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
It's not confusion, patent law contains an absurd way to meet those requirements independently | 335 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
It's not confusion, patent law contains an absurd way to meet those requirements independently
Authored by: mpellatt on Wednesday, July 11 2012 @ 03:49 AM EDT
But.... ploughing is not a patentable task. The device that is used to do
the ploughing might be patentable, but the task itself - no way.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Your position is silly
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 11 2012 @ 10:23 AM EDT
A method that allows a computer to recognizes speech and type what is spoken
didn't become obvious the instant a computer was invented.

Even if someone conceived of Gary Seven's office equipment in the 1960's, no one
knew how to accomplish it and related techniques are being improved and refined
to this day.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

It's not confusion, patent law contains an absurd way to meet those requirements independently
Authored by: jjs on Wednesday, July 11 2012 @ 06:42 PM EDT
1. As pointed out, plowing with a tractor is not patentable,
the tractor is. A computer is patentable (although not novel
at all at this timeframe).

2. The Supreme Court has already ruled that combining two
obvious items does NOT make an new non-obvious item (I
believe it had to do with car brakes). Combining old-school
(roman times) trading with a computer (two non-patentable
items) does not miraculously create a patentable item.

---
(Note IANAL, I don't play one on TV, etc, consult a practicing attorney, etc,
etc)

[ 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 )