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

You are correct: this is the crucial distinction. | 1347 comments | Create New Account

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

Umm.. FOX...

Authored by: jesse on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 07:59 AM EDT

Actually the computer only sees a sequence of numbers - Using the ASCII
translation, the sequence 70,79,88 (in decimal representation).

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Umm.. FOX... - Authored by: PolR on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 08:54 AM EDT
- Important point about abstraction here... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 12:53 PM EDT
  - they were abstract to start with - Authored by: jesse on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 10:58 AM EDT

You are correct: this is the crucial distinction.

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 12:44 PM EDT

I would add, however, that the general purpose computer was designed and
intended to be used for *general purposes*.

This means that most applications involving plugging existing peripherals into a
general purpose computer and then running software are *suggested* by the
inventors of the general purpose computer. This should throw out a good deal
more of the bogus "computer implemented invention" claims.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

If he practicaluse is patentable, why not patent that instead of software?

Authored by: mrisch on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 03:12 PM EDT

Well, then, it sounds like we really don't disagree that much.
I would put most of what you are talking about under the
rubric of "practical utility"

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

If he practicaluse is patentable, why not patent that instead of software? - Authored by: PolR on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 04:59 PM EDT
- If he practicaluse is patentable, why not patent that instead of software? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 12:34 AM EDT
  - If he practicaluse is patentable, why not patent that instead of software? - Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 09:37 AM EDT
  - In that case it's a business method patent. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 10:55 AM EDT
Yes! (And No) - Authored by: bugstomper on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 07:43 PM 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 )