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
Diehr is a bogo-patent. | 545 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Diehr = I don't know
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 14 2013 @ 10:12 AM EDT

I know enough about software to know software should never be patented no matter what word/description you try and place on it.

I know enough about Diehr to know the Supremes would have revoked the patent had it been on software alone rather than including the whole combined (process/mechanism/machines) where it included the heat press. The key - to me - being:

    at least one physical machine was involved that was not just a computer
I do not know the process itself sufficiently to know what kind of process it is other then it produces a physical end-result.

So... given it contained physical components outside the computer that produced a physical result (curred rubber) I believe there is sufficient consideration that it should pass basic 101 examination.

But I don't know! Because I don't the particular industry. I don't know if the "total machine" they used (which happened to include a computer) existed before.

Let's see if I can better explain.... perhaps an analogy might help crystalize the thoughts.

Let's use a toy train setup with a switching station, two trains and a computer to control both the switching station and the trains.

Basic principle:

    the trains get to travel in their assigned circuits and the computer controls the trains when they come to the intersection so they don't crash
This setup can be done in two ways:
    1: the computer control is built right in to a unit that is actually a part of the train set - this is most commonly expected direct from the manufacturer
    2: the computer control is a standard desktop computer that someone jury-rigged to send basic "on/off" signals to usb lines which have been plugged into an electrical switch to control the power to the trains on each separate track - this is most commonly expected when one thinks of doing something the manufacturer didn't build into the product
One could view the combined computer+usb+switch+trainset as a "physical process" or as a "machine that is not encased in a single structure".

Logically, I don't think it makes a difference to view it as a process as opposed to a machine. A patent granted on either (process vs machine) would apply equally I think.

Therein lies my conundrum:

    If "process" equates to "machine" anyway then what's the purpose for adding "process" to the equation?
Some have used the example of "processed cheese". But... not knowing what that "process" is... how is that not simply a recipe to make a certain type of cheese? And I believe recipes shouldn't be patentable.

I do strongly believe that abstract = non-physical. And that the non-physical should not be able to be patented.

Math, language, the Laws of physics as humans have described them - these are all non-physical. To patent that is to move away from the "public education for everyone" system we have into a "only the privileged (privileged via having enough money) can even learn about it". I'm a firm believer that proper education for everyone leads to a far better society - better for everyone. The wealthy will say:

    but I have less
Not that honestly of course. And my response to that is:
    But its not so much less that you're suffering in any way. And if 4/5th of Society was uneducated so they ended up suffering by not having sufficient food, that would certainly lead to much larger crime rates drastically increasing your risk to suffering from crime.

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Diehr is a bogo-patent.
Authored by: albert on Friday, June 14 2013 @ 11:26 AM EDT
Vulcanizing is a chemical 'process'. It's not just heating.
There's nothing novel or unique about using temperature monitoring, computers,
and maths to control a process. It does not matter how specific the process is.
Diehr is not a machine patent; the machine is generic and unspecified.

The USPTO was correct to reject it, but they did so for the wrong reason.

I'm sorry the Court fell down on this, but fall down they did.

[ 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 )