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: Wol on Saturday, June 08 2013 @ 10:04 AM EDT
Which is a perfect proof of the absurdity of software patents.

The computer manufacturer doesn't infringe.

The software house doesn't infringe.

The end user combines the computer and the CD in the designed, foreseen, and
intended manner, and is deemed to infringe!

Cheers,
Wol

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Well... current law as it's been corrupted
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 08 2013 @ 12:18 PM EDT

Change:

    this is possible under the current law
to
    this is possible under the current law as the patent lawyers have successfully argued it at the levels of the USPTO and Federal Circuit
It seems they have yet to succeed at the Supremes. And as long as we keep getting heard by the Supremes I think there is a very real chance of getting "current law as established by precedent of the Federal Circuit" reversed.

We certainly won't succeed in convincing the patent lawyers themselves - their careers depend too much on us not convincing them.

Additionally, attempting to convince those who insist math is patented who then provide one of the math patents granted by the USPTO as evidence of that is an entirely hopeless effort.

It's why - when responding to such posts - I choose more to speak to "those who come later to read".

Coincidently, by doing that - speaking to those who come later who might not know - I feel I'm part of education rather than banging my head against a wall. I've found the stress levels drop off to almost nothing in response.

:)

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 )