Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

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

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

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:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

In re Alappat is an Abstraction inversion | 1347 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

In re Alappat is an Abstraction inversion

Authored by: PolR on Thursday, June 14 2012 @ 11:59 AM EDT

In a true abstraction inversion error the low level details are understood
correctly. In the case of Alappat they are understood wrong. There lies the
problem.

So this is not an abstraction inversion error. This is just a banal case of
getting the facts wrong.

Also I wouldn't paint all of the judiciary with a broad brush. Judges try to do
their job properly. There may be rotten apples like in all professions, but
these are exceptions.

If you seek to land some blame, look at the Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit. This court handles all the appeals on patents matters and when they go
awry everyone is bound by their decisions until they change their mind or the
Supreme Court overturn them.

This may explain some of the inconsistencies. The good judge tries to get the
facts right, but he still has to apply the nonsensical case law.

[ 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 )