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: PolR on Tuesday, July 24 2012 @ 01:16 PM EDT
If declaring that software is a "machine" for purposes of patent law is the only way to uphold software patents, they are likely to do so.
Is this the case? Software is patentable as a process. This point seems moot unless there is an argument that there is no way to patent software except as a machine. Where is this argument? It is not in the article.
MACHINE: " a mechanically, electrically, or electronically operated device for performing a task"

You have to concede that "CPU + program" meets the above definition of a machine.

No I don't have to concede that. This is the very thing the article disputes. I prefer to say "computer+program" because CPU can't store and execute programs by themselves. Part of the argument amounts to say "computer+program" is not a machine different from the computer standing alone.

First, if "computer+program" is a different machine we could say the exact same thing about "computer+data". Does storing data on a computer make a new machine? Programs are another form of data. So if "computer+program" meet this definition so do "computer+data". Is this a desirable result? Please note that data is changed billions of times per second in a computer.

Second you need to take into account the moving parts. Programs can change during execution, exactly like data. For example there is the case of LISP interpreters which generate and execute code on the fly. Or I may use a lambda-reduction machine where the same universal algorithm is used for all the tasks and the "programs" are input data that will be constantly be rewritten over and over again as the execution progresses. You are assuming that there is in this physical universe an entity referred to as "computer+program" which carries the intended task recited in the claim. Programmers can arrange matters so that the program part is either broken in small transient pieces or is constantly changing.

Also there is the aspect of semantics. The meanings of he bits is part of what makes software what it is. But semantics is not a physical component of the machine. Semantics is not a mechanical, electrical or electronic operation, so this element of your definition is not met.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Does Programming a Computer Make A New Machine?~By PolR
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 24 2012 @ 01:23 PM EDT
Can the court lie?

Are judges allowed, within the law, to state that something factual is not
true?

You say that judges are "used to legal fiction" but what other legal
fictions are you talking about? Are these legal fictions which are concern
things that are abstractions or intangibles? Are there any legal fictions which
concern any tangibles?

Well done, btw. I appreciate reading what you've been saying though it runs
contrary to my line of thinking. Without an advocate for the opposition it is
difficult to see what they are thinking.

j

[ 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 )