a computer with memory'. Just take out the 'or a system
comprising a computer with memory' and you still have the patented abstract
function invention with which to sue folk.

Of course, you lose out on the machine part of the duality, but, hey, even
business methods are patentable in the US.

The closest thing we have ever got to a patent on software was in Benson, which
was the patenting of an algorithm to convert BCD into binary numbers. Even that
was 'doing math on a computer'.

Any company declaring that they will neither apply for software patents or sue
over software patents will say that their patents are not on software, but are
utility patents on the patentable functions, 'swipe to unlock' or 'unobtrusive
notifications' or 'using an interweb'.

No, no, definitely not software patents: there isn't a software in there... or
even a pony.

---
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 )