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
Does Programming a Computer Make A New Machine?~By PolR | 756 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Does Programming a Computer Make A New Machine?~By PolR
Authored by: Wol on Sunday, July 22 2012 @ 02:58 PM EDT
My reaction to that is "well, how come a computer is a patentable object?
Without software, it cannot do anything, therefore by that argument a computer
cannot be patentable because it is useless".

Doesn't a patentable object have to have some form of utility (apart from being
a doorstop!)?

Cheers,
Wol

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

courts which have deliberately rejected this
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 22 2012 @ 03:11 PM EDT
That's the nub of the matter. It pains me to see so much effort wasted
here trying to find the number of algorithms on the head of a pin,
when it boils down to the law being for lawyers and the rest of us
who know the subject matter are not allowed a word in.

Solutions? Ignore the law when it is wrong? Easy to say, but could
have bad side effects on society. All software must be GPL?
Society doesn't seem ready for that yet either. Maybe there is no
middle ground, which is why the lawyers seem so happy with
their billable hours.

That Intel document should be introduced in evidence, yes all
4000 pages. By the time it got up to SCOTUS more than a couple
of times that the lower courts were ignoring the manufacturer's
documentation of the "machine" we might hear a head or two roll.
Good luck with that.

[ 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 )