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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

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


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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
that mathematician Knows in his heart that software IS NOT math | 158 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
that mathematician Knows in his heart that software IS NOT math
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 17 2012 @ 02:53 PM EDT
You wrote:

"I wrote
"If I were aware of any non-design patents on fashion dresses
I would not have used those as an example. And if you happen
to find any, I will withdraw that as an example."
Perhaps you missed that."

Perhaps I missed what?

Previously You wrote:

"By the way, all your 'fashion' patents are design patents.
No points there. Bzzzt. Try again."

So, previously I wrote:

"1) Read Again. The second and fourth patents I recently listed are not
design patents. I can list plenty more if you like."

I meant I could list plenty more utility patents directed toward clothing if you
like. However, those will not be directed specifically to the look of the
garment. Fashion is patentable as evidenced by the design patents. I can
provide more of those if you like. Fashion is patentable.

You wrote:

"You wrote
"ergo, the mathematics professor does not believe software is mathematics.
Q.E.D."

You are wrong."

You can say that if you like. But, when the professors guard was down, the
truth slipped out in the phrasing he chose. Or perhaps it was your true belief
that came out as you paraphrased what the professor said. Shrug, in any event,
one of you deep down, when the posturing is pulled away, knows that software and
math are different.

"Why wait. The patent office has proved over and over and over again that
NOT NEW and PERFECTLY OBVIOUS things qualify for software patents. So why should
legal argument be any different. Why wait for a new and not obvious
argument."

Because to do otherwise would be to commit a fraud against the patent office.

You're assertions that things are obvious does not make it so. If they are
obvious you must show they are obvious.

Maybe you should look up the word obvious.
"Idonotthinitmeanswhatyouthinitmeans" - Mandingo Mantoya.



[ 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 )