|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 14 2012 @ 12:41 AM EDT |
They might as well rule that the sun orbits around the earth, or start
making up new "natural" laws and expecting the universe to follow
them.
It seems to me that the courts are used to dealing with subjective human
disputes, where they can make any factual findings they want to settle the
dispute. But neither science nor math works that way. Courts have to
recognize that, and try harder to get the right answers. Or we'll end up
with even more objectively incorrect "facts" becoming legal precedent.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PolR on Thursday, June 14 2012 @ 11:42 AM EDT |
I check the article on functional claiming again. It says on page 4 that
improper mixing of statutory invention categories leads to indefiniteness. This
seems applicable to the software makes a new machine thing.
Check the WMS Gaming case in parent post. It says that algorithm limits the
structure of the machine. This is indicates that the courts genuinely believe
the statutory invention categories are not improperly mixed. But WMS Gaming is
factually false. So this suggests that the issue may be resolved within existing
law just by establishing the proper facts.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|