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
maybe you need to define "semantics" | 756 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
maybe you need to define "semantics"
Authored by: PolR on Friday, July 20 2012 @ 03:31 PM EDT
Thanks. I now understand you better. I will use your suggestion about the
boundaries of the discussion.

I am working under a constraint. I am not a lawyer. I cannot venture very far in
legal argument territory without risking being wrong very quickly. Laying out
the technical facts is what I can do best.

I can discuss when the legal reasonings put in front of me are technically
wrong. But at the end of the day lawyers must do the lawyering. I can only feed
them with the technical information. It is difficult for me to speculate on
which alternative argument lawyers and judge will consider.

I agree a good legal strategy must address whether it is desirable to patent
software. But I have no ambition of playing such a broad role. I focus on what I
can do best: providing the technical information.

If software doesn't make a new machine technically speaking, does it make sense
to patent it as a machine? It is still possible to patent software as a process.
So why insist on patenting as a machine what is not a machine? perhaps this line
of thinking may address some of the broader arguments on whether the result of
these cases is desirable.

I think that there is a tactical benefit in invalidating the software patents
drawn to a machine even though the process patents are left standing. These
patents will be left in prior art. Besides this is not an argument to invalidate
all software patents. This is an argument to convince the court to use a correct
understanding of technology. I suppose this may make the argument easier to
accept.

If you need further inputs on technical matters to refine your legal views, you
may ask questions in the comment section. We have an Off-topic thread where you
may bring up your point anytime. Or perhaps better, why not contact PJ and
discuss what can be done? Perhaps she will organize something like she did
recently with Michael Risch.

[ 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 )