decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
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

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


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:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
A bad reason why Patents are bad. | 227 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Conclusion: Software should not be patentable subject matter!
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 13 2012 @ 09:07 AM EDT

One of the nicest things Patent Lawyers do when they come here for discussion is inherent in the sentiment:

This is all a long winded way of saying that I appreciate your comments. They are very helpful for me to hone my arguments and make sure that I'm precise about what is at issue.1
They are also helpful to us practitioners of the art in order to hone our own arguments for discussion. And I believe my own thoughts have been further clarified so I can better elucidate why I believe Software should not be patentable subject matter.

It does not help when Lawyers express opinions such as:

However, I don’t think that the solution is to get rid of all software patents.
This totally precludes any discussion on the first step in receiving a patent: Patent Eligible Subject Matter. Sometimes, one gets a hint that whether or not software should be patentable subject matter is open for discussion:
So, you can see that I’m in sort of a middle-ground that makes no-one happy.
However, that is almost invariably followed with a statement indicating the subject won't be discussed or a reasonably facsimile thereof:
As we like to say at home when the kids have to compromise: if no one is happy, then I must be doing the right thing.
Patentable eligible subject matter vs non-patentable eligible subject matter. These are concepts that are either/or. There is no grey area in between. Either something is patent eligible subject matter, or it is not. So to say that one is compromising is to automatically inherently choose one over the other while pretending to be making a choice of elements of both.

One can not reasonably say: Math is not patent eligible, then proceed to argue that because E=MC2 was so very difficult to put together, it deserves a patent. It is math, therefore it is not patent eligible2.

In this post, and sub posts to this one, I hope to put together a convincing argument as to why Congress and the Supremes should explicitly state:

    Software Is Not Patent Eligible Subject Matter!
I will start with a discussion of how society uses the device called the calculator and why that use should not be patentable subject matter.3

I then hope to proceed to explain why the application of software to a computer4 is nothing different from using a calculator - just more complex. And like the most complex math, if the underlying basics of what a calculator's use is should qualify as non patentable subject matter, then logically the more complex calculation uses (software and computers) should also not qualify.

1: Unless otherwise noted, all quotes are taken from the recent posts of Michael Risch.

2: There will be points I'm making that is my understanding of what currently Patent Law is. I will mark those points as my non-Legal understanding. Individuals far more versed in the actual Law can certainly correct me.

3: The example I use will be more in tune with when a person reaches adult experiences, but even grade school students should be able to understand the concepts even if they can't relate to the example.

4: My credentials in this matter are pretty basic: high school math, 2 years post-secondary tech education in computer science, 16 years software development experience. My fellow practitioners can certainly correct me on any points they feel I've gotten wrong. I only ask they keep that correction limited to the specific concepts to which I speak. There are multiple reasons as to why Software should not be patent eligible, I only speak to one. Lawyers aren't the only word smiths who like to discuss finer points till the Universe implodes :)

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

A bad reason why Patents are bad.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 13 2012 @ 09:18 AM EDT
We are a group of intelligent people, who mostly make our livings by using our
brains rather than our other muscles. I would say that intelligent people who
use their intelligence are generally the most important people for
"progress of science and the useful arts".

Patents are, in effect, saying that we are not allowed to use our brains in
certain, poorly defined, ways, without paying extortion money or having people
with guns come knocking our doors down.

This (rightly) makes us "not happy". Especially when the people with
guns have previously told us that they won't stop us using our brains at all.

[ 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 )