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: jjs on Wednesday, July 11 2012 @ 06:47 PM EDT
No, the position is that since PEOPLE have been using the
process described in the patent for thousands of years,
putting it on a computer is not patentable.

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

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

It's not confusion, patent law contains an absurd way to meet those requirements independently
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 11 2012 @ 07:50 PM EDT
Such silliness, an airplane is a physical invention. While the patent being
discussed is an algorithm on a a general purpose computer (an invention used to
solve and implement mathematical problems). Man was never able to fly till a
device was created. Perhaps, if avians had invented the airplane it would not
have been patentable because of its obviousness, but the other hand it could
have been useful for penguins and other flightless birds.

What!
;)

stage_v

from under the bridge

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

It's not confusion, patent law contains an absurd way to meet those requirements independently
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 11 2012 @ 09:04 PM EDT
You can patent the invention - the plane - at the time of invention. But you are
not talking about patenting a novel machine. You want to patent the use of an
existing standard machine for an existing standard purpose.

[ 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 )