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
Definition: Lock = assuring the owner of true control over machine | 478 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Define 'software lock' please
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, June 07 2012 @ 11:34 PM EDT
When you get done with the list,
point out which type you were referring to.

Unless there is hardware involved, as part
of a deliverable physical product, then
it should not be patentable.



---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

My humble non-legal opinion
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 08 2012 @ 12:45 AM EDT

Since the application of the software to the computer (no matter how complex the software) is nothing more then the application of "entering 1+2=" on a calculator and receiving a response of "3":

    No! Software should not be protected by the patent!
You are doing nothing more then using the patented invention (the computer) for exactly what it was designed to be used for. You're not expanding it (for example: by creating a new device like a robot) - just using it for exactly what it was built for.

The specific concept as well as application is identical to using a calculator.

The specific concept is identical to:

    Using a pencil to write on paper
and then expecting to be able to patent:
    Using a pencil to write on cardboard
and then expecting to be able to patent:
    Using a pencil to write on a piece of napkin
The pencil was the invention. The use of it to author things on materials that will hold the image is a natural extension and should fail for obviousness if nothing else.

So no... even if you could build the theoretical virus-proof OS, in my humble opinion, you shouldn't be granted a patent.

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

E=MC2
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 08 2012 @ 09:36 AM EDT

The Supreme Court was very clear that E=MC2 is not patentable subject matter. They explicitly noted that during the last heavy review on the subject.

Asking to patent computer software is equivalent to:

    Entering the algorithm to prove E=MC2 into a computer
Obviously, E=MC2 is completely not patentable. So the only aspect of that which could be patentable is:
    Having the computer do the calculation instead of Einstein doing the calculation on a blackboard!
I think the Supremes covered that in the combination of the last two cases:
    There must be more!
Sorry, logic which a human can do with pen and paper applied to a computer is - in my non-legal understanding of the intent the Supreme's are trying to impress - Not Patentable.

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Well, it really wouldn't need a patent, would it?
Authored by: hardmath on Friday, June 08 2012 @ 10:27 AM EDT
I mean, if it worked, just apply the software lock to itself,
and you've got all the protection you should need.

Suspending disbelief and so on...


--hm


---
"Prolog is an efficient programming language because it is a very stupid theorem
prover." -- Richard O'Keefe

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Definition: Lock = assuring the owner of true control over machine
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 08 2012 @ 12:27 PM EDT
Right now, I don't care what OS you run, the assurances that your computer isn't
part of a botnet and sending out all your information on it are very, very
thin......stuxnet, flame, dnschanger, etc, etc.

That is, the integrity of your OS is *very* questionable. Even if you run Linux
or Android. There's simply too much of it to inspect, and it's too
complicated.

Suppose I claim a method of operating a computer that gives significantly
improved assurance of the integrity of your computer's software, in spite of the
difficulty of inspecting it all, and suppose I disclose how to do it.

Should that be patentable material?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Some issues...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 08 2012 @ 01:00 PM EDT
1. Its probably not possible. I doubt that there is any kind of lock that can
be fully implemented in software. Until there is some kind of hardware that can
'memorize' its own identity and keys without having to rely on storing it
somewhere, any machine will remain vulnerable to someone with access to the
storage medium and the startup sequence.

2. Even if it were possible, nothing in that software will be 'new' or
'original' to that software. I.e. the software can only do what you tell it to
do, which means it must be doable *outside* of the software first, or you
couldn't write the software at all. Therefore, the software isn't (and can
never be) an invention, its merely one implementation of an existing concept.
This is why NO software should be patentable.

[ 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 )