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
I must be missing something | 364 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
No - §101 says 'process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter'
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 11:25 AM EST
PoIR hit the nail on the head when he said "Symbols" is the
magic-vodoo of software patents. When you allow math to represent symbols the
trouble starts. Amazon's one click patent is nothing more than sending a file
over the internet which has been done many times but allow symbols and you
magically have a button that when clicked with a mouse orders and pays for and
ships an item in an Amazon or affiliate's warehouse. Computers present the
person behind the keyboard with a symbol that represents some math, operates
some math, then presents the results of that math back to the (some) person with
a different symbol(s).

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I must be missing something
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 05:28 PM EST
IANAL, but I am nearly certain I remember reading that
courts have allowed software patents because they believe
that when a program is loaded into memory, the general
purpose computer is transformed into a specialized machine,
and this specialized machine is what is patent-eligible (as
opposed to the software algorithms themselves). This could
well be a different concept from the "machine-or-
transformation test" as described in Room 101 (er, rule 101,
or whatever that squiggly thing means).

Puns aside, is this general->specific transformation
argument just something I have dreamed up, or did I really
read about it?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

No - §101 says 'process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter'
Authored by: Imaginos1892 on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 06:16 PM EST
Data can be specifically identified by indicating what the data represents
Yah. "Indicating what the data represents". Requiring something EXTERNAL
to the computer. Meaning that the data does not represent anything specific
within the context of the computer! Until a user interprets the data, it's just
an abstraction, signifying nothing.
----------------------
Oh, you must want Room 9. This is Room 9-A -- ABUSE!

[ 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 )