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
How to reform the US Patent Office | 478 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
How to reform the US Patent Office
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 08 2012 @ 07:24 AM EDT
I'm sure someone could produce a working model of a Pacific 4-6-2.

The problem was lack of space for storing the models.

But software takes up practically no space at all, so working models for
software patents would not be a problem.

When it comes to litigation, the /working/ model would provide the benchmark for
the infringement - it has to be in the details, not just the observable effects
(after all a mouse trap is a mouse trap and the observable effect may be the
squishing bar coming over to squish the rodent, but the actual mechanism of that
movement may be the protected bit (alas with software patents it would be the
whole mouse trap idea) and that mechanism may not be observable without taking
it apart); so with software patents - the working model would require the
[commented] source code so that actual code could be checked [by an independent
court official/court appointed specialist] to see if the patented algorithm
(sic) was being used.

[ 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 )