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
Corruption of the Law | 457 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corruption of the Law
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 11:43 PM EDT

Yup - you just pointed out the common lines of reasoning used to explain how/why software is patentable.

Whether you're talking method or system claims, the logic is faulty.

In the event of the invention in Diehr - a process invention - it was not only software as applied to a computer. It was a combined system of the computer along with other components such as the mold with the end result of cured rubber that was patentable.

Did you happen to notice all the extra physical in that invention outside the computer?

I don't have a copy of the actual ruling handy, but I seem to recall having read a phrase from the Supremes in Diehr that the Supremes have stated elsewhere. In Mayo they stated the concept quite clearly:

... simply implementing a mathematical principle on a physical machine, namely a computer, was not a patentable application...
So... call it a method claim, call it a system claim... call it a process. Perhaps you can explain how running any software on a computer in-and-of-itself is more then just:
    implementing a mathematical principle on a physical machine

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

How is that possible?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 08 2013 @ 05:05 AM EDT
But those who supplied the binary are also guilty of aiding and abetting the
infringement!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Real world example
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 08 2013 @ 07:56 PM EDT
I disagree with the patent, but a current troll is going
after companies that scan to e-mail. Not the manufacturers
(HP, etc), but the companies. Apparently it's only the
actual act that violates the patent. The machines that are
capable don't, because it's the process, not the technology.
But, if you USE the technology in the way it's designed, you
violate the patent.

Personally, I think the patent is worthless, with plenty of
prior art, but also as an illustration of why business
method and software patents are dangerous and should not be
allowed.

jjs (not signed in)

[ 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 )