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

its definitely mythical | 1347 comments | Create New Account

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

its definitely mythical

Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 05:26 PM EDT

You're also talking past each other, because you're inventing completely
different classes of things.

Yes an ATM is patentable. And yes, 90% of an ATM (the actual %age is irrelevant)
is a general-purpose computer, on a network, running software. But the critical
point is that there is that little extra bit of HARDware that counts banknotes,
and it is that HARDware that makes an ATM patentable.

As soon as Risch (and the other software patent proponents) grasp that - by
DEFINITION - the ONLY hardware that is covered by a software patent is the
GENERAL PURPOSE COMPUTER that the software is running on, then that's the point
at which they become amenable to realising that software patents are just plain
not valid.

I get the impression that Risch can't get to grips with the fact that a software
patent is, fundamentally, just and solely and only a patent on using a GENERAL
PURPOSE COMPUTER.

Cheers,
Wol

[ 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 )