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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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
Can somebody please explain the "Software is Math" argument to me? | 380 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Can somebody please explain the "Software is Math" argument to me?
Authored by: PolR on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 07:51 PM EDT
> Computer science arguments are fairly irrelevant
> and, I guess will remain of limited interest to most
> judges unless they can be used to clearly place some
> fraction of software patents into categories that have
> already been labeled as unpatentable.

This is precisely what the software argument is designed to do, to clearly place
a large fraction of software patents into a category which has already been
labeled unpatentable.

I think you didn't pay enough attention to how the software is math is being
argued and what is the relevant case law. You emit opinions which are clearly
uninformed.


> Given that the courts have extended the reach of patents
> based on reasoning that business method patents are kind
> of like physical inventions sometimes...and that software
> patents are a lot like business method patents...

You have it backwards. Business methods patents are largely based on the
patentability of software, not the other way round.

They have found software patents are always patents on a new physical machine,
or a process by which such a machine operates. This is their basis for declaring
software patentable. See the Prater and Alappat cases. Business methods
analogies play not part in it.

[ 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 )