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 am very serious - And so are the Supremes | 258 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
I am very serious - And so are the Supremes
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 05 2013 @ 04:21 PM EDT

E=mC2 was not in the knowledge of Society.
True, but that's meaningless in context. E=MC2 is non-patentable subject matter. As the Supremes state in Mayo:
Likewise, Einstein could not patent his celebrated law that E=mc2; nor could Newton have patented the law of gravity.
You state:
If he had patented apply THAT formula on a calculator he would not have taken knowledge out of Society
I would dearly love to see the Supremes explicitly speak to that exact situation:
    Applying math formula X to a calculator
I'm absolutely positive the Supremes would be quite clear on the opinion that it is not patentable subject matter.

I am absolutely positive of that because they speak - quite clearly and explicitly in my humble opinion - to that very concept:

...simply implementing a mathematical principle on a physical machine, namely a computer, was not a patentable application of that principle...
You question whether "something" is taken from Society where I have stated it is. You conclude I must be speaking of the math formula. You are mistaken.

Since math is not patentable subject matter, I am obviously not refering to the math.

I speak of the knowledge Society has that a calculator can be used to process any math formula. To patent "apply formula X to a calculator" is to take away that knowledge. Just because a given formula is not known at the present does not alter the fact that humanity knows when that formula is discovered it can be calculated on a calculator. That is what is taken.

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 )