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
Thanks for doing that. ...nt | 182 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Thanks for doing that. ...nt
Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, February 15 2013 @ 01:46 AM EST
.

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The only viable solution: Recognize software is abstract only - does not exist in physical form
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 15 2013 @ 11:54 AM EST

And then follow up with the Law and make it clear software is not patentable subject matter.

Any creative wording at all to make one abstract concept equal to the physical can be used to make any abstract concept equal to the physical.

As a result:

    Any wording anyone tries to form to clamp down on any amount of trolling - while trying to leave exceptions for what they believe to be valid software patents - will be used by the trolls* to successfully argue their patents are valid because their patents are like the other valid software patents!
It's a logical loop no one will be able to get around.


* I do not define "patent troll" the way the Law has decided to define it. To repost what I previously posted:

In fabled stories, a troll picks a bridge and sits by it in order to collect a toll.

The troll owned neither the body of water under the bridge, nor the bridge itself, nor the land on either side of the bridge and the troll certainly didn't build the bridge.

So when someone decides to patent something of which knowledge is already in the public domain - whether or not the USPTO is silly enough to grant said patent, they are a patent Troll!

To patent the process of "enter 2+2= into a calculator and read the display to see the result" is nothing less then being a patent Troll.

    The use of a calculator is public knowledge
    To apply math to a calculator is public knowledge
    Math is not patentable and is public knowledge
As a result:
    To apply for a patent on the public knowledge use of a device for the application of a publicly knowledgeable formula is a Troll - planting your flag to collect a toll on something you don't have a claim over!
This very much includes entities like Microsoft and Apple.

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 )