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
Do not try to make sense of case law on patents | 756 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Do not try to make sense of case law on patents
Authored by: darrellb on Thursday, July 19 2012 @ 04:46 PM EDT
I disagree. Case law doesn't make sense because plaintiffs, defendants,
lawyers, and courts ignore reality in favor of legal arguments, strategy, and
tactics. Reality, particularly physical and technical reality, often are
ignored
by everyone involved in a legal matter.

Can anyone say that people don't often ignore legal reality in favor of their
own?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Ahh, cynicism. I know that feeling very well.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 20 2012 @ 08:20 AM EDT
But, as lots of people have been misquoted as saying:

"Who's going to fix it: If not me, then who"

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Do not try to make sense of case law on patents
Authored by: Tyro on Friday, July 20 2012 @ 04:08 PM EDT
You are a little bit more cynical than I am...but not much.

There is clearly no basis for claiming that programming a computer makes it a
new decision. The *ONLY* reason for reaching that conclusion is that that is
the conclusion that is desired. The arguments have no plausibility whatsoever.


Note I didn't speak about accuracy, which they also lack. But plausibility.
This is the kind of conclusion that could not be reached by a well-intentioned
error. I'm not sure what the definition of malice is, so I can't really say it
must have been malicious.

The question in my mind is whether the judge making the decision did it out of
lack of attention, or because it was politically (or economically) convenient.
I can't believe that he did it because he believed the decision was correct.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Exposing the lie at the heart of "software patents"...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 20 2012 @ 06:01 PM EDT
is the first step to getting the criminal, give-money-to-the-rich scheme
*stopped*.

Until the general public, and new lawyers/judges coming through the law schools,
realize that software patents are a bit fat scam, it's rather hard to get the
scam shut down.

Once they realize it, we can start talking about how to stop the entrenched
scammers.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Do not try to make sense of case law on patents
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 21 2012 @ 02:50 PM EDT
I agree completely. An algorithm is just a series of
mathematical computations. A software program is just a
series of algorithms. A general purpose computer takes a
series of inputs, alters them mathematically, and outputs the
changes. The only way to make a case for software patents is
to ignore the underlying reality and create the legal fiction
that software alters the machine.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

i agree completely
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 21 2012 @ 03:59 PM EDT
I agree completely. An algorithm is just a series of
mathematical computations. A software program is just a
series of algorithms. A general purpose computer takes a
series of inputs, alters them mathematically, and outputs the
changes. The only way to make a case for software patents is
to ignore the underlying reality and create the legal fiction
that software alters the machine.

[ 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 )