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
Perhaps you should step back up to the starting article | 227 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Perhaps you should step back up to the starting article
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 13 2012 @ 05:36 PM EDT

The one where I outline how I hope to ultimately show why software should not be patent eligible material. the one with the subject:

Conclusion: Software should not be patentable subject matter!
The one you responded to (I'm assuming your the same anon) was strictly within the context of a basic calculator and the use thereof.

It was obviously not your intent to speak strictly within the context of the calculator as is quite clear when you state:

So to debunk software patents, you must apply
Caveat: It is only polite to wait till someone has finished speaking on a particular subject before attempting to speak relative to the points the person is trying to make. The conversational flow should be quite obvious that the previous response was premature and that the response to which this post responds didn't bother to understand the context before replying.

I won't reply to any more along these lines until I've finished. Thank you!

RAS

[ 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 )