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

Patent on problem specification? | 1347 comments | Create New Account

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

Patent on problem specification?

Authored by: mrisch on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 01:04 PM EDT

No, it's just that words are imprecise and "capability" has
two meanings here. And thus, I was imprecise and may always
be. In one sense, anything is capable of anything. And so a
general computer is capable of anything. But in another
sense, the capability is not present until the proper
software is written. The computer won't do the work we want
until we tell it to. And that's a different kind of
capability. And that's different from an on/off switch,
which assumes that the machine already has the instructions
sufficient to do the work, if only the right button is
pushed.

As for problem specification - yes, in other areas, defining
the problem is half the battle and can be considered the
non-obvious inventive aspect.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Patent on problem specification? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 03:26 PM EDT
- Patent on problem specification? - Authored by: mrisch on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 04:03 PM EDT
  - Patent on problem specification? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 04:36 PM EDT
    - Patent on problem specification? - Authored by: mrisch on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 05:14 PM EDT
      - Patent on problem specification? - Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 05:51 PM EDT
      - Patent on problem specification? - Authored by: rcsteiner on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 07:03 PM EDT
Patent on problem specification? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 03:59 PM EDT
- Patent on problem specification? - Authored by: mrisch on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 04:11 PM EDT
  - Patent on problem specification? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 04:52 PM EDT
    - Patent on problem specification? - Authored by: mrisch on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 05:19 PM EDT
      - Patent on problem specification? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 10:33 PM EDT
  - And sometimes the hardware just doesn't behave like we think it should. - Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 05:43 PM EDT
  - Patent on problem specification? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 13 2012 @ 10:18 AM EDT

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 )