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
Pity the jury and the public | 402 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Pity the jury and the public
Authored by: grouch on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 03:24 AM EDT

I pity this poor jury. There is so much confusion and semantic verbiage in this trial, I wonder if they will ever come to a verdict.

I thought the copyright phase was both thin and convoluted, even considering that we do not yet have access to all exhibits and transcripts. Of course most of the convolutions came from the goofy SSO claims.

The patent phase has been simply bizarre. That's mostly thanks to the USPTO, the State Street decision, and lots of greed mongers. It should never have been dumped upon the jury...

Greed Monger: I want a patent for my New and Wondrous Invention worth beeeelllions!
[New, hypothetical, rational (we can dream)] USPTO: What kind of invention?

GM: It's a "means or method of" ... ON A COMPUTER!
USPTO: Uh-huh. So, can this new and wondrous invention be practiced entirely within a computer, as software?

GM: Yes! I'll make beeeellions!!!
USPTO: Nope. If it can take place entirely in computer software, it's a computation -- mathematical manipulations. Computations are head games that people play. You can't patent thinking.

GM: But it Transforms the computer and magically renders Valuable and Useful information on the screen!
USPTO: Riiight. Get a gang of preschoolers together who've learned the concepts of "0" and "1" and they can do the same transformations. Give crayons to some of them and they'll do the rendering. You can't patent playtime.

GM: It's new and useful and advances the state of the art!
USPTO: It's computation. Ask the Internet for prior art and you'll get some math or history professors showing some ancient Egyption architect or Mayan priest or Plato or somebody doing the same calculations on clay tablets and cave walls. You can't patent math.

GM: But it's on a computer!
USPTO: Yes, and that used to be a job title for a person or persons doing computations. If I grant you a patent on your particular computation, your Chief Extortion Officer will be suing people for adding and subtracting. You can't patent math.

GM: But my billions!!
USPTO: Get a job.

---
-- grouch

GNU/Linux obeys you.

[ 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 )