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

Wow again | 1347 comments | Create New Account

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

Wow again

Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 06:03 PM EDT

The point from our vantage is that THERE IS NO PHYSICAL DIFFERENCE between a
cannon WITH the invention and a cannon WITHOUT the invention.

So where is the invention!? If it's not physical, it can't be patented because
it doesn't exist!

Cheers,
Wol

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Wow again - Authored by: mrisch on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 07:46 PM EDT
- Wow again - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 13 2012 @ 05:15 AM EDT
  - Wow again - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 13 2012 @ 02:05 PM EDT
    - That last comment was me... - Authored by: mrisch on Wednesday, June 13 2012 @ 02:11 PM EDT
      - That last comment was me... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 14 2012 @ 06:09 PM EDT
- Here is the disconnect that we are having and a Question for you? - Authored by: RMAC9.5 on Wednesday, June 13 2012 @ 06:45 AM EDT
  - Here is the disconnect that we are having and a Question for you? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 13 2012 @ 02:09 PM EDT
    - That last comment was me... - Authored by: mrisch on Wednesday, June 13 2012 @ 02:13 PM EDT
- Nope. - Authored by: jesse on Wednesday, June 13 2012 @ 06:55 AM EDT
  - That's just not true... - Authored by: mrisch on Wednesday, June 13 2012 @ 02:16 PM EDT
    - That's just not true... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 14 2012 @ 11:45 AM EDT
  - The mathematics of aiming was 20th century.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 13 2012 @ 05:21 PM EDT

"... It doesn't make a difference how it is implemented ..."

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 13 2012 @ 12:33 AM EDT

Getting off the subject here. But surely this is far too broad. It is a patent
on an outcome, not on a method for achieving it.

Algorithms are unpatentable mathematics (the constitution DOES explicitly say
that, much as you seem to wish that it did not). You shouldn't be allowed to
patent ALL ways of implementing a mathematical algorithm. To do so is
functionally equivalent to patenting the algorithm itself.

[ 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 )