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
And they must look for patentability *purely* in the driving mechanism. | 756 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
so the driver of the car is a patentable improvement?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 20 2012 @ 02:00 PM EDT
And you completely missed the point.

The act of you, as a human being (I assume) getting into a car and driving
it is a patentable improvement over just a car by your logic.

We aren't talking about replacing a human driver.


A computer is not magic.
Software is a list of instructions,
Nothing more.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

And they must look for patentability *purely* in the driving mechanism.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 20 2012 @ 06:19 PM EDT
But software is just math, and math isn't patentable.

Likewise, a human driver isn't patentable because you didn't invent the human
driver.

What software "machine patents" are trying to get away with is saying
"I know none of the parts are patentable, but if I stick them together in
the obvious way recommended by the manual, please give me a patent now".

It's unacceptable.

[ 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 )