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
Still be pretty expensive for the defendant | 182 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Still be pretty expensive for the defendant
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 14 2013 @ 12:22 PM EST

But at least it would be less expensive then a discovery phase where everything (including stuff not actually relative to the claims in the lawsuit) is wanted.

I still vote for applying the Law as it currently stands:

    First: recognize software is abstract and won't ever be anything but
    Second: apply the rule that abstract concepts - like language and communication - are not patentable subject matter
    Third: Have the USPTO examine every patent granted in the last 25 years, if it's a software patent, invalidate it. If the patent holder insists it's not a software patent, demand a blueprint for the physical chip that is being claimed. If said blueprint does not appear, invalidate the patent.
Case closed on software patents. Of course, if Congress merely brought back the rule that a prototype of the physical invention must be provided for the patent office to examine (and take photos of for future comparison for infringement claims purposes) that would also destroy software patents. Of course, it'd destroy a lot of other patents too - like business method patents. Oh how I wish the USPTO examiners could simply say:
    Please point to the physical embodiment of your invention... sorry, no physical embodiment = no patent!

RAS

[ 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 )