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
EXACTLY. This is the clear line. | 1347 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
EXACTLY. This is the clear line.
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 11:40 AM EDT
The problem with the attempts to patent software (math) running "on a
general purpose computer" is that that patent trolls filing the patents
didn't actually invent any of the hardware; nor did they invent the combination
of the hardware and the math; and furthermore, the hardware was specifically
designed to run *all possible* mathematical algorithms (all software).

Software patents are like charging people for patent violations every time they
write a sentence on paper. "Oh, oh, I patented the process of writing that
particular sentence on paper." Sorry, no. The paper and ink were DESIGNED
to write ALL POSSIBLE sentences, and the sentences themselves are abstract and
not patentable.

The sentences are, of course, copyrightable.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Drawing a clear and well defined line
Authored by: jonathon on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 03:17 PM EDT
>It's aimed at washing and not to do anything else, and the software is aimed
at making that possible.

Shabbat Mode. ( Non-Jews might find https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbath_mode
a useful explanation.)

Most high end kitchen and laundry appliances offer a "Shabbat Mode".
This mode is specifically created to _prevent_ the operation of the appliance on
Shabbos and High Holy Days.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Not a so clear and well defined line
Authored by: Stefan Wagner on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 05:54 PM EDT
What if the washing maschine wasn't a washing, but a jingle playing machine?

Which plays a jingle, if you solve a Tic-Tac-Toe-game, sitting on a ROM-Chip?

Sitting on a removable flash chip, being replaced with a Sudoku game?

Being a washing mashine, playing a jingle after finishing the job? Update the
software, sitting on a removable flash-chip, to show a different washing
algorithm, depending on water quality, which is now detected by a new sensor,
which can be hotplugged to a i²c-Bus or something?

Or the software allows to input your water hardness via touch screen?

I don't see what makes the clear line here. A washing maschine with just one
washing program? The program is soldiered on a chip?

Every program can be created in hardware - I don't understand why this would
make a difference.

---
don't visit my homepage

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Drawing a clear and well defined line - Turing Equivalence
Authored by: mjscud on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 01:17 AM EDT
The clear line is, I think, Turing equivalence.

Software Algorithms can be implemented on any universal Turing machine. Such
algorithms can themselves be data to other algorithms, which is how a universal
Turing machine can simulate any computer. It is also why any algorithm can be
implemented entirely in hardware.

Moreover, they can be an input to a recursively enumerable function. They are
Mathematics in that they are an object of Mathematical discourse.

This is a very bright and clear and useful subject matter distinction which
Turing's universal machine (or a general purpose computer, or Godel enumeration,
or other ways of describing the same concept to within isomorphism) supplies.

If what is described in isomorphic to a program for a Turing machine, it is
software, it is math, and it should not be patentable.

If what is claimed happens to make use of an algorithm, but is otherwise
patentable, than fine. But the algorithm cannot be the unique part. And your
ideas on making the patent system better are quite desirable as to that
question.


---
Even a fool, when he keeps silent, is considered wise. Proverbs 17:28

[ 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 )