|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 11 2013 @ 09:31 AM EDT |
A lot of us including myself still believe software - via a reasonable
reading of the Law - is not patentable subject matter.
However, the
reality is that the patent does exist and the conversation is in the context of
how a patent claim construction at trial could differentiate between a patent
claim construction which the USPTO accepted in order to validate the patent
claim.
To reiterate: Software Patents Simply Should Not Exist and so
Apple's "rubber-banding patent" should never have been issued in the first
place.
If Samsung were to focus on that - instead of the actual
application of Law - then they'd be sticking their heads in the sand and would
automatically loose fully. They might as well pay the Billion and be done with
it.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PolR on Thursday, July 11 2013 @ 12:49 PM EDT |
This is a good point. I think it touches on a more fundamental issue.
Computers don't have instructions for totaling counts of apples. They have
instructions to add numbers. They don't care whether the numbers are counts of
apples or counts of peppercorns.
When a computer has "instructions for displaying a first portion of an
electronic document" this is done by an algorithm working on raw numbers
and boolean values.
Patents are full of language refering to what the bits mean, in terms of how the
data must be interpreted. They use this to describe the software functions, but
also the algorithms by means of flow chart etc. Patent law rely of this notion
that the algorithm describe the "individualized circuitry" the Federal
Circuit imagine is made by programming a computer.
But when programmers implement the algorithm, they must strip the data from this
meaning and transform the data into the underlying numerical and boolean values.
The algorithm that is actually implemented doesn't depend on the meaning of the
data. So even one someone works from the "individualized circuitry"
theory, he still doesn't have a description of the circuit structure.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|