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
Formal specifications are worthless | 202 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Formal specifications are worthless
Authored by: PolR on Saturday, February 02 2013 @ 05:09 PM EST
Patents are neither on the algorithm nor on the source code. They are on what
lawyers call the "process" that is the execution by the hardware of
the algorithm.

The courts have ruled that the "structure" of this process is dictated
by the knowledge of the algorithm. This is in a legal mindset where it is
accepted that most algorithms are not 'mathematical'. We all know how wrong this
is but this is the kind of background we are working with.

The question of the USPTO is about an arcane issue of law called section 112(f)
of the patent act. When is it triggered? According to this part of the law
whenever a portion of a claim is written in functional terms it is limited to
the "structure" disclosed in the specification part of the patent (or
its equivalents). The courts have ruled that in the case of software this
structure is the disclosed algorithm. If not algorithm is disclosed the claim is
invalid as indefinite.

This proposed response is that section 112(f) should always be triggered for
reasons explained in section A. And section B explains what is sufficient
structure that must be disclosed for this purpose. The addendum explains that
from a developer's point of view disclosure should also include the source code
of a working program, but this is another issue.

All this is assuming the law has not accepted that all algorithms are math. If
the courts change their mind of course this section 112(f) will become moot for
many claims because the algorithm won't be patentable in the first place. But
even in that case there is always those claims like the rubber curing patent in
Diehr where an algorithm may be part of a patentable invention. For this type of
patents section 112(f) will never be moot and our response will remain
relevant.

[ 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 )