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'm just using copyright for emphasis | 457 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
I'm just using copyright for emphasis
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 03:15 PM EDT
He cannot infringe by using the invention only by copying it.
In copyright you can not infringe by reading a book (a book is supposed to be
read) only by copying it (that is the right that the author have).
When in doubt in the ideal case it helps to engage the brain. That is why we
have it!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I'm just using copyright for emphasis
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 03:17 PM EDT
Sure, you can commit crimes with a computer, or a copier, or a hammer, or a
submachine gun. That's not the problem with software patents.

Maybe it would be clearer if you thought of machine computations as thought. The
machine is assisting a human in some kind of simple thinking.

So the problem with software patents is that they affect THINKING. You can think
of killing someone by dropping a copier on them -- that is not a crime.

You can use a computer to figure out the best time to drop the copier on a
moving target--still not a crime.

There's no crime until there's an act.

Patents are similar, there is no patent until there is a device or process. Any
logical thinking involved (human or device-aided) can't break the law.

[ 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 )