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
courts which have deliberately rejected this | 756 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
courts which have deliberately rejected this
Authored by: PolR on Sunday, July 22 2012 @ 08:09 PM EDT
What you present is the factual underpinning for an argument based on prior art and obviousness, rather than on section 101 patentable subject matter. E.g., does hitting a different nail with the same hammer create a new hammer?
Is this really what I do? I thought it was the factual underpinning of an argument that programming a computer does not factually make a machine in any technologically meaningful sense. This could be used in any sort of legal arguments, for example one may say that if no machine has been invented in the first place then a claim directed to a machine should not be allowed. Is this an issue of prior art? Then why would we bother finding out if the machine exists in the prior art if no machine is invented in the first place? Could this be better argued as section 101? Section 112 (indefiniteness)? I don't know. I suppose it may depend on how a lawyer wishes to argue these facts. I suspect there may be options here and I entrust these legal considerations to lawyers.

In any event I will trust that lawyers are able to back up their arguments with case law. I don't have to do this myself and I shouldn't have to.

[ 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 )