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
You are repeating yourself (It appears I have to) | 756 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
You are repeating yourself (It appears I have to)
Authored by: PolR on Friday, July 20 2012 @ 10:33 AM EDT
Your assertion that software must improve the machine otherwise it wouldn't be
installed is as silly as saying a PDF file must improve the computer otherwise
it wouldn't be in the computer.

We may want things in the computer that doesn't improve it. And if we want it on
the computer then of course we will do what it takes to bring it there. This
alone doesn't make an improvement to the computer.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Sigh. Capability vs Usability, and some other stuff.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 20 2012 @ 10:36 AM EDT
Hand that platinum wire some instructions on how to be a lightbuld. Does that
do anything?

Now, hand your computer some instructions for what you want it to do. Does that
do anything. (Hint, those instructions are commenly called a
"program")


For the flippant answer, "computer" used to be a job title.


You seem to be using a misleading definition of "improve" here.
Everyone else is talking about improving the *capabilities* of the machine. You
seem to be talking about improving the *usability* of the machine (ie, making it
easier to tell it to do something it already can do).


Teaching someone that "HOLD!" means "Stop what you are doing
right now, you might be about to step onto a live claymore mine" doesn't
improve a person's ability to do anything, it just means that you can add
information to their head faster.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

You are repeating yourself (It appears I have to)
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 20 2012 @ 11:42 AM EDT
Is applying electricity to said lightbulb an improvement? It's certainly useful,
but it is entirely an expected and predictable outcome.

As many have said, Patents are not the end all and be all of life. Software has
been Copyrightable since the beginning and there is no reason for that not to be
sufficient.

Just as music for a player piano is copyrightable but not patentable.

[ 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 )